Ukraine-in-a-thread

[Kagemusha]

I'm sorry to say, but that's a highly simplified and naive view of international relations.

Please do educate the rest of us. How is Fisherkings view naive?

[HoreTore]

Please do educate the rest of us. How is Fisherkings view naive?

Because it ignores all other aspects of human life besides money and power...? It also implies a perfect rationality in international politics, which is, to put it mildly, highly debatable.

Take pride, for example. You don't believe pride has an influence on relations?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don’t mean to bust your bubble but it is only about the money and the power.

His moneyed interests are incompatible with our moneyed interests because they don’t want others to get, what they fell is, their cash.

A renewal of the cold war means a lot of cash for the arms industry on both sides.

Syria was about short term relief. This is about long term profits.

That's not entirely accurate.

It's rather like saying the Crusades was "all about land", that was a factor for some but it wasn't why they went there.

Libya was not about oil, oil just made it much easier to mobalise.

Afghanistan and Iraq were about revenge and settling old scores respectively.

The question is - is Crimea about Russia, or the Soviet Reunion?

If I were Estonian or Latvian I would be feeling very twitchy right now.

[rvg]

The question is - is Crimea about Russia, or the Soviet Reunion?

If I were Estonian or Latvian I would be feeling very twitchy right now.

Crimea is about Putin testing the waters, it's about seeing how far can he can go before he runs into solid opposition.

[Beskar]

Please do educate the rest of us. How is Fisherkings view naive?

He missed out "ideology", thus it is "money, power and ideology".

I would place his example of 'pride' under the label of ideology. There are many other sub-constructs too, but in a simplified manner, this works.

[Kagemusha]

Because it ignores all other aspects of human life besides money and power...? It also implies a perfect rationality in international politics, which is, to put it mildly, highly debatable.

Take pride, for example. You don't believe pride has an influence on relations?

Everything of course have an influence, but at least how i read Fisherkings post. I think he means what it boils down into. Reaching to emotions is essence of politics, as what is power? And money comes in when something is deemed worthwhile or not. But i am sure the original poster will fill in soon enough.

[rvg]

He missed out "ideology", thus it is "money, power and ideology".

Russian ideology of today is simple: "For the God-Emperor!" Anyone who disagrees is a heretic.

[Sarmatian]

Because it ignores all other aspects of human life besides money and power...? It also implies a perfect rationality in international politics, which is, to put it mildly, highly debatable.

Take pride, for example. You don't believe pride has an influence on relations?

Human life has little meaning in global politics...

[Fisherking]

I'm sorry to say, but that's a highly simplified and naive view of international relations.

It may be cynical but it is not naïve.

Those in power stay there by helping the rich get what they want.

The rich get richer by keeping their guy in power.

Right now Putin wants to start his own trading block and needed Ukraine. The EU wants to expend their trading block.

Western arms manufactures are seeing an end to the latest crop of wars and lean times. Putin is expanding his military. Why? What was the threat? It just makes the right people happy.

Look around at past wars. Any of them, and tell me no one profited. Much of the time the war was over particular trade issues. You can dress it up anyway you want and it usually comes down to who gets the concession for what commodity.

As for pride, prestige, and patriotism, they are food for the masses. Part of the reflected glory. Go back to the British Empire. It was about trade. The rest just stirred the people in to working for their goals.

I’m sorry. I earned my cynicism in the service to their cause.

Here is someone else who came to the same conclusion: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

You won’t find the book long at all but what was true in the 1930s is still true today.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Celebrities only distract those who wish to be distracted. Those are a lost cause anyway.

I don't think you are fully correct in this. There have been, throughout history, some who will always choose distraction over substance. With those persons in mind, I agree with your assessment. They have chosen ignorance and will reap the benefits thereof.

However, in a mass communication era, I think the "agenda setting" function of the media greatly exacerbates this kind of "least common denominator" focus and makes it a problem for a broader segment of the society than otherwise would choose ignorance.

In the past, you had to actively avoid substance for distraction. Now, you must work to avoid distraction and seek substance.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Human life has little meaning in global politics...

It is one of the currencies of exchange in global politics.

[rvg]

In the past, you had to actively avoid substance for distraction. Now, you must work to avoid distraction and seek substance.

Sure, but that's not very difficult to do. Nor does it take much effort.

[HoreTore]

He missed out "ideology", thus it is "money, power and ideology".

I would place his example of 'pride' under the label of ideology. There are many other sub-constructs too, but in a simplified manner, this works.

....And tradition? Where do you place that? The likelihood of a national leader acting in a certain way is heavily influenced by how former leaders have acted in similar situations, even if there are otherwise no ties between the current and former leaders. I can't see how you can place this under "power, money and ideology". And now we've already doubled the original list...

The main issue with "power and money" is something else, however. It's usually tied to the old "follow the money"-type "arguments", which is a line of thinking which bungles up cause and effect and leads us down the murky waters of functionalist explanations. Besides functionalist explanations not being explanations at all, they also open the gateway to all sorts of nonsense, like thinking OBL was not responsible for 9/11. He didn't profit, so obviously he can't be responsible?!?!

[Beskar]

....And tradition? Where do you place that? The likelihood of a national leader acting in a certain way is heavily influenced by how former leaders have acted in similar situations, even if there are otherwise no ties between the current and former leaders. I can't see how you can place this under "power, money and ideology". And now we've already doubled the original list...

Tradition comes under ideology. So there is no issue. National pride and tradition are part of the national ideology, there is no list doubling. Even concepts such as facism, democracy, human rights and others come under ideology too. Even religious thought. It pretty much covers the bases. Yes, you can break down ideology into more sub-categories, but it works as the catch-all.

[Fisherking]

Come on guy, that is for recruiting posters.

[rvg]

Yvan eht nioj.

[HoreTore]

Tradition comes under ideology. So there is no issue. National pride and tradition are part of the national ideology, there is no list doubling. Even concepts such as facism, democracy, human rights and others come under ideology too. Even religious thought. It pretty much covers the bases. Yes, you can break down ideology into more sub-categories, but it works as the catch-all.

I am not talking about the ideological kind of tradition, I am talking of the psychological kind, ie. the (unconscious) desire not to act in ways contrary to what has been done before.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yvan eht nioj.

PARTY POSSE!

[Brenus]

`“by Tuesday we'll be in a state of an armed conflict with Russia.” Not a chance: Military exercises in Poland were cancelled due to bad weather…
And I hope for your troops in Afghanistan you will not, or the Taliban might have access to modern weapons faster than you think…

“That's what I thought about Russia stealing Crimea from Ukraine if you asked me 3 months ago.” That is because, like me, you underestimated the Extreme-Right Stupidity in Ukraine.
However, I never even imagine that Putin would forget Kosovo and the Encirclement Strategy from the West. He did react for Georgia, and I even don’t understand why some would think he wouldn't in Ukraine.

[Fisherking]

Free elections, free opinions. Guess again!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26552066

More provocative:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26564846

[Brenus]

So NATO exercises (cancelled, due to bad weather) were legitimate but Russian are provocations.... Hmm, I see you point.

[Sarmatian]

So NATO exercises (cancelled, due to bad weather) were legitimate but Russian are provocations.... Hmm, I see you point.

That point aside, what does it say about the army which cancels its exercises due to bad weather? What's next? No fighting on weekends and after five?

[Fisherking]

So NATO exercises (cancelled, due to bad weather) were legitimate but Russian are provocations.... Hmm, I see you point.

It is meant to be provocative.

Do the troops in Poland prove a threat to Ukraine? Are they likely to launch an incursion into Russia?

[Fisherking]

That point aside, what does it say about the army which cancels its exercises due to bad weather? What's next? No fighting on weekends and after five?

That has to be some very weak excuse. I have never seen an exercise canceled due to weather.

Is the maneuver zone under 2m of water?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That point aside, what does it say about the army which cancels its exercises due to bad weather? What's next? No fighting on weekends and after five?

Maybe it says they're bad at excuses.

Russia doesn't want war - that's reassuring.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26564851

[HoreTore]

Exercises are frequently halted due to bad weather. The Cold Response(the NATO exercise in Norway) 2006 was halted for a day or so when the temperature crept below -40.


There's a pretty big difference between peacetime and wartime.

[Sarmatian]

Maybe it says they're bad at excuses.

My thoughts exactly.

So, what was the real reason?

[Fisherking]

Exercises are frequently halted due to bad weather. The Cold Response(the NATO exercise in Norway) 2006 was halted for a day or so when the temperature crept below -40.


There's a pretty big difference between peacetime and wartime.

How things do change.

I was on an exercise that stopped movement when temperatures dipped below -60F and vehicles could no longer be refueled, but the troops had to remain in the field. In icy conditions armored vehicles usually drop their track pads or even reverse some center guides to gain traction. The attitude was always to train as you fight so foul weather was only a training enhancement.

[Husar]

I know you're not all as sentimental as I am, but I looked up some good quotes from comrade Putin and thought I'd share them:

A superpower is a cold war term. When people today say that Russia aspires to have this status, I interpret it in the following way: they want to undermine trust in Russia, to portray Russia as frightening, and create some kind of image of an enemy. ... Russia is in favor of a multipolar world, a democratic world order, strengthening the system of international law, and for developing a legal system in which any small country, even a very small country, can feel itself secure, as if behind a stone wall. ... Russia is ready to become part of this multipolar world and guarantee that the international community observes these rules. And not as a superpower with special rights, but rather as an equal among equals.

People are always teaching us democracy but the people who teach us democracy don't want to learn it themselves.

Oh yeah, and to finally prove how untrustworthy and out of his mind the man really is:

Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet.

There's more good stuff on wikiquote of course: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

[Gilrandir]

This is a forum, people debate here. We challenge each other and learn new stuff.

I have learned some new thing as well: challenge means giving evaluative judgements calling the opponent "boring", "childish" and his arguments "bollocks". Other people here even if they may disagree with me don't resort to snobbery.

So far, thins I've learned from discussion with you:

1) You don't know history

I'm not a historian. If I dabble in history my interests lie in medieval period. So I don't deny that I'm not a great specialist in WWII history, at least not in the warfare waged outside the Soviet Union. But you generalize things basing your judgement on the mistake(s) you may have spotted in my posts. Those mistake(s) (which Hore Tore corrected, and not you, by the way) were caused by my excessive trust to a British documentary. Adopting your approach I may claim that you don't know English (look at your quote above). Or is it a specific example that proves nothing?

One more thing I have learned from discussion with you: you see disregard of democratic principles only if the "illegal/illegitimate" government in Kyiv is guilty of it (and blame personally me in it) and are OK with it if the opposite side resorts to it as well. You give advice (unsolicited, by the way) expecting personally me to follow it and start parleying with Putin. I have told it several times: Russia does not want to have any negotiations with any representatives of contemporary Ukrainian government.