Ukraine Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"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/...ations/murder/

And what official ukrainian side says about it:http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv...eo-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.

[Brenus]

"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]

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/worl...s-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]

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/worl...s-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.



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.

[Brenus]

“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]

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/wo...nchor-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.

[Brenus]

"So the duress wasn't legal." 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]

"So the duress wasn't legal." 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]

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...0612_01_en.pdf

[Brenus]

"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]

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]

Yo, Brits, in search of allies Putin goes south:
http://au.ibtimes.com/putin-signs-an...-cm7hM.twitter

[Beskar]

Says a lot about Argentina.

[Greyblades]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Beskar]

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]

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".

[Brenus]

“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.” l, no…

[Beskar]

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]

If the Argentinians acquire them in the future, I imagine their reaction would be something akin to...

[Gilrandir]

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]

The SWIFT offensive has started?
http://rt.com/business/253649-crimea...blocked-swift/

[Beskar]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Brenus]

"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]

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.