View Full Version : Ukraine Thread
“There were reasons why not and I had given them.” In 1940, the Line Maginot soldiers were still fighting despite the betraying of Pétain and the Armistice signed with Germany. And, no, obeying orders in not the law. The law is to obey lawful orders… The only reason why no Ukrainian soldiers did resist was because they didn’t feel to defend their mother land.
“Having been a military once you know perfectly well that soldiers do (or don't do) something not because they feel it is worth/not worth doing” Absurd. You will sacrifice yourself as soldier not because you were ordered to. Watch Black Hawk Down, and tell me why the 2 Special Forces descended to what they knew was their death: because it was what they had to do. For the same reason that the French Imperial Guards couldn’t surrender after Waterloo, because it is what to do when you are a soldier. Rhaa, I even don’t know why I bother to try to explain…. “Honneur et Patrie” is on our flags…
“Contrary to what you have said about disputing reality, this is the first time you openly admit the threat. In our previous debate you were trying hard to prove that the support of Le Pen (of both generations) was insignificant and only seemed so because of the peculiarities of counting votes and turn out percentage. You have finally owned up to it.” Again you are not bothered by reality. The Le Pen family has no more votes. It is a constant figure in percentage of the voters/population. What is increasing is the number of no-vote, reason why the Le Pen danger is real. But again, you don’t really care of reality, so…
“You were the one who taught me democracy saying that to have one you must be ready to vote not FOR someone, but also AGAINST someone” When did I say this? I stopped to vote after the EU treaty’s denial of democracy, long before I even join the Org… And by the way, abstention is a political stand, when no option is offered.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-25-2015, 20:00
Someone please fill me in on the joke.
We like to remind people of the political realities periodically, lest they lose perspective.
"We like to remind people of the political realities periodically, lest they lose perspective." I think the Chilean would have adored to be able to vote for Pinochet and the Spanish for Franco...
It is how people forget what is fascism...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-25-2015, 21:39
"We like to remind people of the political realities periodically, lest they lose perspective." I think the Chilean would have adored to be able to vote for Pinochet and the Spanish for Franco...
It is how people forget what is fascism...
Hitler was elected, yes?
Hitler was elected, yes?
Not really:
https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/what-hitler-was-not-elected/
http://www.lobelog.com/no-hitler-did-not-come-to-power-democratically/
Some would disagree:
http://diebesteallerzeiten.de/blog/2009/02/19/was-hitler-democratically-elected/
It turned out that there is yet another way to govern without a majority – in March 1933 the german parliament passed what is known as „Ermächtigungsgesetz“ (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich), a law that allowed the Nazi/Deutschnationale Coalition to govern without the consent of the parliament. That this was in fact an unconstitutional law is a mere technicality – it was passed with a vast majority that would have allowed to change the constitution in any case, so the parliament skipped a step[5].
So,since Hitler and the NSDAP had more votes than any other party during the Republic of Weimar and governed on the basis of a law that had been passed by the absolute majority of the parliament is seems reasonable to conclude that he was indeed democratically elected.
Now that is a nice claim, but he forgets to mention the detail that this "parliamentary vote" happened under the very, very strict hand of the SS or SA thugs who didn't even let all elected representatives into the building:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (English: "Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich"). This legislation was ostensibly passed at the Kroll Opera House, where the legislators were surrounded by, and threatened by, Nazi troops. The Communists had already been banned and were therefore not present and not able to vote, while several Social Democrats were kept away as well. In the end, nearly all the parties present voted for the act, with the Social Democrats being the only ones voting against.[1]
So you can claim that he was widely popular, but he wasn't really democratically elected unless you think it's democratic that one party hires a bunch of armed thugs who decide who gets to vote and how. A bit like what some say happened after the Maidan revolt. ~;)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-25-2015, 23:00
Not really:
https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/what-hitler-was-not-elected/
http://www.lobelog.com/no-hitler-did-not-come-to-power-democratically/
Some would disagree:
http://diebesteallerzeiten.de/blog/2009/02/19/was-hitler-democratically-elected/
Now that is a nice claim, but he forgets to mention the detail that this "parliamentary vote" happened under the very, very strict hand of the SS or SA thugs who didn't even let all elected representatives into the building:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
So you can claim that he was widely popular, but he wasn't really democratically elected unless you think it's democratic that one party hires a bunch of armed thugs who decide who gets to vote and how. A bit like what some say happened after the Maidan revolt. ~;)
A Website advocating the "Democratic Peace?"
Rome and Carthage called, they'd like to discuss the Punic Wars?
Hitler was elected, he just wasn't elected President, fact is it was internal German shenanigans that got him the Chancellorship, just like today.
You're absolutely right about the vote in the Crimean Parliament, though.
Hitler was elected, he just wasn't elected President, fact is it was internal German shenanigans that got him the Chancellorship, just like today.
Are you saying that the CDU has armed thugs who denied the MPs of some other parties entry and were positioned all around the Bundestag when Merkel was chosen as chancellor? If not, then your comparison of "internal German shenanigans" today and back then is slightly off.
And similar accusations arose in Kiev when the government had to vote after an armed mob had stormed the parliament and beaten up some pro-russian MPs and policemen. Crimea was different in that it (the entire land, not just the parliament) was effectively already occupied by Russia but yes, the vote also wasn't very free.
CrossLOPER
03-26-2015, 06:33
We like to remind people of the political realities periodically, lest they lose perspective.
Oh, so just more arrogance? Alright, well the word starts to lose meaning when you start to throw it around everywhere.
Gilrandir
03-26-2015, 13:42
No, you can say that. He could have had the flu last year, which is a lethal disease, but he survived and now he has ebola, which is a more lethal disease concerning the chance that it may kill him. Lethal in this case refers to the potential of the disease killing you, a more lethal disease is more likely to kill you. Lethal does not necessarily mean that there is a 100% certainty that it kills you.
Lethal is used both as of a potential disease and of the real one, so polysemanticism holds.
By upgrading the weapons your neighbor also states that he is still thinking about using them against you, so much so that he wants them to be able to kill you even more effectively (i.e. kill more people). It revives the hostility like watering a flower revives the flower.
If he hasn't done it for 50 years, and it is the same neighbor with the same mindset and attitudes, you are as safe as you have been during all these years.
So you can claim that he was widely popular, but he wasn't really democratically elected unless you think it's democratic that one party hires a bunch of armed thugs who decide who gets to vote and how. A bit like what some say happened after the Maidan revolt. ~;)
After the Maidan revolt Ukraine has had two universally recognized (except Russia, of course) democratic elections.
And similar accusations arose in Kiev when the government had to vote after an armed mob had stormed the parliament and beaten up some pro-russian MPs and policemen.
For the one so much in love with nuances of semantics and otherwise: the government didn't and doesn't VOTE on any crucial decisions (at least not in Ukraine). As an executive branch it EXECUTES whatever laws are voted in by the PARLIAMENT.
Gilrandir
03-26-2015, 15:12
The only reason why no Ukrainian soldiers did resist was because they didn’t feel to defend their mother land.
There was no ARMED resistance, but there was resistance of other kind. It was practised by those who still didn't wish to disobey the orders yet found other ways to resist. Google about minesweeper "Cherkasy", Yuly Mamchur, Sevastopol cadets and others who resisted in their own way.
The Le Pen family has no more votes. It is a constant figure in percentage of the voters/population. What is increasing is the number of no-vote, reason why the Le Pen danger is real.
Go on juggling figures and offering lame excuses. The fact is the fact: Le Pen has 26% of votes, whatever the reasons might be.
“You were the one who taught me democracy saying that to have one you must be ready to vote not FOR someone, but also AGAINST someone” When did I say this?
Voila:
Post #2412 (Ukraine-in-a-thread)
“And as for me, I don't vote against anyone, I vote for someone.” That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…
The bold is mine, then goes your line. You may check it if you don't trust me.
You said you were a nazi fighter (do I have to find the proof of it in the same thread?) and now you praise abstention. Now we see how your democratic abstention is taking your nation to be ruled by nazis. Keep staying away and you will not recognize good merry France couple of elections later.
And similar accusations arose in Kiev when the government had to vote after an armed mob had stormed the parliament and beaten up some pro-russian MPs and policemen.
No protesters reached the parliament.
“And as for me, I don't vote against anyone, I vote for someone.” That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…” So, what I said is, in democracy you don’t always vote for someone but sometimes against someone. So what is your point, as it doesn’t exclude no-vote?
Now, I think it is enough of the blackmail by the two major parties to impose their policies of “vote for us or you will have Le Pen”.
“Keep staying away and you will not recognize good merry France couple of elections later.” In a country where millions gathered to protect Freedom of Speech after a coward attack of fanatic Muslims? I have more faith in my people than you have in yours.
“Go on juggling figures and offering lame excuses. The fact is the fact” Facts are facts: In the Presidential Elections Le Pen got around 6,000,000 votes, Next Elections, 5,000,000. These elections, 5,000,000. So no increase. These are facts.
The worrying thing is in the like me who don’t go to vote any more. But sorry, as I said, I won’t have an EU dictatorship under the pretext to avoid a Le Pen Dictatorship, as both have the same policy.
You disagree and to a point I agree with you, but too much betrayal from politicians, too much lies from media, so they created Le Pen, I will let them deal with the dynasty.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-26-2015, 20:54
Are you saying that the CDU has armed thugs who denied the MPs of some other parties entry and were positioned all around the Bundestag when Merkel was chosen as chancellor? If not, then your comparison of "internal German shenanigans" today and back then is slightly off.
Hitler didn't become Chancellor using thugs, he because a dictator using thugs, but my understanding is that he became chancellor do to the stupidity of the other german politicians and because of their attempts to position themselves for advantage. Modern Coalition Politics is basically the same, thouth possibly operates in better faith.
And similar accusations arose in Kiev when the government had to vote after an armed mob had stormed the parliament and beaten up some pro-russian MPs and policemen. Crimea was different in that it (the entire land, not just the parliament) was effectively already occupied by Russia but yes, the vote also wasn't very free.
And those accusations were somewhat fair, but at the same time the President had fled and forigen troops had occupied Ukrainian land, and even then we must acknowledge that the CURRENT Kiev government was elected in what were democratic elections, except that the Donbas refused/was prevented from participating.
Oh, so just more arrogance? Alright, well the word starts to lose meaning when you start to throw it around everywhere.
Pages were expended on why Putin is a Fascist - he's also the Classical definition of a Tyrant (someone who subverts the democratic institutions to maintain power.
Lethal is used both as of a potential disease and of the real one, so polysemanticism holds.
And yet one can still say what you said one can't say.
For the one so much in love with nuances of semantics and otherwise
You started to attack my use of the word lethal and you were wrong and now you blame me? Bad move. And you're also wrong again:
In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislators, administrators, and arbitrators. Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state. A form of government, or form of state governance, refers to the set of political systems and institutions that make up the organisation of a specific government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
Hitler didn't become Chancellor using thugs, he because a dictator using thugs, but my understanding is that he became chancellor do to the stupidity of the other german politicians and because of their attempts to position themselves for advantage. Modern Coalition Politics is basically the same, thouth possibly operates in better faith.
IIRC the Weimar Republic was quite flawed in some respects, but I do not remember the details. And when Hitler was appointed chancellor there was no public vote, it was the decision of one person, the president. If you think that is the same as being democratically elected, I'm sure I will never hear you complain about unelected EU officials if they are appointed by the people we elected. The NSDAP only won the elections after Hitler was appointed so he wasn't even elected as a majority party candidate or so.
And those accusations were somewhat fair, but at the same time the President had fled and forigen troops had occupied Ukrainian land, and even then we must acknowledge that the CURRENT Kiev government was elected in what were democratic elections, except that the Donbas refused/was prevented from participating.
Yes, and that was their (the Donbas') own fault, but given that they are likely to join Russia, they don't seem to care much. That the president had fled hardly eased the pressure on the parliament to do what the protesters wanted.
According to this timeline the new government was already in place before any land was occupied by foreign troops however:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/08/us-ukraine-crisis-timeline-idUSBREA270PO20140308
The parliament changes on Feb 22 and the armed men seize the crimean parliament on Feb 27, clearly a reaction to the regime change and not vice versa.
As for Viking, my fault, they stormed some other government building but not the parliament itself apparently.
Gilrandir
03-27-2015, 12:06
“Having been a military once you know perfectly well that soldiers do (or don't do) something not because they feel it is worth/not worth doing” Absurd. You will sacrifice yourself as soldier not because you were ordered to. Watch Black Hawk Down, and tell me why the 2 Special Forces descended to what they knew was their death: because it was what they had to do. For the same reason that the French Imperial Guards couldn’t surrender after Waterloo, because it is what to do when you are a soldier. Rhaa, I even don’t know why I bother to try to explain…. “Honneur et Patrie” is on our flags…
You know perfectly well that in "emergency" conditions (under a threat of invasion or during one or in times of war) disobeying orders is punished severely and court martial steps in. In the examples you referred to soldiers disobeyed the orders, but they knew that they would face something more terrible than court martial - a sure death. Now let's imagine that in those situations the soldiers were told to hold out but they escaped the battlefield. Would it be a different disobeyance? Or soldiers can choose to obey one order and disobey another just because they are wise enough (or knowledgeable enough) to pass a judgement on the quality of the order?
In the case of the Crimea, soldiers knew that court martial may await them if they disobeyed the not-to-shoot order and acted correspondingly displaying all the resistance they could without disobeying the order. Plus there were other factors at work (and I explained them). Do you think a Canadian soldier would shoot at Americans surrounding a military base? I think he would not, hoping that their bosses will sort out the conflict sooner or later (preferably sooner), so there is no need to make steps that may be irrevocable. Putin knew that so he utilized the situation to the full extent.
“And as for me, I don't vote against anyone, I vote for someone.” That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…” So, what I said is, in democracy you don’t always vote for someone but sometimes against someone. So what is your point, as it doesn’t exclude no-vote?
You try to teach others but don't follow your own edifying advice.
“Keep staying away and you will not recognize good merry France couple of elections later.” In a country where millions gathered to protect Freedom of Speech after a coward attack of fanatic Muslims? I have more faith in my people than you have in yours.
They gathered and marched. Then they bottled up their righteous anger, dispersed and let the nazis take over. Not much use of the march, is it?
As for my faith in my people:
I said that the popularity of Svoboda was explained by its presenting itself as a counter balance to depredations of Yanukovych's regime and the exclusion of "I support neither candidate" option from the ballots. I said that they would merge into the background as soon as the turmoils ebb. I said that Ukrainians are now more united and no division within the society (either geograpical or linguistic) is in evidence anymore.
And my faith was corroborated by further developments.
“Go on juggling figures and offering lame excuses. The fact is the fact” Facts are facts: In the Presidential Elections Le Pen got around 6,000,000 votes, Next Elections, 5,000,000. These elections, 5,000,000. So no increase. These are facts.
Whatever absolute figures you might refer to they don't work the way you want them to. The PERCENTAGE of FN voters is 26. Do you have faith enough to predict that (in spite of the same absoulte figures of their supporters) they would not get more people in power because of absenteists like you? You said you fight the nazis and now claim that you relegate that responsibility to others. What if all the voters are of the like mind? Marching out and waving flags is not enough. It seems that you have to choose between the two dictatorships you mentioned. It is time to make up your mind which one looks more appealing to you. This is what I was pointing at.
You started to attack my use of the word lethal and you were wrong and now you blame me? Bad move. And you're also wrong again:
No, I'm not. It is again a case of polysemy (and I was aware of it when I posted my message). So to avoid further misunderstanings one should specify the meaning of a word one used.
According to this timeline the new government was already in place before any land was occupied by foreign troops however:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/08/us-ukraine-crisis-timeline-idUSBREA270PO20140308
The parliament changes on Feb 22 and the armed men seize the crimean parliament on Feb 27, clearly a reaction to the regime change and not vice versa.
Check the time when the timeline was published - it was a year ago. Since then we have learnt things that may question its adequacy. Some of them can be inferred from the notorious medals, others were admitted openly (or boasted of) by Putin in his Crimean movie. Conclusion: whenever the then Ukrainian government might have stepped in and whatever it might have done, it wouldn't have been able to flag Putin down.
No, I'm not. It is again a case of polysemy (and I was aware of it when I posted my message). So to avoid further misunderstanings one should specify the meaning of a word one used.
Ok, got it. I thought we were actually trying to communicate instead of being obstinate by choosing the wrong meaning of the word on purpose and then claiming the other guy is wrong based on your chosen misinterpretation, it's all my fault. I'm sure your way of arguing is more helpful.
Check the time when the timeline was published - it was a year ago. Since then we have learnt things that may question its adequacy. Some of them can be inferred from the notorious medals, others were admitted openly (or boasted of) by Putin in his Crimean movie. Conclusion: whenever the then Ukrainian government might have stepped in and whatever it might have done, it wouldn't have been able to flag Putin down.
So we're back to conspiracy theories and dismiss even the Western press now that was heralded as oh-so-accurate at the time, I see.
Gilrandir
03-27-2015, 13:45
Ok, got it. I thought we were actually trying to communicate instead of being obstinate by choosing the wrong meaning of the word on purpose and then claiming the other guy is wrong based on your chosen misinterpretation, it's all my fault. I'm sure your way of arguing is more helpful.
I didn't know what meaning of "government" you had had in mind, so it was natural to point to your mistake (as I saw it then). When you specified it, I realized which meaning you used the word in. As simple as that, no one is at fault.
So we're back to conspiracy theories and dismiss even the Western press now that was heralded as oh-so-accurate at the time, I see.
The key part of your sentence is "at the time". The Western mass media must have been accurate "at the time". As I said, since "the time" a lot of older obscure developments have transpired. If you choose to term them "conspiracies", well, do as you please.
The key part of your sentence is "at the time". The Western mass media must have been accurate "at the time". As I said, since "the time" a lot of older obscure developments have transpired. If you choose to term them "conspiracies", well, do as you please.
So you're basically saying that Putin had captured Crimea even if Yanukovich had stayed because he had already planned it long before the government changed?
And you're saying that the country was already occupied around the time of the vote and the Ukrainian MPs knew about it but the Western press didn't? Otherwise, how can you (or PVC) say they decided with part of the country occupied?
Sarmatian
03-27-2015, 14:44
In the case of the Crimea, soldiers knew that court martial may await them if they disobeyed the not-to-shoot order and acted correspondingly displaying all the resistance they could without disobeying the order. Plus there were other factors at work (and I explained them). Do you think a Canadian soldier would shoot at Americans surrounding a military base? I think he would not, hoping that their bosses will sort out the conflict sooner or later (preferably sooner), so there is no need to make steps that may be irrevocable. Putin knew that so he utilized the situation to the full extent.
I don't if Canadians would shoot at Americans, but I do know Americans shot at Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter) in a similar situation.
Montmorency
03-27-2015, 14:46
Well, back then Canadians had no problems shooting Americans either.
There were war plans for the Invasion of Canada by the United States after World War 1, there were also British and Canadian counter-plans. There was a documentary about it, it was rather interesting to watch.
What it boiled down to, British navy would simply embargo the United States, and shell from afar, whilst the Canadian would deploy scorched earth and resistance tactics. The United States would have eventually won the war with Canada being occupied, but at a great cost to the economy from the Embargo.
The Commonwealth wouldn't have been able to save the Canadians.
There were war plans for the Invasion of Canada by the United States after World War 1...
Oh, the war plan Red. That was merely a "just in case" contingency plan in case of British aggression, nothing more. "Have a plan to kill everyone you meet" is quite different from "Kill everyone you meet."
Gilrandir
03-28-2015, 15:04
So you're basically saying that Putin had captured Crimea even if Yanukovich had stayed because he had already planned it long before the government changed?
I have already expressed my take on the issue elsewhere but I can give a rundown of what I said (again facing the prospect of conspiracy-obsession charges):
According to Illarionov (Putin's ex-aide), after the debacle ot 2004 Putin has had a contingency plan prepared (known as "Clockwork orange") in case the situation in Ukraine went out of his control once again. I believe Putin has been watching the crisis evolvement and by the middle of February (2014) realized that Yanukovych was unlikely to keep his power. Then he kicked it off in the Crimea where the ground to accept whatever he does was the readiest (for various reasons). Inspired by the success he proceeded with the whole of south east, but only Donbas (to be precise the industrial regions of it) proved susceptible to his overtures.
So the answer to your question depends on what you mean by "long before".
And you're saying that the country was already occupied around the time of the vote and the Ukrainian MPs knew about it but the Western press didn't? Otherwise, how can you (or PVC) say they decided with part of the country occupied?
I don't know what vote you mean, but Russian offensive (its preparatory stages) started around February 20-21 when Yanukovych (although already powerless and/or hunted) was officially the president, so whatever was done by the Ukrainian government after that couldn't have basically changed Putin's intentions.
I don't if Canadians would shoot at Americans, but I do know Americans shot at Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter) in a similar situation.
If you read it carefully, you will see that by the time it happened there had been some unfriendly actions on both sides, so the situation was tense.
In the Crimea-based Ukrainian military units (indeed, as well as throughout whole Ukraine) there were no tensions with Russia/Russian units. Whatever others may claim, Maidan never adopted any anti-Russian stance. Russia's aggression came as a shock to all the nation. Ukrainian soldiers who later withdrew from the Crimea admitted that they had had most friendly relations with Russians garrisoned there, had been on countless joint exercises and parades, visited each other's bases very often. They were incredulous when it all started and thought that it was some mistake which was bound to be corrected any time soon. They coudn't realize that Putin meant business.
I have already expressed my take on the issue elsewhere but I can give a rundown of what I said (again facing the prospect of conspiracy-obsession charges):
According to Illarionov (Putin's ex-aide), after the debacle ot 2004 Putin has had a contingency plan prepared (known as "Clockwork orange") in case the situation in Ukraine went out of his control once again. I believe Putin has been watching the crisis evolvement and by the middle of February (2014) realized that Yanukovych was unlikely to keep his power. Then he kicked it off in the Crimea where the ground to accept whatever he does was the readiest (for various reasons). Inspired by the success he proceeded with the whole of south east, but only Donbas (to be precise the industrial regions of it) proved susceptible to his overtures.
So the answer to your question depends on what you mean by "long before".
So if Yanukovich had stayed and given the people some of what they wanted, everyone had gone home on the 22nd, Putin would still have annexed Crimea?
And that he only went to the regions susceptible to him proves that he wants all of Europe I assume on a sidenote.
I don't know what vote you mean, but Russian offensive (its preparatory stages) started around February 20-21 when Yanukovych (although already powerless and/or hunted) was officially the president, so whatever was done by the Ukrainian government after that couldn't have basically changed Putin's intentions.
So Crimea was already occupied on the 22nd and everyone in Kiev was aware of that?
Gilrandir
03-28-2015, 15:55
So if Yanukovich had stayed and given the people some of what they wanted, everyone had gone home on the 22nd, Putin would still have annexed Crimea?
I think Putin was sure Yanukovych was a dead political meat, that is why he did what he did. As for what would have happened if Mr Y had stayed in power - here we enter the realm of Mighthavebeenia. Choose your path in it to your liking.
And that he only went to the regions susceptible to him proves that he wants all of Europe I assume on a sidenote.
I don't know - you live in Europe, you tell me how susceptible it is to his policies. The only thing I know is that France is in danger - Brenus watches RT.
So Crimea was already occupied on the 22nd and everyone in Kiev was aware of that?
The Crimean operation STARTED around February 20 (the exact date could be anything from 20 to 22). But the starting of the operation doesn't mean that on that very day some palpable results were achieved - perhaps some shipment started or spetznaz was ordered to get collected in location X (still on Russian territory) or some other prelimianry steps were initiated. Kyiv's awareness/unawareness of it couldn't have changed anything - Kyiv still had no means to counter it.
I think Putin was sure Yanukovych was a dead political meat, that is why he did what he did. As for what would have happened if Mr Y had stayed in power - here we enter the realm of Mighthavebeenia. Choose your path in it to your liking.
So what was wrong about the timeline I posted then and what were these developments we know about now that we didn't know back then and how do they contradict that Putin hadn't occupied any parts of Ukraine at the time and only did so after it was clear that the government would change? A preparation can be taken back, but the actual deed only happened after the government changed.
The Crimean operation STARTED around February 20 (the exact date could be anything from 20 to 22). But the starting of the operation doesn't mean that on that very day some palpable results were achieved - perhaps some shipment started or spetznaz was ordered to get collected in location X (still on Russian territory) or some other prelimianry steps were initiated. Kyiv's awareness/unawareness of it couldn't have changed anything - Kyiv still had no means to counter it.
So we basically agree that PVC was wrong when he said Ukraine was partially occupied by foreign troops when the parliament voted Yanukovich out and the interim government was instated. I'm glad we solved that.
Sarmatian
03-28-2015, 22:45
Whatever others may claim, Maidan never adopted any anti-Russian stance.
That's... rich.
"The only thing I know is that France is in danger - Brenus watches RT." :laugh4:That is typical analyse from Gilrandir's system. Information but no analyse and always going for the short and easy cut. No wonder why he always got (and get) it wrong. Heloooo, I live in UK.:shrug:
See in location: Wokingham, typical french name....
Gilrandir
03-29-2015, 14:43
So what was wrong about the timeline I posted then and what were these developments we know about now that we didn't know back then and how do they contradict that Putin hadn't occupied any parts of Ukraine at the time and only did so after it was clear that the government would change? A preparation can be taken back, but the actual deed only happened after the government changed.
The timeline was right about the overt events, yet it disregards what was behind them. Thus it can let one make false conclusions, like believing that the new Ukrainian government could have prevented Crimea's annexation.
That's... rich.
As I have repeatedly shown, Maidan had a strong anti-Yanukovych stance, but having a large proportion of Russian-speakers and some Russians from Russia (who flew Russian flags over their tents) it never said anything anti-Russian (in neither sense - nor against Russia as a country, nor against Russians (living either in Ukraine or Russia) as ethnicity, nor against Russian as a language). If you provide proof of the opposite, I would consider it. Until then what I said holds.
"The only thing I know is that France is in danger - Brenus watches RT." :laugh4:That is typical analyse from Gilrandir's system. Information but no analyse and always going for the short and easy cut.
:laugh4: That is a typical Brenus's failure - to miss the joke.
As for the location (it may as well be a fictitious one) - I noticed it long ago, but seeing the locations others (sometimes) indicate, I may venture to claim that going by what is given as location one can never make a sure guess at where a forumer hails from.
Sarmatian
03-29-2015, 15:13
As I have repeatedly shown, Maidan had a strong anti-Yanukovych stance, but having a large proportion of Russian-speakers and some Russians from Russia (who flew Russian flags over their tents) it never said anything anti-Russian (in neither sense - nor against Russia as a country, nor against Russians (living either in Ukraine or Russia) as ethnicity, nor against Russian as a language). If you provide proof of the opposite, I would consider it. Until then what I said holds.
The biggest problem of Maidan was that far-right organizations, mostly Svoboda, took control of it and turned it from a social issue to a nationalistic one.
From venerating "heroes" like Bandera, to nationalistic chants and hymns, to cries "beat the Muscovites"...
Maidan was hijacked from the beginning. You know that, and you're still trying to re-frame it now by playing "it's a wonderful world" in the background.
Even with all that, reaction came only after Maidanistas took power and started passing anti-Russian laws, toppling local and regional governments and in general bullying and intimidating anyone who was pro-Russian.
You'll see the real damage in 10-20 years.
Gilrandir
03-29-2015, 16:58
The biggest problem of Maidan was that far-right organizations, mostly Svoboda, took control of it and turned it from a social issue to a nationalistic one.
Svoboda with its leader Tyagnybok - as well as other "opposition leaders" found it hard to control Maidan. It went its own way - to topple Yanukovych.
From venerating "heroes" like Bandera, to nationalistic chants and hymns, to cries "beat the Muscovites"...
While I agree with the first, the other charges need proof.
Even with all that, reaction came only after Maidanistas took power and started passing anti-Russian laws, toppling local and regional governments and in general bullying and intimidating anyone who was pro-Russian.
As we have seen from the timeline and from Putin's admissions in his Crimea movie, he didn't wait to see what the new government would do, he went ahead and occupied Crimea. It was natural that after that anti-Russian stance dominated the policies in Ukraine. Putin's moves made it hard to expect anything else. And in view of the current situation Russia is unlikely to be considered otherwise than enemy in the foreseeable future.
Intimidation and bullying didn't target the pro-Russian orientation of the bullied, but their association with Yanukovych.
Yet the anti-Russianism refers to the country in question, not to Russians or Russian-speakers within Ukraine both of whom don't feel threatened (and foreign missions corroborated it).
"That is a typical Brenus's failure - to miss the joke" Yeap, the same like when you pretend I was paid by NATO... Well, each time you've got it wrong, it's a joke all right.
Gilrandir
03-31-2015, 12:42
On how Russian propaganda in the internet is managed:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/revealed-putins-army-of-prokremlin-bloggers-10138893.html
Sarmatian
03-31-2015, 14:22
That is the new low.
For western media, that is...
That is the new low.
For western media, that is...
So they shouldn't show the practices of other countries?
That's a great topic, in fact I agree that no government should use shills or intimidation tactics such as *ahem* saving all internet communication *ahem* in order to make the public thought government-compliant. Here are some more cases of government-sponsored opinion manipulation:
USA, Canada: http://www.naturalnews.com/042093_internet_trolls_chat_rooms_federal_government.html#
surprise, China: http://qz.com/311832/hacked-emails-reveal-chinas-elaborate-and-absurd-internet-propaganda-machine/
Bahrain: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bahrain-pr-firms-bell-pottinger-m-c-377063
Egypt: http://www.worldpress.org/mideast/3638.cfm
It goes against all demands of government transparency since these shills are not visibly acting in the name of the government, yet propagate only the government's agenda, unacceptable.
There was also this government that we keep selling weapons to that uses armed thugs in the streets to intimidate the people to follow its backwards agenda, what was it again, oh yeah:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11421226/Return-of-the-religious-police-worry-reformers-in-Saudi-Arabia.html
Also a way to keep public opinion in check.
Maybe we should invade them now before we have sold them our most modern weapon systems and it becomes even more painful.
So which countries can we trust not to be undermined or evil who can invade all the nasty manipulative ones and turn them into good democracies?
Norway, Denmark and Finland?
And this is a little extra, free of charge: http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/81410-leilani-royals-are-a-bunch-of-shape-shifting-lizards/
:creep:
What about...what about...
What about the website Husar used for his first claim? Some more promising headlines:
Pro-terrorist Cornell University takes money from globalist Bill Gates to push GMOs destroying America (http://www.naturalnews.com/049193_Cornell_University_GMOs_Bill_Gates.html) (Murica!!)
If toxins in cigarettes are unsafe to INHALE, then why are toxins in vaccines supposed to be safe to INJECT? (http://www.naturalnews.com/049182_vaccine_toxins_cigarette_smoking_mixed_health_messages.html)
'Vaccines are safe' says the same profession that once swore cigarettes were safe, too (http://www.naturalnews.com/049113_vaccines_cigarettes_corporate_propaganda.html) (burn!!)
Black box memory card stolen from crash site of Germanwings jetliner? Plausible cover-up theories now taking shape (http://www.naturalnews.com/049124_Germanwings_black_box_cover-up.html)
I was sceptical at first, but when I saw the first all-caps words, I decided I could trust their journalistic standards.
Now, since we would not want to have too much talk about Russia and Putin in this thread, let's turn the talk to kittens.
What about...what about...
What about the website Husar used for his first claim? Some more promising headlines:
Pro-terrorist Cornell University takes money from globalist Bill Gates to push GMOs destroying America (http://www.naturalnews.com/049193_Cornell_University_GMOs_Bill_Gates.html) (Murica!!)
If toxins in cigarettes are unsafe to INHALE, then why are toxins in vaccines supposed to be safe to INJECT? (http://www.naturalnews.com/049182_vaccine_toxins_cigarette_smoking_mixed_heal th_messages.html)
'Vaccines are safe' says the same profession that once swore cigarettes were safe, too (http://www.naturalnews.com/049113_vaccines_cigarettes_corporate_propaganda.ht ml) (burn!!)
Black box memory card stolen from crash site of Germanwings jetliner? Plausible cover-up theories now taking shape (http://www.naturalnews.com/049124_Germanwings_black_box_cover-up.html)
I was sceptical at first, but when I saw the first all-caps words, I decided I could trust their journalistic standards.
Now, since we would not want to have too much talk about Russia and Putin in this thread, let's turn the talk to kittens.
I'm not going to search for it, but I'm pretty sure that I was told somewhere on this topic that the reputation of the websites is irrelevant as long as they show the right facts. Therefore your attempt at discrediting a non-reputable site that I found ina 10 second google-search is irrelevant.
Here is a video that you will surely agree with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1IcVD1ifzM
Seamus Fermanagh
03-31-2015, 19:02
I'm not going to search for it, but I'm pretty sure that I was told somewhere on this topic that the reputation of the websites is irrelevant as long as they show the right facts. Therefore your attempt at discrediting a non-reputable site that I found ina 10 second google-search is irrelevant...]
Ideally, yes, but in practice no. As Aristotle noted quite a while back, Ethos, Logos, and Pathos are all routes of appeal that function persuasively for the audience. Hyperbolic blogs etc. arouse the passions (pathos) but generally fall short in credibility (ethos). So even when they are relating facts accurately and making reasonable conclusions therefrom (logos), their credibility still gets called into question and may well undercut the reader/viewer's trust in message.
The world is fully of all kinds of people making all kinds of claims. Unless you have infinite time at your hands, it's most convenient to focus on the sources that seem the most credible.
And no, Putin is not a reptilian; he's a normal extraterrestrial. He has been observed near many crop circles.
Sarmatian
03-31-2015, 19:46
So they shouldn't show the practices of other countries?
Nooooo....
That article is lazy excuse for journalism at best, and propaganda piece at worst.
First off, it's a story that wasn't verified. You've got a guy who tells a story. Serious journalism used to reject those. That would be the same if I walked in the Independent office and told them there's a building in Guangzhou where cows play chess. Where in St. Petersburg is that building, if it is in St. Petersburg? You have a guy who worked in there, doesn't he know where he worked? It can't be for protection, his name is mentioned. Why there aren't any pictures of the building, instead of a few large and ominous pictures of Putin? Why didn't a journalist check the location out?
Secondly, what's the point? Do you know how many million articles are on the internet and how many millions comment on them daily? A few hundred people, even if each writes a 135 comments daily, are nothing compared to those. A drop in the ocean is a fair comparison.
Imagine that, instead of Russia and internet, the article was about 800 people who are bent on polluting the world by lining up on a beach and peeing in the ocean every day. Someone would get fired.
It would make much more sense, and would be much more believable if it revealed that governments influence and/or pay journalist and popular online sources of information quite often, but that's pretty much known already.
That article is the perfect example of propaganda piece - lots of malarkey, very little substance, lack of anything concrete in it, and a couple of pictures of Putin to set the readers in the right mood while they're reading it.
Montmorency
03-31-2015, 20:14
The quality of the piece is ultimately not relevant given the veracity of the information.
Ideally, yes, but in practice no. As Aristotle noted quite a while back, Ethos, Logos, and Pathos are all routes of appeal that function persuasively for the audience. Hyperbolic blogs etc. arouse the passions (pathos) but generally fall short in credibility (ethos). So even when they are relating facts accurately and making reasonable conclusions therefrom (logos), their credibility still gets called into question and may well undercut the reader/viewer's trust in message.
And therefore all of Gilrandir's ukrainian news sources do at least get a silent approval here? And why should I trust US or British sources on the conflict when both countries have traditionally seen Russia as their arch-nemesis even after the fall of the iron curtain? A source that is reliable on a current plane-crash or on internal policy of the country it comes from is not automatically reliable when it reports on a country that is seen as a traditional or current enemy of the country the source is based in.
As for the rest, there are still three links that conclusively prove that the west has absolutely no problem in dealing with or supporting countries which manipulate public opinion on the internet. Why should Russia not do that if it works for others? There was also a report a while ago where Putin bought the services of some US PR agency to improve his own image. If he was always so bad, why did a US PR company help him improve his image for 9 years? It's a bit like Gadhaffi with whom we did business until we decided we don't need him anymore.
Here are some unreliable links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/13/us-syria-crisis-usa-ketchum-idUSBRE98C00S20130913
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/12/media/russia-putin-pr-ketchum/
And from the related links it seems as though Ukraine ain't afraid to use the same tactics itself:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/technology/ukraine-russia-internet-army/index.html?iid=EL
But I guess it's only evil when the other side does it.
The Independent nabbed that article from RFE/RL (http://www.rferl.mobi/a/how-to-guide-russian-trolling-trolls/26919999.html). They have published another (http://www.rferl.mobi/a/russia-trolls-headquarters-media-internet-insider-account/26904157.html) article on the topic, which includes a link to this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r_VAxvu4l8
which is supposed to show the specific building.
And therefore all of Gilrandir's ukrainian news sources do at least get a silent approval here?
I implicitly approve only of my own sources, and only the specific articles or details I use. :shrug:
But I guess it's only evil when the other side does it.
Indeed, the only reason I dislike Putin is that I love Obama.
Actually, I just finished an ode to Obama, wanna hear it?
Actually, I just finished an ode to Obama, wanna hear it?
I eagerly await the youtube video. :2thumbsup:
Oh yeah, as you probably know, RFE/RL is more or less a US government agency.
RFE/RL is supervised by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an agency overseeing all U.S. federal government international broadcasting services.[4]
They were founded as an anti-communist news source in 1949 by the National Committee for a Free Europe, as part of a large-scale Psychological Operation during the Cold War. RFE/RL received funds from the Central Intelligence Agency until 1972.[5] During the earliest years of Radio Free Europe's existence, the CIA and the U.S. Department of State issued broad policy directives, and a system evolved where broadcast policy was determined through negotiation among the CIA, the U.S. State Department, and RFE staff.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty
Obviously no government manipulation of public opinion there.
That's what I always tell any state employee I run into: "You are paid by the government, I don't believe you."
That's what I always tell any state employee I run into: "You are paid by the government, I don't believe you."
As a German, I believe them if they wear a uniform.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YeJLPIFXAI
Sarmatian
03-31-2015, 21:33
That is a more believable and realistic version.
Unfortunately, blogging/journalism funded by the governments/interest groups/corporation for the purpose of propaganda is nothing new.
And I do remember Radio Free Europe. They spent 78 days in 1999 explaining to me how bombs dropping on my head are good for me.
Well, Serbs have hard head, and one thing is more difficult is to put an idea in it when another one took all the space. And it was small bombs anyway. And this bridge in Novi Sad was not so much needed.
Gilrandir
04-01-2015, 06:46
That article is lazy excuse for journalism at best, and propaganda piece at worst.
First off, it's a story that wasn't verified. You've got a guy who tells a story. Serious journalism used to reject those. That would be the same if I walked in the Independent office and told them there's a building in Guangzhou where cows play chess. Where in St. Petersburg is that building, if it is in St. Petersburg? You have a guy who worked in there, doesn't he know where he worked? It can't be for protection, his name is mentioned. Why there aren't any pictures of the building, instead of a few large and ominous pictures of Putin? Why didn't a journalist check the location out?
That article is the perfect example of propaganda piece - lots of malarkey, very little substance, lack of anything concrete in it, and a couple of pictures of Putin to set the readers in the right mood while they're reading it.
It would all be considered weighty arguments if it was the first time I heard about St. Petersburg based facilities meant for informational war. It is the first time I ventured to post it since it is the first time I'm aware of that it leaked into (more or less credible) European media. Though some people claim that the policies of The Independent have changed since a certain Russian obtained some influence on it:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2882049/Russian-owner-Independent-newspaper-Alexander-Lebedev-abandons-politics-saying-wishes-focus-family-life.html
But this information has been in evidence in Ukrainian sources for quite a time. Though you may not trust any of them, but (as I have repeatedly remarked) most of the data they publish gets corroborated by Westen sources sooner or later.
It would be all considered weighty arguments if they didn't come from a person who originally doubts/discards any information presenting Russia unfavorably (regular Russian army in the Crimea and in Donbas, Russian weapons and ammo delivered to Ukraine and so on) and tries to find excuses for any moves by it.
And why should I trust US or British sources on the conflict when both countries have traditionally seen Russia as their arch-nemesis even after the fall of the iron curtain?
Yet it is these sources (and the German ones to boot) get linked to here on a permanent basis. Forget about them, watch RT instead.
And from the related links it seems as though Ukraine ain't afraid to use the same tactics itself:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/technology/ukraine-russia-internet-army/index.html?iid=EL
But I guess it's only evil when the other side does it.
As the headline of the article you linked to claims, Ukraine did (and does) it to fight off Russian informational aggression. And it started to do so A YEAR after Yanukovych escaped, this makes it approximately 1,5 years after Russian propaganda began to target Ukraine especially hard. Moreover, the article refers to Russian "troll army" (someone said Tolkien has nothing to do with this all) as well.
So your idea is that "the evil" side may do nasty things, but "the good side" has right only to watch it doing them and display no attempts to protect itself?
But I think there is no sense for you to get so much worried - your favorite Russia does what it does much more efficiently than Ukraine tries to. And this is one of the reasons Russia has so many sympathizers out there who don't believe Russia can be "so evil".
Yet it is these sources (and the German ones to boot) get linked to here on a permanent basis. Forget about them, watch RT instead.
Why should I believe RT on the conflict when it is obviously a propaganda tool for a participant in the conflict?
As for your sidenote on the german press, at least it is considerably more free in what it writes than the press in the UK, US and especially Ukraine and Russia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
As the headline of the article you linked to claims, Ukraine did (and does) it to fight off Russian informational aggression. And it started to do so A YEAR after Yanukovych escaped, this makes it approximately 1,5 years after Russian propaganda began to target Ukraine especially hard. Moreover, the article refers to Russian "troll army" (someone said Tolkien has nothing to do with this all) as well.
So your idea is that "the evil" side may do nasty things, but "the good side" has right only to watch it doing them and display no attempts to protect itself?
So you think there is actually nothing wrong with Russia's approach or are you saying two wrongs make a right as long as the second wrong was only in response to the first one? I mean either doing such a thing is fair game in which case it's perfectly fine and no big deal that Russia does it or you are participating in something that is wrong, you know, staring into the abyss and all that.
But I think there is no sense for you to get so much worried - your favorite Russia does what it does much more efficiently than Ukraine tries to. And this is one of the reasons Russia has so many sympathizers out there who don't believe Russia can be "so evil".
This is why I don't trust your analysis of what Putin wants. As soon as you have someone down as your enemy, your mind seems to make stuff up about them.
Montmorency
04-01-2015, 13:24
As soon as you have someone down as your enemy, your mind seems to make stuff up about them.
This hits on an important generalization.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-01-2015, 22:41
And therefore all of Gilrandir's ukrainian news sources do at least get a silent approval here? And why should I trust US or British sources on the conflict when both countries have traditionally seen Russia as their arch-nemesis even after the fall of the iron curtain? A source that is reliable on a current plane-crash or on internal policy of the country it comes from is not automatically reliable when it reports on a country that is seen as a traditional or current enemy of the country the source is based in.
As for the rest, there are still three links that conclusively prove that the west has absolutely no problem in dealing with or supporting countries which manipulate public opinion on the internet. Why should Russia not do that if it works for others? There was also a report a while ago where Putin bought the services of some US PR agency to improve his own image. If he was always so bad, why did a US PR company help him improve his image for 9 years? It's a bit like Gadhaffi with whom we did business until we decided we don't need him anymore.
Here are some unreliable links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/13/us-syria-crisis-usa-ketchum-idUSBRE98C00S20130913
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/12/media/russia-putin-pr-ketchum/
And from the related links it seems as though Ukraine ain't afraid to use the same tactics itself:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/technology/ukraine-russia-internet-army/index.html?iid=EL
But I guess it's only evil when the other side does it.
I can assure you that I am not an apologist for the US news media [shudders]. I think I might prefer to defend some honest murderer by preference.
I can assure you that I am not an apologist for the US news media [shudders]. I think I might prefer to defend some honest murderer by preference.
I should have made it more clear that not the entire reply was primarily aimed at you. :bow:
Your point was valid of course, my point was more that I get a sense that a lot of people use a rather biased ethos. That doesn't mean that I believe RT more as some assume, it just means that I do not see all the pro-western media as inherently unbiased. Noone in the US would doubt that their media outlets are biased when it comes to reporting on the Democrats and the Republicans but when they report on Putin it seems as though everyone assumes they provide us with the unfiltered, unbiased truth.
Breaking news: Evil Putin sunk a trawler in the Okhotsk sea... If not, well, it will be soon. I am sure we will find one widow telling that her husband told her...
Gilrandir
04-02-2015, 12:14
As for your sidenote on the german press, at least it is considerably more free in what it writes than the press in the UK, US and especially Ukraine and Russia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
I think you are mixing up two different notions - "free" and "unbiased". While US and UK press is certainly as free as the German one, one may question their being unbiased.
But, to be more accurate, all these terms are overgeneralizations: I think in either country there are various media which can be more or less free and/or more or less unbiased.
So you think there is actually nothing wrong with Russia's approach or are you saying two wrongs make a right as long as the second wrong was only in response to the first one? I mean either doing such a thing is fair game in which case it's perfectly fine and no big deal that Russia does it or you are participating in something that is wrong, you know, staring into the abyss and all that.
What I mean to say is that combating popaganda doesn't mean creating another propaganda. It may as well be spreading truthful information and revealing the falsehood of the aggressor's propaganda. These cases certainly don't qualify as "a wrong in response".
This is why I don't trust your analysis of what Putin wants.
No matter who may provide the analysis (or rather suppositions) of Putin's plans, it is only he who can say how close are our guesses. And he is unlikely to do it (at least not now). But I would like to hear your vision of his plans and we'll see if it is as sound as you believe.
As soon as you have someone down as your enemy, your mind seems to make stuff up about them.
The same holds if you view someone as your idol.
I think you are mixing up two different notions - "free" and "unbiased". While US and UK press is certainly as free as the German one, one may question their being unbiased.
But, to be more accurate, all these terms are overgeneralizations: I think in either country there are various media which can be more or less free and/or more or less unbiased.
According to the index I linked, the bolded part is definitely not the case...
I'm also not confusing anything, I think less freedom of the press leads to more bias as the press sees itself forced to adapt to certain things. This can happen for a number of reasons, like the investors want to make money and the writers want to keep their jobs, so they write what the market demands to get more clicks or sell more papers. In more nationalistic countries this automatically leads to a bias for "our side" because writing a pro-Putin article in the US is not going to make you much more popular.
On internal issues it's easier to write something negative even in nationalistic countries since internal issues affect "our guys" and therefore you basically still support "our side".
I'm not saying the US government sends armed guys to the New York Times in order to make them write bad things about Putin, I'm saying they don't even try to see things from another perspective, which might be valid as well. In order to be unbiased or neutral, one has to take other peoples' perspectives into account for the most part.
There can still be a conclusion in favor of one side, like I also think Putin is "more wrong", but to completely disregard Russian interests as though they're not allowed to have any while you push your own relentlessly is inherently biased.
What I mean to say is that combating popaganda doesn't mean creating another propaganda. It may as well be spreading truthful information and revealing the falsehood of the aggressor's propaganda. These cases certainly don't qualify as "a wrong in response".
Your country is at war, to think that it is just interested in spreading truthful information is somewhat laughable.
Let me quote the article:
Anyone can join the virtual army through the website set up by the ministry. Enlisted "soldiers" then receive emails with tasks such as monitoring social media and taking on trolls by promoting Ukraine's messages in online discussions.
They remain anonymous and are reportedly encouraged to create fake accounts to protect their identities.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/technology/ukraine-russia-internet-army/index.html?iid=EL
Now I wouldn't ask them to make their names and addresses public but it seems as though noone will know that they are basically shills of the Ukrainian government, which is the major issue with the Russian trolls as well. That they pose as "concerned citizens" when they really promote a government agenda.
No matter who may provide the analysis (or rather suppositions) of Putin's plans, it is only he who can say how close are our guesses. And he is unlikely to do it (at least not now). But I would like to hear your vision of his plans and we'll see if it is as sound as you believe.
I have no idea what he is going to do next, but that doesn't automatically make all the claims that he's going to conquer Europe true.
As you say, it's mostly just guesses and I do not have to have my own detailed theory to say that some seem a bit over the top for now.
The same holds if you view someone as your idol.
Who do you think is my idol then?
Montmorency
04-02-2015, 13:23
Who do you think is my idol then?
https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H048102C_Joachim_von_Ribbentrop.jpg
Seamus Fermanagh
04-02-2015, 14:32
I should have made it more clear that not the entire reply was primarily aimed at you. :bow:
Your point was valid of course, my point was more that I get a sense that a lot of people use a rather biased ethos. That doesn't mean that I believe RT more as some assume, it just means that I do not see all the pro-western media as inherently unbiased. Noone in the US would doubt that their media outlets are biased when it comes to reporting on the Democrats and the Republicans but when they report on Putin it seems as though everyone assumes they provide us with the unfiltered, unbiased truth.
Nothing in the US news media is completely unbiased or unfiltered. Lately, pretty much all of it is spun for its impact on our domestic politics anyway. The old "politics stops at the water's edge" adage (always honored in the breach a bit) is more or less dead now. Ultimately, NO media news effort can be completely unbiased or unfiltered -- nobody can simply discard their culture or intellectual 'lenses' like that -- but I would rather the US media adopted a stance closer to that of the BBC world service. They are as minimally biased as I have heard.
Nothing in the US news media is completely unbiased or unfiltered. Lately, pretty much all of it is spun for its impact on our domestic politics anyway. The old "politics stops at the water's edge" adage (always honored in the breach a bit) is more or less dead now. Ultimately, NO media news effort can be completely unbiased or unfiltered -- nobody can simply discard their culture or intellectual 'lenses' like that -- but I would rather the US media adopted a stance closer to that of the BBC world service. They are as minimally biased as I have heard.
Some would probably say the BBC promotes the liberal multiculturalist agenda or something like that.
Wasn't there also some pedophile scandal in the BBC ranks?
They're probably less biased than some of the US media though, but what happened to Al Jazeera? IIRC they were touted as the new, better BBC for a while but it seems as though they have fallen out of favor again.
Gilrandir
04-02-2015, 17:20
According to the index I linked, the bolded part is definitely not the case...
I don't think much of attempts to squeeze into hard figures and gauge such notions as freedom, happiness, culture, love... Still less if such attempts are based on questionnaire the latter being way too subjective.
I'm also not confusing anything, I think less freedom of the press leads to more bias as the press sees itself forced to adapt to certain things.
Being free doesn't mean unbiased. Like major newspapers in the Uk are not owned by any political parties, yet they traditionally favor some of them (like The Daily telegraph is considered to be supporting Tories). So being free from outer pressure doesn't exclude self-censorship and traditional bias.
Your country is at war, to think that it is just interested in spreading truthful information is somewhat laughable.
Let me quote the article:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/technology/ukraine-russia-internet-army/index.html?iid=EL
Now I wouldn't ask them to make their names and addresses public but it seems as though noone will know that they are basically shills of the Ukrainian government, which is the major issue with the Russian trolls as well. That they pose as "concerned citizens" when they really promote a government agenda.
Knowing how inefficient Ukrainian government are (and the mentioned Ministry of Truth is considered to be the least efficient) and knowing how little money and experience of informational war it has had hitherto I would say that it would hardly resist any informational aggression from Russia, still less go offensive on that front. The only successful attempts to counter Russian propaganda were exercised by non-governmental groups, such as Stopfake. But they all fight the products spun by Rissians and not invent their own.
I have no idea what he is going to do next, but that doesn't automatically make all the claims that he's going to conquer Europe true.
It was not my bid. Being aware of basic tenet of the Russian World conception ("Russia is where Russian is spoken") and Putin's admission that the collapse of the Soviet Unoin is his personal tragedy I would say that his ultimate goal is re-creating the USSR in its boundaries.
Who do you think is my idol then?
I don't know. I was speaking not of you personally, but of you=anyone. You can rephrase my post having this clarification in view.
So being free from outer pressure doesn't exclude self-censorship and traditional bias.
I never said otherwise. :inquisitive:
Knowing how inefficient Ukrainian government are (and the mentioned Ministry of Truth is considered to be the least efficient) and knowing how little money and experience of informational war it has had hitherto I would say that it would hardly resist any informational aggression from Russia, still less go offensive on that front. The only successful attempts to counter Russian propaganda were exercised by non-governmental groups, such as Stopfake. But they all fight the products spun by Rissians and not invent their own.
That last part might be hard to prove.
It was not my bid. Being aware of basic tenet of the Russian World conception ("Russia is where Russian is spoken") and Putin's admission that the collapse of the Soviet Unoin is his personal tragedy I would say that his ultimate goal is re-creating the USSR in its boundaries.
So you think the Donbass is just a bridgehead to conquer all of Ukraine?
Gilrandir
04-03-2015, 10:31
So you think the Donbass is just a bridgehead to conquer all of Ukraine?
I think that Putin will not "conquer" Ukraine. He knows (and the Crimea showed it) that Russia - in its present plight - can't very well digest all it swallows. A year ago he had meant to truncate it overrunning all "Russian-speaking" regions. After he had seen that Russian-speaking doesn't mean pro-Russian (indeed around 60% of the Ukrainians who are now fighting in Donbas are Russian-speakers and almost exclusively Russian-speaking city of Mariupol stays predominantely pro-Ukrainian) he had to change his tactics.
What he now aims at is to install a new government which he hopes to be more obliging. All the offensive moves the separatists make have this very goal in view - to cause dissatisfaction with the government within Ukraine and have it toppled. Russian network users were ready to celebrate when the conflict between Poroshenko and Kolomoysky started, but when no desirable outcome followed I'm afraid there is gonna be a new offensive in Donbas.
Gilrandir
04-03-2015, 11:19
A Tatar TV channel was closed in the Crimea and people there were polled if they need one.
15042
Pay attention to the percentage of "Nos" (the furthest to the right).
Gilrandir
04-04-2015, 15:36
In connection with the Kremlin trolls:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/04/02/analyzing-kremlin-twitter-bots/
Seamus Fermanagh
04-06-2015, 21:45
I'd love to see a picture of a Kremlin Troll. My old manual had pictures of the garden variety, Troll Giants, etc. but no Kremlin Trolls...
Gilrandir
04-07-2015, 12:28
Similar information from another quarter:
http://www.newsmobile.in/articles/2015/04/05/trolling-putin-russias-information-war-explained
Gilrandir
04-08-2015, 14:34
That sums up the Putin-Hitler comparison:
http://blogs.piie.com/realtime/?p=4254
That sums up the Putin-Hitler comparison:
http://blogs.piie.com/realtime/?p=4254
Sorry but that's a bit rediculous. You can make my mother look like Hitler if you take out just a few things. The EU gave him the perfect excuse by trying to bring Ukraine into the EU, and he couldn't have reacted in any other way because he would have looked weak.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-08-2015, 20:52
I'd love to see a picture of a Kremlin Troll. My old manual had pictures of the garden variety, Troll Giants, etc. but no Kremlin Trolls...
It's like a common troll, but wearing a Cossack's hat and goose-steps everywhere.
Gilrandir
04-10-2015, 11:15
The EU gave him the perfect excuse by trying to bring Ukraine into the EU, and he couldn't have reacted in any other way because he would have looked weak.
This is his greatest problem - face saving vulnerability. He takes everything personally. It has taken him into the dead end, yet he refuses to own up to it and persists in pushing his cause on and on.
Apparently Putin is now in talks with the inventors of democracy, it seems as though these most democratic people in the entire world prefer Putin as a friend over the fascist EU that's trying to starve them.
http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/568921/Greek-Prime-Minister-Moscow-fears-Vladimir-Putin-loan-Athens-cash
The plans were discussed as part of a hastened meeting between the Greek Prime Minister and Vladimir Putin today.
The Russian President confirmed that Greece did not ask for cash loans, but that the two countries continue to build a strengthened alliance.
Putin said Greek involvement in the Turkish Stream pipeline project could earn Greece "millions of euros" every year. And that Athens' Western creditors would benefit should the Greek economy improve as a result of closer economic cooperation between the European Union member state and Russia.
So will Putin finally be seen as a supporter of democracy?
And will the Nazis in Germany ever pay the 300 billion they owe Greece (according to Greece) in war reparations?
http://fortune.com/2015/04/07/greece-war-reparations-germany/
“The German government’s categorical ‘Nein’ certainly cannot be allowed to stand. That’s disgraceful 70 years after the end of the war,” Groth said.
Is the EU as led by Germany and France the new oppressor of sovereign nation states? Britain has apparently thought so for a long time already, were they right after all?
This is his greatest problem - face saving vulnerability. He takes everything personally. It has taken him into the dead end, yet he refuses to own up to it and persists in pushing his cause on and on.
There are probably much more hardline guys in Russia.
I blame the EU, how could he have reacted otherwise on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQnXo2HMriQ
If that it was just stupid it was REALLY stupid. The EU basicly put his position at stake. China is going to eat Russia alive if he isn't strong.
Gilrandir
04-10-2015, 14:16
Apparently Putin is now in talks with the inventors of democracy, it seems as though these most democratic people in the entire world prefer Putin as a friend over the fascist EU that's trying to starve them.
So will Putin finally be seen as a supporter of democracy?
Being the inventor of democracy doesn't equal being democratic. Just like England was the inventor of football, yet it has been an age since it was (and only once) the world champion in it.
Is the EU as led by Germany and France the new oppressor of sovereign nation states? Britain has apparently thought so for a long time already, were they right after all?
Here is one of Putin's hopes - to split the EU's unified position on relations with Russia in general and on the sanctions in particular. But I think he can't offer anyone more than promises now - the finacial power of Russia is precarious. It couldn't even find the yearly modicum for Transdniestria this time.
http://www.moldova.org/for-the-first-time-russia-didnt-offer-a-financial-aid-of-100-millions-to-transnistria/
And locals complaining of it (sorry, in Russian):
http://ru.krymr.com/media/video/26948753.html
I blame the EU, how could he have reacted otherwise on this
If that it was just stupid it was REALLY stupid. The EU basicly put his position at stake. China is going to eat Russia alive if he isn't strong.
By reacting as he did Putin didn't get what he wanted and is not likely to. Enjoying the reputation of a calculated strategic player he should have known better than to act so emotionally. He may have had tactical gains, but in the long run he considerably worsened his position. This shows him being a tactician rather that a strategist.
“By reacting as he did Putin didn't get what he wanted and is not likely to.” I don’t know really if Putin had intention and master plan, as I think he reacted more than he anticipated. I think he’s got what he wanted in saving (in his point of view) what could be saved when the mob expelled a more favourable Ukrainian President and put openly adversaries in power. He’s got Crimea, and no one really speak about it anymore. Ukraine will be a buffer zone. In fact, all moves from EU, US and actual Ukrainian Government gave him edges to work on. With NATO troops in Ukraine, he is now sure that Ukraine will never be reunited (without a victorious war for NATO). With EU policy he might have access to Greek Ports soon, or at least, might have someone willing to stop any new EU sanctions (rule of unanimity) and even brake the sanctions actually in place.
“to split the EU's unified position on relations with Russia in general and on the sanctions in particular.” What united or unified EU positions? They agreed on a minimum service and some are quiet keen in seeing them vanished. And thanks to EU policy against Greece, it might explode (or implode) soon.
“Is the EU as led by Germany and France the new oppressor of sovereign nation states?” I have unfortunately to answer yes to this. Germany by its policy and France being the lap dog in this case are responsible of a real human tragedy in Greece (as in Spain, Italy, Portugal) as they forget we are speaking of millions of human being push to extreme poverty in mane of an ideology. Where is the European Union, protecting the poor, creating jobs and building the peace? The only speech coming from EU is pay pay pay, cut cut cut, bleed bleed bleed, die die die. If possible in silence. They killed democracy in sham referendum. They fear the populations. They want sacrifices they won’t impose to themselves.
Greyblades
04-10-2015, 23:33
Is the EU as led by Germany and France the new oppressor of sovereign nation states? Britain has apparently thought so for a long time already, were they right after all?
If it was actual competent and well meaning French/German leaders ruling over us, instead of the brain-dead Belgian bureaucrats we have, maybe we would think better of it.
Here is one of Putin's hopes - to split the EU's unified position on relations with Russia in general and on the sanctions in particular. But I think he can't offer anyone more than promises now - the finacial power of Russia is precarious. It couldn't even find the yearly modicum for .pTransdniestria this time.
http://www.moldova.org/for-the-first-time-russia-didnt-offer-a-financial-aid-of-100-millions-to-transnistria/
And locals complaining of it (sorry, in Russian):
http://ru.krymr.com/media/video/26948753.html-
Not asking for any agreement, just for consideration http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
^ that was the counter, here is the original http://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IfYABAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA53&dq=six+principles+of+political+realism+morgenthau&ots=MtRwVaOg4J&sig=nQFxB5tUlwqZWQiFV3jlir_FxlA#v=onepage&q=six principles of political realism morgenthau&f=false
When taking it as a given that Putin knows exactly what he is doing, the EU-policy looks a bit dumb.
W
By reacting as he did Putin didn't get what he wanted and is not likely to. Enjoying the reputation of a calculated strategic player he should have known better than to act so emotionally. He may have had tactical gains, but in the long run he considerably worsened his position. This shows him being a tactician rather that a strategist.
You can look at the west but I think he is more worried about the east, Russian territories are already Chinese in Chinese schoolbooks. Looking weak was probably the worst decision he could have made, Can't shake the thought that these idiots of the EU forced him into a position. That von Romppuy guy was very clear about the intention of the EU, securing all countries at Russia's borders. How can that be acceptablle, how can it be reasonable? Putin might be acting like a cat in distress but might he just have a very good reason to act in the way he does?
No need to agree, but just because of considerating it http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
Is he really a cat in distress or playing a better hand
Before anyone says it, I know I posted a counter I did that on purpose.
original text http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en-NL&source=hp&q=six+principles+of+political+realism&gbv=2&oq=six+princi&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.1.0l10.4067.10301.0.13302.10.8.0.2.2.0.150.735.6j2.8.0.msedr...0...1ac.1j4.34.heirloom-hp..0.10.780.0sYxA2Akpcc < this doesn't work, don't ask me why but it doesn't.
Gilrandir
04-11-2015, 15:15
“By reacting as he did Putin didn't get what he wanted and is not likely to.” I don’t know really if Putin had intention and master plan, as I think he reacted more than he anticipated. I think he’s got what he wanted in saving (in his point of view) what could be saved when the mob expelled a more favourable Ukrainian President and put openly adversaries in power. He’s got Crimea, and no one really speak about it anymore. Ukraine will be a buffer zone.
As his "Russian spring 2014" failed attempts showed, he had wanted more than what he has now. By having acted not so hastily, he could have had more than what you think he gained - a still (more or less) friendly nation at its borders, a much more significant percentage of pro-Russian population (and powerful pro-Russian parties) in it, trade benefits, perpetuation of Ukrainian gas addiction, two Mistrals, no sanctions, no need to hype military expenses, no oil price plummeting.... and he finds the Crimea more and more financially burdensome.
Having been more flexible, prudent and far-sighted Putin wouldn't have found himself in the pickle he is in now, or, to be more precise, in the cleft stick of his own cutting.
With NATO troops in Ukraine,
Are there any? I mean except instructors.
he is now sure that Ukraine will never be reunited (without a victorious war for NATO).
Yet what is left of Ukraine is relentlessly (for Putin) moving NATOwards. Just within a year Putin ensured it more that all previous NATO overtures and unsystematic attempts of Ukrainain politicains taken together.
“to split the EU's unified position on relations with Russia in general and on the sanctions in particular.” What united or unified EU positions? They agreed on a minimum service and some are quiet keen in seeing them vanished. And thanks to EU policy against Greece, it might explode (or implode) soon.
The position is still unified since the sanctions are still there. Greece, by its ostensibly pro-Russian stance, is trying to get more money from the EU or/and more beneficial conditions of paying it back (preferably NOT paying it back). It knows very well that others (i.e. Russia) are in no position to offer it anything.
Germany by its policy and France being the lap dog in this case are responsible of a real human tragedy in Greece (as in Spain, Italy, Portugal) as they forget we are speaking of millions of human being push to extreme poverty in mane of an ideology. Where is the European Union, protecting the poor, creating jobs and building the peace? The only speech coming from EU is pay pay pay, cut cut cut, bleed bleed bleed, die die die. If possible in silence. They killed democracy in sham referendum. They fear the populations. They want sacrifices they won’t impose to themselves.
So you believe that the countries you enumerated should be released from the abominable EU slavery and let go about by themselves? The moment they quit they will have jobs aplenty and economies booming? What makes you so sure it will save them from the collapse they are (as you believe) experiencing?
You can look at the west but I think he is more worried about the east, Russian territories are already Chinese in Chinese schoolbooks.
... and that is why he is keeping quite a sizable army in Ukraine, around it, in the Crimea and along Russia's western frontiers?
Looking weak was probably the worst decision he could have made, Can't shake the thought that these idiots of the EU forced him into a position. That von Romppuy guy was very clear about the intention of the EU, securing all countries at Russia's borders. How can that be acceptablle, how can it be reasonable? Putin might be acting like a cat in distress but might he just have a very good reason to act in the way he does?
Being a politician (and purportedly a wise and calculated one) he ought to know that not everything that escapes someone's lips is true and/or obligatory implementable. If you listen to what Zhirinovsky says and take it seriously, you would think that Russia IS at war with all the world. Political leaders ought to know the difference between empty lip service and real actions. Unfortunately for Ukraine, the former is mostly what the EU is now doing and the latter is what Russia is doing.
I know it affects you directly so please don't seek any harm in what I say, but I think Putin IS acting rationally. The expansion of the EU is something he simply can't sell back home. He would look weak, he would be au revoired by more redical undercurrents. We need to put the EU on a leash and stop putting sanctions on Russia that are counterproductive, just because the way things are just happen to be what they are. Do we really want this, I don't. Why want it.
“As his "Russian spring 2014" failed attempts showed,” What are you speaking about? What is actually happening is in Putin’s advantage (or Russian). Ukraine is now effectively divided in a Bosnian scenario, as I analysed it few months ago when some of us were speaking of Russian Tanks rolling to Warsaw and NATO tanks engaging the Russian ones…
“By having acted not so hastily, he could have had more than what you think he gained” At what point? Without action, he would have been entangled in negotiation and lost Crimea. In helping the rebels, just enough, he successfully put back the borders (frontlines) where they are now, at the time of some of us were speaking of Ukrainian forces “mopping up” what was left of the Rebels forces qualified as mercenaries and aliens. So, I don’t know where Putin strategy failed, but from here, I think he got quite a good position. He kept Crimea, and Russia will keep Crimea, as no Russian government will be able to give-it up.
“and he finds the Crimea more and more financially burdensome”; Well, if Russia would have allowed NATO (oops, sorry, Ukrainian Western oriented Government) to control the under see pipelines, the cost for Russia would have been much more expensive, as the loss of the Crimean ports for their fleet.
“The position is still unified since the sanctions are still there” For how long? As soon they will be lifted, and they will, Russia (Putin) wins. As long they are enforces, EU loses. And then, all work and effort will turn in order to gain Russia market again.
“So you believe that the countries you enumerated should be released from the abominable EU slavery and let go about by themselves? The moment they quit they will have jobs aplenty and economies booming? What makes you so sure it will save them from the collapse they are (as you believe) experiencing?” Who speak of beliefs? Look at the rate of unemployment in these countries. Even in UK, if you had the figures of "Zero Hours Contract", and contrary of the Tories Propaganda, the economical situation is at least fragile, with a debt increasing steadily.
There are few things I am sure: Where are the jobs now? Where is the prosperity now? Where is the protection for the poor now? Where is the voice of the populations now? Why pensions are going down now? So EU didn’t delivered what it was built for, because EU is actually under the dictatorship of an ideology where human beings are not the priority but the so-call laws of free market, which of course are not law but political implementation of absurd ideas.
“Are there any? I mean except instructors” “Yet what is left of Ukraine is relentlessly (for Putin) moving NATOwards.” You gave the answer to your question.
Gilrandir
04-13-2015, 10:30
I know it affects you directly so please don't seek any harm in what I say, but I think Putin IS acting rationally. The expansion of the EU is something he simply can't sell back home. He would look weak, he would be au revoired by more redical undercurrents. We need to put the EU on a leash and stop putting sanctions on Russia that are counterproductive, just because the way things are just happen to be what they are. Do we really want this, I don't. Why want it.
I don't see any harm in what you say, moreover, from the Old Europe trade(profit)-above-all viewpoint you are right. But East European nations don't see it that way. Having experienced what Soviet/Russian occupation means they now know better than to go by simple economics. Knowing that Russia is prone to ovelook its agreements and disregard trade in favor of geopolitics they are genuinely worried about their security. So Europe (the whole of it) is to find a balance between trade profits and security issues.
“As his "Russian spring 2014" failed attempts showed,” What are you speaking about?
About pro-Russian meetings in Kharkiv (with the capturing of regional administration), Odesa (with several dozens dead in a fire) and in other south-eastern cities. They were fomented and financed by Russia - on a video of the Kharkiv events last spring by the side of speaker one can see the notorious now separatists - field commander Motorola (if you don't know him by sight - he is a short black-hooded guy looking over the speaker's shoulder):
http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/874218-Na-martovskom-video-mitinga-v-Har-kove-obnaruzhili-Motorolu
And see Strlekov's and Putin's confessions.
Unfortunately for Putin, his scenario was successful only in the Crimea and Eastern Donbas - because regular Russian armed forces and/or spetznaz were involved.
Ukraine is now effectively divided in a Bosnian scenario
Your comparison is flawed. Bosnia now consists of virtually autonomous parts and a number of enclaves and has a complex state system. Neither of the metioned parts are directly ruled from the outside. Ukraine has a small (in comparison with the total area) part which is now controlled by Russia and no changes to any laws or the constitution were introduced to give this rump any legality or influence on the policy of the whole country.
as I analysed it few months ago when some of us were speaking of Russian Tanks rolling to Warsaw and NATO tanks engaging the Russian ones…
In one of your prophetic insights you said that Ukraine will be split according to cultural divides. So cultural divide is in the middle of Shyrokine village? Or between Artemovsk and Debaltseve? Cultural differences were (and are) not enough to split it. It takes a fraternal neigbor to tear away some of its parts.
“By having acted not so hastily, he could have had more than what you think he gained” At what point?
At the point when Yanukovych legged it. By keeping back his emotions, presenting himself as a peacemaker and envisioning the economic hardships Ukraine was likely to face, he would have had Ukraine at its disposal as late as 2015. His stooges in Ukraine would have kept on saying that the economic ties with Russia can't be broken, at least not in crisis times, and people, especially those in the South-east, would heartily agree.
Now Ukraine has no choice, most ties are broken by Russia itself and it is largely (including in the South-east) viewed as the aggressor.
In helping the rebels, just enough, he successfully put back the borders (frontlines) where they are now.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Do you know how far he has pushed back the borders? 100-120 km. And only in one direction - the southern one. If you are acquainted with the range of modern weapons, that's nothing. At least not what he will be satisfied with, that's why the war there is likely to resume.
Moreover, in other directions, the border is where it was. Plus a lot more troops (and now, unlike a year ago they can be really called an army) are deployed on the Ukrainian side of it now - that's one more reason for Putin to rejoice at his present safety. Plus Nato troops in greater quantities are moving ever closer to his borders - a third reason for merry-making. Plus new alliances brewing:
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Russian-aggression-Nordic-states-extend-their-military-cooperation-7975109.html
Again three cheers for Putin the Strategist.
So, I don’t know where Putin strategy failed,
His strategy was to prevent Ukraine from heading for Nato and the EU, to have a friendly government in Kyiv and if these two are not possible to split it. Now tell me where he has succeded?
but from here, I think he got quite a good position.
Why is then he behaves like he doesn't? Perhaps it is only you who considers his outlooks bright.
Without action, he would have been entangled in negotiation and lost Crimea.He kept Crimea, and Russia will keep Crimea, as no Russian government will be able to give-it up.
“and he finds the Crimea more and more financially burdensome”; Well, if Russia would have allowed NATO (oops, sorry, Ukrainian Western oriented Government) to control the under see pipelines, the cost for Russia would have been much more expensive, as the loss of the Crimean ports for their fleet.
It would be good if you read something on how much Russia has to spend on the Crimea and how problematic logistics is. To provide regular communication with it Russia has to make Ukraine more amenable or to build a bridge over the Kerch channel - the former is a wishful thinking at the moment, the latter will take time and money which is Russia definitely short of.
“The position is still unified since the sanctions are still there” For how long? As soon they will be lifted, and they will, Russia (Putin) wins. As long they are enforces, EU loses. And then, all work and effort will turn in order to gain Russia market again.
Until then, Russia is losing. Let's see whose margin of safety is greater.
“So you believe that the countries you enumerated should be released from the abominable EU slavery and let go about by themselves? The moment they quit they will have jobs aplenty and economies booming? What makes you so sure it will save them from the collapse they are (as you believe) experiencing?” Who speak of beliefs? Look at the rate of unemployment in these countries. Even in UK, if you had the figures of "Zero Hours Contract", and contrary of the Tories Propaganda, the economical situation is at least fragile, with a debt increasing steadily.
There are few things I am sure: Where are the jobs now? Where is the prosperity now? Where is the protection for the poor now? Where is the voice of the populations now? Why pensions are going down now? So EU didn’t delivered what it was built for, because EU is actually under the dictatorship of an ideology where human beings are not the priority but the so-call laws of free market, which of course are not law but political implementation of absurd ideas.
Evasive as usual. Can you give a direct answer: Would the countries in crisis benefit if they leave the EU?
“Are there any? I mean except instructors” “Yet what is left of Ukraine is relentlessly (for Putin) moving NATOwards.” You gave the answer to your question.
Again evasive. And watching too much RT. Nato is not giving Ukraine lethal weapons to say nothing of sending troops. Ukraine's movement doesn't automatically mean arrival at the destination.
Unfortunately for Putin, his scenario was successful only in the Crimea and Eastern Donbas - because regular Russian armed forces and/or spetznaz were involved.” Only? That is what he was saving from a very badly deteriorating situation in his point (Russian) point of view. If nothing done, he would have lost all. Can I remind you that actual negotiations has taken place, that agreement has been reach, and a mob decided to take the Parliament by storm? From Russian point of view, the ink of the agreement wasn’t even dry that the West didn’t give a monkey.
The fact as you as usual refuse to see the facts but are in the Putin Grand Dream conspiracy, your evaluation is flawed from the start.
“Neither of the metioned parts are directly ruled from the outside” You should read Dayton Agreement.
“Your comparison is flawed” Really? Well, tell me when Ukrainian government will be in control of the Rebels areas.
“no changes to any laws or the constitution were introduced to give this rump any legality or influence on the policy of the whole country.” Crimea?
“In one of your prophetic insights you said that Ukraine will be split according to cultural divides.” I think. So it is not prophetic. And when did I say that? I might, but I didn’t recall as it is not how I analyse (a thing you have not a clue how to do) under ethnicity lines.
“Do you know how far he has pushed back the borders? 100-120 km. And only in one direction - the southern one. If you are acquainted with the range of modern weapons, that's nothing. At least not what he will be satisfied with, that's why the war there is likely to resume.” Yeap, I suggest you try to walk the 100 km under fire, you might find out it is a long distance… Plus the fact of course that any movement of NATO will be rightly seen a threat. And again, Putin saved what he could. He didn’t start the move… Without it, he would have all NATO troops along all the Ukrainian borders, and lost the only Russian harbours… Putin will not re-start the war, as he has no interest in doing so. Ukrainian government might, as they want to involve NATO in it.
“Again three cheers for Putin the Strategist”: Yeah, because before this, the Baltic States were full of love for Russia and Russians. Ooops, perhaps it is one of your jokes… Sorry if I didn’t get it.:laugh4:
“Can you give a direct answer:” No because I don’t know. I have difficulties to see how it could be worst.
“Again evasive” Blame yourself for this one as you asked and you answered.
a completely inoffensive name
04-13-2015, 23:07
Almost 600 posts and you Euros still won't admit that this can all be solved if you just buy your natural gas from us Americans. What's the point of making Pennsylvania's drinking water flammable if you refuse to allow us to liberate you?
Seamus Fermanagh
04-14-2015, 01:34
Almost 600 posts and you Euros still won't admit that this can all be solved if you just buy your natural gas from us Americans. What's the point of making Pennsylvania's drinking water flammable if you refuse to allow us to liberate you?
Thanks for the chuckle.
I can just see the line-up of LNG tankers at Rotterdam now.....
Hey, we just want to be able to exploit Ukrainian work (East Germany and Romania becoming waaay tooo expensive) force without you US to intervene...
Gilrandir
04-14-2015, 12:13
Unfortunately for Putin, his scenario was successful only in the Crimea and Eastern Donbas - because regular Russian armed forces and/or spetznaz were involved.” Only? That is what he was saving from a very badly deteriorating situation in his point (Russian) point of view. If nothing done, he would have lost all.
As I have said, by behaving more reasonably, he could have still retained indirect control and significant influence over ALL Ukraine without any deterioration of his relations with the West. His dissatisfaction with what he has bears me out.
Can I remind you that actual negotiations has taken place, that agreement has been reach, and a mob decided to take the Parliament by storm? From Russian point of view, the ink of the agreement wasn’t even dry that the West didn’t give a monkey.
Can I remind you that when the ink was still not dry and before any action from the mob, Yanukovych escaped.
Can I remind you that when the ink was not yet spilt upon the paper, Putin started his Crimea adventure. Evidently, his decision to start "saving at least something" was made before the ink was wet, dry or still in the pen.
The fact as you as usual refuse to see the facts but are in the Putin Grand Dream conspiracy, your evaluation is flawed from the start.
I have no desire to reiterate the arguments which you will disregard anyway. So let's agree to disagree on it.
“Neither of the metioned parts are directly ruled from the outside” You should read Dayton Agreement.
Done. No indication in it that would liken the Crimea and occupied Donbas (ruled from Russia) to any part of Bosnia ruled from Serbia, Croatia, Brussels, Berlin, Washington...
“Your comparison is flawed” Really? Well, tell me when Ukrainian government will be in control of the Rebels areas.
“no changes to any laws or the constitution were introduced to give this rump any legality or influence on the policy of the whole country.” Crimea?
Once again: provide any evidence of a treaty between Ukraine and any other party that would grant either the Crimea or Lugandon special rights to change the external policy, the Constitution, or the previously signed agreements.
“In one of your prophetic insights you said that Ukraine will be split according to cultural divides.” I think. So it is not prophetic. And when did I say that? I might, but I didn’t recall as it is not how I analyse (a thing you have not a clue how to do) under ethnicity lines.
Ukraine-in-a-thread, # 431, as a reply to Kadagar's post (the bolded is his, the underlined is what I consider your support of his statement):
“MY OFFICIAL BET:
Russia will keep stirring the pot, and then send troops in to restore order.
Ukraine will be split after cultural lines.
Crimea with its strategic ports will become Russian.”
Yeap, a replica of US/NATO strategy in Kosovo. Russia might create a Crimean Liberation Army as well…. You don’t change a winning tactic.
Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours.
He didn’t start the move… Without it, he would have all NATO troops along all the Ukrainian borders, and lost the only Russian harbours…
About starting the move - see Putin's confessions in his Crimean documentary.
About the borders - he managed to provide a friendly Lugandonean regime only along a small portion of it while he endangered his positions elsewhere (for example, with adjacent Nato countries) and united the nation (which had been divided before) on the issue of joining Nato. I don't consider it a worthwile exchange.
Putin will not re-start the war, as he has no interest in doing so. Ukrainian government might, as they want to involve NATO in it.
Little do you know how inefficient Ukrainian army's management is. It is in no position to start any offensive, it can hardly hold its ground. Putin, on the other hand, has all military trumps on his hands and is dissatisfied with his gains. Hearing the offensive rhetoric of Lugandonean leaders and seeing the progress they have made for the previous half-year, it is obvious who will make the next move.
Your evaluation is warped through having watched RT too much.
“Again three cheers for Putin the Strategist”: Yeah, because before this, the Baltic States were full of love for Russia and Russians.
The article spoke not of the unsympathetic Baltic states, but of Scandinavians and Finns, the latter having always been favorably predisposed towards Russia. Putin was successful in scaring them and making them think of joining NATO in future and tightening cooperation with its northern flank at present.
“the bolded is his, the underlined is what I consider your support of his statement):” :laugh4: This is all you, a summary of your way of "thinking". You give someone else lines, and you consider I support it because I did agree with the concept.
But I never actually said it myself. So you are lying. Again…
Good joke, this one I get it!!!
“Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours.” Mine was good as shown, but you’ve got to make serious effort(s) on your reading abilities, or understanding. Or both.
“Scandinavians and Finns” What? Norway is not in NATO?
“It is in no position to start any offensive, it can hardly hold its ground.” I agree, but the right amount of fighting and good propaganda, Ukraine might be able to drag US/EU and the fight. No a really realistic possibility, but they might try.
“Can I remind you that when the ink was still not dry and before any action from the mob, Yanukovych escaped.
Can I remind you that when the ink was not yet spilt upon the paper, Putin started his Crimea adventure.” Lies:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/timeline-ukraine-political-crisis-201431143722854652.html
Feb 21: Protest leaders, the political opposition and Yanukovich agree to form a new government and hold early elections. Yanukovich's powers are slashed. The parliament votes to free Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister, from prison. Yanukovich flees Kiev after protesters take control of the capital.
Feb 23: Ukraine's parliament assigns presidential powers to its new speaker, Oleksandr Turchinov, an ally of Tymoshenko. Pro-Russian protesters rally in Crimea against the new Kiev administration.
Do note that the first move is with the “pro-western democracy” side.
Feb 24: Ukraine's interim government draws up a warrant for Yanukovich's arrest.
Feb 27: Pro-Kremlin armed men seize government buildings in Crimea. Ukraine government vows to prevent a country break-up as Crimean parliament set May 25 as the date for referendum on region’s status. Yanukovich is granted refuge in Russia.
Do note than in the journalistic jargon, the Pro-Russian protesters became Pro-Kremlin armed men, when the pro-western mob is a “political opposition”
Then, only then
March 2: A convoy of hundreds of Russian troops heads towards the regional capital of Crimea. Arseny Yatsenyuk, Ukraine's new prime minister, accuses Russia of declaring war on his country.
Note: 1st real move from Putin, who everyone though was too busy with the Olympic Games.
This is the chronology. Facts. First mob take power, President fled.
Ukraine started aggressive stance towards Crimean opposition, then Russian troops move (well, the ones who were not in Crimea yet).
“Done”: Lie. If you had you would have notice “ensure the right for entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to establish special parallel relationships with neighbouring countries consistent with sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina”. Meaning Croats with Croatia and Serbs with Serbia.
~:confused: Perhaps I am too harsh with you. Perhaps you just don’t understand the text.:shrug:
Gilrandir
04-15-2015, 11:09
you consider I support it because I did agree with the concept.
support (səˈpɔːt)
vb (tr)
1. to carry the weight of
2. to bear or withstand (pressure, weight, etc)
3. to provide the necessities of life for (a family, person, etc)
4. to tend to establish (a theory, statement, etc) by providing new facts; substantiate
5. (Rhetoric) to speak in favour of (a motion)
6. to give aid or courage to
7. to give approval to (a cause, principle, etc); subscribe to: to support a political candidature.
8. to endure with forbearance: I will no longer support bad behaviour.
9. to give strength to; maintain: to support a business.
10. (Theatre) (tr) (in a concert) to perform earlier than (the main attraction)
11. (Film) films theatre
a. to play a subordinate role to
b. to accompany (the feature) in a film programme
12. (Theatre) films theatre
a. to play a subordinate role to
b. to accompany (the feature) in a film programme
13. (Theatre) to act or perform (a role or character)
a•gree (əˈgri)
v. a•greed, a•gree•ing. v.i.
1. to be of one mind; harmonize in opinion or feeling (often fol. by with): I agree with you.
2. to have the same opinion (often fol. by on or upon): We don't agree on politics.
3. to give consent; assent (often fol. by to): Do you agree to the conditions?
4. to arrive at a settlement or understanding: They have agreed on the price.
5. to be consistent; correspond; harmonize (usu. fol. by with): His story agrees with hers.
6. (of food or drink) to admit of digestion or absorption without difficulty (usu. fol. by with).
7. to be suitable; comply with a preference (often fol. by with): The climate did not agree with him.
8. to correspond in inflectional form, as in grammatical case, number, gender, or person: In he runs, the third person singular verb runs agrees with the subject he in person and number.
v.t.
9. to concede; grant (usu. fol. by a noun clause): I agree that he is the ablest of us.
Brilliant! You agree with the concept but you don't support it. Doublethink at its best. Carry on. Or follow your own advice:
you’ve got to make serious effort(s) on your reading abilities, or understanding. Or both.
“Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours.” Mine was good as shown
Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours - you don't even remember that at least once I reminded you of your own words:
“You were the one who taught me democracy saying that to have one you must be ready to vote not FOR someone, but also AGAINST someone” When did I say this?
Voila:
Post #2412 (Ukraine-in-a-thread)
“And as for me, I don't vote against anyone, I vote for someone.” That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…
The bold is mine, then goes your line. You may check it if you don't trust me.
“Scandinavians and Finns” What? Norway is not in NATO?
And now a NAtO member is allied with non-Nato members against Russia. Good news for Putin.
“Can I remind you that when the ink was still not dry and before any action from the mob, Yanukovych escaped.
Can I remind you that when the ink was not yet spilt upon the paper, Putin started his Crimea adventure.” Lies:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/timeline-ukraine-political-crisis-201431143722854652.html
Feb 21: Protest leaders, the political opposition and Yanukovich agree to form a new government and hold early elections. Yanukovich's powers are slashed. The parliament votes to free Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister, from prison. Yanukovich flees Kiev after protesters take control of the capital.
Feb 23: Ukraine's parliament assigns presidential powers to its new speaker, Oleksandr Turchinov, an ally of Tymoshenko. Pro-Russian protesters rally in Crimea against the new Kiev administration.
Do note that the first move is with the “pro-western democracy” side.
Feb 24: Ukraine's interim government draws up a warrant for Yanukovich's arrest.
Feb 27: Pro-Kremlin armed men seize government buildings in Crimea. Ukraine government vows to prevent a country break-up as Crimean parliament set May 25 as the date for referendum on region’s status. Yanukovich is granted refuge in Russia.
Do note than in the journalistic jargon, the Pro-Russian protesters became Pro-Kremlin armed men, when the pro-western mob is a “political opposition”
Then, only then
March 2: A convoy of hundreds of Russian troops heads towards the regional capital of Crimea. Arseny Yatsenyuk, Ukraine's new prime minister, accuses Russia of declaring war on his country.
Note: 1st real move from Putin, who everyone though was too busy with the Olympic Games.
This is the chronology. Facts. First mob take power, President fled.
Ukraine started aggressive stance towards Crimean opposition, then Russian troops move (well, the ones who were not in Crimea yet).
I told no lies, while your source :
1) didn't give all the information - between February 21 (the signing of agreement) and February 23 (Turchinov's appointment) Yanukovych escaped. So the latter decision is natural - someone was to be in charge of the nation. So my first claim holds: the ink was still not dry and before any action from the mob, Yanukovych escaped.
2) is outdated - check the date of your Aljazeera article - it is September 20, 2014. Since then we have had Putin's own (and his medals) confession that he started his Crimea operation somewhere between February 20 (according to the medals) and February 22 (according to Huylo himself in the Crimea movie). So my second claim holds as well: when the ink was not yet spilt upon the paper, Putin started his Crimea adventure. However, if the true date was February 22 then the ink was dry, yet Yanukovych was not deposed.
“Done”: Lie. If you had you would have notice “ensure the right for entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to establish special parallel relationships with neighbouring countries consistent with sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina”. Meaning Croats with Croatia and Serbs with Serbia.
~:confused: Perhaps I am too harsh with you. Perhaps you just don’t understand the text.:shrug:
I noticed it. And? Does it say that Serbia or Croatia have any right to interfere military-wise if they don't like something, or appoint any leaders, or change the Bosnian constitution, or influence foreign policy, or introduce their currency on Bosnian territory? Russia tries to do it to Ukraine through their Lugandonean stooges. Was any part of Bosnia annexed by either Serbia or Croatia?
The Bosnia-Ukraine comparison is totally flawed:
Bosnia is divided into two approximately equal parts and one of them further into Croatian and Bosnian subparts. Nothing like that is in evidence in Ukraine. If any comparison could be drawn, then Ukraine -Moldova or Ukraine-Georgia would be closer. Ukraine-Lugandon structure reminds that of Moldova-Transnistria, the Crimean situation is close to Abkhasia or South Ossetia (the difference being that the Crimea was officially annexed by Russia while North Caucasian republics retain virtual independence). But an important difference between Ukraine and any of the mentioned conflicts is that in all of them ethnicity, language and/or confession were an issue. None of those are of moment in Ukraine which is why the conflict in Ukraine is more artificial than having real grounds.
And speaking of Russian nazi-fighters:
Some songs composed in Russia of late are almost complete replicas of the Nazi anthem and Hitlerjugend anthem:
http://by24.org/2014/10/06/russian_song_about_putin_recognized_as_old_german_nazi_anthem/
Sarmatian
04-15-2015, 13:09
I noticed it. And? Does it say that Serbia or Croatia have any right to interfere military-wise if they don't like something, or appoint any leaders, or change the Bosnian constitution, or influence foreign policy, or introduce their currency on Bosnian territory?
They do, actually, if Bosnia does anything contrary to the Dayton accord.
Gilrandir
04-15-2015, 14:45
They do, actually, if Bosnia does anything contrary to the Dayton accord.
Is it stipulated in the agreement - I mean military intervention on Serbian or Croatian part?
Gilrandir
04-15-2015, 18:02
On information wars:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/09/kremlin-hall-of-mirrors-military-information-psychology
Sarmatian
04-15-2015, 18:05
Is it stipulated in the agreement - I mean military intervention on Serbian or Croatian part?
Not as such, but both countries signed that they guarantee Dayton accord being respected, so legally they are bound to intervene if it was broken.
In practice, it doesn't mean much, but it is there.
Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours - you don't even remember that at least once I reminded you of your own words:” Because you didn’t my dear.
But yours were: “ In one of your prophetic insights you said that Ukraine will be split according to cultural divides” You claimed in your pedantic way that I had an illumination (prophetic) when I agree with someone. That was a lie, as you showed it yourself. You can now as usual try to catch the branches when falling from the tree, when you’ve just invented “the fact”.
“Brilliant! You agree with the concept but you don't support it. Doublethink at its best.”: Your really have to make an effort to understand. I agree with him on the principal/concept. I sometimes agree with you, doesn’t mean I support you. He had a proposal and I agree. From your definitions: to arrive at a settlement or understanding: This one.
“Since then we have had Putin's own (and his medals) confession that he started his Crimea operation somewhere between February 20 (according to the medals) and February 22 (according to Huylo himself in the Crimea movie)” Nope. Medal never existed, and Putin just said Russia had contingency plan is case of, as all countries do. You failed again… But you probably got the habit now, so why changing?
“is outdated” And this changed the Chronology? Mob took Parliament, President fled, Ukrainian Government try to blackmail Crimea in submission, Russian troops move. The fact that Putin and Russia were ready in case changes absolutely nothing to this. And Putin move because mob took Parliament and expelled (or forced President to flee). A little bit like France and UK declared war to Germany because Germany attacked Poland. It is a reaction, not an action.
Gilrandir
04-16-2015, 12:39
Not as such, but both countries signed that they guarantee Dayton accord being respected, so legally they are bound to intervene if it was broken.
In practice, it doesn't mean much, but it is there.
You mean like 1994 Budapest agreement? Then it indeed doesn't mean much.
Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours - you don't even remember that at least once I reminded you of your own words:” Because you didn’t my dear.
This one is easy to copypaste once again:
“You were the one who taught me democracy saying that to have one you must be ready to vote not FOR someone, but also AGAINST someone” When did I say this?
Voila:
Post #2412 (Ukraine-in-a-thread)
“And as for me, I don't vote against anyone, I vote for someone.” That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…
The bold is mine, then goes your line. You may check it if you don't trust me.
But yours were: “ In one of your prophetic insights you said that Ukraine will be split according to cultural divides” You claimed in your pedantic way that I had an illumination (prophetic) when I agree with someone. That was a lie, as you showed it yourself. You can now as usual try to catch the branches when falling from the tree, when you’ve just invented “the fact”.
You agree to what another said which is as good as saying it yourself - you both have a common approach to the subject.
I agree with him on the principal/concept. I sometimes agree with you, doesn’t mean I support you. He had a proposal and I agree.
I spoke not of supporting SOMEONE, but of supporting AN IDEA/CONCEPT. The latter means "agreeing to an idea/concept" (in this case the one of Ukraine split along cultural lines).
Medal never existed
This is what you said of Russian weapons in Ukraine, Russian mercenaries in Ukraine, Russian regular troops in Donbas (on a constant basis). Why, you live in the world Lavrov and Churkin have created and are still creating.
and Putin just said Russia had contingency plan is case of, as all countries do.
Did you watch the Crimea movie? Do please. After it you will love the man even more.
In it Putin said that all the night of February 22 he had been holding debates with the top brass and when he went out in the morning, the intervention was agreed upon and kicked into execution.
You failed again… But you probably got the habit now, so why changing?
You are perfectly right. It refers to your Bosnia-Ukraine comparison.
“is outdated” And this changed the Chronology?
The newly discovered developments of the year ago do change it. Now it is like this:
1. Mob took Parliament.
2. Russian troops are started into motion by Putin.
3. President fled.
4. Ukrainian Government try to blackmail Crimea in submission.
As I have said, Putin started the opeartion WHEN YANUKOVYCH WAS STILL THE PRESIDENT.
This one is easy to copypaste once again:” Can do again, because you didn’t. I could explain why, and how, but it more fun like this… Re-read just what you copy and paste: Hint: My words: “ That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…” These are MY words, not your reading of them.
“You agree to what another said which is as good as saying it yourself “. Not. And your claim was I had a vision… Not that I shared someone bet (even partially). . You are sinking my dear…
“This is what you said of Russian weapons in Ukraine, Russian mercenaries in Ukraine, Russian regular troops in Donbas (on a constant basis)” I answer this lie before, re-read.
“Did you watch the Crimea movie? Do please. After it you will love the man even more.” Why should I watch a movie where a politician said he knew everything before every one? This is politician words. And where did you get the idea I love Putin? YOU have more confidence in what he said than I.:laugh4:
“It refers to your Bosnia-Ukraine comparison” :laugh4:You refuse to see the reality, like years ago… You have in theory a United State, Ukraine, and as Bosnia the Central Power has no power on some areas. And it will probably become a permanent state when finally negotiations will give a peace agreement. Reason why I agree with the bet.
“1. Mob took Parliament.
2. Russian troops are started into motion by Putin.
3. President fled.
4. Ukrainian Government try to blackmail Crimea in submission.
As I have said, Putin started the opeartion WHEN YANUKOVYCH WAS STILL THE PRESIDENT.” :shrug: Nope. Moving troops doesn’t mean you start an operation. France mobilised before Germany attacked in 1914, still it was Germany that started the war. You can always stop a movement until borders are crossed. Even a little bit after. It is just a hint that Putin had better instinct than the EU/US leaders, and that the Russian Army had better contingency plans.
Gilrandir
04-17-2015, 14:08
“It refers to your Bosnia-Ukraine comparison” :laugh4:You refuse to see the reality, like years ago… You have in theory a United State, Ukraine, and as Bosnia the Central Power has no power on some areas.
It may go for a bunch of countries, starting with Japan (which doesn't control its northern territories) and finishing with India (with its uncontrolled northern territories) with Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Moldova, Georgia, Cyprus and others in between. This is the only similarity I see between Bosnia and Ukraine. In all other aspects the divided characters of the two countries in question have nothing in common.
Why should I watch a movie where a politician said he knew everything before every one?
To expose how manipulative he was, or to disprove it. To see if his confessions change the earlier chronology and understanding of events.
Generally speaking, if one is interested in the topic one can't disregard evidence of this kind, even if it is a biased opinion.
Well, I can't believe what I'm doing - trying to persuade others to watch a piece of Russian propaganda!
Moving troops doesn’t mean you start an operation.
Putin was quite explicit in his claim of starting "the Crimean homecoming" on the said date.
“To see if his confessions” This is your problem. He is bragging, he is not ashamed of it. In using confession, you put a connotation as he pleaded guilty. No, he is trying to convince a domestic audience that he is in control and ahead of the game. Pure and simple propaganda and you bite/welcome it, because for your own propaganda, you need Putin to be evil, as simple as this. As prove (or demonstrated) by “Well, I can't believe what I'm doing - trying to persuade others to watch a piece of Russian propaganda!”. Propaganda, not piece of evidence.
“Putin was quite explicit in his claim of starting "the Crimean homecoming" on the said date.” I am sure he is, as Kosovo was a fight for democracy and Iraqis will welcome the US, and democracy will bloom in Libya… When you are in a process, better to pretend you control it than to look incompetent.
“In all other aspects the divided characters of the two countries in question have nothing in common.” Well, future will tell.~;)
Sarmatian
04-17-2015, 19:43
Putin was quite explicit in his claim of starting "the Crimean homecoming" on the said date.
That is not true. I've seen the documentary in it's entirety.
According to the documentary: After Korsun Massacre/Ambush*, they realized that Crimeans are in danger. After that it is explicitly mentioned by Putin that Yanukovich, who was moving from Kharkiv to Donetsk, on the the night of 22nd of February, was in danger. Russian intelligence was sure that he was supposed to be assassinated. His motorcade was shot at, his bodyguard wounded. They moved off road to avoid further attacks. After almost entire night, Russian helicopters located the motorcade and extracted Yanukovich. By that time, Maidanistas already took control of parliament and other government buildings in Kiev. The rescuing of Yanukovich took entire night between 22nd and 23rd February. After the operation was over, around 7 AM, Febrary 23rd, Putin said to his associates that they must take into account what is happening and that they must make sure the people of Crimea are safe and that they must allowed to decide their own future in safety, whether it's staying with Ukraine or joining Russia. The first time Russian soldiers were used was February 27th, to assist local militia in taking over the airport in Simferopol.
Now, you may choose not to believe any of it, but in the documentary it is clear that Crimean operation started after it was clear that there has been a coup in Kiev.
Anyway, here's (https://vimeo.com/123194285) the documentary in its entirety, with English subtitles for those interested.
I must say, Russians are getting better and better in propaganda. It's getting to be almost as good as western propaganda. They still tend to be rather blunt, they could use a bit of subtlety.
*Funnily enough, this is the first time I've heard of Korsun massacre/ambush/pogrom. I've relied on western media for just about everything about Ukraine. I've tried googling about it, and I couldn't find anything about it in any of the major media outlets.
"That is not true" I can't believe it... Gilrandir modifying the truth... I am SO disappointed... My world is collapsing...
"NATO is the most successful peace movement the world has ever known."
But whatever follows after NATO is done bombing a country is not NATO's responsibility, that's to blame on civilians.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2015/04/nato-guardian-peace-bellicose-bully-150401071002520.html
Gilrandir
04-18-2015, 15:47
That is not true. I've seen the documentary in it's entirety.
According to the documentary: After Korsun Massacre/Ambush*, they realized that Crimeans are in danger. After that it is explicitly mentioned by Putin that Yanukovich, who was moving from Kharkiv to Donetsk, on the the night of 22nd of February, was in danger. Russian intelligence was sure that he was supposed to be assassinated. His motorcade was shot at, his bodyguard wounded. They moved off road to avoid further attacks. After almost entire night, Russian helicopters located the motorcade and extracted Yanukovich. By that time, Maidanistas already took control of parliament and other government buildings in Kiev. The rescuing of Yanukovich took entire night between 22nd and 23rd February. After the operation was over, around 7 AM, Febrary 23rd, Putin said to his associates that they must take into account what is happening and that they must make sure the people of Crimea are safe and that they must allowed to decide their own future in safety, whether it's staying with Ukraine or joining Russia. The first time Russian soldiers were used was February 27th, to assist local militia in taking over the airport in Simferopol.
And I don't see how it refutes my claim. Read carefully what I wrote. I never claimed that the invasion was started with the appearance of little green men. More than once I said that the starting point of it was the adoption of the decision to invade. And that happened on the night between 22 and 23, when Yanukovych was still officially the president. Moreover, for quite a time (I believe until presidential elections in May) Yanukovych was considered by Russia the legal head of Ukraine, so the invasion was an illegal thing to do for Russians whether it started on 22 or 27 of February.
But again, this is if we believe Putin. I'm sure the decision has been ripening since the middle of February at the latest. I also have never heard of the massacre he metioned (in fact, this toponym doesn't belong to the Crimea, but it is an old name of Khersones which now is an archeological excavation site within Sevastopol with a few museums and a church) and attempts at assassination of Yanukovych are not proved either, same as his claims of his grandson being attacked in the kindergarten or shooting at Rybak's (the then Speaker of the Parliament) car (refuted by Rybak himself).
Sarmatian
04-18-2015, 16:35
Yanukovich may still be considered the legal state of Ukraine - if he's been impeached illegally, then he was still the president and there couldn't have been new presidential elections until his mandate was over.
It's acceptance of the reality. Like Kiev still considers Crimea part of Ukraine, or Belgrade Kosovo a part of Serbia, but both know better then to send army there, for instance.
You made it sound Putin admitted that operation to annex Crimea was started while Yanukovich was still in power, which wasn't true. Putin said, on morning of 23rd, that Russia must ensure that Crimea can decide its future in peace and safety. By that time Yanukovich wasn't in power or had any control, Maidan rebels seized power, although he was still legally the president.
Considering the massacre, it was pretty explicitly mentioned that, according to Kiev, there were 7 confirmed murders.
Believe or don't believe Putin, that is your prerogative. Not believing politicians is usually a safe bet, but don't twist facts to suit your agenda.
Gilrandir
04-18-2015, 17:06
Yanukovich may still be considered the legal state of Ukraine - if he's been impeached illegally, then he was still the president and there couldn't have been new presidential elections until his mandate was over.
Same as Nikolai II's heirs are still the legal rulers of Russia. If we try to recall all the leaders removed from power after a procedure with dubious legality we may have a really long dispute on how legal are those that came to supplant them.
You made it sound Putin admitted that operation to annex Crimea was started while Yanukovich was still in power, which wasn't true.
Believe or don't believe Putin, that is your prerogative. Not believing politicians is usually a safe bet, but don't twist facts to suit your agenda.
1. You don't seem to trust Putin in his claims yourself yet you call them "facts". WTF i.e. what the fact?
2. Where did I twist them? Here are "the facts":
Putin admitted that the operation started on a certain date. Period. According to all available timelines Yanukovych was still unimpeached on that date. Period. It doesn't take much effort to match the two and make a conclusion.
Considering the massacre, it was pretty explicitly mentioned that, according to Kiev, there were 7 confirmed murders.
Still have no idea where Korsun with the mentioned massacre is situated. The source, please.
"Same as Nikolai II's heirs are still the legal rulers of Russia." Nicolai II abdicated 15-Mar-1917 to his brother who refused the throne. A perfectly valid and legal move.
There you go:
http://ukraine-human-rights.org/enc/informations/murder/
And what official ukrainian side says about it:http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/debunking-the-kremlin-myth-about-the-korsun-pogrom-video-383832.html
Sarmatian
04-18-2015, 19:16
1. You don't seem to trust Putin in his claims yourself yet you call them "facts". WTF i.e. what the fact?
I tend to distrust politicians as a rule. Putin's no exception.
The facts I'm mentioning is what is shown in the documentary. I'm not discussing what really happened, only what documentary said.
2. Where did I twist them? Here are "the facts":
Putin admitted that the operation started on a certain date. Period. According to all available timelines Yanukovych was still unimpeached on that date. Period. It doesn't take much effort to match the two and make a conclusion.
You said Putin started an operation to annex Crimea on 22nd while Yanukovich was still in power. According to you, he said that in the documentary. That is not true.
1) He said that Russia must ensure Crimeans decide their own fate, whatever that is, in peace and safety
2) He said it on the 23rd
3) Yanukovich was no longer in power.
Still have no idea where Korsun with the mentioned massacre is situated. The source, please.
The only thing I know about it is what I heard from the documentary and the link Brenus provided. There are very little sources about it. It's like it's been ignored on purpose. There's not even the usual "according to unverified sources from Russia and Crimea, an incident supposedly took place... blah, blah, blah...". Very weird.
Korsun is not really documented but https://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/10/burning-ukraines-protesters-alive/ is. So, not to brush aside too fast Putin's claim.
"in fact, this toponym doesn't belong to the Crimea"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Korsu%C5%84
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Korsun%E2%80%93Cherkassy_Pocket
Gilrandir
04-19-2015, 11:08
“s prove (or demonstrated) by “Well, I can't believe what I'm doing - trying to persuade others to watch a piece of Russian propaganda!”. Propaganda, not piece of evidence.
Yet you watch RT and somehow don't mind the propaganda there, so I don't see the reason of being so apprehensive to other propaganda pieces.
You said Putin started an operation to annex Crimea on 22nd while Yanukovich was still in power. According to you, he said that in the documentary. That is not true.
1) He said that Russia must ensure Crimeans decide their own fate, whatever that is, in peace and safety
2) He said it on the 23rd
3) Yanukovich was no longer in power.
Once again: Putin DECIDED on his Crimea operation on the night BETWEEN 22 and 23 (and proclaimed it on the 23) when Yanukovych was still the president.
But whatever the date might be, another confession of his is more important. Putin admitted that Russian regular troops were instrumental in the annexation, while before he at first gainsaid it, then he said his notorious phrase about Russian soldiers "behind the backs of the locals" (which you interpreted as metaphor) and a year later he spilt out the truth. So much for his gainsaying the presence of Russian troops in Donbas now.
There you go:
http://ukraine-human-rights.org/enc/informations/murder/
Did you watch it? I wonder what you as a specialist in manipulative techniques think of it.
"in fact, this toponym doesn't belong to the Crimea"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Korsu%C5%84
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Korsun%E2%80%93Cherkassy_Pocket
This is what we learn at school and the town is within an easy reach from my residence so I visited it once. There's a museum there dealing with the WWII.
Sarmatian
04-19-2015, 12:57
Once again: Putin DECIDED on his Crimea operation on the night BETWEEN 22 and 23 (and proclaimed it on the 23) when Yanukovych was still the president.
Are you talking about what you think happened in reality or what Putin said in the documentary? If you're talking about the former, you may be right, but if you're talking about the latter, that's not true.
But whatever the date might be, another confession of his is more important. Putin admitted that Russian regular troops were instrumental in the annexation, while before he at first gainsaid it, then he said his notorious phrase about Russian soldiers "behind the backs of the locals" (which you interpreted as metaphor) and a year later he spilt out the truth. So much for his gainsaying the presence of Russian troops in Donbas now.
Putin admitted that Russian troops already stationed in Crimea were used to maintain peace and security.
I never said those troops weren't Russian regulars, just that we couldn't know if they were and that "we've got their backs" doesn't necessarily mean literally boots on the ground.
I was actually always of the thought that those troops are either current or former Russian professionals, or, at the very least, locals backed by Moscow. I was also of the opinion that any of that wouldn't have been possible if the vast majority of the population wasn't in favour of it.
Even recent polls conducted by western agencies show over 80% of Crimeans support joining Russia.
Gilrandir
04-19-2015, 13:44
Are you talking about what you think happened in reality or what Putin said in the documentary? If you're talking about the former, you may be right, but if you're talking about the latter, that's not true.
It is 1.55-2.20 in the movie when Putin after his night conference with the top brass (on rescuing Yanukovych) at their parting in the morning of 23 at 7 a.m. told them that they would start working on returning the Crimea to Russia.
And as for troops, he admitted what he had been vehemently gainsaying for a year.
“Yet you watch RT” So? I watch BBC, France 24 and other Channels, all monuments of anti-Russian propaganda and dis/mis-informations. I apply for them the same treatment to each, a careful scepticism.
“somehow don't mind the propaganda” Who told you that? Do you have evidence of this? I am careful to put link from RT, and do it only when there are none from others sites.
“Did you watch it? I wonder what you as a specialist in manipulative techniques think of it.” I did, reason why I never linked it before.
Sarmatian
04-19-2015, 15:14
It is 1.55-2.20 in the movie when Putin after his night conference with the top brass (on rescuing Yanukovych) at their parting in the morning of 23 at 7 a.m. told them that they would start working on returning the Crimea to Russia.
And as for troops, he admitted what he had been vehemently gainsaying for a year.
I don't know if you had actually seen the entire documentary - that was a small part of a much longer conversation, but shown at the beginning for the WOW factor. That part of the conversation happens around halfway through the documentary where he goes about it at greater length and explains his position fully.
Gilrandir
04-20-2015, 13:54
I don't know if you had actually seen the entire documentary - that was a small part of a much longer conversation, but shown at the beginning for the WOW factor. That part of the conversation happens around halfway through the documentary where he goes about it at greater length and explains his position fully.
I watched the whole of it. He said what he said whatever may follow or whatever effect it was meant to produce. The fact holds: at 7 a.m. February 23 he proclaimed he "was bringing the Crimea home" on which he decided the night before. And you said I was lying. Your reading of his words again smacks of weaseling out you had applied interpreting his "soldiers' backs" phrase although you seem to dislike that tactics so much.
Sarmatian
04-20-2015, 16:38
I watched the whole of it. He said what he said whatever may follow or whatever effect it was meant to produce. The fact holds: at 7 a.m. February 23 he proclaimed he "was bringing the Crimea home" on which he decided the night before. And you said I was lying. Your reading of his words again smacks of weaseling out you had applied interpreting his "soldiers' backs" phrase although you seem to dislike that tactics so much.
You are lying. I'm just not sure if you're doing it on purpose or if you aren't fully aware of it.
Transcript from 1:50 to 3:12 (Putin speaking continuously)
"At 7am, (February 23rd) I've told to my 4 associates: The situation in Ukraine has turned out in such a way that we are forced to begin work on returning Crimea to Russia. Because we can not let the territory and the people there adrift under steamroller of nationalists. And I have set certain tasks and outlined what needs to be done and how. And I have to stress right away, that we would only do it in case that we are absolutely certain that people that live in Crimea want it themselves. We had to give a chance for people to express their opinion. That was our goal, frankly speaking. I thought to myself, that if people want it, so be it. They would have certain additional rights, wider autonomy, but within Ukraine. So be it than. But if they want to go the other way, we can not let them down."
Gilrandir
04-21-2015, 15:32
You are lying. I'm just not sure if you're doing it on purpose or if you aren't fully aware of it.
Transcript from 1:50 to 3:12 (Putin speaking continuously)
"At 7am, (February 23rd) I've told to my 4 associates: The situation in Ukraine has turned out in such a way that we are forced to begin work on returning Crimea to Russia. Because we can not let the territory and the people there adrift under steamroller of nationalists. And I have set certain tasks and outlined what needs to be done and how. And I have to stress right away, that we would only do it in case that we are absolutely certain that people that live in Crimea want it themselves. We had to give a chance for people to express their opinion. That was our goal, frankly speaking. I thought to myself, that if people want it, so be it. They would have certain additional rights, wider autonomy, but within Ukraine. So be it than. But if they want to go the other way, we can not let them down."
Where am I lying?
Seamus Fermanagh
04-21-2015, 18:09
I need an update on the date and Putin's status regarding fascism please.
Sarmatian
04-21-2015, 18:15
Where am I lying?
You're taking a part of a larger speech and fixating on it, completely ignoring the rest where it is more clearly explained. In this case, Putin explained that he set certain tasks and outlined what needs to be done in case people who live in Crimea want it themselves.
A different, more neutral example for you - EU says: We will help Greece financially. But, only if Greece accepts difficult reforms and extraordinary austerity measures. If you look at everything that's been said, it's clear that EU will give Greece monetary aid if Greece agrees to the conditions. If you choose to ignore the second sentence, it would mean the EU will help Greece without any additional conditions.
That's why it is important to take everything that's been said into account. If you pick only one sentence you like and ignore the rest, you'll get a distorted picture.
This explanation was in case that you b) weren't fully aware of it. In case of a) you're doing it on purpose, there's not much I can do.
"Where am I lying?" You bolt it and underlined it and then forget the "that we would only do it in case that we are absolutely certain that people that live in Crimea want it themselves." So Putin didn't launch the operation that day or date as you claimed, in: "Once again: Putin DECIDED on his Crimea operation on the night BETWEEN 22 and 23", but assessed (rightly) how the situation turned against Russia. So no "returning Crimea to motherland", but more kind of "it is turning nasty and we might will have to do something about it", according to the document (I watched only half of it at the moment, it is heavy staff).
Can't stop to laugh.
http://newcoldwar.org/top-polish-military-advisor-completely-withdraws-his-support-of-ukraine-govt/
Sarmatian
04-22-2015, 07:12
Can't stop to laugh.
http://newcoldwar.org/top-polish-military-advisor-completely-withdraws-his-support-of-ukraine-govt/
Pathetic.
I understand that it is difficult to create nation after you've created a state, but venerating Nazi collaborators and henchmen is never a good way to start.
Gilrandir
04-22-2015, 10:29
You're taking a part of a larger speech and fixating on it, completely ignoring the rest where it is more clearly explained. In this case, Putin explained that he set certain tasks and outlined what needs to be done in case people who live in Crimea want it themselves.
This explanation was in case that you b) weren't fully aware of it. In case of a) you're doing it on purpose, there's not much I can do.
This is weaseling out, the same as with "Russian soldiers' backs". We heard Putin say crystall clear about his 7 a.m. decision. It means that he has been brooding on it for quite a time. Or do you think he had this idea at 6.59? It makes me laugh when you claim that Putin was ready to start annexation ONLY IF THE PEOPLE OF THE CRIMEA WANTED IT. This is what I agree with:
https://russianavos.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/the-truthful-lie-behind-putins-crimea-admission/
Note the words of Girkin when he claimed that:
1. He was in the Crimea as early as February 21. Judging from what he has been doing in Slovyansk (where he by his another admission tried to emulate his Crimea blitzkrieg) he was there not to renovate antique bronze vessels. Evidently he was on a particular mission and as he was there on February 21, all Putin's babblings about asking what the Crimeans think are ridiculous.
2. He literally "goaded" Crimean deputies in to vote neccessary ordinances. A good way to discover what the Crimeans think.
Thus, Putin was bent on annexation long before the morning of 23. But even if he decided on it then, Yanukovych was still the president. Rescuing the president with one hand and starting the annexation with another hand is what Putin was doing. And then he (in the movie) confirmed it and Girkin's evidence corroborated it.
I understand that it is difficult to create nation after you've created a state, but venerating Nazi collaborators and henchmen is never a good way to start.
As I have said, at Nurnberg trial UPA was never mentioned as a collaborator.
But even if it had been one, EVERYBODY (starting from Western nations in Munich 1938 and including Soviet army dividing Poland with the Gemany and celebrating it with the Brest parade in 1939) was a collaborator. Why then should we venerate Great Britain and the USSR (now succedded by Russia) as winners? Everyone had his hands dirty in the war.
Sarmatian
04-22-2015, 13:35
This is weaseling out
Nope. You're now trying to switch the discussion to what you think happened in reality, which is not what we were talking about about. We were talking about what Putin said in the documentary.
It was an honest mistake, could have happened to anyone, but instead of owning up to it and moving on, you're using misdirection to try and steer the conversation in a different direction.
As I have said, at Nurnberg trial UPA was never mentioned as a collaborator.
But even if it had been one, EVERYBODY (starting from Western nations in Munich 1938 and including Soviet army dividing Poland with the Gemany and celebrating it with the Brest parade in 1939) was a collaborator. Why then should we venerate Great Britain and the USSR (now succedded by Russia) as winners? Everyone had his hands dirty in the war.
Kudos, then. Have fun celebrating UPA and Bandera. That's a great basis to build a free, democratic country on top of.
Gilrandir
04-22-2015, 16:51
Nope. You're now trying to switch the discussion to what you think happened in reality, which is not what we were talking about about. We were talking about what Putin said in the documentary.
It was an honest mistake, could have happened to anyone, but instead of owning up to it and moving on, you're using misdirection to try and steer the conversation in a different direction.
I may as well say it all of your standpoint and understaning of Putin's confessions. The only way to determine who is right is to put Putin on trial in the Hague. The court may eventually pass a verdict that will solve our dispute.
Kudos, then. Have fun celebrating UPA and Bandera. That's a great basis to build a free, democratic country on top of.
For me they are too controversial figures to celebrate, yet they did their bit in eventually fighting nazis. But you choose to forget that similar movements branded by Soviet propaganda as collaborators were "celebrated" in the Baltic states or in Croatia and their countries are free and democratic.
Sarmatian
04-22-2015, 17:29
I may as well say it all of your standpoint and understaning of Putin's confessions. The only way to determine who is right is to put Putin on trial in the Hague. The court may eventually pass a verdict that will solve our dispute.
You may very well be right about Putin's motives in reality. But, you were wrong about what he said in the documentary. That's what we've been discussed.
For me they are too controversial figures to celebrate, yet they did their bit in eventually fighting nazis. But you choose to forget that similar movements branded by Soviet propaganda as collaborators were "celebrated" in the Baltic states or in Croatia.
And I already said that the general behavior of Baltic states after they got their independence was appalling, and Croatia still can't differentiate nazis and patriots.
Not the crowd you wanna be in in this instance.
Or maybe you aren't making a moral argument, but are trying to say "they got away with it"?
CrossLOPER
04-22-2015, 18:00
Or maybe you aren't making a moral argument, but are trying to say "they got away with it"?
This is really the aspect of patriotism that always bothered me and why I never bought into it. It always devolves into blind faith and couples either with revisionism or willful ignorance.
Gilrandir
04-23-2015, 14:21
You may very well be right about Putin's motives in reality. But, you were wrong about what he said in the documentary. That's what we've been discussed.
I don't think you can make me (and others) fail to hear what was said in the movie.
And I already said that the general behavior of Baltic states after they got their independence was appalling, and Croatia still can't differentiate nazis and patriots.
Not the crowd you wanna be in in this instance.
Or maybe you aren't making a moral argument, but are trying to say "they got away with it"?
Yet these countries are democratic and free, aren't they?
I think the majority of Ukrainians would like to have such a country as Lithuania, for example.
And the borderline between nazis, nationalists and patriots is arbitrary.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-23-2015, 16:03
IYet these countries are democratic and free, aren't they?
I think the majority of Ukrainians would like to have such a country as Lithuania, for example.
And the borderline between nazis, nationalists and patriots is arbitrary.
For a given value of "Democratic and Free" which is to say "still very corrupt" but then corruption and graft is common to all post-Communist states, probably because that was the only way to better yourself, given that Communism doesn't reward you for working harder than anyone else.
Sarmatian
04-23-2015, 16:45
I don't think you can make me (and others) fail to hear what was said in the movie.
I will have sex with you. If you pay me.
You may be in a whole lot of trouble if you focus on the first part and ignore everything else that you heard. But, that's your problem, not mine.
Yet these countries are democratic and free, aren't they?
I think the majority of Ukrainians would like to have such a country as Lithuania, for example.
And the borderline between nazis, nationalists and patriots is arbitrary.
I wouldn't say. If a country doesn't allow 30% of its population to vote, is it democratic? If a country purposefully ignores crimes committed against a portion of its population, is it democratic? If a country performs an ethnic cleansing, is it democratic? It's not a point of view for me.
Also, difference between nazis, nationalists and patriots isn't arbitrary. Maybe the fact that you think it is, is the real reason why we're having this never ending discussion.
Gilrandir
04-23-2015, 16:47
For a given value of "Democratic and Free" which is to say "still very corrupt" but then corruption and graft is common to all post-Communist states, probably because that was the only way to better yourself, given that Communism doesn't reward you for working harder than anyone else.
It would be more accurate to say that corruption WAS common to the said states. Now some of them (e.g. Baltic ones or central European ones) have made a great progress and could boast of a low level of it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-24-2015, 01:14
It would be more accurate to say that corruption WAS common to the said states. Now some of them (e.g. Baltic ones or central European ones) have made a great progress and could boast of a low level of it.
Again, given value of "low level", compared to the UK, Germany or Scandinavia they still have high corruption. You're basically right though, things there are getting better.
"And the borderline between nazis, nationalists and patriots is arbitrary" It is what you think and it explains a lot... Thanks.
Again you are mixing-up things and notions: Nazism and Nationalism are Ideologies based on political agenda, as Communism, Socialism or Anarchism.
Patriotism is an attitude towards a country.
So, no, patriots defending their countries is nothing in common with aggressive "genocidors", rapists, looters, slavers and racists Nazi lunatics. Nationalist are few degree under Nazi, but can have similar tendency to kill as in Franco Spain. However, their hate is more about classes than races. They will still shoot to unionists and throw them from helicopters if needed.
I doesn't means that Nazi and Fascist won't defend their country from attack they provoked by their behaviour mind you, so they can abusively claimed to be patriots.
"Yet these countries are democratic and free, aren't they?" Not if you are Gypsy or Serb. Hungarian, err, not that much either, for Croatia. I can tell for others as I never put a foot there, and to be fair, not that much interested.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-25-2015, 01:38
"Same as Nikolai II's heirs are still the legal rulers of Russia." Nicolai II abdicated 15-Mar-1917 to his brother who refused the throne. A perfectly valid and legal move.
There you go:
http://ukraine-human-rights.org/enc/informations/murder/
And what official ukrainian side says about it:http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/debunking-the-kremlin-myth-about-the-korsun-pogrom-video-383832.html
Point of Order - one cannot perform any "legal" move under duress, and Nicholas II was facing rebellion and threats to his life, so he was under duress.
"Point of Order - one cannot perform any "legal" move under duress, and Nicholas II was facing rebellion and threats to his life, so he was under duress."
Point of Order: All legal moves are done under duress, i.e. home repossession, debts collection, jail sentences etc. So, the legality (and the duress of it) of an action is defined by the law. Nicolas not being able to have his train moved and his troops shooting at the rebellious plebe made a legal move, gave the Crown to his brother. He was not under duress, but just saw his own failure and tried to solve it. Or are you suggesting that his brother threatened him?
Gilrandir
04-25-2015, 15:10
I will have sex with you. If you pay me.
You may be in a whole lot of trouble if you focus on the first part and ignore everything else that you heard. But, that's your problem, not mine.
I would read it "You are not against having sex with me on a certain condition" from which one can infer that "we can somehow start bargaining". Am I to call a starting offer? Conclusion: even if we focus on both, there's a bunch of readings.
But if we stay on topic: you have once showed the ability to read Putin's words (soldiers' backs, remember?) and you failed, which at first was indicated by BBC and later (in the documentary) by Putin himself. Now, I'm afraid, it is just the same. Keep ignoring what you like and see only what you choose. This is the reason we are having this endless discussion.
Try to interpret this one by Putin:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11480864/Vladimir-Putin-praises-Russian-patriotism-and-claims-Ukrainians-and-Russians-are-one.html
I wouldn't say. If a country doesn't allow 30% of its population to vote, is it democratic? If a country purposefully ignores crimes committed against a portion of its population, is it democratic? If a country performs an ethnic cleansing, is it democratic? It's not a point of view for me.
No country is a PERFECT democracy, but existing shortcomings don't cancel the general assessment. Moreover, at some historic period NO country was democratic. So adopting your diachronic standpoint, there are no democracies in the world. Viewing them synchronically, they are as democratic as you like.
Also, difference between nazis, nationalists and patriots isn't arbitrary. Maybe the fact that you think it is, is the real reason why we're having this never ending discussion.
The three abstract notions form categories. According to L. Wittgenstein and E. Rosch, categories (especially those including abstract notions) have fuzzy ends and may overlap. Brenus, evidently, is of the same opinion (see # 630).
Again, given value of "low level", compared to the UK, Germany or Scandinavia they still have high corruption.
I believe Estonia and Lithuania are not much different from those you named. I'm sure HAX can give his take on Estonia, at least.
"And the borderline between nazis, nationalists and patriots is arbitrary" It is what you think and it explains a lot... Thanks.
Again you are mixing-up things and notions: Nazism and Nationalism are Ideologies based on political agenda, as Communism, Socialism or Anarchism.
Patriotism is an attitude towards a country.
So, no, patriots defending their countries is nothing in common with aggressive "genocidors", rapists, looters, slavers and racists Nazi lunatics. Nationalist are few degree under Nazi, but can have similar tendency to kill as in Franco Spain. However, their hate is more about classes than races. They will still shoot to unionists and throw them from helicopters if needed.
I doesn't means that Nazi and Fascist won't defend their country from attack they provoked by their behaviour mind you, so they can abusively claimed to be patriots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism, in which
Patriotism is, generally speaking, cultural attachment to one's homeland or devotion to one's country, although interpretations of the term vary with context, geography and political ideology. It is a set of concepts closely related to those of nationalism.....
The Patriotism Score tables here are from the World Values Survey and refer to the average answer "for high income residents" of a country to the question "Are you proud to be [insert nationality]?".
Your interpretation varies from the conventional. Evidently, nationality is as important (for patriotism) as the country one lives in.
Point of Order: All legal moves are done under duress, i.e. home repossession, debts collection, jail sentences etc.
Yet they are "done" by law enforcement bodies which are legally empowered to "do" them. In Nicholas II's issue not such bodies put him under duress, thus it was illegal duress, consequently, a crime.
Sarmatian
04-25-2015, 17:32
But if we stay on topic: you have once showed the ability to read Putin's words (soldiers' backs, remember?) and you failed, which at first was indicated by BBC and later (in the documentary) by Putin himself. Now, I'm afraid, it is just the same. Keep ignoring what you like and see only what you choose. This is the reason we are having this endless discussion.
No, I explained to you that "getting someone's back" doesn't have to have literal meaning.
But, for the sake of the discussion, let's pretend I said what you're trying to infer I said - So what? I was wrong, is that your point? You were wrong in one of your first posts in the backroom (German planes bombing Norway from USSR airfield during WW2). Why are you still posting anything remotely related to history when you were wrong?
Conclusion: you're wrong again.
Try to interpret this one by Putin:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11480864/Vladimir-Putin-praises-Russian-patriotism-and-claims-Ukrainians-and-Russians-are-one.html
It obviously means he wants to annex entire Ukraine, but I'm not worried so much about him. This is the real threat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=906tA1W0QWs
Global Nurses United say that we are all one people, all of us in the world. Russia and the West must make peace immediately to prepare for the imminent nurse invasion.
No country is a PERFECT democracy, but existing shortcomings don't cancel the general assessment. Moreover, at some historic period NO country was democratic. So adopting your diachronic standpoint, there are no democracies in the world. Viewing them synchronically, they are as democratic as you like.
That no country is a PERFECT democracy is not a proof that all countries are equal in how democratic they are. There are small issues, and there is refusing to allow a third of the population to vote.
“Try to interpret this one by Putin:” You don’t know to read? Putin is a nationalist, much closer to your positions and political views than mine. In fact, he should be a role model for all nationalists.
“especially those including abstract notions” What are the abstract notions in Nazism? Killing, invading, slavering, raping? In can give you nationalism and patriotism if you want, but Nazism is not a abstract notion, it is a political agenda that had, I repeat, had, an implementation.
“although interpretations of the term vary with context”. You forgot to bold this part. See, that is your problem you read only what you want, same with Putin documentary, so you lost the full significance…
“Yet they are "done" by law enforcement bodies which are legally empowered to "do" them. In Nicholas II's issue not such bodies put him under duress, thus it was illegal duress, consequently, a crime.” Interesting.
So was Nicolas owner of Russia when he abdicated (owner is what an Autocrat is)? If yes, he is the law, so his decision can’t be illegal. If he is not, the decision is not illegal as no law is enforced at this particular moment… As he gave the Throne to his brother, it looks like he was still the Czar Autocrat, so his word is law, So his decision is legal.
Gilrandir
04-26-2015, 13:01
No, I explained to you that "getting someone's back" doesn't have to have literal meaning.
But, for the sake of the discussion, let's pretend I said what you're trying to infer I said - So what? I was wrong, is that your point? You were wrong in one of your first posts in the backroom (German planes bombing Norway from USSR airfield during WW2). Why are you still posting anything remotely related to history when you were wrong?
If you possess so retentive a memory, you should remember that I noted that I only dabble in history and my interests lie long before WWII. And in fact, it was the British documentary that was wrong, so my fault could be said to have been overtrustful to British documentaries. While what I term as a mistake of yours is solely based on your interpretation of events.
So, claiming that I'm wrong because you think I am is arbitrary. We both heard what Putin said and each of us has a different understanding of his words. Let's enjoy the difference. I can only hope that you won't use the favorite argument of Brenus - "you just don't understand".
That no country is a PERFECT democracy is not a proof that all countries are equal in how democratic they are. There are small issues, and there is refusing to allow a third of the population to vote.
Once again the theory of prototypes steps in - some countries (synchronically) are prototypically democratic, others are further from the paragon, yet all of them (synchronycally) stay within the category of "democratic countries", thus are democratic in different degree.
“Try to interpret this one by Putin:” You don’t know to read? Putin is a nationalist, much closer to your positions and political views than mine. In fact, he should be a role model for all nationalists.
It has become a habit of yours (and some others) to term me as a nationalist, while my views don't tick the boxes one needs. I'm fully aware of the shortcomings of my compatriots and readily admit them, I never express any bias against other nationalities (in fact I welcome them getting state positions in the Ukrainian government), I never voted for (and don't like) Svoboda or Right Sector. It is true, I have a bone to pick with Putin and contemporary Russia he had built, yet I don't have any hatred towards Russians (my aunt lives in Russia), I rather consider them deeply erring and zombiefied people, and the Huylo can claim credit for making two closely related nations into enemies:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/05/world/europe/russia-news-anchor-resigns/
So, where can you see nationalism? I'm more concerned about my country which qualifies for patriotism, in your definition.
“especially those including abstract notions” What are the abstract notions in Nazism? Killing, invading, slavering, raping? In can give you nationalism and patriotism if you want, but Nazism is not a abstract notion, it is a political agenda that had, I repeat, had, an implementation.
Nouns in English are divided into several categories one of which opposes abstract and concrete ones. Concrete nouns signify tangible referents (table, face, apple) while abstact signify intangible entities (love, idea, contents, nihilism). Lingustically, nazism belongs to the latter.
See, that is your problem you read only what you want,
This can be said of any person (including you) here or elsewhere - people tend to drag their attitudes and beliefs into interpretation of facts. But we have had this out already - the funnel/filter model, remember?
same with Putin documentary, so you lost the full significance…
Finally! I have my favorite and ultimate argument of yours - "you just don't understand".
So was Nicolas owner of Russia when he abdicated (owner is what an Autocrat is)? If yes, he is the law, so his decision can’t be illegal.
I don't know the legal system of Russia back then, so not to upset Sarmatian let's pretend he was the law. Yet the duress under which he adopted the decision was not HIS, but outside power's. So the duress wasn't legal.
"So the duress wasn't legal.":laugh4: He was loosing a war...
"you just don't understand". Oh, you do understand. You just choose to cut short with the truth.. In this case, it is me to be nice with you, the other option is you being short with truth or ignoring the truth.
"This can be said of any person (including you) here or elsewhere" True, but when you come to debate with others, don't expect others not to notice...
"Nouns in English are divided into several categories one of which opposes abstract and concrete ones. Concrete nouns signify tangible referents (table, face, apple) while abstact signify intangible entities (love, idea, contents, nihilism). Lingustically, nazism belongs to the latter." ? What is your point? I took it from the definition you proposed. You are the one putting Nazism in the same category than Patriotism and Nationalism, pretending the difference was arbitrary...
Gilrandir
04-27-2015, 15:54
"So the duress wasn't legal.":laugh4: He was loosing a war...
So? Is it legal to put a ruler under duress if he is losing a war? Are there any other exceptions to the duress rule?
"you just don't understand". Oh, you do understand. You just choose to cut short with the truth.. In this case, it is me to be nice with you, the other option is you being short with truth or ignoring the truth.
The problem is that what you consider the truth is not what I do. I gave reasons why I believe my (literal) reading of Putin's words is correct.
"Nouns in English are divided into several categories one of which opposes abstract and concrete ones. Concrete nouns signify tangible referents (table, face, apple) while abstact signify intangible entities (love, idea, contents, nihilism). Lingustically, nazism belongs to the latter." ? What is your point? I took it from the definition you proposed. You are the one putting Nazism in the same category than Patriotism and Nationalism, pretending the difference was arbitrary...
I have explained it, but OK, once more:
Categories are not independent conceptual phenomena. While having quite distinct nuclei they may overlap at fuzzy ends. It happens because entities that are included into Category 1 share some features with the entities of Category 2. For example, prototypical mammals (say, the wolf) and fish (say, the pike) are easy to place into respective categories. But it is not so easy to do with the whale. Thus whale is situated in the periphery of the Mammals category where it overlaps with the Fish category.
Evidently, the three categories in question (nazism, nationalism, patriotism) overlap quite significantly, which let me conclude that the borderline between them is sometimes hard to define. If you are interested, we together (to avoid any accusations of bias) may proceed to analyze these words disintegrating their meanings into semes to see how different (or similar) they are.
Gilrandir
04-27-2015, 16:34
Even Finland is awake to the threat from the East:
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150427/1021425208.html
And the EU on Ukraine:
http://www.eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2014/140612_01_en.pdf
"So? Is it legal to put a ruler under duress if he is losing a war? Are there any other exceptions to the duress rule?" Ask the Germans who put him in this situation... But defeating an enemy is not illegal...
"The problem is that what you consider the truth is not what I do" I used truth instead of facts, my mistake.
"Evidently, the three categories in question (nazism, nationalism, patriotism) overlap quite significantly" Agree, but same with Communism, Socialism, Anarchism (not really sure of this one) or others political ideologies. Over, the ideologies themselves differ drastically, i.e. Nazism and Communism or Nationalism and Anarchism.
"I gave reasons why I believe my (literal) reading of Putin's words is correct." Yes you did, but it is like the believers picking and choosing within the Holly Book what goes with their beliefs, forgetting the second part of the sentence. I can probably find a sentence where Hitler said it will peace. If you cut it off of the rest saying after he will have conquer all the Asiatics and kill of the Jews, you can conclude that Mr Hitler was a man of peace.
Gilrandir
04-28-2015, 08:50
Over, the ideologies themselves differ drastically, i.e. Nazism and Communism or Nationalism and Anarchism.
I don't think it is true of nazism and communism. Both ideologies promise heaven on Earth and both claim it is not yet attainable because some people are in the way. The difference is in those people - nazism blames (certain) nations, communism - (certain) social classes.
And anarchism, in my view, stands somewhat apart, since it is grounded not on the concept of a promise, but on denial (any authority).
"I gave reasons why I believe my (literal) reading of Putin's words is correct." Yes you did, but it is like the believers picking and choosing within the Holly Book what goes with their beliefs, forgetting the second part of the sentence.
I hope it is not equating Putin's produce with the Scripture.
But as I have once remarked, Bible is the most ungrateful source if it comes to proving or disproving anything. Too controversial and full of mutually excluding premises.
Gilrandir
04-28-2015, 09:04
Yo, Brits, in search of allies Putin goes south:
http://au.ibtimes.com/putin-signs-anti-uk-military-pact-argentina-falklands-dispute-may-get-complex-russia-steps-support#.VT6UL-cm7hM.twitter
Says a lot about Argentina.
Greyblades
04-28-2015, 15:18
Well, good to see that the button to start WW3 is now in the hands of argentina.
Seriously though, I see this as the final nail in the coffin for the idea of an argentine falklands; the USA might be able to get away with not helping its ally against a mere latin american junta noone likes, but the russian bear? No, this seals it.
Shaka_Khan
04-28-2015, 15:41
I've never been to Argentina. The way that certain Argentinians treated the Top Gear guys and the way the other Argentinians treated Cal Crutchlow are very different. Makes me wonder if Argentina would start it with the Falklands.
Sarmatian
04-28-2015, 15:53
Journalism now is indeed a joke.
A bombastic title: Putin Signs Anti-UK Military Pact With Argentina
... and then, in the article itself: Russia supports Argentina's striving for direct talks with Britain to achieve prompt resolution to the Malvinas Islands dispute.
Greyblades
04-28-2015, 15:54
Journalism now is indeed a joke.
A bombastic title: Putin Signs Anti-UK Military Pact With Argentina
... and then, in the article itself: Russia supports Argentina's striving for direct talks with Britain to achieve prompt resolution to the Malvinas Islands dispute.
...ah, I slipped, now I feel dumb, must do better.
It's actually somewhat concerning how ready I was to believe it that.
This is unfortunately Argentina's "discussion" on the issue of Falklands from my point of view.
Argentina: "Give us Islas Malvinas, imperialistic scum!"
Britain: "Mh, our colonies have the right to self-determination, what do you say, Falklanders?"
Falkland: "No thanks, we like being British, Britannia rules the seas!"
Britain: "Well, this is awkward, don't want to be an independent country?"
Falkland: "Nope, we like it here."
Britain: "Sorry Argentina, we had a referendum, they overly whelmingly want to remain British. I tell you what though, we will make them independent in all but name, we will work on some co-operation plans about the area, and lets things carry on well."
Argentina: "FFFFF-U Britainnia! Imperialistic scum bag, you own part of Argentina, it is OURS, I tell you, OURS!!!"
Britain: "Err... calm down a little there, the people there have decided..."
Argentina: "THOSE PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS! Of course Brits will want to be Brits! It is Argentina land!"
*Argentina invades the Falklands, then gets its ass handed to it by Margaret Thatcher*
Britain: "Seriously... what the f- was that?, Argentina?"
Argentina: "Islas Malvinas is OURS!!! I will even write it in Constitution, we will scorn you forever, Britannia! Empire Scum!!"
*Now to the Modern Day*
Argentina: "Give us Islas Malvinas!! Scumbag"
Britain: "No"
Argentina: "Such imperialistic scumbag, you won't even discuss the issue! the issue where we say we want it and you give it us!"
Sarmatian
04-28-2015, 17:52
I don't really support the Argentine position (actually, to be perfectly frank, I don't care. Arguing about a few pieces of rock in the middle of nowhere... Is there something I'm missing? Gold? Oil?).
My point is that there's nothing about anti-UK military pack, or even a concerted diplomatic effort about it in the treaty or even in the article. It's just cheap sensationalism. It's too stupid to be even called propaganda.
"Supporting dialogue" is the oldest trick in the book when you want to not say anything. Like literally every country in the world supports direct dialogue of Belgrade and Pristina. Those who recognized Kosovo and those who didn't it. You can't go wrong with "supporting dialogue".
“The difference is in those people - nazism blames (certain) nations, communism - (certain) social classes.” That is true but not totally true. One ideology in based on racism and murder, conquest of vital space, and the idea that one race is superior, when the other is for equality and all men born equal. I speak of the ideology, not the implementation… To make a Nazi a killer, he just has to be a good Nazi. To make a Communist a killer, you have to pervert the ideology in the name of realism.
“I hope it is not equating Putin's produce with the Scripture.” :laugh4:l, no…
I don't really support the Argentine position (actually, to be perfectly frank, I don't care. Arguing about a few pieces of rock in the middle of nowhere... Is there something I'm missing? Gold? Oil?).
It was originally a distraction by Argentina's Military Junta due to really crap economical issues at home. The whole "let's distract the population and invade" somewhere mechanism. Since Falklands as you adequately described it as being "pieces of rock in the middle of no where" they thought it would be successful and the British would simply surrender the territory.
Well, they were wrong. Whilst as you described, no one really cared about the 'pieces of rock in middle of no where' except for the population of those rocks who are British. Britain tried to pawn them off, obviously not wanting the diplomatic trouble, but as they were British citizens, with a say, they voted to remain part of Britain. So like it or not, Argentina just attacked British citizens (though I believe it is dual-citizenship, afterall, they are independent all but in name, basically).
This is obviously made the Falklands a manner of pride and principle, and stopped a lot of the proposed 'co-operative agreements' with Argentina, especially as Argentina are steadfast in their position of "this is ours". This is also complicated that to spite the Falklands, they made it part of their constitution that the President has to press the claims of Argentina over the Falkland islands. This is why you keep hearing about it regularly, because the President has to do it by law.
Though, as for Oil, a few years ago, they did discover some large oil fields near the Falklands which haven't been touched yet and this has given a bigger imperative to press that claim.
Sarmatian
04-28-2015, 19:12
If the Argentinians acquire them in the future, I imagine their reaction would be something akin to...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eoy9PUR--E4
Gilrandir
04-29-2015, 16:14
This is unfortunately Argentina's "discussion" on the issue of Falklands from my point of view.
Argentina: "Give us Islas Malvinas, imperialistic scum!"
Britain: "Mh, our colonies have the right to self-determination, what do you say, Falklanders?"
Falkland: "No thanks, we like being British, Britannia rules the seas!"
Britain: "Well, this is awkward, don't want to be an independent country?"
Falkland: "Nope, we like it here."
Britain: "Sorry Argentina, we had a referendum, they overly whelmingly want to remain British. I tell you what though, we will make them independent in all but name, we will work on some co-operation plans about the area, and lets things carry on well."
Argentina: "FFFFF-U Britainnia! Imperialistic scum bag, you own part of Argentina, it is OURS, I tell you, OURS!!!"
Britain: "Err... calm down a little there, the people there have decided..."
Argentina: "THOSE PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS! Of course Brits will want to be Brits! It is Argentina land!"
*Argentina invades the Falklands, then gets its ass handed to it by Margaret Thatcher*
Britain: "Seriously... what the f- was that?, Argentina?"
Argentina: "Islas Malvinas is OURS!!! I will even write it in Constitution, we will scorn you forever, Britannia! Empire Scum!!"
*Now to the Modern Day*
Argentina: "Give us Islas Malvinas!! Scumbag"
Britain: "No"
Argentina: "Such imperialistic scumbag, you won't even discuss the issue! the issue where we say we want it and you give it us!"
This is all very witty, but it's a pity we don't have an Argentinian here to voice his take on the issue.
My point is that there's nothing about anti-UK military pack, or even a concerted diplomatic effort about it in the treaty or even in the article. It's just cheap sensationalism. It's too stupid to be even called propaganda.
I think one should not focus here on the propagandistic character of the article (which is obvious). It is the sense of it which is important.
Being largely ostracized elsewhere, Putin tries to find others who hold themselves wronged by G 7 members and pretend to form new alliances to see if that can make them nervous.
“The difference is in those people - nazism blames (certain) nations, communism - (certain) social classes.” That is true but not totally true. One ideology in based on racism and murder, conquest of vital space, and the idea that one race is superior, when the other is for equality and all men born equal. I speak of the ideology, not the implementation… To make a Nazi a killer, he just has to be a good Nazi. To make a Communist a killer, you have to pervert the ideology in the name of realism.
Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions.
But whatever ideology might be behind some practice, it is the latter that is to be evaluated in the first place.
Gilrandir
04-29-2015, 16:21
The SWIFT offensive has started?
http://rt.com/business/253649-crimea-payments-blocked-swift/
This is all very witty, but it's a pity we don't have an Argentinian here to voice his take on the issue.
Probably say "That is stereotypical of a British imperialist scumbag."
Gilrandir
04-29-2015, 16:44
Probably say "That is stereotypical of a British imperialist scumbag."
Unlike you, I don't humiliate people just for fun. To be impartial one should hear both sides of the story. Am I asking too much?
Sarmatian
04-29-2015, 17:00
No, but...
Let's face it, it's a couple of pieces of rock that Britain got during it's imperialist past and doesn't have any justification for keeping, but likewise, Argentina doesn't have any justification for demanding. They were uninhabited when Europeans discovered them.
In those situations, I tend to support what those who live there actually want, and they seem to want to stay with Britain.
Gilrandir
04-29-2015, 18:20
No, but...
Let's face it, it's a couple of pieces of rock that Britain got during it's imperialist past and doesn't have any justification for keeping, but likewise, Argentina doesn't have any justification for demanding. They were uninhabited when Europeans discovered them.
In those situations, I tend to support what those who live there actually want, and they seem to want to stay with Britain.
Did they ask local penguins and gannets? Their votes could have drastically changed the outcome of the referendum.
"They were uninhabited when Europeans discovered them." And not forgetting that the Spanish name of Malvinas comes from the French Malouines, coming itself from the inhabitants of St Malo, harbour from where the 1st fishermen (les malouins) coming from this town, having semi-permanent shelter for the fishing season... I don't remember really who lost it to whom and when, but it was a succession of owners, all becoming owner by war and conquest.
And to be fair, the inhabitants want to be English, and I don't see real reason why the island should be Argentinian, even I do not approve the vocabulary used by the English to speak about the Argentinians...
Gilrandir
04-29-2015, 18:30
And not forgetting that the Spanish name of Malvinas comes from the French Malouines, coming itself from the inhabitants of St Malo, harbour from where the 1st fishermen (les malouins) coming from this town, having semi-permanent shelter for the fishing season...
So France should announce them "historically French territory" send someone under the nickname of Le Streloque to raise hell there.
"Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions." Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf. Nazism is quite unique in this (well, excepted of course the main 3 monotheistic religions, and probably the polytheistic as well, but I am not sure of the last ones).
Gilrandir
04-29-2015, 18:35
There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf.
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
Sarmatian
04-29-2015, 21:13
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
Have you read either? They're not even remotely similar.
"Have you read either?" :laugh4: he obviously didn't. The Communist Manifesto is not a political platform, but a discussion about Communism...
Seamus Fermanagh
04-30-2015, 21:23
It is April 30th, 2015.
Is Putin still a fascist?
Sarmatian
04-30-2015, 21:25
It is April 30th, 2015.
Is Putin still a fascist?
I think he is misunderstood. He just wants to be loved, like all proper cartoon super villains.
Gilrandir
05-01-2015, 10:21
"Have you read either?" :laugh4: he obviously didn't. The Communist Manifesto is not a political platform, but a discussion about Communism...
Again jumping to conclusions :no:
I have STUDIED "Manifesto" at school and University.
The basic tenets I referred to:
Societies have always taken the form of an oppressed majority living under the thumb of an oppressive minority. In capitalism, the industrial working class, or proletariat, engage in class struggle against the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie. As before, this struggle will end in a revolution that restructures society, or the "common ruin of the contending classes".
The bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its labour power, creating profit for themselves accumulating capital. However by doing so the bourgeoisie "are its own grave-diggers"; the proletariat inevitably will become conscious of their own potential and rise to power through revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
"Proletarians and Communists", the second section, starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class. The communists' party will not oppose other working-class parties, but unlike them, it will express the general will and defend the common interests of the world's proletariat as a whole, independent of all nationalities.
These basic tenets were further elaborated and developed by Lenin and Stalin, so while communism can't claim that it has a single "Bible" (as nazism does) still its doctrines are expounded in a number of theoretical treatises.
It is true, though, I didn't read Mein Kampf. I know only general ideas expressed in it. Yet, the points I mentioned about communist ideology (exporting socialist revolution, superiority of one social group, annihilation of class enemies and their minions) may be said to be common for both sources and consequently ideologies.
Gilrandir
05-01-2015, 10:21
He just wants to be loved, like all proper cartoon super villains.
Loved or made love to?
“Yet, the points I mentioned about communist ideology (exporting socialist revolution, superiority of one social group, annihilation of class enemies and their minions) may be said to be common for both sources and consequently ideologies.”
Nope, it as comparing salad and carrot under the pretext there are both vegetables. Err, I think carrot is…
Well, export of socialist revolution has been in debate, Stalin vs Lenin, or Trotsky, but was not part of the ideology.
At that time, they were quite busy in keeping the Revolution alive.
The first official Communist Part is around the 1920, when the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, I think (too lazy to check). Not that the URSS didn’t took any advantage in its Foreign Policy to grab territories (i.e. Poland & Finland or after WW2) but unlike Nazism or Colonialism it is not a corner stone. You can’t be a Nazi without conquest, racism and brutality. You can be Communist. Communist ideology does not propose the superiority of one social group (this is more the Aristocratic/Conservative/Tories approach). It recognises a struggle between the (roughly) two classes and describe that the oppression couldn’t stop without struggle. As much I remember, the ideology never mentioned annihilation of class enemies, but the infamous dictatorship of the proletariat which will end when everyone will be equal… Yeah, I know… But there is no appeal to genocide as the Nazi ideology.
Gilrandir
05-02-2015, 12:38
Well, export of socialist revolution has been in debate, Stalin vs Lenin, or Trotsky, but was not part of the ideology.
You make claims which must be grouded on your more than cursory awareness of the communist ideology in its enirety. The latter is not limited to the Manifesto. It is the first (AFAIK), but not the last expounding (and interpretation) of it. As I have said, others of more practical set of mind developed the ideas of the Manifesto or introduced their own. So the idea of exporting revolution was introduced later into the ideology.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pearce/1958/08/export.htm
The first official Communist Part is around the 1920.
In name, perhaps. But not in essence. Bosheviks were steering by the ideology since about 1900 (too lazy to find the exact date) when their party was called RSDRP (b).
You can’t be a Nazi without conquest, racism and brutality.
Le Pen manages to thrive without the first and, by and large, without the third. There are civilized nazis now.
Communist ideology does not propose the superiority of one social group (this is more the Aristocratic/Conservative/Tories approach). It recognises a struggle between the (roughly) two classes and describe that the oppression couldn’t stop without struggle. As much I remember, the ideology never mentioned annihilation of class enemies, but the infamous dictatorship of the proletariat which will end when everyone will be equal…
Yeah, I know… But there is no appeal to genocide as the Nazi ideology.
To genocide - no. To classocide - yes.
https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=xxGttzFXqaYC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=lenin+annihilation+of+bourgeoisie+as+a+class&source=bl&ots=t1n4RwagKj&sig=YimhmRSO_hei_LIBhiIoIR62bCE&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=I7VEVaXGFqa6ygPDroHoBw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=lenin%20annihilation%20of%20bourgeoisie%20as%20a%20class&f=true
Page 116, the second sentence in the second paragraph, starting with "The bourgeoisie wouldbe removed as a class".
And other quotations by the classics:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/communists.html
“As I have said, others of more practical set of mind developed the ideas of the Manifesto or introduced their own.” Agree. However, your first proposition was to equal My Kampf and The Communist Manifesto. We could say easily that the Crusades (or the genocide/ethnocide in South America) were in the New Testament under the same description.
“In name, perhaps. But not in essence. Bosheviks were steering by the ideology since about 1900 (too lazy to find the exact date) when their party was called RSDRP (b).” In France, the separation between Socialism and Communist was in the Congrès of Tours in Dec 1920:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tours_Congress
“To genocide - no. To classocide - yes.” Not really the same thing no? The Aristocratic Class is forbidden in USA, doesn’t means they kill the UK Royal Family as soon they put a foot of the grounds of USA.
Nobility was abolished by Louis the XVI ins a (vain) attempt to stop the Revolution, and he didn’t kill the Aristocrats…
"The bourgeoisie would be removed as a class". See above. “As a Class”
And the 2nd link is even funnier (especially when you see the names of the authors of the sentences:laugh4:). I can probably (and probably some did) the same with all Regime and ideologies.
In the name of Christianity: Arnaul Amalric: “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His”
Capitalism: See all declaration about law f Market for Irish, Indian and others famines, or the right for nations to have colonies… Too long to do it myself, sorry, I started a new Inquisition character…
Islam: read the book…
Gilrandir
05-03-2015, 11:25
“As I have said, others of more practical set of mind developed the ideas of the Manifesto or introduced their own.” Agree. However, your first proposition was to equal My Kampf and The Communist Manifesto.
I equalled or pointed to similar tenets in the ideologies, each of which has its cornerstone books as a starting point.
“To genocide - no. To classocide - yes.” Not really the same thing no? The Aristocratic Class is forbidden in USA, doesn’t means they kill the UK Royal Family as soon they put a foot of the grounds of USA.
Nobility was abolished by Louis the XVI ins a (vain) attempt to stop the Revolution, and he didn’t kill the Aristocrats…
You don't see the difference between "abolish/forbid" and "removing as a class by political and socio-economic measures: confiscating their assests, putting them to socially-useful work, and applying punishment, up to the death penalty"? Did the USA and France use the same "measures"? In my opinion, they point to classocide.
“I equalled or pointed to similar tenets in the ideologies, each of which has its cornerstone books as a starting point.” No you didn’t. I said there is no equivalent Communists My Kampf. You created a link to a document written in 1848 as Political Platform for Parties that really started to exist in the 1920’s (kind of 60/70 years after mind you).
As the similarities, I really don’t see them, except artificially created, as all opponents (ill-informed ones) always do. You can probably find similarity between My Kampf and the Scouts as they are both like fire camps, boys and girls enjoying sports and outdoor activities…
“You don't see the difference between "abolish/forbid" and "removing as a class by political and socio-economic measures: confiscating their assests, putting them to socially-useful work, and applying punishment, up to the death penalty"? “ Where are these things you describe are contain in the Communist Manifesto?
It is just stating the evidence which is when a Class (or workers) are not anymore needed or are obsolete, they vanished. When I was a kid we had a blacksmith and a wooden shoes maker in the village. They disappeared when I was a teenager… No confiscation, no murder or others hardship measures, just the fact they were not anymore needed/adequate. So, in an all-equal society, the class “Bourgeoisie” having finished in it social role would just vanish.
“Did the USA and France use the same "measures"? In my opinion, they point to classocide.” Don’t know for USA (but I give you that the Class “Slave-owner” did disappear violently), in France it went like this: The “Etats Généraux” were made of three Chambers divided following St Augustin principles: The Nobility (the warriors), the Clergy (the Priests) and the Tiers Etat (the one who feed the 2 others). The French Assembly went for a representation by elections, so the 2 others classes did vanish.
If the King Louis the XVI would be smarter, it should have stay there.
Due to his lack of political finesse; the Kingdom was abolished and the 1st Republic proclaimed (well, not really but de facto), and all the civil wars and foreign wars that ended not in 1815, but for real at the proclamation of the III Republic (1871).
Gilrandir
05-04-2015, 12:11
“The difference is in those people - nazism blames (certain) nations, communism - (certain) social classes.” That is true but not totally true. One ideology in based on racism and murder, conquest of vital space, and the idea that one race is superior, when the other is for equality and all men born equal. I speak of the ideology, not the implementation…
Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions.
"Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions." Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf.
“As I have said, others of more practical set of mind developed the ideas of the Manifesto or introduced their own.” Agree. However, your first proposition was to equal My Kampf and The Communist Manifesto.
“I equalled or pointed to similar tenets in the ideologies, each of which has its cornerstone books as a starting point.” No you didn’t.
You really should do something with the memory or refer to the earlier posts.
As you can see, we started our discussion with IDEOLOGIES and only three posts later you brought up Mein Kampf. Thus comparing fundamental (foundational) treatises was done for highlighting/specifying the comparison of ideologies.
You can probably find similarity between My Kampf and the Scouts as they are both like fire camps, boys and girls enjoying sports and outdoor activities…
Flawed comparison. You can't compare a book and an organization. You may do it with Hitlerjugend and Scouts, if you wish.
“You don't see the difference between "abolish/forbid" and "removing as a class by political and socio-economic measures: confiscating their assests, putting them to socially-useful work, and applying punishment, up to the death penalty"? “ Where are these things you describe are contain in the Communist Manifesto?
As I have shown, they are basic tenets of communist IDEOLOGY. And we are still comparing ideologies.
It is just stating the evidence which is when a Class (or workers) are not anymore needed or are obsolete, they vanished. When I was a kid we had a blacksmith and a wooden shoes maker in the village. They disappeared when I was a teenager… No confiscation, no murder or others hardship measures, just the fact they were not anymore needed/adequate. So, in an all-equal society, the class “Bourgeoisie” having finished in it social role would just vanish.
Once again: communist ideology (as expounded by Lenin and Stalin) insists on annihilation of a social class by violent methods. It was not just "wait until they become extinct in the process of evolution" or "bereave them of their title and they are not nobility any more" (as your examples tend to show), but "confiscate their assests, put them to socially-useful work, and apply punishment, up to the death penalty". If it is not a call to eradicating a whole strata of population, try to replace "bourgeoisie" with "jews" and see if it works out to be a kind of ?-cide.
“Did the USA and France use the same "measures"? In my opinion, they point to classocide.” Don’t know for USA (but I give you that the Class “Slave-owner” did disappear violently), in France it went like this: The “Etats Généraux” were made of three Chambers divided following St Augustin principles: The Nobility (the warriors), the Clergy (the Priests) and the Tiers Etat (the one who feed the 2 others). The French Assembly went for a representation by elections, so the 2 others classes did vanish.
If the King Louis the XVI would be smarter, it should have stay there.
Due to his lack of political finesse; the Kingdom was abolished and the 1st Republic proclaimed (well, not really but de facto), and all the civil wars and foreign wars that ended not in 1815, but for real at the proclamation of the III Republic (1871).
Classes can't disappear after a decree was issued. A group of people was stopped to be CALLED in a certain way, but the PEOPLE didn't disappear. Communists wanted to send both the NAME and the PEOPLE into oblivion.
“As I have shown” You have shown nothing. I can give you it is difficult as there is no “Communist” My Kampf. You just can describe various episodes of the USRR and others in order to sustain your claim.
“communist IDEOLOGY” You are just plain wrong. What the Communist Manifesto is describing is a consequence, not a tool.
“Communists wanted to send both the NAME and the PEOPLE into oblivion.” Your readings of it (and Lenin and Stalin), not what the Communist Manifesto tells.
“communist ideology (as expounded by Lenin and Stalin)” Communist Ideology is not define by the two you named, who were as well dictators. So what is part of Dictatorship and Ideology? In Nazism, you don’t have the same problem as Nazism is Dictatorship.
“Flawed comparison. You can't compare a book and an organization. You may do it with Hitlerjugend and Scouts, if you wish.” Well, it is what you do, I just return the favour. You pretend because superficial similarities that Communist Ideology and Nazi Ideology are similar (I know, it is not what you are actually writing, but deeper we go in this exchange, it looks like it is the direction you are aiming to). So I choose an example to show you can do this to each organisation.
“You really should do something with the memory or refer to the earlier posts.” It is because you are a little bit chaotic, so I have to remind you of what you wrote. "Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions."
My answer to this was: “Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf. Nazism is quite unique in this (well, excepted of course the main 3 monotheistic religions, and probably the polytheistic as well, but I am not sure of the last ones).”
Note that you did cut the part on others violent and aggressive ideologies having much more in common with Nazism than Communism.
You still fail to define the Communist Ideology, as obviously to retract rightly from the idea of the Communist Manifesto could play this role. Just in France, the Anarchist movement produced a lot of literature and ideas about what Communism is/was about (i.e. Manifesto of the Equals (1796)). And the same can be said for the Socialist Movement and indeed the Communist Movement.
"Classes can't disappear after a decree was issued" Really? I just gave you an exemple when one, Nobility, just did.
Gilrandir
05-04-2015, 17:12
“As I have shown” You have shown nothing. I can give you it is difficult as there is no “Communist” My Kampf. You just can describe various episodes of the USRR and others in order to sustain your claim.
“communist IDEOLOGY” You are just plain wrong. What the Communist Manifesto is describing is a consequence, not a tool.
“Communists wanted to send both the NAME and the PEOPLE into oblivion.” Your readings of it (and Lenin and Stalin), not what the Communist Manifesto tells.
“communist ideology (as expounded by Lenin and Stalin)” Communist Ideology is not define by the two you named, who were as well dictators. So what is part of Dictatorship and Ideology? In Nazism, you don’t have the same problem as Nazism is Dictatorship.
“You really should do something with the memory or refer to the earlier posts.” It is because you are a little bit chaotic, so I have to remind you of what you wrote. "Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions."
My answer to this was: “Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf. Nazism is quite unique in this (well, excepted of course the main 3 monotheistic religions, and probably the polytheistic as well, but I am not sure of the last ones).”
Note that you did cut the part on others violent and aggressive ideologies having much more in common with Nazism than Communism.
You still fail to define the Communist Ideology, as obviously to retract rightly from the idea of the Communist Manifesto could play this role. Just in France, the Anarchist movement produced a lot of literature and ideas about what Communism is/was about (i.e. Manifesto of the Equals (1796)). And the same can be said for the Socialist Movement and indeed the Communist Movement.
Either you don't really understand (as you like to say) or you choose to pretend to.
My final word in this argument:
We started to compare IDEOLOGIES. Ideologies ARE NOT EXHAUSTED/LIMITED by the premises in the books we referred to since they (ideologies) encompass MORE IDEAS than those forwarded in the books (at least this is true for communism, since I don't know much of other basic treatises of nazism if there are any). The ideological background of communism (expounded in works by Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and perhaps others) contains at least some similar tenets (those that ultimately lead to gruesome consequences) to those expressed in Mein Kampf. Period.
"Classes can't disappear after a decree was issued" Really? I just gave you an exemple when one, Nobility, just did.
So all the nobles were killed? No. They STOPPED BEING CALLED nobles, but they lived on (at least those that were not executed). Just like slave-owners in America in 1865 stopped owning slaves, but lived on.
In the USSR the communist party (guiding itself by the basic tenets forwarded by Lenin and Stalin) started annihilating PEOPLE who were considered bourgeoisie. For example, during collectivisation rich peasants (Russian kulaki) who were included into "petty bourgeoisie" were exiled to Siberia with their families just because they were richer than others. If they expressed dissatisfaction they were proclaimed "people's enemies who resisted the dictatorship of the proletariat" and consequently executed. Those that obeyed very often died on the way or starved to death at their destination. It is very vividly described in Sholokhov's Virgin Soil Upturned and this is what I termed classocide.
Later this tactics (under similar accusation) was repeated to attempt genocide of Tatars or Volga Germans.
Gilrandir
05-06-2015, 14:51
Speaking of nazis and communists. Apparently I didn't watch the British documentary too carefully. But it appears that when I claimed that Germans in 1939-1940 used Murmansk airdfield to deploy their planes later used in bombing Norway it wasn't a wild shot. I was mistaken in the kind of troops and used rented facilities. It was a naval base near Murmansk that was placed at Gemany's disposal and evidently was instrumenal in conquering Norway.
https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=7cDN8q2RHGMC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=admiral+raeder+used++naval+base+murmansk&source=bl&ots=THN__RIqs2&sig=-6P7eECgVQ2BJX5x02uCLkZtEdg&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=4xlKVeu6FqHgywO11IGwDQ&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=admiral%20raeder%20used%20%20naval%20base%20murmansk&f=false
http://www.uboat.net/forums/read.php?3,28614,28676,quote=1
So basically I was right about close military cooperation between nazis and communists at the outset of WWII.
Sarmatian
05-06-2015, 17:09
So basically I was right about close military cooperation between nazis and communists at the outset of WWII.
No you were not.
Soviets were neutral in 1939-1940 and their ports were open. German (and French or British) ships could enter those ports. The particular importance of that particular port was that it was small and remote enough and that German ships could dock there and there was little chance they would spied upon or their ships sabotaged. They could have just as well docked in Murmansk or Leningrad...
That is not the proof of close military cooperation. The fact that Graf Spee docked in Montevideo doesn't mean the Germany and Uruguay had close military cooperation.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-07-2015, 00:15
No you were not.
Soviets were neutral in 1939-1940 and their ports were open. German (and French or British) ships could enter those ports. The particular importance of that particular port was that it was small and remote enough and that German ships could dock there and there was little chance they would spied upon or their ships sabotaged. They could have just as well docked in Murmansk or Leningrad...
That is not the proof of close military cooperation. The fact that Graf Spee docked in Montevideo doesn't mean the Germany and Uruguay had close military cooperation.
What about all the Red Army officers trained in Germany who were interred upon their return to the Motherland upon commencement of hostilities, or Hitler and Stalin's partitioning of Poland?
also, I'd like to point out that Brenus is incorrect, the Nobility still exist in France and, as far as I'm aware have furnished the majority of French Presidents.
Greyblades
05-07-2015, 01:28
Huh, I didnt know that.
I mean, I knew that the nobility didnt die out in teh revolution and there was a king or two after bonaparte, but I didnt think france still honoured thier titles.
"also, I'd like to point out that Brenus is incorrect": Nope. https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/367/
It is not a legal entity.
"but I didnt think france still honoured thier titles." France doesn't.
"I'm aware have furnished the majority of French Presidents." :laugh4:
Yes, you still have category claiming being part of Nobility, but it is not legal. I can write on my visit card if I had one I am the Count of what ever, no one can challenge or start legal proceeding as I am entitle to do so.
Sarmatian
05-07-2015, 10:57
What about all the Red Army officers trained in Germany who were interred upon their return to the Motherland upon commencement of hostilities
All serious military cooperation between Soviet Union and Germany died when Hitler came into power. There were some leftovers, like there usually are, military observers and such... but nothing beyond that. Also, Hitler actually was trying to increase the level of cooperation, to keep the ruse before invading, while Stalin believed him, to an extent that he won't open another front until England's been defeated.
Prior to Hitler coming to power, there was indeed serious military cooperation. Guderian saw first massive tank maneuvers in Soviet Union.
, or Hitler and Stalin's partitioning of Poland?
It is no secret that Stalin wanted to reclaim territories Russian Empire lost after ww1, but cooperation pact with Hitler was a way to buy time to prepare for the eventual war, which everybody knew was coming, even when they signed the NAP.
Worth noting is that NAP was signed after France and UK rebuffed Soviet overtures for an alliance against Nazi Germany. Litvinov was sacked as foreign minister, Molotov appointed when Stalin figured out that western allies weren't ready to commit to fight together against Hitler. He decided that a NAP with Germany would give SU more time to prepare for the inevitable war.
It's really a case of revisionism, where the goal is to equate Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. Most people unfortunately don't know enough to really discern the meaning of such statements -> there were German ships in Soviet Unions! Yeah, there were German ships in other neutral countries. There were Soviet officers in Germany! Yes, there were French and British officers also. There were Japanese officers in USA. It doesn't really mean anything, but, unless one is knowledgeable enough, it's a good propaganda effort.
Gilrandir
05-07-2015, 13:11
Soviets were neutral in 1939-1940 and their ports were open. German (and French or British) ships could enter those ports.
If you carefully read the linked part of the book (https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=7cDN8q2RHGMC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=admiral+raeder+used++naval+base+murmansk&source=bl&ots=THN__RIqs2&sig=-6P7eECgVQ2BJX5x02uCLkZtEdg&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=4xlKVeu6FqHgywO11IGwDQ&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=admiral%20raeder%20used%20%20naval%20base%20murmansk&f=false) you will note that it was not just "entering a port" but using it as a base (Basis Nord) and even enlisting the help of Soviet ice-breakers to evade British navy. For which later Raeder personally thanked Kuznetsov.
But the Basis Nord issue wasn't the only evidence of the cooperation (collaboration?) in question. I have already said about guiding German bombers unloading above Poland, intense conatcts between Gestapo and NKVD, parade in Brest and so on.
http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/the-soviet-story-edvins-snore-communism-communist-chic
The film shows footage of Russian and German military officers toasting each other, exchanging salutes at parties, and marching together in parades celebrating the conquest of Poland. When German bombers attacked Poland, radio towers in Minsk guided them; likewise, the Russian port of Murmansk served as the staging ground for the German invasion of Norway. The Soviet Union quickly became the largest supplier of resources for the Nazi war machine.
So the cooperation was more than what you would like to present.
"also, I'd like to point out that Brenus is incorrect":
It is not a legal entity.
Yes, you still have category claiming being part of Nobility, but it is not legal. I can write on my visit card if I had one I am the Count of what ever, no one can challenge or start legal proceeding as I am entitle to do so.
Illegal doesn't mean non-existent. Some/many Mexican immigrants in the USA are illegal. Do they not exist?
Social stratum can't be cancelled by laws. It is there as long as any representatives of it are alive and consider themselves as such. And it doesn't depend on the documents they have. There are still people who trace their origin from nobility of the past and thus hold themselves part of it even in such countries where decrees cancelling it were issued and/or modern state system has no place for them (Russia, Japan, Italy). Or some families of New England.
You might as well issue a decree that there is no such nationality as, for example, Jews, Tatars or Gypsies. Does it mean they will disappear?
Sarmatian
05-07-2015, 14:12
If you carefully read the linked part of the book (https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=7cDN8q2RHGMC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=admiral+raeder+used++naval+base+murmansk&source=bl&ots=THN__RIqs2&sig=-6P7eECgVQ2BJX5x02uCLkZtEdg&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=4xlKVeu6FqHgywO11IGwDQ&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=admiral%20raeder%20used%20%20naval%20base%20murmansk&f=false) you will note that it was not just "entering a port" but using it as a base (Basis Nord) and even enlisting the help of Soviet ice-breakers to evade British navy.
It is quite silly to assume that Soviet had a fully functioning, staffed port, that was encased in ice, and that icebreakers were sitting idly by, only activated to clear the ice for the Germans.
Like I said, if one doesn't approach such "reports" with a critical mind, he or she may end up with a distorted picture.
But the Basis Nord issue wasn't the only evidence of the cooperation (collaboration?) in question. I have already said about guiding German bombers unloading above Poland, intense conatcts between Gestapo and NKVD, parade in Brest and so on.
http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/the-soviet-story-edvins-snore-communism-communist-chic
So the cooperation was more than what you would like to present.
Any cooperation between Soviets and the Germans was (on the Soviet side) a desire to placate Hitler and buy time for modernization of industry and army for the inevitable war between the two countries. After being ignored by the most of Europe in a desire to create a common front against Hitler, they bought time by striking a deal, which included supplying raw materials but very little military cooperation.
The amount of trust was such that Stalin made an urgent order to move into Poland after seeing how fast Wehrmacht was advancing, to ensure Germans don't come into control of eastern Poland, which was supposed to go to the Soviets. It was such a dash that Soviet units moved with little fuel and little to no ammunition, just to get to the demarcation line before Germans.
As I've said - revisionism.
Gilrandir
05-07-2015, 14:32
Like I said, if one doesn't approach such "reports" with a critical mind, he or she may end up with a distorted picture.
If one approaches such reports with a distorted mind, I'm afraid the picture will be distorted as well.
The amount of trust was such that Stalin made an urgent order to move into Poland after seeing how fast Wehrmacht was advancing, to ensure Germans don't come into control of eastern Poland, which was supposed to go to the Soviets. It was such a dash that Soviet units moved with little fuel and little to no ammunition, just to get to the demarcation line before Germans.
You seem to know Stalin's mind better than anyone else. Let's remember that these are only your own assumptions.
As I've said - revisionism.
Everything that ruins a deeply entrenched picture is bound to be called a revisionism. Any new discovered fact is disregarded and proclaimed revisionism just because it interferes with the comfortable and traditionally-accepted "truth". This is the way with science in general and the historic science in particular. Russia is especially good at the latter. And evidently, not only Russia.
Sarmatian
05-07-2015, 15:29
You seem to know Stalin's mind better than anyone else. Let's remember that these are only your own assumptions.
Soviet political and military leadership was taken by surprise by the speed of the German advance. They frantically mobilized border units, often with little or no supplies and equipment to rush to demarcation line. That is not an assumption, that is a fact.
Everything that ruins a deeply entrenched picture is bound to be called a revisionism. Any new discovered fact is disregarded and proclaimed revisionism just because it interferes with the comfortable and traditionally-accepted "truth". This is the way with science in general and the historic science in particular. Russia is especially good at the latter. And evidently, not only Russia.
What you call a "fact" is actually an insignificant piece of information given out of context. It is bombastic enough, if one doesn't understand how it works in reality.
Historical facts have been well documented and there is nothing to warrant revisionism. Unfortunately, journalists and politicians aren't bound by high scientific standards, so they are free to spout nonsense that will increase their sales and rating, or achieve a particular goal.
“Illegal doesn't mean non-existent. Some/many Mexican immigrants in the USA are illegal. Do they not exist?
Social stratum can't be cancelled by laws. It is there as long as any representatives of it are alive and consider themselves as such. And it doesn't depend on the documents they have. There are still people who trace their origin from nobility of the past and thus hold themselves part of it even in such countries where decrees cancelling it were issued and/or modern state system has no place for them (Russia, Japan, Italy). Or some families of New England.
You might as well issue a decree that there is no such nationality as, for example, Jews, Tatars or Gypsies. Does it mean they will disappear?”
Oh, a lot of things added-up here.
The Nobility was a class when its members had a political/social use. This use disappeared slowly and this fact was matched by the disappearance from the political landscape. The class Nobility vanished by a change of Constitution but not only. No body decide to create the Bourgeoisie but the Class appeared as the system of production and the representation of the world changed.
The warriors were not any more required as the lowest coward could kill the bravest knight from behind his barricade with a musket. Evolution, pure Darwinian evolution… For the same reason, difficult to be a King from Divine Will when less and less people believe in God(s)ess(es).
And yes, you are right, so murderers, thieves and drugs dealers are as well illegal and don’t mean they do not exist. That doesn’t make them a Class in Marxist definition/acceptation sense.
We are not speaking a Social Stratum; we are speaking of Classes, as define by St Augustine or Marx. The old religious model collapse thanks to the Industrial Revolutions(s) and some evolved in high Bourgeoisie as the English Gentry, the others, trying to clench to their Privileges just died, from some of them literally. However, even in England, the Class Nobility ceased in its function so died as Class.
And no, self-determination is not what you are. They can trace whatever they want, and think whatever they want, that doesn’t make Nobility a Class, just a delusion, especially when you study History and learn how Nobility was created... My county of birth was annexed by Louis XV le Bien-Aimé because the biggest provider of “false” Nobility and money. You paid and ding, you were elected Member of the Parliament (Official post leading to Nobility) for 3 days, then you bought a piece of land, you took the mane of the piece of land, and dong, 10 years after you printed a nice visit card with blazon, 2 wolves with a piece if Oak, there you were a Noble. With careful planning, you could by a Castle from a ruined older noble, married your son to his daughter, than would speed up the process... But I digressed.
As the last part of your intervention, as much as I know, Jew is not a nationality but a religion. Not sure that Gypsy is a nationality either. Perhaps Tatars are. And the all three are not Classes but a social/tribal/human link. So comparing them with a legal status or an obsolete occupation/work is absurd.
Gilrandir
05-08-2015, 11:27
We are not speaking a Social Stratum; we are speaking of Classes, as define by St Augustine or Marx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class
Social class (or simply "class"), as in a class society, is a set of concepts in the social sciences and political theory centered on models of social stratification in which people are grouped into a set of hierarchical social categories, the most common being the upper, middle, and lower classes.
But to cut short a possible terminological debate involving quotations from Augustine, Marx, and (not unlikely) Mein Kampf:
whatever you understand as a "class", violent measures aimed at obliterating a large group of people (bourgeoisie) was what Lenin (and later Stalin) advocated and even found neccessary to do.
They can trace whatever they want, and think whatever they want, that doesn’t make Nobility a Class, just a delusion, especially when you study History and learn how Nobility was created...
Yet such delusions are not punishable by death or confiscation of assets, are they?
as much as I know, Jew is not a nationality but a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
The Jews, also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious and ethno-cultural group originating from the Israelites of the Ancient Near East.
Historically, Jews have descended mostly from the tribes of Judah and Simeon, and partially from the tribes of Benjamin and Levi, who had all together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah.
Jewish ethnicity, nationality and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.
Not sure that Gypsy is a nationality either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people
The Romani (also spelled Romany), or Roma, are a traditionally itinerant ethnicity living mostly in Europe and the Americas. Ultimately of Northern Indian origin, the Romani are widely known among English-speaking people by the exonym "Gypsies" (or Gipsies).
Can it be that Brenus may fail to know anything or, God forbid, make a miastake? No no, I must be dreaming.
And the all three are not Classes but a social/tribal/human link. So comparing them with a legal status or an obsolete occupation/work is absurd.
I was talking not of any statuses, but of the ideologically substantiated appeal (with further implementation) to put an end to a large stratum of people, be it a social class (in any meaning) or nationality/ethnicity. In my view, both are crimes one of which was commited by nazis, and both (e.g. a crackdown on kulaki and Tatars) by communists.
Gilrandir
05-08-2015, 12:32
What you call a "fact" is actually an insignificant piece of information given out of context. It is bombastic enough, if one doesn't understand how it works in reality.
Historical facts have been well documented and there is nothing to warrant revisionism. Unfortunately, journalists and politicians aren't bound by high scientific standards, so they are free to spout nonsense that will increase their sales and rating, or achieve a particular goal.
Historical facts are there OK, but their interpretation may be different. Some people call them "insignificant pieces of information", others try to see a system behind them. Each approach is arbitrary so categories "right" or "wrong" don't work here.
"Revisionism" and "collaboration" are very good stigmata to brand your opponents. They don't need substantiation. One just pastes the label on the forehead of the opponent and says: "How can we have any discussion with revisionists who glorify collaborators?" No further arguments are paid attention to. This tactics works especially well with those who see a black-and-white image of real life events.
For example, it has always been (and has even become more fiercely done) an approach practised in the USSR and now Russia to brand those who sport red-black flags or Bandera's portraits as people who try to glorify traitors and collaborators (and their symbols) and thus involved into revisionism. Such adepts choose to disregard the fact that modern Russia uses official flags of Russian liberation Army headed by Vlasov as their state flag and navy flag.
http://info-news.eu/russian-armies-of-nazi-germany/
Why don't they advocate forbidding them either?
They also choose to disregard the fact that German army held special operations against UPA (which was mentioned at Nuremberg trial) and that the leader of the movement (the ultimate villain) was arrested by nazis on July 5 1941 and spent next three years first in prison in Berlin and later in the concentration camp. Since these facts don't fit the officially blessed tradition it is better not to see them and proclaim any attempts to pay attention to them revisionism.
You are so devoted to seeing events in their broad context. Let's do it on the example of Organization of Ukrainian nationalists (OUN). Their ultimate goal was to win independence for Ukraine - from Poland and the USSR. Who could give them hope of re-drawing European borders between the world wars? Evidently not the winners of WWI, who were quite satisfied with the map they formated in 1918-1920. So OUN turned to the only powerful driving force that yearned for destroying the stability of the after-Versailles Europe. Thus, OUN and nazis became situational allies. When it was evident that nazis wouldn't tolerate any independent country out of their control the former allies became enemies.
Such stories of fluctuating political stance could be found in many European countries in those times, so stigmatizing should either cease altogether or be ubiquitous and comprehensive and no one should be exempt just because it may look to someone an attempt at revisionism. The same as facts pointing to close German-Soviet cooperation on the eve of WWII, which you consider "insignificant pieces of information".
Soviet political and military leadership was taken by surprise by the speed of the German advance. They frantically mobilized border units, often with little or no supplies and equipment to rush to demarcation line. That is not an assumption, that is a fact.
Yet, Ribbentrop and Molotov signed a protocol, so the Soviet party must have been aware of what ought to happen and have taken the neccessary steps, especially if there was such a distrust as you claim. You make it sound like Stalin was an agent of events carried on by the turbulent stream who didn't participate in decision making and was only reacting (and saving what he could) to those insidious and cunning nazis doing their dirty deeds on their own. Wait, it sounds somehow familiar.... Got it! Replace Stalin with Putin and we may return the derailed thread to your vision of the Ukrainian crisis. And if anyone still wants more insights on it:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/europa/osze-in-schyrokine-bei-mariupol-in-ukraine-logik-der-friedensstifter-versagt-13576256.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_2
CrossLOPER
05-08-2015, 17:19
You make it sound like Stalin was an agent of events carried on by the turbulent stream who didn't participate in decision making and was only reacting (and saving what he could) to those insidious and cunning nazis doing their dirty deeds on their own. Wait, it sounds somehow familiar.... Got it!
I am not sure what you are arguing. The Red Army was in no shape to combat the Wehrmacht, and Stalin was fully aware of this. He was trying to place the Soviet Union in a more favorable position for when Hitler inevitably gave the order to attack.
On June 26, 1940, a law was enacted extending the Soviet workday from seven to eight hours, and to seven days per week. Disciplinary action for tardiness or slothfulness in the factories was imposed on the work force. These are measures normally introduced during wartime.
Why do you think this occurred?
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html
Sarmatian
05-08-2015, 21:05
I am not sure what you are arguing.
I don't care - tip you're it.
You take over, I can't do it anymore.
Hats off to Brenus, his perseverance is legendary, but then again, he has seen war and marriage.
I think Gilrandir as funny. He has no clue, no real knowledge more than what he picks in internet in the most revisionist sites and think it is enough. Each time he goes for vocabulary explanation to cover the gaps, he make me laugh. The "well, I was wrong about this, but I am still right as Hitler really said in was for peace, I was right to say Hitler was a peaceful man" kind of argument.
It is a tactic he uses a lot.:laugh4:
Gilrandir
05-09-2015, 14:15
I am not sure what you are arguing. The Red Army was in no shape to combat the Wehrmacht, and Stalin was fully aware of this. He was trying to place the Soviet Union in a more favorable position for when Hitler inevitably gave the order to attack.
Why do you think this occurred?
Stalin signed the treaty with Hitler in late August 1939. The decree you refer to dates back to spring 1940. If Stalin was so fully aware of his weaknesses, why wait for so long to try to correct something? Why didn't he do it soon after his saw inadequacies of his military in the Winter war?
I think he was having in view not the vague purpose "to keep up with the Jonses" (or at least not primarily this purpose). He was being engaged in occupation of the Baltic states which put a strain on economy and armed forces. So it WAS a war time, as your source states.
I think Gilrandir as funny. He has no clue, no real knowledge more than what he picks in internet in the most revisionist sites and think it is enough.
It is good to be able to have at least a piece of mind now and then from a sage who doesn't know anything about Jews and Gypsies, but whose wisdom allows him to grade the sites he dislikes from most revisionist through mildly revisionist down to slightly revisionist.
I'm sure it is the same wisdom which allows him to say "you're hopeless" to the opponent and call it a day when he sees he has lost the argument.
CrossLOPER
05-09-2015, 16:25
Stalin signed the treaty with Hitler in late August 1939. The decree you refer to dates back to spring 1940. If Stalin was so fully aware of his weaknesses, why wait for so long to try to correct something?
I recommend that you read the material provided for you. Your English is excellent, so I know you can read it.
Same article (http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html).
On August 23, 1939, the German foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, was in Moscow. He and Molotov signed the historic German-Soviet non-aggression pact. The following evening, Stalin hosted prominent members of the Soviet Political Bureau in his apartment. Among the dinner guests were Molotov, Voroshilov, Lavrenti P. Beria and Nikita Khrushchev.
Stalin explained, as Khrushchev later recalled, that he considered war with Germany unavoidable, but had momentarily tricked Hitler and bought time.
Inside the USSR, an intensive armaments production program was under way. During 1938, it had increased by 39 percent, compared to 13 percent in civil industry. Emphasis was placed on armor, development of artillery and aeronautics. In September 1939 the USSR defense committee contracted the construction of nine aircraft production plants, and seven more to manufacture aircraft engines.
This was supplemented by the conversion to fabrication of aviation components of a number of consumer goods factories.
The war in Europe did not develop as Stalin had predicted. In the spring of 1940, the British withdrew from the continent. The German army conquered France in June without suffering appreciable losses. The ground war was wrapping up without England and Germany becoming "sufficiently worn down." Khrushchev later described how Stalin became unusually agitated following the Franco-German cease-fire in June 1940. He cursed the French for letting themselves be beaten and the English for fleeing "as fast as their legs could carry them.
I would like to add that, as always, everything is England and France's fault.
Here is a more scholarly report detailing military outputs before and during the war:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf
Here is a book: https://books.google.com/books?id=NH0K92ZcNN0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=In+the+Shadow+of+the+Red+Banner&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bC5OVaDwMsfxoASlpIHoCg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=In%20the%20Shadow%20of%20the%20Red%20Banner&f=false
Check the first four or five pages of "4. The Shock of Surprise Attack". Basically, it states that Stalin was aware of the attack, but misjudged the timing badly.
Don't speak of facts with with Gilrandir. He will explain later that well, he was right.
"I'm sure it is the same wisdom which allows him to say "you're hopeless" to the opponent and call it a day when he sees he has lost the argument." The first part explains the second that you as usual misunderstand.
"sage who doesn't know anything about Jews and Gypsies" Why a sage should know everything? I like when you try irony.
Then what did I miss for Jews and Gypsies? Jew is a religious and Gypsies perhaps an ethnicity but certainly not a Nation in modern acceptation? So share your ignorance once again, I sure you will find something...
Greyblades
05-10-2015, 00:12
as always, everything is England and France's fault.
Unless it's something good, in which case everyone magically forgets we had anything to do with it.
Gilrandir
05-10-2015, 12:30
I recommend that you read the material provided for you. Your English is excellent, so I know you can read it.
I would like to add that, as always, everything is England and France's fault.
Here is a more scholarly report detailing military outputs before and during the war:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf
Here is a book: https://books.google.com/books?id=NH0K92ZcNN0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=In+the+Shadow+of+the+Red+Banner&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bC5OVaDwMsfxoASlpIHoCg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=In%20the%20Shadow%20of%20the%20Red%20Banner&f=false
Check the first four or five pages of "4. The Shock of Surprise Attack". Basically, it states that Stalin was aware of the attack, but misjudged the timing badly.
Thank you for the sources. I cursorily looked them through, yet I didn't find anything new that I hadn't known before. Indeed I studied it all at school and university. And I don't see how it gainsays my view that Stalin and Hitler started WWII by partitioning Poland and that until June 1941 they stayed in close cooperation. I heard (don't know if this information is well grounded) that Britain contemplated bombing Baku oil extraction and refinery facilities to prevent gasoline suppies from the USSR to Germany.
http://orientalreview.org/2010/04/22/britain-planned-to-attack-ussr/
And I know that the USSR kept sending wheat to Germany up to June 1941.
The fact that Stalin didn't expect the assault on June 22 and didn't believe any reports confirming that was bored into the conciousness of all Soviet schollchildren.
Don't see why is it all qualified as revisionism. I was trying to show that myths and facts don't coincide. One of such myths is that any fighting side during WWII was allied either with Germany or with the Western allies and/or the USSR. There were numerous armies fighting against both. Another myth is that Russia could have won the war without any help - either from the West or from other Soviet republics. The third one is that all Russians fought against nazis, while other nations (Ukrainians, Tatars, Chechens) had a significant percentage of traitors. This myth chooses to disregard the existence of Vlasov's army (numbering from a million to 1,5 million). So every nation had traitors or those stigmatized as traitors. Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_Charlemagne_%281st_French%29).
So the bottomline I tried to make:
it is time to stop arguing who was more traitor/collaborator than others and reconcile.
I would like to add that, as always, everything is England and France's fault.
You mean "Why die for Danzig" attitude?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Die_for_Danzig%3F
I hope I didn't link to any revisionist site.
Gilrandir
05-10-2015, 12:41
Then what did I miss for Jews and Gypsies? Jew is a religious
Jews is a nationality, judaism is their religion. Not all Jews are Judaists. In Ukraine, for example, there are many who were baptized into Orthodox christianity. Thus their nationality and confession are not covered by the term "Jew".
and Gypsies perhaps an ethnicity but certainly not a Nation in modern acceptation?
I like this demure "perhaps". You blame other in disregarding the facts, but ... kettle and pot.
But whatever term (nation, nationality or ethnicity) you may choose, belonging to it is not a reason to be termimated, is it?
Gilrandir
05-10-2015, 12:47
Meanwhile, back in DPR. Zakharchenko presides at the parade.
http://empr.media/video/conflict-zone/drunk-dpr-leader-zakharchenko-at-victory-day-parade-in-donetsk
Yeltsin said in such cases that he hadn't slept the previous night and was deadly tired the following morning.
And in Russia:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/10/us-ukraine-crisis-soldiers-specialreport-idUSKBN0NV06Q20150510
I spotted strange discrepancies between English- and Russian-language versions of this article. The former claims that "some soldiers" are quitting the army, the latter the "whole groups of soldiers" do.
http://ru.reuters.com/article/topNews/idRUKBN0NV06M20150510?sp=true
Any explanation?
Jews is a nationality, judaism is their religion. Not all Jews are Judaists. In Ukraine, for example, there are many who were baptized into Orthodox christianity. Thus their nationality and confession are not covered by the term "Jew".
:inquisitive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
“You mean "Why die for Danzig" attitude?” Lol. A slogan in a pro-nazi French Newspaper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_D%C3%A9at
And once again, you didn’t read the document you provided, which illustrate perfectly well how you deal with facts and arguments: You read the tittle only.
“Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division” Deeply aware, however, the 33 SS Division Charlemagne’s members are considered as traitors, as the Milice, LVF or the Strumbrigade Frankenreich in France. No unit in the French Army wear their symbol, and they not celebrated as heroes in newspapers today. In some books written by Extreme-Right authors, perhaps (I read them all when I was young!!!!)…
Now, I agree on your statement about every country having traitors. However, in Ukraine today, as in Latvia before, they are probably heroes. Ukraine chooses its heroes: Criminals who slaughtered Jews (not only) under the Nazi uniforms and symbols, symbols they are proud to wear today.
“But whatever term (nation, nationality or ethnicity) you may choose, belonging to it is not a reason to be termimated, is it?” Yeah, but we were speaking of political Classes, not of Nations/ nationalities and the political transformation illustrated during the French Revolution but not only.
Sarmatian
05-10-2015, 17:00
And I know that the USSR kept sending wheat to Germany up to June 1941.
And oil and other materials/supplies. Doesn't change the fact it was done to buy time.
Don't see why is it all qualified as revisionism. I was trying to show that myths and facts don't coincide. One of such myths is that any fighting side during WWII was allied either with Germany or with the Western allies and/or the USSR.
It's not myth, it's a fact. That doesn't mean some of them weren't traitors and/murderers. Banderovci fought intermittently against Germans, but their primary enemies were Poles and Soviets, and in later stages of the war, they fought together with Wehrmacht to stop Soviet offensives. They were also responsible for ethnic cleansing of Poles in eastern Ukraine, and wanted to create an ethnically clean Ukraine.
It's disgusting such people are venerated as heroes.
Another myth is that Russia could have won the war without any help - either from the West or from other Soviet republics.
"Soviets" refers to all nationalities within Soviet Union and includes Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Tatars, Georgians and others. It is a well known fact that Red Army wasn't just Russian, and I take it most people here know that were many additional nationalities fighting on the side of the Red Army who weren't in the USSR, like Poles and Mongols...
The third one is that all Russians fought against nazis, while other nations (Ukrainians, Tatars, Chechens) had a significant percentage of traitors. This myth chooses to disregard the existence of Vlasov's army (numbering from a million to 1,5 million).
So every nation had traitors or those stigmatized as traitors. Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division
Vlassov's army never numbered 1 to 1.5 million men, I have no idea where you got that figure from. It was used as a propaganda tool by Nazis and basically only existed on paper, because Hitler didn't trust them. Himmler persuaded Hitler to allow him to arm several Russian division in 1944. By 1945, only one was formed, and it's first major combat involvement was in Prague, when they promptly decide to help Czechoslovakians and fought against the Germans for liberation of Prague. After the war, Vlassov was hanged.
There were individual Russian soldiers and small units who fought within the SS, just like there were other nationalities.
It is not so much an issue whether there were, but how they are treated today. If they are honoured as heroes instead of ignored as traitors, something is very wrong.
So the bottomline I tried to make:
it is time to stop arguing who was more traitor/collaborator than others and reconcile.
If that means respecting pro-nazi organizations, you can count most of the civilized world out. Maybe you should try it in Germany. Tell them there is no difference between Weimar Republic and Nazis. I'm sure they won't have any objection.
In case it wasn't clear, I think your bottom line is a sad, disgusting attempt to exonerate nazis and nazi wannabees.
Gilrandir
05-11-2015, 14:40
“You mean "Why die for Danzig" attitude?” Lol. A slogan in a pro-nazi French Newspaper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_D%C3%A9at
And once again, you didn’t read the document you provided, which illustrate perfectly well how you deal with facts and arguments: You read the tittle only.
How long it must be before you learn
1) not to jump to conclusions and
2) read carefully into the message.
I spoke of the ATTITUDE epitomized by the statement. It was evident in Europe before Danzig and didn't refer to Danzig only. It was adopted after the Anschluss and transpired vividly during the occupation of the Sudets and later the whole of Czechoslovakia. The same attitude as today's "why go to war for Ukraine".
“Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division” Deeply aware, however, the 33 SS Division Charlemagne’s members are considered as traitors, as the Milice, LVF or the Strumbrigade Frankenreich in France. No unit in the French Army wear their symbol, and they not celebrated as heroes in newspapers today. In some books written by Extreme-Right authors, perhaps (I read them all when I was young!!!!)…
Now, I agree on your statement about every country having traitors. However, in Ukraine today, as in Latvia before, they are probably heroes. Ukraine chooses its heroes: Criminals who slaughtered Jews (not only) under the Nazi uniforms and symbols, symbols they are proud to wear today.
If this philippic refers to UPA, it is mostly not true: they had their own their uniform and are not proclaimed guilty at Nuremberg. It is true, though, that they participated in slaughters of Poles ans (perhaps) Jews.
If you are speaking about SS division Galichyna, it is also not true, as they are not venerated as heroes and their (nazi) uniforms are not worn by any Ukrainian army detachments. And, by the way, UPA, AFAIK, didn't approve of its creation.
And oil and other materials/supplies. Doesn't change the fact it was done to buy time.
This is your own interpretation of the fact. Trading (especially strategic goods) is the worst thing to buy time with if one knows (as you claim Stalin did) that some day you will have to fight your trade partner.
But this trade was only a part of multi-faceted cooperation that I spoke of, so I don't buy the buying time explanation.
It's not myth, it's a fact. That doesn't mean some of them weren't traitors and/murderers.
In Lithuania, Forest brothers fought against the Soviets, yet they were not allied with the Germans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_partisans
History is never black-and-white, as you try to paint it.
Banderovci fought intermittently against Germans, but their primary enemies were Poles and Soviets, and in later stages of the war, they fought together with Wehrmacht to stop Soviet offensives.
This is again your assumption (on the primary targets of UPA). I would say that they equally targeted anyone they considered an enemy in their fight for independent Ukraine.
They were also responsible for ethnic cleansing of Poles in eastern Ukraine, and wanted to create an ethnically clean Ukraine.
It is the first time I hear of any Poles living in eastern Ukraine and any ethnic cleansings of them. If I were Brenus I would say something like "You see, he has no clue of geography".
As for massacres, cruelty and violence, it was the time abundant in those. The husband of my grandmother's sister told me a lot how "kind and gentle" were Soviet troops to the civilians in Germany. And also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw%C5%82okoma_massacre
It's disgusting such people are venerated as heroes.
As I have said, history is never black-and-white. For example, Bohdan Khmelnitsky is considered to be the greatest hetman in Ukrainian history, the founder of the first independent Ukrainian state and his monuments are everywhere. Pro-Russians venerate him because he united Ukraine with Russia, pro-Ukrainians venerate him because he fought against the Polish. Yet people choose to forget that this struggle for independence involved massacres of the Poles and Jews, and those who opposed him massacred Ukrainians most gladly. Is he to be venerated? I'm sure that in the history of every country there are plenty of such figures.
"Soviets" refers to all nationalities within Soviet Union and includes Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Tatars, Georgians and others. It is a well known fact that Red Army wasn't just Russian, and I take it most people here know that were many additional nationalities fighting on the side of the Red Army who weren't in the USSR, like Poles and Mongols...
Tell it to Putin, this is one of his favorite myths:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3dS02yonos
Is it a revisionism?
Vlassov's army never numbered 1 to 1.5 million men, I have no idea where you got that figure from.
I didn't phrase it correctly: the whole number of Russians fighting on the nazi side was about that:
http://bintel.com.ua/en/article/kem-byli-v-proshlom-antifashisty/
As part of SS, RONA was suppressing the Warsaw uprising in August-September 1944. RONA soldiers were engaged in looting, exhibiting a bestial cruelty, for what Kaminsky was arrested by Germans and shot. In 1944, RONA was included into Hitler's army of collaborator Vlasov.
Apart from RONA in the service of the German fascists were other Russian formations: “Russian National People's Army” (RNNA), Brigade “Druzhina”, Cossack units which received after 3 April 1943 their general name “Russian Liberation Army” (ROA) under command of General Vlasov. At the beginning of its formation, Vlasov's army numbered about 45 thousand people, And his Air Force — 5 thousand military servicemen. In total, according to different estimates, during World War II on the side of Nazi Germany fought from 1 million to 1.7 million Russians, among them were Russians of the Crimea.
If that means respecting pro-nazi organizations, you can count most of the civilized world out. Maybe you should try it in Germany.
Or in Croatia. Or in Lithuania. Or in Latvia. Evidenlty, some countries are at odds with you on who to consider a (pro) nazi.
In case it wasn't clear, I think your bottom line is a sad, disgusting attempt to exonerate nazis and nazi wannabees.
I guess, it is me who wasn't clear or else you didn't read my post carefully.
I spoke of stopping charging each other with COLLABORATIONISM and TREASON, since collaborators and (ideals of the free world)'s traitors were ALL, starting from Chamberlain and Stalin (and other leaders) down to numerous petty ones.
Greyblades
05-11-2015, 16:16
:inquisitive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
Er... Maybe by "Jews" as a nationality/culture he means Ashkenazi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews
Gilrandir
05-12-2015, 10:09
Er... Maybe by "Jews" as a nationality/culture he means Ashkenazi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism
Who is a Jew?
According to traditional Jewish Law, a Jew is anyone who was either born of a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in accordance with Jewish Law. American Reform Judaism and British Liberal Judaism accept the child of one Jewish parent (father or mother) as Jewish if the parents raise the child with a Jewish identity. All mainstream forms of Judaism today are open to sincere converts, although conversion has traditionally been discouraged since the time of the Talmud. The conversion process is evaluated by an authority, and the convert is examined on his or her sincerity and knowledge. Converts are called "ben Abraham" or "bat Abraham", (son or daughter of Abraham). Conversions have on occasion been overturned. In 2008, Israel's highest religious court invalidated the conversion of 40,000 Jews, mostly from Russian immigrant families, even though they had been approved by an Orthodox rabbi.
Traditional Judaism maintains that a Jew, whether by birth or conversion, is a Jew forever. Thus a Jew who claims to be an atheist or converts to another religion is still considered by traditional Judaism to be Jewish. According to some sources, the Reform movement has maintained that a Jew who has converted to another religion is no longer a Jew, and the Israeli Government has also taken that stance after Supreme Court cases and statutes. However, the Reform movement has indicated that this is not so cut and dried, and different situations call for consideration and differing actions. For example, Jews who have converted under duress may be permitted to return to Judaism "without any action on their part but their desire to rejoin the Jewish community" and "A proselyte who has become an apostate remains, nevertheless, a Jew". (p. 100-106).
The question of what determines Jewish identity in the State of Israel was given new impetus when, in the 1950s, David Ben-Gurion requested opinions on mihu Yehudi ("who is a Jew") from Jewish religious authorities and intellectuals worldwide in order to settle citizenship questions. This is still not settled, and occasionally resurfaces in Israeli politics.
Gilrandir
05-12-2015, 10:14
Back to Ukraine:
http://uatoday.tv/politics/donetsk-militants-agree-on-broadest-autonomy-in-ukraine-426575.html
https://news.pn/en/RussiaInvadedUkraine/133059
Strike For The South
05-12-2015, 15:51
It's May 12th and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-13-2015, 18:37
:inquisitive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
In the UK Antisemitism is considered racism, not religious prejudice. Germany may have developed a different view post-holocaust but, in the West, Jews have historically been seen as racially apart, a view supported by the practice of intermarriage for reasons of religion. That's not to say that everybody who has a Jewish nose (like a Roman nose it really is a thing) has grandparents who were practicing Jews, but still.
Montmorency
05-13-2015, 20:02
"Jew" is best considered as denoting ethnic membership or identity. It has more to do with upbringing and perceived historical grounding than religious practice (of course hardline Jewish conservatives may privately disagree, though they're happy to import anyone they can into Israel).
Note that the majority of Iberia has some Semitic ancestry. Many other Europeans can claim descent from Christianized Jews. Probably most Muslim Palestinians had Jewish ancestors along the way.
I mean, check out this guy, looks like a total Hebe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNptfUIiSHo
As for Ukrainian Jews, well, some of them are in my extended family. Heck, one of my grandmothers was a Ukrainian Jew (though she relocated to Belarus after the war).
In the UK Antisemitism is considered racism, not religious prejudice. Germany may have developed a different view post-holocaust but, in the West, Jews have historically been seen as racially apart, a view supported by the practice of intermarriage for reasons of religion. That's not to say that everybody who has a Jewish nose (like a Roman nose it really is a thing) has grandparents who were practicing Jews, but still.
Eh, the post I replied to began with "Jews is a nationality", that is weird because Israeli is a nationality and there are jews with German, American, Russian and many other nationalities.
To top it off the post ended by saying that "Thus their nationality and confession are not covered by the term "Jew".", which is not only a contradiction to how he began two sentences earlier but also a bit strange since the term jew often does cover religion, although certainly not exclusively. Wikipedia calls it "ethno-religious" and "ethno-cultural" which seems quite accurate to me.
Gilrandir
05-15-2015, 11:52
Eh, the post I replied to began with "Jews is a nationality", that is weird because Israeli is a nationality and there are jews with German, American, Russian and many other nationalities.
I would say that Israeli is citizenship (Israeli is a citizen of Israel). And they can be of different ethnicity - Jewish, Arab, Ukrainian, Russian...
"I would say that Israeli is citizenship (Israeli is a citizen of Israel). And they can be of different ethnicity - Jewish, Arab, Ukrainian, Russian..." Always difficult to define all these concepts: My Israeli friend is an atheist Jew. His nationality is Israeli (and french), his culture Jew, religion none. The problem is in this list there is a mixture of "arab" (Culture?) Nationality (Ukrainian) and religion (Jewish).
In the frame work you propose my friend could be European French Israeli.
Papewaio
05-16-2015, 00:46
Like a lot of words Jew has multiple meanings with individuals displaying some or all characteristics.
You can be Jewish ethnically ie parent(s) are Jewish
Jewish religion
Jewish culturally
I have a friend who identifies himself as ethnically and culturally Jewish. But he sees religion as a crutch and is an atheist.
Helps to understand that religion and culture and interwined and with expectations that you only marry within a group an ethnic group will form over time, and more specialized groupings as the strictures on who you marry. There are some Jewish communities who have genetic diseases, that are very rare in the outside world, commonly occurring within their communities. Much like Royalty...
Gilrandir
05-18-2015, 18:15
http://maidantranslations.com/2015/05/17/dmitry-tymchuk-regarding-the-national-cultural-autonomy-of-bessarabia-freesavchenko/
Gilrandir
05-20-2015, 10:52
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116905/russia-wants-much-more-crimea
Ran into this article. Nothing new or surprising if it weren't for the date. It seems that Novorossia was on Russia's agenda long before March 2014. So much for "Putin was only reacting and saving what he could".
GenosseGeneral
05-21-2015, 13:53
I was actually looking for an English-language article which quotes Merkel ruling out Ukraine's EU membership. Yet I found that there are actually 3 types of headlines summarizing that speech:
a) "Ukraine crisis makes Eastern Partnership more important"
b) "No Russian return to G7 without progress in Eastern Ukraine"
c) "Merkel rules our Ukraine becoming a EU member"
https://www.google.ru/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=merkel+ukraine&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=-c5dVYLPFMbywAOhwYCADA#q=merkel+ukraine&newwindow=1&channel=fs&tbm=nws
I actually only wanted to congratulate her on finally being honest, in contrast to our American friends who continue their empty promises of NATO Ukraine's ascension. I believe it is high time for clear communication with the Ukrainian people: Europe is not willing to spend the billions necessary to prevent an economic meltdown, as those funds would end up in corrupt officials' pockets anyway. We are also not willing to deliver substantial military aid and no matter how much we deliver, Russia would always keep the upper hand anyway (as she prove in Ilovaysk and Debalzeve).
Regarding the Banderovzy: As much as I see the need for Ukraine's patriots to build their own, non-soviet narrative of WW2, they should not choose the UPA. It has indeed carried out ethnic cleanses against Polish. Glorifying the UPA is not only a provocation for Russia and significant parts of the Ukrainian population, it can potentially alienate Ukraine's closest ally: Poland. The UPA was a highly dubious organization, sometimes collaborating with the Nazis, sometimes fighting them and there are way too much dark grey tones in its history to glorify it as unanimously as they do in Lviv (I remember street names like Vulitsa Heroiv UPA and Vulitsa Stepanu Banderu as well a shiny marble monument in their honour).
That being said, I am evenly disgusted by the way they frame it here in Russia, though. What they tell you here is that it was as essentially some Ukrainian branch of the Nazi party/SS, which enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis. What is even worse is how they without thinking for a second simply assume, that Western Ukrainians hold the same views as their ancestors. As if I would be a Nazi ready to commit another Holocaust, just because I am German.
Heck, those comments always become longer in the end than I originally intended.
"So much for "Putin was only reacting and saving what he could"." :laugh4: The New Republic's Ukraine Newsletter. is your very independent source. Can you link directly with www.ukraine.gov.prop (for propaganda) (or equivalent) please, that will cut a lot of time
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-22-2015, 09:18
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32840502
Russian soldiers have apparently confessed being, well, Russian soldiers, to OBSE monitors.
GenosseGeneral
05-22-2015, 11:32
Let's link the actual source:
http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/159296
I highly recommend all of you to read the OSCE reports, as they are the only really reliable source in the area. This way you don't have to be afraid of the filter .See for instance, how the Merkel speech I quoted above was framed in three very different ways.
Gilrandir
05-24-2015, 16:22
I
The UPA was a highly dubious organization, sometimes collaborating with the Nazis, sometimes fighting them and there are way too much dark grey tones in its history to glorify it as unanimously...
Replace "UPA" with "the Red Army" and it will hold true as well.
My point was that EVERYBODY eventually fighting against Nazis could at some moment between 1938 and 1945 be called a collaborator.
"So much for "Putin was only reacting and saving what he could"." :laugh4: The New Republic's Ukraine Newsletter. is your very independent source. Can you link directly with www.ukraine.gov.prop (for propaganda) (or equivalent) please, that will cut a lot of time
So you mean that Edward Luttwak (the author of the article posted at this despicable site) on March 9 2014 didn't say anything about Novorossia project being in preparation in Russia? The reputation of the site (which you don't like) makes Edward Luttwak a liar of a fictitious character?
"Edward Luttwak is a CSIS senior associate and has served as a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, and a number of allied governments as well as international corporations and financial institutions." Does this answer your question?
And what really an article dated from March 2014 is more relevant now than at the time? The opinion of a clearly not neutral "analyst", the kind of who are good to explain the future after it became the past.
Gilrandir
05-25-2015, 11:10
"Edward Luttwak is a CSIS senior associate and has served as a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, and a number of allied governments as well as international corporations and financial institutions." Does this answer your question?
And what really an article dated from March 2014 is more relevant now than at the time? The opinion of a clearly not neutral "analyst", the kind of who are good to explain the future after it became the past.
Who said he was neutral? What I meant by linking this article is that a certain official had information about what Russia was up to when people at large didn't even know the name of Novorossia. The latter was first voiced by Putin months later and someone from the West using this name in March 2014 exposes invalidity of the claim of spontaneous reaction by Russia.
"someone from the West using this name in March 2014 exposes invalidity of the claim of spontaneous reaction by Russia." So, someone in the West using the word Novorussia is the proof that Putin had intentions? Whao...
"is an historical term of the Russian Empire denoting a region north of the Black Sea" From Wiki. So, every one with a little bit of googling would have been able to find it. Is the proof, as google used the word, that Putin had intentions?:laugh4: Wiki carries on saying : "The region was part of the Russian Empire until the collapse thereof following the Russian February Revolution in early March 1917, whereafter it was part of the short-lived Russian Republic; then, in 1918, it was largely included into the Ukrainian State; in 1918–1920, it was, to varying extents, under the control of the anti-Bolshevik White movement governments of South Russia whose defeat signified the Soviet control over the territory, which became part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, within the Soviet Union from 1922. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991, there have been attempts to revive the concept, with the most significant development being the pro-Russian separatist confederation of Novorossiya and the subsequent War in Donbass".
Gilrandir
05-26-2015, 14:26
"someone from the West using this name in March 2014 exposes invalidity of the claim of spontaneous reaction by Russia." So, someone in the West using the word Novorussia is the proof that Putin had intentions? Whao...
"is an historical term of the Russian Empire denoting a region north of the Black Sea" From Wiki. So, every one with a little bit of googling would have been able to find it. Is the proof, as google used the word, that Putin had intentions?:laugh4:
So what you basically claim is that "someone in the West" looked through wikipedia before March 9 2014 and came up with the idea that Putin would look through it too and use the historic nomen in his attempt to destabilize Ukraine before Putin came up with the same idea? Or was it a coincidence that both Luttwak and Putin came up with this idea? Or did Luttwak involuntarily prompted Putin how to set about destabilizing Ukraine?
Anyway, you claim that on March 9 2014 Putin had no intention to destabilize Ukraine and this idea occurred to him on a hunch much later. I don't buy that.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991, there have been attempts to revive the concept, with the most significant development being the pro-Russian separatist confederation of Novorossiya and the subsequent War in Donbass.
I'm sure this part was added AFTER March 9 2014.
I'm sure this part was added AFTER March 9 2014.
Maybe the entire article was edited afterwards.
Strike For The South
05-26-2015, 17:00
It's May 26th and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist.
"So what you basically claim is that "someone in the West" looked through wikipedia before March 9 2014" :laugh4: Nope. I am not claiming. I am saying that the word was existing before March 2014 and some Western Expert used it to illustrate his point. As some will use Caliphate to illustrate the political aim of ISIS or Mittle Europa to describe a part of Europe, or Yiddish land for the same purpose.
Gilrandir
05-27-2015, 14:56
some Western Expert used it to illustrate his point. As some will use Caliphate to illustrate the political aim of ISIS or Mittle Europa to describe a part of Europe, or Yiddish land for the same purpose.
This western expert didn't illustrate his point. He was talking of Russia's plans to partition Ukraine prescribing for a part of it a long-forgotten name and even designinig a flag for it.
Gilrandir
05-27-2015, 15:04
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32840502
Russian soldiers have apparently confessed being, well, Russian soldiers, to OBSE monitors.
And one Russian soldier's wife and another soldier's father said what the Kremlin had claimed - that both of them were retired. The wife claimed she didn't know where her husband had gone to.
Found an interview of the surgeon who operated on the captured and from another source an interview of Ukrainian soldiers who had brought them into the hospital.
The most curious part of it was that the surgeon said that one of the Russians at first refused to receive general anaesthesia for fear of his organs being cut out during the surgery. This surgeon claims to have operated some other Russian captives and states that such a behavior is typical for them.
The Ukrainian soldiers indirectly confirmed it saying that one of the captives begged them to stay by his side during the surgery, which seemed mightily strange to them.
Demonizing Ukrainians by Russian propaganda seems to have no sensible limits.
"This western expert didn't illustrate his point. He was talking of Russia's plans to partition Ukraine prescribing for a part of it a long-forgotten name and even designinig a flag for it." No. He was talking about what he though Putin was doing. And the reality of today shows he was utterly wrong.
Strike For The South
05-28-2015, 04:22
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/27/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-military-idUSKBN0OC2K820150527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Bit by bit, Piece by piece, evil claims a few more feet of ground.
Hmm, doesn't echo what the Western Media and NATO was saying last year?:inquisitive:
Gilrandir
05-28-2015, 09:45
"This western expert didn't illustrate his point. He was talking of Russia's plans to partition Ukraine prescribing for a part of it a long-forgotten name and even designinig a flag for it." No. He was talking about what he though Putin was doing. And the reality of today shows he was utterly wrong.
"Russian spring" attempts ignited all over south-eastern Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent proclamation of Novorossia show that he was totally right.
Gilrandir
05-28-2015, 10:07
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/27/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-military-idUSKBN0OC2K820150527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Bit by bit, Piece by piece, evil claims a few more feet of ground.
Meanwhile in Russia they have dug a moat on the border with D/LPR:
http://xn--80ajgarobcee6b3h.xn--p1ai/finansyi-eng/russia-dug-on-the-border-with-ukraine-trench-100-km/
And on the otherside of the border:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/25/what-people-in-southeast-ukraine-really-think-of-novorossiya/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394
"Russian spring" attempts ignited all over south-eastern Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent proclamation of Novorossia show that he was totally right." Re-read chronology. Russian Spring was ignited by Nazi Coup d'Etat. So, but you might do, excepted claiming that Putin did initiate the Nazi Coup, the dear specialist got it all wrong.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but Crimea was included in the Russian Federation...
Gilrandir
05-30-2015, 15:30
"Russian spring" attempts ignited all over south-eastern Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent proclamation of Novorossia show that he was totally right." Re-read chronology. Russian Spring was ignited by Nazi Coup d'Etat. So, but you might do, excepted claiming that Putin did initiate the Nazi Coup, the dear specialist got it all wrong.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but Crimea was included in the Russian Federation...
As you know perfectly well, only a small portion of Maidaners qualify your understanding of nazis and only 4 ministers of the new (now ex) government belonged to the same category. If a protesting movement has 5-10% of participating feminists/gays, does it make it a feministic/gay movement? Yet you generalize, calling the whole affair a Nazi coup. Well, Mr. Impartial, you are moving in the wake of Russian propaganda. The one who studied manipulative techniques got caught by them.
As for the starting point of Russian spring, it was the Crimea occupation whence Girkin (aka Strelkov), by his own admission, moved to Slovyansk and kicked into motion (again by his own admission) the whole thing in Donbas. So Russian spring succeeded only in the areas where Russian spetznaz came.
And speaking of your good guys:
now it's officially illegal to speak of casualties even in peace time operations. I suppose, Ukrainian nazis are again to blame.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/28/vladimir-putin-declares-all-russian-military-deaths-state-secrets
On Russian military presence in Ukraine:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/M1Ejc5m8AwMtRGk3b5i1caMmhTcRvkRUwHuaIRuPQ4jUEmGZx5M7jdGxKHhvX4qC
I think that once again you misunderstood. The Maidaners as you qualified them were not all Nazi, but were for better wages, against corruption etc. It was initially a social movement. However, the storming of the Parliament and the expulsion of an elected President and others was organised by the Nazi, proudly standing up in front of the building with the base-ball bats...
"And speaking of your good guys": About Putin, once again you are mistaken. Putin is probably closer to your political point, as nationalist (by the way, second link doesn't work) and political control. I am a lefty, Putin not, even if US and EU media replays the Cold war (especially the Bear still qualified as bombers :laugh4:).
My all point is: Putin is doing what NATO is now doing for years, so I don't see the point of fake indignation from NATO's members. The Ukrainian's Russians are doing what the Ukrainian Nationalists/Nazi did in Maiden, so what the point of the fake indignation?
As my thinking process about it, I made it clear: Annexation of someone else territory is bad. Military intervention in someone else territory is bad. I am a leftist, so less borders better is for me. I don't like nationalism, Russian or Ukrainian.
Now, this crisis wouldn't have existed if the Coup would have not happened, but it did happened. Except if you want a war in a territory where a Nuclear Plant named Chernobyl is actually built, you have to find a political solution, and this solution will be a Bosnianisation (cantonisation) of Ukraine, contrary of what think your american expert in the alleged Putin's plan. It doesn't work really in Bosnia, but better a bad peace than a good war, war that no one can win any way, except to agree with casualties European and USA don't want to heard about.
Montmorency
05-31-2015, 23:34
but better a bad peace than a good war
And you said you were against massive bailouts and oversized influence of banks and corporations in the international system.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-01-2015, 01:40
Brenus, surely "Coup" implies involvement of the military or the government in the overthrow of the legitimate leader? I don't recall any such, only the opposition engaged with the Maidan protestors, and the president wasn't overthrown, he fled, with all his luggage a motorcade and probably a lot of currency.
"And you said you were against massive bailouts and oversized influence of banks and corporations in the international system" And?
"Brenus, surely "Coup" implies involvement of the military" I was once told when somebody said surely, it is not that sure. Any way, no. A Coup can be Constitutional i.e. the negation of the NO vote changed in a YES vote by Political Parties. It could be as well electoral, i.e. a brother telling the Nation his brother won the elections.
"and the president wasn't overthrown, he fled, with all his luggage a motorcade and probably a lot of currency." Oh? I didn't know he was not re-elected in fair election. I though he fled after a mob took the Parliament by storm then went to the official residence to get him. I perfectly remember seeing this on TV. I think he run for his life, but perhaps the mob just wanted to, err, not kill him.
Gilrandir
06-01-2015, 11:26
However, the storming of the Parliament and the expulsion of an elected President and others was organised by the Nazi, proudly standing up in front of the building with the base-ball bats...
How do you know? Have you been "deep in the counsels" of those you qualify as nazis?
I repeat: in all the actions of Maidan (including capture of administrative buildings) a whole spectrum of protesters was instrumental, and nazis have been only a small portion of them. The leaders of the movement (towards the end of February) have become violent, but it is no reason to call them nazis for that.
Putin is probably closer to your political point, as nationalist
I don't know what your "probably" refers to - my position or that of Putin. But in either case you are wrong. I have already said that my stance doesn't qualify the notion of nationalism (and I explained why) and as for Putin, we all seem to agree that he is a fascist (on each proper date) but not a nationalist.
second link doesn't work
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/publications/reports/hiding-in-plain-sight-putin-s-war-in-ukraine-and-boris-nemtsov-s-putin-war
The Ukrainian's Russians are doing what the Ukrainian Nationalists/Nazi did in Maiden
1. They are not Russians. Most of the residents of Donbas are ethnic Ukrainians. Again a gross overgeneralization, same as the nazi coup. Or do you mean aliens from Russia?
2. So Maidaners ripped up bellies of their captives, called for a foreign nation's leader to invade and held referenda to proclaim an independent state? I have already drawn comparison exposing differences of the two movements and no one disputed it.
As my thinking process about it, I made it clear: Annexation of someone else territory is bad. Military intervention in someone else territory is bad. I am a leftist, so less borders better is for me. I don't like nationalism, Russian or Ukrainian.
You may proclaim whatever you like, yet if we compare how Russia and Ukraine view the conflict, you side with Russia on all the key points:
1. Yanukovych ceased to be the president...
Ukraine: because people were cheated of their promises and stood up for their rights.
Russia and Brenus: because of the nazi coup.
2.Someone captured administrative buildings in the Crimea and held a referendum.
Ukraine: those were Russian regular army soldiers and spetznaz.
Russia and Brenus: those were local self-defense protesters.
3. There is an armed conflict in Donbas ...
Ukraine: because Russian spetznaz interfered and started the actual fighting phase.
Russia and Brenus: because local populaces revolted against the oppression of ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers.
4. The war was and is possible...
Ukraine: because Russia supplies the rebelled areas with arms and mercenaries.
Russia and Brenus: there are no Russian weapons in Donbas, Russians there are volunteers fighting for the idea.
5. Principal defeats were suffered by Ukraine and fighting is still going on...
Ukraine: because there is a sizable (8-10,000) group of Russian regular army forces who participate in and direct all military operations.
Russia and Brenus: there are no Russian regular troops in Donbas.
So it is evident, who are your favorites in the conflict.
Now, this crisis wouldn't have existed if the Coup would have not happened, but it did happened.
An artbitrary statement. I might as well say that it wouldn't have happened if Yanukovych had signed the AA treaty in November 2013, or if he hadn't proclaimed that he would in May 2013, or if Putin hadn't tired to persuade him not to, or if Yanukovych tried to negotiate with the protesters from the outset, or if Putin hadn't been elected the president of Russia for the third time, or....
The list of might-have-beens is endless and your choice of it once again manifests your attitude which once again chimes with Russia's.
Except if you want a war in a territory where a Nuclear Plant named Chernobyl is actually built
Your knowledge of Ukraine's geography and recent history seems shady. First of all, Chernobyl was shut down by president Kuchma in 2000, so it isn't functioning. And second of all, if you are to be afraid of the war engulfing Ukrainian power plants, there are others that are nearer to the fighting zone.
15517
you have to find a political solution, and this solution will be a Bosnianisation (cantonisation) of Ukraine, contrary of what think your american expert in the alleged Putin's plan. It doesn't work really in Bosnia
What you advocate is what Putin is NOW trying to do: to push Lugandon back into Ukraine furnishing it with a veto right on all major decisions, both external and internal. If Ukrainian authorities agree to it, they will not be authorities for long, I think. What I can surmize from popular opinions, Ukrainians are ready to reconcile with the loss of the territory which otherwise will have to be rebuilt at an outrageous cost and whose population is almost totally averse to the rest of Ukraine's aspirations. So the situation is rather going Moldovan/Transdniestrian than Bosnian way.
Well done. You know all your propaganda.:2thumbsup:
Montmorency
06-01-2015, 19:31
"And you said you were against massive bailouts and oversized influence of banks and corporations in the international system" And?
So you want things to be different, but you don't want to work to change them? ~:confused:
It seems strange that you plead that you consider both major sides in the Ukraine issue to be equivalent yet constantly pick on one side over the other, even though this one side has clearly been less militant than the other; furthermore, the rebels are only supported by 10% of the population, which makes things rather...lopsided.
Oh? I didn't know he was not re-elected in fair election. I though he fled after a mob took the Parliament by storm then went to the official residence to get him. I perfectly remember seeing this on TV. I think he run for his life, but perhaps the mob just wanted to, err, not kill him.
Of course, this sort of thinking would delegitimize virtually all revolts in history. But meanwhile, Yanukovuch fled the country, not just the city. People tend to do that once they've lost the confidence of almost everyone - including his usual Eastern-Ukrainian backers.
Some bloody leftist you are.
"So you want things to be different, but you don't want to work to change them?" Sorry. I still don't get it. What are saying? What is the link between being again borders and against bail-out?
"Of course, this sort of thinking would delegitimize virtually all revolts in history." It was not necessary as an agreement has been reach thanks to the EU mediation. Th Coup was a successful attempt to rob the crowd of its victory by Nazi and it worked. Then the rest is histories.
"Some bloody leftist you are." Explain.
"People tend to do that once they've lost the confidence of almost everyone":laugh4: And when mob want to kill them.:laugh4:
Montmorency
06-02-2015, 01:59
Sorry. I still don't get it. What are saying? What is the link between being again borders and against bail-out?
If a bad peace is better than a good war, then clearly it is incumbent upon citizens to endure anything to which they are subjected by governments and institutions, in perpetuity. I do not think you could maintain this position without undermining your entire life's ideology, not least all the comments you've made in this thread.
Th Coup was a successful attempt to rob the crowd of its victory by Nazi and it worked.
So you're saying that Yanukovych ran a coalition of fascists who then turned on him in order to take advantage of the public? Otherwise, it's difficult to see what connection your notion has to anything. The right wing opposition has only lost influence in the past 2 years. In fact, the height of their power was reached under Yanukovych's oversight.
"Some bloody leftist you are." Explain.
Your position on Ukraine in these threads seems to suggest that, as the United States and most European countries permit far-rightists to participate in the political process, these are not legitimate democracies and their citizens should be disenfranchised in order to prevent the possibility of fascists gaining political power. So why single out Ukraine?
And when mob want to kill them.
So literally everyone in the country wanted him dead? In that case, yeah, then it's probably easy to predict that someone will be coming for you soon - which is also probably why he began packing his bags before the vote on his removal was even taken.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2015, 03:01
If a bad peace is better than a good war, then clearly it is incumbent upon citizens to endure anything to which they are subjected by governments and institutions, in perpetuity. I do not think you could maintain this position without undermining your entire life's ideology, not least all the comments you've made in this thread.
So you're saying that Yanukovych ran a coalition of fascists who then turned on him in order to take advantage of the public? Otherwise, it's difficult to see what connection your notion has to anything. The right wing opposition has only lost influence in the past 2 years. In fact, the height of their power was reached under Yanukovych's oversight.
Your position on Ukraine in these threads seems to suggest that, as the United States and most European countries permit far-rightists to participate in the political process, these are not legitimate democracies and their citizens should be disenfranchised in order to prevent the possibility of fascists gaining political power. So why single out Ukraine?
So literally everyone in the country wanted him dead? In that case, yeah, then it's probably easy to predict that someone will be coming for you soon - which is also probably why he began packing his bags before the vote on his removal was even taken.
This pretty much covers everything wrong with Brenus position -
A few right-wing fascists in the protests and it's a "Nazi coup"
Saint Paul said we should endure whatever the state inflicts upon us because the state's power is bestowed by God - he also said the Old Testament was infallible and the only useful guide to life, so he didn't know all that much about the real world.
“If a bad peace is better than a good war, then clearly it is incumbent upon citizens to endure anything to which they are subjected by governments and institutions, in perpetuity.” Sorry? In Ukraine, the war started because a fringe of Nazi decided the negotiated agreement were not good enough and stormed the Parliament. Now, you are saying it is better to kill people than negotiate, well, that is your opinion, not mine.
“So you're saying that Yanukovych ran a coalition of fascists who then turned on him in order to take advantage of the public?” No, that is what you are saying because whatever theory you believe in. I am saying that the social unrest was high jacked by Nazi, followed by very bad decisions which lead to a revolt in some parts of Ukraine and an annexation of part of its territory. And now you have a de-facto partition. The constant denial of the like Gilrandir didn’t help (mercenaries, foreign troops, columns of tanks rolling to Warsaw, sorry Berlin, etc.), nor the loud voices from NATO and EU for military solution (mopping-up was words used in this forum). My point always has been nobody really forecasted what would happen and everybody just reacted to events they lost control on. Yanukovych just do what he thinks is best for him within a coalition. I am not a “conspirationist” unlike some here, so no I don’t think Yanukovych used the Nazi fringe, but exploited the created situation at his tactical advantage.
“So why single out Ukraine?” Because we are speaking of Ukraine here, not of Croatia, or others Baltic States/former Communist Eastern Countries?
“these are not legitimate democracies” If they accept ideologies which are against the Human Right Declaration, they are not. You will find out I have the same opinion about Religions.
“So literally everyone in the country wanted him dead?” Really? Few hundred is largely enough to make a real threat I imagine.
I don’t know from where you find your figures, but please avoid to blame me for your statements or opinions.
“Saint Paul said we should endure whatever the state inflicts upon us because the state's power is bestowed by God - he also said the Old Testament was infallible and the only useful guide to life, so he didn't know all that much about the real world.” :laugh4:
Montmorency
06-02-2015, 14:45
Sorry? In Ukraine, the war started because a fringe of Nazi decided the negotiated agreement were not good enough and stormed the Parliament. Now, you are saying it is better to kill people than negotiate, well, that is your opinion, not mine.
That did not happen as you describe it. They broke into the parliament at night and started breaking stuff. Afterward, they gathered around the parliament and did nothing but agitate. Probably because there were only a few thousand of them in the entire country - not enough to affect events to any degree. At any rate, afterward the Right Sector was neutered as a political force and by now almost all of its current and former membership are pre-occupied with directly engaging the separatists in combat.
I am saying that the social unrest was high jacked by Nazi
How? What goals of theirs have actually been achieved that were not also goals of the Maidan movement in general? As I said, the far-right overall has only lost influence since the end of the old regime.
followed by very bad decisions which lead to a revolt in some parts of Ukraine and an annexation of part of its territory.
I don't think any particular decision of EuroMaidan had anything to do with the annexation of Crimea or the armed uprising in the Donbass. These were just long-standing geopolitical failsafes that Russia triggered to weaken the new Ukrainian government and show resolve to the West. If a few thousand Neo-Nazis were such a threat to Ukraine or Russia that these acts would have been taken as snap decisions, then why was it never a problem before 2014?
After all, most of the pro-Russian fighters in Ukraine now were political fascists themselves, and Russia has been notorious for its Neo-Nazi groups and gangs since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
If they accept ideologies which are against the Human Right Declaration, they are not.
So the "liberal democracies" of the world are not in fact democracies, and you're cool with that? You'd be living in one right now: the UK.
Gilrandir
06-03-2015, 09:44
Well done. You know all your propaganda.:2thumbsup:
As well as you do. :bow:
And the most fascinating thing about all this discussion is that you consider those who you don't agree with to be totally under the influence of propaganda, while you exempt yourself from the said influence. Go on deluding yourself.
That did not happen as you describe it. They broke into the parliament at night and started breaking stuff. Afterward, they gathered around the parliament and did nothing but agitate. Probably because there were only a few thousand of them in the entire country - not enough to affect events to any degree. At any rate, afterward the Right Sector was neutered as a political force and by now almost all of its current and former membership are pre-occupied with directly engaging the separatists in combat.
How? What goals of theirs have actually been achieved that were not also goals of the Maidan movement in general? As I said, the far-right overall has only lost influence since the end of the old regime.
I don't think any particular decision of EuroMaidan had anything to do with the annexation of Crimea or the armed uprising in the Donbass. These were just long-standing geopolitical failsafes that Russia triggered to weaken the new Ukrainian government and show resolve to the West. If a few thousand Neo-Nazis were such a threat to Ukraine or Russia that these acts would have been taken as snap decisions, then why was it never a problem before 2014?
After all, most of the pro-Russian fighters in Ukraine now were political fascists themselves, and Russia has been notorious for its Neo-Nazi groups and gangs since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
So the "liberal democracies" of the world are not in fact democracies, and you're cool with that? You'd be living in one right now: the UK.
I think you are wasting your time. All these arguments have been in use for over a year, yet they fell on deaf ears.
I once said about the way we consume the news. At the very first encounter with the information an evaluational filter "gets installed" (determined by a whole gamut of background and worldview factors) which then channels the whole stream of facts into one way assessment only. All later developments and arguments, however sensible they may be, are not able to change the ultimate attitude of a person. If you follow this and related thread(s), can you tell me how many people participating in the discussion changed their initial stance? So trying to persuade others in things that involve both ontological AND axiological components is useless. If you remove the latter you can probably prove something. But such discussions are held in the Front Room, not here.
Gilrandir
06-03-2015, 09:55
Concerning MH-17:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/05/31/mh17-forensic-analysis-of-satellite-images-released-by-the-russian-ministry-of-defence/
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.