Ukraine Thread

[Montmorency]

PVC, I'm afraid it takes a fanatical ideologist to imagine one.

Lean back and take a sober look at the picture. From my view, the only thing informing your hawkishness is delusions of glory and grandeur.

There is little evidence that significant national leaders have your mindset.

Also, Hitler is irrelevant to the conversation as external factors had already determined Germany's path to war in the context of that time. Germany as a state had no option other than to fight. Likewise with France, the UK, the US, the USSR, Japan, and all the rest.

In the contemporary context, Russia has nothing to fight for such as was driving states in the 1930s. War now would be a desperate last resort for Russia's very survival as a unified political entity, or at least Putin's own survival, as it were.

And even if we were to imagine Putin as equal to you in war-lust, you still must acknowledge that even the highest King-of-Kings, let alone some two-bit modern authoritarian, must answer not just to his own subjects, but to his 'vassals'.

[Montmorency]

To be clear on where I'm coming from:

Political Realism - "Reason" = Behaviorism

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, I'm afraid it takes a fanatical ideologist to imagine one.

Lean back and take a sober look at the picture. From my view, the only thing informing your hawkishness is delusions of glory and grandeur.

There is little evidence that significant national leaders have your mindset.

No, I don't think they do agree with me. Like I said, I didn't think he'd annex Crimea, I didn't think he'd instigate a war in the Donbas but there you go.

Also, Hitler is irrelevant to the conversation as external factors had already determined Germany's path to war in the context of that time. Germany as a state had no option other than to fight. Likewise with France, the UK, the US, the USSR, Japan, and all the rest.

In the contemporary context, Russia has nothing to fight for such as was driving states in the 1930s. War now would be a desperate last resort for Russia's very survival as a unified political entity, or at least Putin's own survival, as it were.

Germany didn't HAVE to go to war, it didn't benefit the country in the slightest. Germans just believed they had to go to war. I'm surprised you can make the comparison and not see that, increasingly, Russians believe they need to go to war. We must fight for Donbas, we must recover Russia's honour, fatherland this and that.

Putin and his ilk look at a map of the former USSR and see it overlaid in one colour, must like a Byzantine looked at a map and saw SQPR overlaid.

[Montmorency]

Germany didn't HAVE to go to war, it didn't benefit the country in the slightest.

In hindsight, obviously not, but if Germany didn't go to war at the time then it would rapidly have undergone Finlandization towards either the USSR or the old couple.

increasingly, Russians believe they need to go to war. We must fight for Donbas, we must recover Russia's honour, fatherland this and that.

Do you have any idea how many Americans supported war as a general path to solving perceived problems just over a decade ago?

What's at issue here is your insistence on treating snapshots of sentiment in segments of populations and fleeting positions of leadership as fixed states of affairs, when in reality they are fluctuating constantly and wildly - this should be obvious to anyone who has lived as a human being, let alone someone with political experience or historical knowledge.

Also, Germany is again waking up to its status as one of the major European powers. So far, they're trying to use that power to indirectly keep themselves in check (through economic entanglements), but if it finds itself first among equals in Europe but still unable to effect the international policy outcomes it desires (e.g. brokering a solution to disputes over Ukraine), then it may come to see accumulating more power as the best option -

again.

But because this is possible, by your logic 'DEAR GOD THE EAGLE IS STIRRING ONCE MORE WE MUST PRE-EMPTIVELY CRUSH THE JERRIES FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY THE ENGLISH NEVER NEVER NEVER SHALL BE SLAVES"

Putin and his ilk look at a map of the former USSR and see it overlaid in one colour

But see, inasmuch as they do you are conflating geography with ideology or megalomania.

[CrossLOPER]

'DEAR GOD THE EAGLE IS STIRRING ONCE MORE WE MUST PRE-EMPTIVELY CRUSH THE JERRIES FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY THE ENGLISH NEVER NEVER NEVER SHALL BE SLAVES"

I spat out my porridge.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Germany didn't HAVE to go to war, it didn't benefit the country in the slightest. Germans just believed they had to go to war. I'm surprised you can make the comparison and not see that, increasingly, Russians believe they need to go to war. We must fight for Donbas, we must recover Russia's honour, fatherland this and that.

Putin and his ilk look at a map of the former USSR and see it overlaid in one colour, must like a Byzantine looked at a map and saw SQPR overlaid.

I think most Russians use Rodina, other than the Fatherland-all-Russia group (who admittedly DO support Putin). Aside from such quibbling, I think you have hit on an important point. Putin's regime does seem to be looking at maps with that SPQR background thought in mind and also seems to have the "our place in the sun" chip on their shoulder. The combination does not readily lend itself to peaceful conflict management.

[Brenus]

“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.

“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. But, again contrary to you, I don’t pretend they are not Nazi/Fascists. And until the French politicians carry-on the cheat and to do all the same policy, more people will go fishing during elections, except the most motivated, the opposition. Because the real winner is the no-vote camp (49.9 %), which is logical as it doesn’t matter what you vote, you’ve got EU policy, un-employment, poverty and austerity.
Democracy was killed in France when, against the national will shown in a Referendum, the so-called National Representatives voted the EU treaty. 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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[CrossLOPER]

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

Someone please fill me in on the joke.

[Sarmatian]

Someone please fill me in on the joke.

Strike wrote two consecutive sentences without grammar or spelling mistakes.

It's more of an oddity than a joke, really.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Someone please fill me in on the joke.

We like to remind people of the political realities periodically, lest they lose perspective.

[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.

[Gilrandir]

In the contemporary context, Russia has nothing to fight for such as was driving states in the 1930s. War now would be a desperate last resort for Russia's very survival as a unified political entity, or at least Putin's own survival, as it were.

It may be an eye-opener, but Russia IS fighting a war. And the reasons to continue it are obvious - having started the offensive (accompanied by the propaganda frenzy) Putin can't just say: "Now we will stop supporting the oppressed Russian-speakers and Russians suffering from depredations of Kiev junta". He is to push it till he can report to the nation that the enemy is worsted. Until there is a halt in the propaganda, he can't hope to explain such a U-turn to his people. And right now the propaganda shows no signs of slackening. When we see the latter it may be a hint that Putin indeed wishes to de-escalate.

[Gilrandir]

And speaking of Nazis:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32009360
Meanwhile in France:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...elections.html
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?

[Montmorency]

Juif, la France n'est pas a toi?

[Gilrandir]

Juif, la France n'est pas a toi?

Вибач, французькою не володію.