Ukraine Thread

[Gilrandir]

Yes, apparently Gilrandir denies that you can say something is "more lethal", which you have done for both uses however.

Evidently, he word is polysemantic, so its different meanings possess different grammatical categories. One can't, for example, say: "His disease now is more lethal then the one he had last year", because if the previous was lethal, he should have died of it. However, those semantic disputes don't cancel what I was trying to prove, namely: if you know your neigbor has several guns, you will feel threatened anyway irrespective of the kind of any of them or your knowledge of any of them having been upgraded lately. Yet if you have been living with this awareness and insecurity for 40 years and the neighbor never fired any of them, I'm sure the feeling will have gotten numb. The only reason you may have a relapse of apprehensions is when your neighbor is "divorced from reality". But that applies to Putin, not to those in the west who upgrade their weapons.

“Would it make you happier if they had?” ? Happier? We speak of politic and field reality. If the Ukrainian soldiers would have felt they were defending the mother land (or father land) they would have fought like lions, against all odds and with bravery. They didn’t because it wasn’t worth of it.

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. They are taught to obey the order irrespective of what they feel. Or was it different in your case? Did you listen to your heart before you considered whether to obey the order or not?
More than once the officers from the blockaded military units in the Crimea demanded from their bosses in Kyiv a clear cut order. I'm sure those loyal to their oaths would obey it. But the order to shoot was never issued. There were reasons why not and I had given them.

“But I think it is worth a remark (although Brenus might not like it):
The Telegraph rejoices in Le Pen's defeat, yet let's face the stark truth: the French gave 26% of votes for the Nazis - the second place and only 4% behind the winners. I wouldn't call it a defeat.
Now where is the threat of nazism coming from - Ukraine or France+Russia?” Once again you don’t understand.
Contrary to you I don’t dispute reality. There is a threat of Nazism/Fascism in France.

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.

So, now, populations vote against the establishment (and Le Pen is supposed to be one) or just, as I do, don’t bother to go to vote when my candidate is not on the line.

That was a bad call. 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. Well, people change as well as thier values.

It is March 24th 2015 and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist
It is March 24th 2015 and Marine Le Pen is still a fascist

I suggest calling them Vlamarine Le Putin.

[Gilrandir]

On how independent the separatists are:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/s...ette-1.2406228
Regretfully, it is in German, but when I open the article I have an option of translation. I posted the link of the translated article, yet it shows only the original. Perhaps others could find some way of doing it in English.

[Husar]

Evidently, he word is polysemantic, so its different meanings possess different grammatical categories. One can't, for example, say: "His disease now is more lethal then the one he had last year", because if the previous was lethal, he should have died of it.

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.

However, those semantic disputes don't cancel what I was trying to prove, namely: if you know your neigbor has several guns, you will feel threatened anyway irrespective of the kind of any of them or your knowledge of any of them having been upgraded lately. Yet if you have been living with this awareness and insecurity for 40 years and the neighbor never fired any of them, I'm sure the feeling will have gotten numb. The only reason you may have a relapse of apprehensions is when your neighbor is "divorced from reality". But that applies to Putin, not to those in the west who upgrade their weapons.

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.