Org Mobile Site
Thread: Ukraine Thread
Originally Posted by :
Why would they? The regime changes in Greece, Portugal and Spain had nothing to do with NATO. NATO is indifferent to regime if it suits.
I thought you were referring to recent enlargements. Spain was post-Franco when admitted, and harping on founding members seems a little petty.Why would they? The regime changes in Greece, Portugal and Spain had nothing to do with NATO. NATO is indifferent to regime if it suits.
Originally Posted by :
As Georgia is concern, it was the same pattern than Croatian Storm Operation, attack on refugees camp and ethnic cleansing... What the Georgian President failed to see was NATO wouldn't back him up as it did for the Croats, and Russia was really at the door and had the power to intervene...
I don't think that's correct. The Georgians were responding to escalation; where they failed was in calling Putin's bluff that he would respond to any direct intervention. With the two provinces already being under partial Russian administration/occupation, there should never have been any notion that Georgia could simply roll in like Gaza. As Georgia is concern, it was the same pattern than Croatian Storm Operation, attack on refugees camp and ethnic cleansing... What the Georgian President failed to see was NATO wouldn't back him up as it did for the Croats, and Russia was really at the door and had the power to intervene...
While there's no reason to believe that had the Georgian army been allowed free reign they would have demonstrated a pristine humanitarian record, in the end the Russian counterattack and political entrenchment ensured that it was largely ethnic Georgians who got 'stormed'.
Originally Posted by Brenus:
"Perform the Marxist reality check you are so proud of being able to do." Easy: The entire thread about Ukraine, plus link with aircraft carrier smoking and planes crushing. Pick your choice.
As you have taught me (as a linguist), words are important. You were persistent in demanding direct quotation of your words containing "worthless". I think I'm right in believing I can demand the same attitude from you too."Perform the Marxist reality check you are so proud of being able to do." Easy: The entire thread about Ukraine, plus link with aircraft carrier smoking and planes crushing. Pick your choice.
But I can save you the trouble: you will not find any. What I tried to show by the posts you mentioned is that Russian armed might is to a great degree exaggerated. I NEVER said that "Russian army is crap, ill trained, incompetent and ill equipped." But if you are still sure that you can give the relevant words of mine, be my guest.
Originally Posted by Brenus:
End of my answers to you until you accept civilised debates and stop practicing personal attacks.
End of my answers to you until you accept civilised debates and stop practicing personal attacks.
So, Sarmatian calling me obnoxious is not a personal attack, and me reiterating what you yourself claim is? Again: perform the reality check.But: A nice dodge - playing hurt dignity instead of admitting your bad call.
Originally Posted by Brenus:
And NATO/US get away first with Yugoslavia then with Kosovo, so spread the model until Ukraine where it failed.
It says a lot when you think that events of 2013/2014 in Ukraine was NATO's/US operation.And NATO/US get away first with Yugoslavia then with Kosovo, so spread the model until Ukraine where it failed.
Originally Posted by Brenus:
Putin's operation on Ukraine is a copycat of Kosovo. Same pretext, same modus operandi, and almost same results.
Anexion of internationally recognised part of a sovereign Country, with the same disdain for international law and treaties.
You contradict yourself in two successive sentences. In Kosovo case, there was no annexation.Putin's operation on Ukraine is a copycat of Kosovo. Same pretext, same modus operandi, and almost same results.
Anexion of internationally recognised part of a sovereign Country, with the same disdain for international law and treaties.
Moreover, your other claims are wrong as well:
1. The pretext of Kosovo intervention was the REAL use of military force by Serbia against Kosovars. The pretext of Crimea annexation was the IMAGINED (you would call it LIKELY) attack of Ukrainian nazis against the locals.
2. As for modus operandi: in Crimea Putin sent his green men pretending those were local militias. Only a year (or about that) later he admitted those were Russian regular army. NATO intervened openly. Putin has resorted (and keeps doing it) to the hybrid warfare in which "local pitmen and tractor drivers" wage "civil war" against "Kiev nazi junta" while Russian regular army is at the root of all the set-to and Russia supplies the occupied Donbas with ammo, fuel, money and weapons.
Originally Posted by Brenus:
"On the topic of Montenegro, it contains a significant chunk of Adriatic Coast and it's part of the old province of Illyria - both reasons to want it in NATO." Because having been part of Illyria (wich Albania proclaims to be the descendant) is a reason to be part of NATO? As Adriatic sea is concern, so Croatia, Greece, Slovenia, so it makes the very difficult of access Montenegro a bit redundant.
No, the only really valid reason to have Montenegro in NATO is to annoy Russia.
Result: Putin is moving short range nuclear missile to Russia European borders if I have to believe the news.
Can't wait the Western powers to express their indignation and protest about this unmotivated unilateral decision.
First of all, I was trying to subtly make the point that NATO has a certain ideological drive behind it aside from purely practical or current political concerns. Also, control of the entire Adriatic coast is desirable from a strategic point of view, as is control of the entire Balkans. That way if NATO is attacked through the Balkans we would be able to move troops and materials more easily."On the topic of Montenegro, it contains a significant chunk of Adriatic Coast and it's part of the old province of Illyria - both reasons to want it in NATO." Because having been part of Illyria (wich Albania proclaims to be the descendant) is a reason to be part of NATO? As Adriatic sea is concern, so Croatia, Greece, Slovenia, so it makes the very difficult of access Montenegro a bit redundant.
No, the only really valid reason to have Montenegro in NATO is to annoy Russia.
Result: Putin is moving short range nuclear missile to Russia European borders if I have to believe the news.
Can't wait the Western powers to express their indignation and protest about this unmotivated unilateral decision.
Aside from that, maybe Montenegro is afraid of Russia?
It's not like NATO (or the EU) is annexing countries Brenus, they're asking to join.
Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
So, Sarmatian calling me obnoxious is not a personal attack, and me reiterating what you yourself claim is? Again: perform the reality check.
I was calling your behavior obnoxious, not you, a subtle but important difference. So, Sarmatian calling me obnoxious is not a personal attack, and me reiterating what you yourself claim is? Again: perform the reality check.Although, to be frank, I would have no problem calling you obnoxious and that wouldn't be an incorrect abridgment of my opinion of you. Unlike Brenus, I'm not a very civilized and polite human being.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
I was calling your behavior obnoxious, not you, a subtle but important difference.
Although, to be frank, I would have no problem calling you obnoxious and that wouldn't be an incorrect abridgment of my opinion of you. Unlike Brenus, I'm not a very civilized and polite human being.
What about your exhortation to attack arguments, not a person? Or is it valid only if this person is not obnoxious?I was calling your behavior obnoxious, not you, a subtle but important difference.
Although, to be frank, I would have no problem calling you obnoxious and that wouldn't be an incorrect abridgment of my opinion of you. Unlike Brenus, I'm not a very civilized and polite human being.
By the way, being subtler is expressing his attitude doesn't make one more polite or civilized.
"Aside from that, maybe Montenegro is afraid of Russia?" You never had put a foot in Montenegro!!!!
You never had put a foot in Montenegro!!!!Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
What about your exhortation to attack arguments, not a person? Or is it valid only if this person is not obnoxious?
By the way, being subtler is expressing his attitude doesn't make one more polite or civilized.
It's valid always. It's just that I'm an ass and don't care in majority of cases.What about your exhortation to attack arguments, not a person? Or is it valid only if this person is not obnoxious?
By the way, being subtler is expressing his attitude doesn't make one more polite or civilized.
Is it time, then?
Pick one.
Pick one.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Attached:
6q384H6.jpg
(272.1 KB)
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
It's valid always. It's just that I'm an ass and don't care in majority of cases.
And you expect others to follow what you preach but you don't find it a binding tenet for yourself?It's valid always. It's just that I'm an ass and don't care in majority of cases.
Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
And you expect others to follow what you preach but you don't find it a binding tenet for yourself?
I expect very little of people. As they tend to give very little, it usually works out well.And you expect others to follow what you preach but you don't find it a binding tenet for yourself?
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
I expect very little of people. As they tend to give very little, it usually works out well.
Perhaps it is because they follow your pattern of actions and not your preaching.I expect very little of people. As they tend to give very little, it usually works out well.
How is this related to the Donbass conflict Gilrandir? Or are you trying to turn the thread into a "bash the Russians" fest?
Originally Posted by Crandar:
How is this related to the Donbass conflict Gilrandir? Or are you trying to turn the thread into a "bash the Russians" fest?
Who said it is a thread about Donbas conflict? It is "Ukraine thread". And if you read information carefully you might have noticed that the footage of the incident was published by Ukrainian television.How is this related to the Donbass conflict Gilrandir? Or are you trying to turn the thread into a "bash the Russians" fest?
So since the thread concerns only Ukraine, basing Lavrov and Russia is even more off-topic than I originally assumed. Glad to have been corrected, thanks.
Originally Posted by Crandar:
So since the thread concerns only Ukraine, basing Lavrov and Russia is even more off-topic than I originally assumed. Glad to have been corrected, thanks.
You evidently missed "Ukrainian television" which somehow concerns Ukraine.So since the thread concerns only Ukraine, basing Lavrov and Russia is even more off-topic than I originally assumed. Glad to have been corrected, thanks.
Results of the 18th round of Ukrainian Premier League, as reported by Ukrainian television
12.12. 18:00 Dyn. Kiev Shakhtar Donetsk 3 : 4
11.12. 18:30 Stal Kamianske FK Zorya Luhansk 0 : 2
11.12. 16:00 Oleksandriya Ch. Odessa 2 : 1
11.12. 13:00 Karpaty Zirka Kropyvnytskyi 2 : 3
10.12. 13:00 Volyn Lutsk Vorskla Poltava 0 : 1
09.12. 18:00 Dnipro Olimpik Donetsk 1 : 1
11.12. 18:30 Stal Kamianske FK Zorya Luhansk 0 : 2
11.12. 16:00 Oleksandriya Ch. Odessa 2 : 1
11.12. 13:00 Karpaty Zirka Kropyvnytskyi 2 : 3
10.12. 13:00 Volyn Lutsk Vorskla Poltava 0 : 1
09.12. 18:00 Dnipro Olimpik Donetsk 1 : 1
With Rex Tillerson (who explicitly stated that he is anti-sanctions) as Secretary of State I would be interested to see if the Russia sanctions hold up. It really comes down to congress and if they will buck the president on this or end up easing sanctions (if not totally removing them).
He was anti-sanctions when they were getting in the way of making money for his stockholders.
Now the USA itself is his "stockholder." We shall see if he takes a different stance in his new executive role.
Now the USA itself is his "stockholder." We shall see if he takes a different stance in his new executive role.
I would be skeptical that he would change his tune much. He has stated that sanctions dont work, so it would be strange to do an about-face on this. But in the end though it is congress who decided sanctions so Im not too worried. What I am worried most about though is him recognizing the Russian takeover of Crimea.
Rex Tillerson? Sounds like a B-movie villain... 
De jure we never will. De facto, the US and NATO already have.
I wonder if the Senate (or the Congress) is likely to turn down any nominee offered by the president. I mean is the US parliament really active in approving the choices of POTUS or does he act like the British monarch in approving ANY prime minister offered by the parliament?
Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
I wonder if the Senate (or the Congress) is likely to turn down any nominee offered by the president. I mean is the US parliament really active in approving the choices of POTUS or does he act like the British monarch in approving ANY prime minister offered by the parliament?
Im expecting a fight against him, but thats really the only nominee I would expect an actual fight against. Many in the GOP have already stated their displeasure with the appointment.I wonder if the Senate (or the Congress) is likely to turn down any nominee offered by the president. I mean is the US parliament really active in approving the choices of POTUS or does he act like the British monarch in approving ANY prime minister offered by the parliament?
Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
I wonder if the Senate (or the Congress) is likely to turn down any nominee offered by the president. I mean is the US parliament really active in approving the choices of POTUS or does he act like the British monarch in approving ANY prime minister offered by the parliament?
There is a tradition that the President gets their choice for all but judicial appointments unless something "over the top" is discovered while vetting. Even then, the number of people voted down by Congress is very small -- usually the nomination is withdrawn if somebody finds a gnarly skeleton in a closet somewhere.I wonder if the Senate (or the Congress) is likely to turn down any nominee offered by the president. I mean is the US parliament really active in approving the choices of POTUS or does he act like the British monarch in approving ANY prime minister offered by the parliament?
Originally Posted by Hooahguy:
I would be skeptical that he would change his tune much. He has stated that sanctions dont work, so it would be strange to do an about-face on this. But in the end though it is congress who decided sanctions so Im not too worried. What I am worried most about though is him recognizing the Russian takeover of Crimea.
Well- what's the point of sanctions?I would be skeptical that he would change his tune much. He has stated that sanctions dont work, so it would be strange to do an about-face on this. But in the end though it is congress who decided sanctions so Im not too worried. What I am worried most about though is him recognizing the Russian takeover of Crimea.
We know they don't deliver regime change, so they're basically there to express our annoyance - which they have done. At some point persecuting Russia starts to benefit Putin's policy. Any constant enforced by one party in diplomacy ends up being turned to the advantage of the target in some way eventually because it's a constant.
At this point we should arguably be lifting all non arms-related sanctions. That will greatly reduce Putin's ability to blame Russia's systemic problems on the West whilst also forcing Russia to pay for all it's own military R&D and driving up the per-capita cost of their new equipment by reducing their ability to sell it oversees and thereby economise their production lines.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
Well- what's the point of sanctions?
We know they don't deliver regime change, so they're basically there to express our annoyance - which they have done. At some point persecuting Russia starts to benefit Putin's policy. Any constant enforced by one party in diplomacy ends up being turned to the advantage of the target in some way eventually because it's a constant.
At this point we should arguably be lifting all non arms-related sanctions. That will greatly reduce Putin's ability to blame Russia's systemic problems on the West whilst also forcing Russia to pay for all it's own military R&D and driving up the per-capita cost of their new equipment by reducing their ability to sell it oversees and thereby economise their production lines.
Sanctions are essentially economic violence. We arent going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine so this is the next best thing. True, the impact of sanctions on Russia haven't been much when compared to the impact of falling oil prices (most economists think that the Russian economy has been impacted three times more by falling oil prices than by sanctions). But they havent made it easy either. The arms embargo has certainly hurt, as the sale of the French Mistral carriers was cancelled. Limiting sanctions to just arms sales would definitely make it easier for their economy to recover. Im skeptical that sanctions have caused the anti-west sentiment, they have been blaming the west on their troubles for years before all this happened. And mind you, sanctions by the EU didnt really begin until the MH17 disaster, a disaster which the evidence solidly points to Russian implication.Well- what's the point of sanctions?
We know they don't deliver regime change, so they're basically there to express our annoyance - which they have done. At some point persecuting Russia starts to benefit Putin's policy. Any constant enforced by one party in diplomacy ends up being turned to the advantage of the target in some way eventually because it's a constant.
At this point we should arguably be lifting all non arms-related sanctions. That will greatly reduce Putin's ability to blame Russia's systemic problems on the West whilst also forcing Russia to pay for all it's own military R&D and driving up the per-capita cost of their new equipment by reducing their ability to sell it oversees and thereby economise their production lines.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
Well- what's the point of sanctions?
We know they don't deliver regime change, so they're basically there to express our annoyance - which they have done. At some point persecuting Russia starts to benefit Putin's policy. Any constant enforced by one party in diplomacy ends up being turned to the advantage of the target in some way eventually because it's a constant.
At this point we should arguably be lifting all non arms-related sanctions. That will greatly reduce Putin's ability to blame Russia's systemic problems on the West whilst also forcing Russia to pay for all it's own military R&D and driving up the per-capita cost of their new equipment by reducing their ability to sell it oversees and thereby economise their production lines.
You may be right speaking of the sanctions which are being enforced now - they may be annoying, but aren't that effective. But, in my opinion, you draw a wrong conclusion. Why weren't/aren't sanctions effective? Perhaps because the West is reluctant to introduce the sanctions that WILL hurt? So, if you want sanctions to be effective choose the ones properly - like the one with quick money or whatever it is called. Otherwise it is complaining that the disease persists making the patient take halfdoses of medicines.Well- what's the point of sanctions?
We know they don't deliver regime change, so they're basically there to express our annoyance - which they have done. At some point persecuting Russia starts to benefit Putin's policy. Any constant enforced by one party in diplomacy ends up being turned to the advantage of the target in some way eventually because it's a constant.
At this point we should arguably be lifting all non arms-related sanctions. That will greatly reduce Putin's ability to blame Russia's systemic problems on the West whilst also forcing Russia to pay for all it's own military R&D and driving up the per-capita cost of their new equipment by reducing their ability to sell it oversees and thereby economise their production lines.
As for sanctions as a cause of anti-west hysteria in Russia - this:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy:
Im skeptical that sanctions have caused the anti-west sentiment, they have been blaming the west on their troubles for years before all this happened.
Im skeptical that sanctions have caused the anti-west sentiment, they have been blaming the west on their troubles for years before all this happened.
Originally Posted by Hooahguy:
The arms embargo has certainly hurt, as the sale of the French Mistral carriers was cancelled.
Oh, come on! Who needs those cockleboats when they have this:The arms embargo has certainly hurt, as the sale of the French Mistral carriers was cancelled.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO