Pussy Riot Trial - showing the power of the church and state (http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/30/entertainment-us-russia-pussyriot-trial-idINBRE86S0AZ20120730)
Quote(Reuters) - Three women who protested against Vladimir Putin in a "punk prayer" on the altar of Russia's main cathedral went on trial on Monday in a case seen as a test of the longtime leader's treatment of dissent during a new presidential term.
The women from the band "Pussy Riot" face up to seven years in prison for an unsanctioned performance in February in which they entered Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral, ascended the altar and called on the Virgin Mary to "throw Putin out!"
[...]
The stunt was designed to highlight the close relationship between the dominant Russian Orthodox Church and former KGB officer Putin, then prime minister, whose campaign to return to the presidency in a March election was backed clearly, if informally, by the leader of the church, Patriarch Kirill.
The protest offended many believers and left the church leadership incensed. The church, which has enjoyed a big revival since the demise of the Communist Soviet Union in 1991 and is seeking more influence on secular life, cast the performance as part of a sinister campaign by "anti-Russian forces".
[...]
NGOs receiving foreign funding have to register as "foreign agents" and lay open their books in detail (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/21/russia-ngo-law-human-rights_n_1691651.html)
Quote(Huffington Post) MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday signed into law a new measure that requires non-governmental groups receiving funding from abroad and engaging in political activity to register as foreign agents.
Some NGOs have vowed to ignore or circumvent the law, while its critics note that the vague definition of political activity could be applied against a wide range of initiatives. Putin, meanwhile, has alleged that recent protests against him were instigated and funded by the United States.
The law also requires NGOs identified as foreign agents to submit detailed annual financial reports, which critics say would be a time-consuming and costly burden on organizations with small staffs and meager funding.
The law comes as authorities show increasing unease with a newly emboldened political opposition, which conducted the unprecedented wave of massive public protests in the winter and spring.
[...]
Blacklists for Offensive Internet Contents (The Atlantic) (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/russia-passes-law-that-will-create-a-blacklist-for-websites/259715/)
QuoteA day after massive online protests, including a temporary shut-down of the Russian-language Wikipedia, the State Duma has today gone ahead and passed the Information Act by a wide margin, with 441 of 450 members of the legislative body voting in support of it, according to the Washington Post. Though the law was amended at the last minute to be more explicit as to the reasons sites could be banned -- and reasons such as child pornography, the promotion of substance abuse and suicide -- critics say that expansive interpretation by the courts could leave many legitimate websites in peril.
According to the Post, activists see the law as one in a set designed to repress political activity and dissent against the Putin regime. Kathy Lally writes:
Last month, the Duma passed a law drastically raising fines for protesters who violate the rules for holding a demonstration. On Wednesday, it advanced a bill that would make slander a criminal offense, with a penalty of as much as the annual income of the offender. And it is expected to pass a law this week requiring nongovernmental organizations that do political work and get money from abroad to register as foreign agents.
"Many of us are now in danger," said Oleg Kozyrev, an influential blogger. "I see this Internet law as part of a package of repressive laws directed at the opposition and human rights and civil rights activists."
Under the new law, he said, a commenter could post a link to child pornography on a blogger's page, for example, and the government would have the authority to close down the entire page. The page would remain closed while its owner attempted to prove he was not responsible for the illegal reference. "There is little hope that the courts or investigators will be objective," Kozyrev said.
In other countries where websites like Wikipedia and major search engines threw their arms up against a proposed Internet-regulation law (as in Italy last fall and here in the U.S. in January), the proposed bills stalled in response. The Russia example is a demonstration of the futility of such tactics when the legislative organs of a country support a de facto autocracy.
Another opposition leader arrested (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/31/us-russia-opposition-idUSBRE86U1OC20120731)
Quote(Reuters) - Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was charged with theft on Tuesday and could face up to 10 years in jail in what Kremlin critics say is a growing crackdown on dissent by President Vladimir Putin.
Navalny, an anti-corruption blogger who organized street protests that have dented Putin's authority, dismissed the charge as absurd and other opposition leaders accused Putin of using KGB-style tactics to try to silence his critics.
The most charismatic of the protest leaders and potentially the biggest threat to Putin, Navalny also was barred from leaving the country in the latest of a series of moves against Putin's opponents since he began his six-year term as president in May.
Russia's federal Investigative Committee said Navalny, 36, had been accused of helping organize a plan to steal timber from a state firm called KirovLes, causing the government of the Kirov region to lose more than 16 million roubles ($497,000). The charges relate to 2009, when Navalny was advising the region's governor.
"This is really quite absurd and very strange," Navalny said as he left the Investigative Committee headquarters, where he was summoned to hear what he had expected to be a less severe charge over a case that was opened in 2010 but had been dormant.
[...]
Of course I'm sure this all amounts to nothing. After all, Gerhard Schröder famously considered Putin "a flawless democrat" in 2004.
If Russia's new internet rules are used to crack down on Russians on the internet, thus reducing spam and hacking, I'm all for it.
At any rate, Putin won the election. The Russian people stood up and said 'We would rather be slaves than weak, and the appearance of strength is more important than the rule of law'.
Those who do not oppose the government have nothing to fear. :rolleyes:
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
I am interested in these Russian happenings nowadays, since Hungary is on the same path now.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Just to make sure you know. Russia isn't a lefty state anymore. It's a rightwing state.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 17, 2012, 10:52:07 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Just to make sure you know. Russia isn't a lefty state anymore. It's a rightwing state.
No it isn't. It's Russia, same as it's always been. Your attempt to put Russia onto a left-right axis is doomed to fail.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Now why can't the Ecuadorian embassy make itself useful in this situation?
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
It's kind of scary if you look at this closer. First, it took a week for the band to get arrested and charges be raised - after the Patriarch Kyrill talked to Putin. Then Putin lets them stew a bit, and finally asks the prosecutor to be lenient, to which the prosecutor basically replied, "Your wish is my command".
Though if 2 years in a Russian prison for staging a political protest during mass is "lenient" . . .
Die Zeit had a good article about the connections between Patriarch and Putin, apparently they go back till before the Patriarch assumed his office.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Hopefully she's still cute after 2 years. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.rollingstone.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2F500x595%2F5890417515b44d237850c348f54c1881ba1416ad.jpg&hash=93baa93d120c21770bdbc3b6a1bdc1ee2daf2067)
Prediction : two of them will die in prison.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 17, 2012, 10:52:07 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Just to make sure you know. Russia isn't a lefty state anymore. It's a rightwing state.
No, really not. A rightwing state doesn't jail entrepreneurs to take their business.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 12:16:00 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 17, 2012, 10:52:07 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Just to make sure you know. Russia isn't a lefty state anymore. It's a rightwing state.
No, really not. A rightwing state doesn't jail entrepreneurs to take their business.
It does when the bigger business owner is the president/prime minister.
Quote from: Syt on August 17, 2012, 11:43:40 AM
Die Zeit had a good article about the connections between Patriarch and Putin, apparently they go back till before the Patriarch assumed his office.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were work buddies, with Soviet church effectively being one of KGB's departments and all.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 17, 2012, 12:16:56 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 12:16:00 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 17, 2012, 10:52:07 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Just to make sure you know. Russia isn't a lefty state anymore. It's a rightwing state.
No, really not. A rightwing state doesn't jail entrepreneurs to take their business.
It does when the bigger business owner is the president/prime minister.
That's just good old-fashioned corruption. Nothing particularly either lefty or righty about it.
Quote from: dps on August 17, 2012, 12:25:38 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 17, 2012, 12:16:56 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 12:16:00 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 17, 2012, 10:52:07 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Just to make sure you know. Russia isn't a lefty state anymore. It's a rightwing state.
No, really not. A rightwing state doesn't jail entrepreneurs to take their business.
It does when the bigger business owner is the president/prime minister.
That's just good old-fashioned corruption. Nothing particularly either lefty or righty about it.
True but viper started this on Facebook hinting that it was a Lefty thing.
Many idiots have drawn that connection. The fact that Russia is far more fascist than anything else at this point is an idea that's too complex for them to comprehend.
Russia doesn't seem to be close enough to the Western political model to try to cast them in any kind of "left/right" division.
They are just fucked up.
This thread reminds me of the arguments I had with webbrave on Paradox OT 10 years ago. I claimed that Putin was turning Russia into an authoritarian state, webbrave laughed and recited some bullshit about bears walking in the streets of Moscow and other myths from the "Things Russians believe Americans believe about Russia" book. I wonder where webbrave is now? Hopefully somewhere in the basement of Lubyanka.
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2012, 01:27:27 PM
This thread reminds me of the arguments I had with webbrave on Paradox OT 10 years ago. I claimed that Putin was turning Russia into an authoritarian state, webbrave laughed and recited some bullshit about bears walking in the streets of Moscow and other myths from the "Things Russians believe Americans believe about Russia" book. I wonder where webbrave is now? Hopefully somewhere in the basement of Lubyanka.
I'd say "letting Russia revert" is more accurate than "turning Russia into". Their experiment with limited government was incredibly brief.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 17, 2012, 01:44:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2012, 01:27:27 PM
This thread reminds me of the arguments I had with webbrave on Paradox OT 10 years ago. I claimed that Putin was turning Russia into an authoritarian state, webbrave laughed and recited some bullshit about bears walking in the streets of Moscow and other myths from the "Things Russians believe Americans believe about Russia" book. I wonder where webbrave is now? Hopefully somewhere in the basement of Lubyanka.
I'd say "letting Russia revert" is more accurate than "turning Russia into". Their experiment with limited government was incredibly brief.
Fair point. Even Yeltsin's era would be more accurately described as impotent autocracy rather than an aborted attempt at democracy.
One of these girls has a Canadian passport.
It was amusing 20 years ago when some Americans seemed to believe that Russia was changing into a real country.
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 01:15:37 PM
Russia doesn't seem to be close enough to the Western political model to try to cast them in any kind of "left/right" division.
They are just fucked up.
Well, Putin's party considers itself conservative and centrist.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2012, 03:01:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 01:15:37 PM
Russia doesn't seem to be close enough to the Western political model to try to cast them in any kind of "left/right" division.
They are just fucked up.
Well, Putin's party considers itself conservative and centrist.
Because things are exactly as he wants them, and that's the very definition of "no change". :)
Quote from: PRC on August 17, 2012, 01:54:19 PM
One of these girls has a Canadian passport.
Well then we better cancel it. Fucking busybodies.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2012, 03:06:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2012, 03:01:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 01:15:37 PM
Russia doesn't seem to be close enough to the Western political model to try to cast them in any kind of "left/right" division.
They are just fucked up.
Well, Putin's party considers itself conservative and centrist.
Because things are exactly as he wants them, and that's the very definition of "no change". :)
I had no idea that Centrist meant "no change".
They're centrist by Russian standards, in that they're not going to nationalize everything and murder kulaks, nor are they going to invade Eastern Europe, China and all the various parts of the former Soviet Union.
I think that an autocratic government that relies on the church to keep the masses obedient is about as rightist as you can get. There is no waffling around the fact that Putin's Russia is a rightist dictatorship, and not either leftist or unclassifiable.
Are we really debating about whether leftists or rightists should feel ashamed about Russia?
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2012, 04:04:09 PM
Are we really debating about whether leftists or rightists should feel ashamed about Russia?
It's a popular pastime for leftists and rightists.
Shame is such a middle class sentiment.
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2012, 03:38:06 PM
I think that an autocratic government that relies on the church to keep the masses obedient is about as rightist as you can get. There is no waffling around the fact that Putin's Russia is a rightist dictatorship, and not either leftist or unclassifiable.
I can see arguments for right-wing and unclassifiable. I don't see much distinctly left about Putin's Russia, other than how it appeals to certain aspects of the Soviet era.
I think it's that jumble of right-wing and populism you usually get with fascism (actually I'd call it quasi-fascism in this case). The right-left spectrum isn't very relevant. Some variant of the right-left/authoritarian-libertarian chart would be more helpful.
Going by the World's Smallest Political Quiz, I'd put them in the Statist area. Using the Political Compass, I'd put them in the Authoritarian Right quadrant, strongly authoritarian but just a little right of center.
In other news, gay pride parades have been banned in Russia until 2112, apparently.
Russians = not really humans. More like vermin. Film at 11.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2012, 05:14:47 PM
In other news, gay pride parades have been banned in Russia until 2112, apparently.
Russians = not really humans. More like vermin. Film at 11.
This from the half-Russian. :rolleyes:
Russians lack the moral rectitude to be a free people.
The user comments on Austrian news sites are amusing.
Conservative Presse: "Well, Russia is shit, but they knew beforehand that they broke the law. So, boo-fucking-hoo."
Populist Krone (adjusted spelling): "Over hear, nazi songriters go to jail 2. And if they had pulled the stunt in a moskue, then all them lefties would defend the Mooslims!"
Left-wing Standard: "Russia, noooo! You're playing into the hands of the Amerikkkans and make them win!"
:lol:
Quote from: Syt on August 18, 2012, 02:04:15 AM
The user comments on Austrian news sites are amusing.
Conservative Presse: "Well, Russia is shit, but they knew beforehand that they broke the law. So, boo-fucking-hoo."
Populist Krone (adjusted spelling): "Over hear, nazi songriters go to jail 2. And if they had pulled the stunt in a moskue, then all them lefties would defend the Mooslims!"
Left-wing Standard: "Russia, noooo! You're playing into the hands of the Amerikkkans and make them win!"
:lol:
:lol:
Russia is an evil place. It's as if the mongol hordes converted to Orthodox.
The best you can hope for is that they continue to eat themselves up, because if they manage to recover and be strong again, they will move westward again, like they always do.
Again, mongol hordes.
One thing that strikes me about Russia is their huge paranoia. Whatever anyone does anywhere, they seem to think it all serves to keep them down.
I just earned the advance Physiocracy, and I crushed the Crimean tartarts with Mazepa's host.
Quote from: Syt on August 18, 2012, 04:29:24 AM
One thing that strikes me about Russia is their huge paranoia. Whatever anyone does anywhere, they seem to think it all serves to keep them down.
Historically paranoia has been the correct response. It's just that today there is a new force on Russia's western border, a force that wishes to see a happy, prosperous and sane Russia.... with an emphasis on sane.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 17, 2012, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Hopefully she's still cute after 2 years. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.rollingstone.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2F500x595%2F5890417515b44d237850c348f54c1881ba1416ad.jpg&hash=93baa93d120c21770bdbc3b6a1bdc1ee2daf2067)
She looks extremely Georgian.
I think because Russia is so close to Europe and has historically had a lot of dealings with the "West" it's easy to forget they aren't part of the West, Russia's behavior isn't remarkable if it was happening in China or Myanmar. Russia is just being Russia and Russians are just being Russians, this is how they are.
Was Spain not Western until 40 years ago, then?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 18, 2012, 10:30:00 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 17, 2012, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Hopefully she's still cute after 2 years. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.rollingstone.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2F500x595%2F5890417515b44d237850c348f54c1881ba1416ad.jpg&hash=93baa93d120c21770bdbc3b6a1bdc1ee2daf2067)
She looks extremely Georgian.
I didn't know that the mixed race miscegenation look was "Georgian".
Quote from: Syt on August 18, 2012, 04:29:24 AM
One thing that strikes me about Russia is their huge paranoia. Whatever anyone does anywhere, they seem to think it all serves to keep them down.
Wasn't Germany pretty paranoid in the late 19th century early 20th? They seemed obsessed with the idea that their enemies were trying to encircle them.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2012, 11:39:44 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 18, 2012, 10:30:00 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 17, 2012, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
2 years in jail (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Hopefully she's still cute after 2 years. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.rollingstone.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2F500x595%2F5890417515b44d237850c348f54c1881ba1416ad.jpg&hash=93baa93d120c21770bdbc3b6a1bdc1ee2daf2067)
She looks extremely Georgian.
I didn't know that the mixed race miscegenation look was "Georgian".
Which races? She looks more Mideastern than mulatto.
That's one of the dumbest fucking posts I've ever read on this forum, Viking. On like a dozen different levels.
I seriously do not know where to begin dissecting the stupidity of that comment. It's a monumental effort. I could spend weeks and weeks explaining the ways in which you are wrong and still not exhaust the wealth of retardation you have tapped in to.
I was connection her looks - The Full Lips - The Broad Nose - The Olive Complexion with the Russian predilection for calling Caucasians (as in from the Caucasus) "Black" and US Georgia's Jim Crow Miscegenation laws.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 18, 2012, 01:13:26 PM
I could spend weeks and weeks explaining the ways in which you are wrong
You've been spending too much time around Grumbler and Berkut. :D
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2012, 01:20:30 PM
I was connection her looks - The Full Lips - The Broad Nose - The Olive Complexion with the Russian predilection for calling Caucasians (as in from the Caucasus) "Black" and US Georgia's Jim Crow Miscegenation laws.
Caucasians are a mixed group. Very genetically heterodox, a combination of ancient autochthonous populations and the dozens of people who have come in to the area. They just look different a lot of the time. Mikheil Saakashvili couldn't be anything other than Caucasian, for instance-the broad face and distinctive milk-white skin aren't really found anywhere else.
I don't think she looks that Georgian. She's likely as not got some Tatar ancestry. Maybe from one of the more heterodox Cossack hetmanates.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 18, 2012, 02:00:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2012, 01:20:30 PM
I was connection her looks - The Full Lips - The Broad Nose - The Olive Complexion with the Russian predilection for calling Caucasians (as in from the Caucasus) "Black" and US Georgia's Jim Crow Miscegenation laws.
Caucasians are a mixed group. Very genetically heterodox, a combination of ancient autochthonous populations and the dozens of people who have come in to the area. They just look different a lot of the time. Mikheil Saakashvili couldn't be anything other than Caucasian, for instance-the broad face and distinctive milk-white skin aren't really found anywhere else.
I don't think she looks that Georgian. She's likely as not got some Tatar ancestry. Maybe from one of the more heterodox Cossack hetmanates.
Russians are bigots film at 23. I didn't say she looked like any nationality.
Q is obsessed with race theory. Film at 11.
Races don't exist in Eurasia.
I'm pretty sure I was talking out of my ass though. I was trying to remember who that member of Pussy Riot looks like-it's Sofiko Chiaureli. She's Georgian.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 18, 2012, 02:08:12 PM
Races don't exist in Eurasia.
<insert clever 1984 reference>
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 18, 2012, 10:30:00 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.rollingstone.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2F500x595%2F5890417515b44d237850c348f54c1881ba1416ad.jpg&hash=93baa93d120c21770bdbc3b6a1bdc1ee2daf2067)
She looks like the lead singer of the On-eders.
She doesn't look particularly out of the ordinary. If she lived in the US, I doubt anyone would think of her as anything then a white chick.
We'd better measure her skull shape so as to more accurately classify her.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on August 18, 2012, 04:19:16 PM
We'd better measure her skull shape so as to more accurately classify her.
Nowadays we can use her DNA profile.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2012, 01:20:30 PM
I was connection her looks - The Full Lips - The Broad Nose - The Olive Complexion with the Russian predilection for calling Caucasians (as in from the Caucasus) "Black" and US Georgia's Jim Crow Miscegenation laws.
Are you drunk? Not even Siege uses sentences like "I was connection her looks." :huh:
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on August 18, 2012, 04:19:16 PM
We'd better measure her skull shape so as to more accurately classify her.
I am willing to fondle her head if that is what is required.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.rollingstone.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2F500x595%2F5890417515b44d237850c348f54c1881ba1416ad.jpg&hash=93baa93d120c21770bdbc3b6a1bdc1ee2daf2067)
I'd fist it.
Quote from: citizen k on August 18, 2012, 06:20:36 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on August 18, 2012, 04:19:16 PM
We'd better measure her skull shape so as to more accurately classify her.
Nowadays we can use her DNA profile.
DNA doesn't always predict skull shape correctly.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 18, 2012, 08:21:45 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.rollingstone.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2F500x595%2F5890417515b44d237850c348f54c1881ba1416ad.jpg&hash=93baa93d120c21770bdbc3b6a1bdc1ee2daf2067)
I'd fist it.
if you apply to work in russian pententiary facilities you might get that chance yet.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2012, 02:29:02 AM
if you apply to work in russian pententiary facilities you might get that chance yet.
He couldn't afford the mafia payoff, and kidnapping insurance (same thing?) to afford a dacha as an oligarch-like westerner. Best he stick to France.
http://news.yahoo.com/madonna-sued-russia-supporting-gays-115353017.html
QuoteSome Russian activists have sued Madonna for millions of dollars, claiming they were offended by her support for gay rights during a recent concert in St. Petersburg.
Anti-gay sentiment is strong in Russia. In St. Petersburg, a law passed in February makes it illegal to promote homosexuality to minors, and the author of that law has pointed to the presence of children as young as 12 at Madonna's concert on Aug. 9.
Russian news agencies quote Alexander Pochuyev, a lawyer representing the nine activists, as saying the suit was filed Friday against Madonna, the organizer of her concert, and the hall where it was held, asking for damages totaling 333 million rubles, or nearly $10.5 million.
Responding to criticism that the plaintiffs were stuck in the Middle Ages, the lawyer said they were using civilized, modern methods to defend their rights. "No one is burning anyone at the stake or carrying out an Inquisition," Pochuyev was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying. "Modern civilization requires tolerance and respect for different values."
The complaint includes a video taken at the concert showing Madonna stomping on an Orthodox cross and asking fans to raise their hands to show the pink armbands in support of gays and lesbians that were distributed among the audience, the new agency reported.
Madonna's spokeswoman, Liz Rosenberg, did not immediately respond to emails asking for the singer's reaction to the lawsuit.
Madonna also has angered conservative Russians with her support for Pussy Riot. Three members of the punk band were sentenced Friday to two years in prison for a protest inside Moscow's main cathedral against Vladimir Putin and his cozy relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church.
Madonna spoke out in support of the group during her concert in St. Petersburg and two days earlier in Moscow. After the verdict was issued, Madonna called on "all those who love freedom to condemn this unjust punishment."
I rarely see activist used that way. :P
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2012, 01:20:30 PM
the Russian predilection for calling Caucasians (as in from the Caucasus) "Black"
:lol:
One idiotic system of pseudo-scientific classification slams right into another.
Caucasians are being called "black" in Russia? Must've started after my time. As far as I remember, it was always "persons of Caucasian ethnicity", which is a negative enough connotation in its own right.
I've heard that Azeris in particular get called "blackasses." Though the only Azeri I know is really pale.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2012, 12:12:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2012, 01:20:30 PM
the Russian predilection for calling Caucasians (as in from the Caucasus) "Black"
:lol:
One idiotic system of pseudo-scientific classification slams right into another.
Is calling black people 'black' pseudoscientific?
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 12:22:15 PM
Caucasians are being called "black" in Russia? Must've started after my time. As far as I remember, it was always "persons of Caucasian ethnicity", which is a negative enough connotation in its own right.
Huh. This dates from at least the mid-90s. Heard it used in Balabanov's Brat.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2012, 01:25:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 12:22:15 PM
Caucasians are being called "black" in Russia? Must've started after my time. As far as I remember, it was always "persons of Caucasian ethnicity", which is a negative enough connotation in its own right.
Huh. This dates from at least the mid-90s. Heard it used in Balabanov's Brat.
I must not be familiar enough with Russian race speak then. The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that Russians are perfectly aware that there is a place called Africa, and that mostly African-Americans live there. They are also perfectly aware that such people are referred to as "black", even if they would usually use the word "negr" (not a slur in Russia). It seems like calling people from Caucasus black would introduce some confusion in communication.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 02:01:10 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 20, 2012, 01:25:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 12:22:15 PM
Caucasians are being called "black" in Russia? Must've started after my time. As far as I remember, it was always "persons of Caucasian ethnicity", which is a negative enough connotation in its own right.
Huh. This dates from at least the mid-90s. Heard it used in Balabanov's Brat.
I must not be familiar enough with Russian race speak then. The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that Russians are perfectly aware that there is a place called Africa, and that mostly African-Americans live there. They are also perfectly aware that such people are referred to as "black", even if they would usually use the word "negr" (not a slur in Russia). It seems like calling people from Caucasus black would introduce some confusion in communication.
Through my one-time Ukrainian girlfriend, I met a black russian girl. Parents were connected in the communist party in some African country, so went to Moscow for training, where they eventually stayed. Raised their daughter in Russia, where she learned perfect russian, and now spoke english with a russian accent.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 02:01:10 PM
I must not be familiar enough with Russian race speak then. The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that Russians are perfectly aware that there is a place called Africa, and that mostly African-Americans live there. They are also perfectly aware that such people are referred to as "black", even if they would usually use the word "negr" (not a slur in Russia). It seems like calling people from Caucasus black would introduce some confusion in communication.
I would be shocked if more than a few thousand African-Americans are presently living in Africa. I bet Africa is mostly inhabited by Africans.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2012, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 02:01:10 PM
I must not be familiar enough with Russian race speak then. The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that Russians are perfectly aware that there is a place called Africa, and that mostly African-Americans live there. They are also perfectly aware that such people are referred to as "black", even if they would usually use the word "negr" (not a slur in Russia). It seems like calling people from Caucasus black would introduce some confusion in communication.
I would be shocked if more than a few thousand African-Americans are presently living in Africa. I bet Africa is mostly inhabited by Africans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americo-Liberian
QuoteToday, the Americo-Liberian population numbers about 150,000.
so, quite a few more than a few thousand.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
so, quite a few more than a few thousand.
So, a whopping 0.01 percent of the total population of the continent . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2012, 03:15:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
so, quite a few more than a few thousand.
So, a whopping 0.01 percent of the total population of the continent . . .
being off by multiple orders of magnitude is never trivial.
Sigh. :(
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americo-Liberian
QuoteToday, the Americo-Liberian population numbers about 150,000.
so, quite a few more than a few thousand.
No, those are Africans. African-Americans are Americans of African ancestry. Could be a few thousand of them living as expats, but I doubt that the African-American expat community in Africa is in the hundreds of thousands.
Awesome.
Quote from: grumbler on August 20, 2012, 03:41:08 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americo-Liberian
QuoteToday, the Americo-Liberian population numbers about 150,000.
so, quite a few more than a few thousand.
No, those are Africans. African-Americans are Americans of African ancestry. Could be a few thousand of them living as expats, but I doubt that the African-American expat community in Africa is in the hundreds of thousands.
Well these guys are africans of african-american ancestry.
Quote from: Viking on August 20, 2012, 03:54:22 PM
Well these guys are africans of african-american ancestry.
Glad to see you come around to the correct understanding. :showoff:
I suppose the correct terminology would be african-american-africans.
I don't know, they've been in Africa far longer than their stay in America.
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
I suppose the correct terminology would be african-american-africans.
I've got a suggestion, but that terminology is frowned upon.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 04:47:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
I suppose the correct terminology would be african-american-africans.
I've got a suggestion, but that terminology is frowned upon.
Kaffirs?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2012, 05:34:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2012, 04:47:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 20, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
I suppose the correct terminology would be african-american-africans.
I've got a suggestion, but that terminology is frowned upon.
Kaffirs?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.morethings.com%2Ffan%2Fblazing_saddles%2Fblazing-saddles-535.jpg&hash=76c2de49bc30191393e109432311c71a7c3d5818)
Read an interesting article waaay back written by a girl who grew up in Liberia, descendent of freed slaves. Article talked about the societal and economic division between the freed slaves and the locals, highlighted during National Day celebrations, which commemorates a battle that the freed slaves won over the locals. Sort of like making Quebecois celebrate the Plains of Abraham I figure.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2012, 05:14:47 PM
In other news, gay pride parades have been banned in Russia until 2112, apparently.
Russians = not really humans. More like vermin. Film at 11.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-pPOCf_lZz-k%2FTqFnzpsvqwI%2FAAAAAAAAEAg%2FzDjNE7JI144%2Fs1600%2Fdemotivational-posters-i-see-what-you-did-there.jpg&hash=a9affe6d5f94c6b89f7f16d532bc993040c5bac1)
Those lions are female, they should be dressed like lesbians.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2012, 11:39:44 AM
I didn't know that the mixed race miscegenation look was "Georgian".
What the fuck is this bullshit?
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 02:26:26 PMRussians are perfectly aware that there is a place called Africa, and that mostly African-Americans live there.
Really? Tell us more. :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2012, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2012, 11:39:44 AM
I didn't know that the mixed race miscegenation look was "Georgian".
What the fuck is this bullshit?
:huh:
Do Americans of Moroccan or Algerian descent also get to call themselves African-Americans? It seems technically right. :unsure:
Quote from: Syt on August 20, 2012, 10:55:55 PM
Do Americans of Moroccan or Algerian descent also get to call themselves African-Americans? It seems technically right. :unsure:
:huh: They don't look anything like African-Americans.
Can't we all just get along?
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 10:57:07 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 20, 2012, 10:55:55 PM
Do Americans of Moroccan or Algerian descent also get to call themselves African-Americans? It seems technically right. :unsure:
:huh: They don't look anything like African-Americans.
But they are Americans of African descent. :huh:
Quote from: Tamas on August 21, 2012, 03:23:26 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 10:57:07 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 20, 2012, 10:55:55 PM
Do Americans of Moroccan or Algerian descent also get to call themselves African-Americans? It seems technically right. :unsure:
:huh: They don't look anything like African-Americans.
But they are Americans of African descent. :huh:
All americans are of African descent
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi285.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll74%2Fstruwwelfranz%2Fall%2520africans%2Fzzthumbnail72dpi.png&hash=ac0b5d84dc4ef1525276b2ce6b0729737b29a620)
You know that Australia was settled earlier then three to four thousand years ago. It's closer to forty thousand years.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 03:45:46 AM
You know that Australia was settled earlier then three to four thousand years ago. It's closer to forty thousand years.
3-4 thousand years ago is the polynesian migration from taiwan across the pacific.
Ah. I see.
Quote from: Viking on August 21, 2012, 03:35:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 21, 2012, 03:23:26 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 10:57:07 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 20, 2012, 10:55:55 PM
Do Americans of Moroccan or Algerian descent also get to call themselves African-Americans? It seems technically right. :unsure:
:huh: They don't look anything like African-Americans.
But they are Americans of African descent. :huh:
All americans are of African descent
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi285.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll74%2Fstruwwelfranz%2Fall%2520africans%2Fzzthumbnail72dpi.png&hash=ac0b5d84dc4ef1525276b2ce6b0729737b29a620)
So Jaron is an African American?
Quote from: Tamas on August 21, 2012, 04:19:57 AM
So Jaron is an African American?
lets not extend the definition of "we" too far.
Jaron is African-Mexican.
The headline made me chuckle.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19293465
QuoteGay parades banned in Moscow for 100 years
Moscow's top court has upheld a ban on gay pride marches in the Russian capital for the next 100 years.
Earlier Russia's best-known gay rights campaigner, Nikolay Alexeyev, had gone to court hoping to overturn the city council's ban on gay parades.
He had asked for the right to stage such parades for the next 100 years.
He also opposes St Petersburg's ban on spreading "homosexual propaganda". The European Court of Human Rights has told Russia to pay him damages.
On Friday he said he would go back to the European Court in Strasbourg to push for a recognition that Moscow's ban on gay pride marches - past, present and future - was unjust.
The Moscow city government argues that the gay parade would risk causing public disorder and that most Muscovites do not support such an event.
In September, the Council of Europe - the main human rights watchdog in Europe - will examine Russia's response to a previous European Court ruling on the gay rights issue, Russian media report.
In October 2010 the court said Russia had discriminated against Mr Alexeyev on grounds of sexual orientation. It had considered Moscow's ban on gay parades covering the period 2006-2008.
He's going to the ECHR? Does he think that'll do any good? Does he think it's possible to use international pressure to get Russia to do anything?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 20, 2012, 12:25:55 PM
I've heard that Azeris in particular get called "blackasses." Though the only Azeri I know is really pale.
My impression is that "blackass" was a common term for any of the mostly muslim ethnicities within the former USSR. As such it would include Azeris etc but not Georgians or Armenians.
I wanna be Magneto.
Quote from: Maximus on August 21, 2012, 01:09:37 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 20, 2012, 12:25:55 PM
I've heard that Azeris in particular get called "blackasses." Though the only Azeri I know is really pale.
My impression is that "blackass" was a common term for any of the mostly muslim ethnicities within the former USSR. As such it would include Azeris etc but not Georgians or Armenians.
Them too. Pretty much anyone non-white and non-Asian can get called that.
Good. I hope they find some country that will give them asylum. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48793869/ns/world_news/#.UDrqjaBZZlc
QuoteRebel punk band Pussy Riot says two members flee Russia
"They are in a safe place beyond the reach of the Russian police," says rocker's husband
updated 8/26/2012 9:21:08 AM ET
MOSCOW - Two members of Russia's anti-Kremlin punk band Pussy Riot have fled the country to avoid prosecution for staging a protest against President Vladimir Putin at a church altar, the band said on Sunday.
A Moscow court sentenced three members of the all-female opposition band to two years in prison on August 17 for staging a "punk prayer" at the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in February and calling on the Virgin Mary to rid Russia of Putin.
The sentence drew sharp international criticism of the Russian government, while opposition groups at home have portrayed it as part of a Kremlin clampdown on dissent.
Police said earlier this week they were searching for other members of the band.
"In regard to the pursuit, two of our members have successfully fled the country! They are recruiting foreign feminists to prepare new actions!," a Twitter account called Pussy Riot Group said.
Defence lawyers of the convicted Pussy Riot members - Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina and Yekaterina Samutsevich - are expected to appeal against their sentences next week.
Tolokonnikova's husband, Pyotr Verzilov, told Reuters on Sunday that the two members of the group who have fled Russia had taken part in the cathedral protest along with his wife.
Advertise | AdChoices
"Since the Moscow police said they are searching for them, they will keep a low profile for now. They are in a safe place beyond the reach of the Russian police," he said by phone.
Asked if that meant a country which had no extradition agreement with Russia, Verzilov said: "Yes, that suggests that."
"But you must remember that 12 or even 14 members who are still in Russia actively participate in the band's work now, it's a big collective," he added.
The Kremlin has dismissed criticism by Western governments and prominent musicians including Madonna and Sting as politically motivated.
Putin, back at the Kremlin since May for his third presidential term, said before the three band members were sentenced that they should not be judged too harshly.
Under Russian law the three Pussy Riot members put on trial could have faced as much as seven years' jail for hooliganism motivated by religious hatred, but the prosecutors asked for three years and they were sentenced to two.
Well, I stand corrected regarding the Russian race-speak. I've just read a Youtube thread where a couple of idiots called Aliya Mustafina black filth, because her father is a Tatar and Muslim. Amusingly enough, others came to her defense by hurling antisemitic epithets toward the two idiots. Russia is quite an enlightened country.
I am not sure it's a great idea to judge a nation by Youtube comments. Not that I disagree the conclusion, mind you.
Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2012, 10:29:45 PM
Well, I stand corrected regarding the Russian race-speak. I've just read a Youtube thread where a couple of idiots called Aliya Mustafina black filth, because her father is a Tatar and Muslim. Amusingly enough, others came to her defense by hurling antisemitic epithets toward the two idiots. Russia is quite an enlightened country.
Link?
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 31, 2012, 01:23:50 PM
I am not sure it's a great idea to judge a nation by Youtube comments. Not that I disagree the conclusion, mind you.
Yeah, good point. If Russians ever ventured into Yahoo comments sections, they would think that all American are hopelessly retarded. Well, they would feel it even more strongly.
Quote
Russia's Putin calls for Stalin-style "leap forward"
NOVO-OGARYOVO, Russia (Reuters) - Russia needs a "leap forward" to rejuvenate its sprawling defense industry, President Vladimir Putin said on Friday, harkening back to the ambitious industrialization carried out by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in the run-up to World War Two.
"We should carry out the same powerful, all-embracing leap forward in modernization of the defense industry as the one carried out in the 1930s," Putin told his Security Council, without mentioning Stalin by name.
Stalin, who ruled the Soviet empire with an iron fist for 27 years, is blamed for the death of about six million people but also is praised by many Russians for winning the war and industrializing the country.
Putin made renewed industrialization a priority during his third term in the Kremlin which started in May amid the largest protests of his 12-year rule. He conceded that the defense industry, once the heart of the Soviet economy, was in tatters.
"Unfortunately, many of our enterprises are technologically stuck in the previous century," Putin said, complaining about poor discipline at plants working on state defense orders.
In the 1930s Soviet leaders transformed a rural country devastated by civil war into an industrial superpower, using terror and executions to impose strict discipline at new plants built across the vast country.
Putin's top defense industry official Dmitry Rogozin posted on his Facebook page a copy of a 1940 letter from Stalin to gun factory managers and accompanied it with a sarcastic warning: "Such methods of improving discipline also exist".
Stalin's letter to the managers said: "I give you two or three days to launch mass production of machinegun cartridges... If production does not start on time, the government will take over control of the plant and shoot all the rascals there."
"Of course, it was a joke," Rozogin told reporters regarding his posting but added that failures would not be tolerated.
"Our satellites are falling, our ships are sinking, we had seven space failures in the last 18 months but not a single plant felt the consequences," he said after the council session.
"The culprits should come on stage. The country should know them."
Putin plans to spend $680 billion in the next eight years to modernize the military, with the bulk of the money going to 1,350 defense plants which employ about 2 million Russians. Many defense sector workers backed Putin during the election.
He sees the sector as a new growth driver for the stagnating economy which can help wean Russia off its dependency on energy. He promised to open up the sector to private businesses.
Putin's critics argue that the arms industry is too backward and corrupt to be given such money and point to numerous recent failures and delays such as space satellite crashes or failed test launches of new intercontinental missiles.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.studiolum.com%2Fwang%2Frussian%2Fstalin%2Fstalin-putin.jpg&hash=d24c6b792f1b7ae16aae815f47ed9d3ba289ef52)
Quote from: citizen k on August 31, 2012, 10:30:49 PM
Quote
Putin's top defense industry official Dmitry Rogozin posted on his Facebook page a copy of a 1940 letter from Stalin to gun factory managers and accompanied it with a sarcastic warning: "Such methods of improving discipline also exist".
Stalin's letter to the managers said: "I give you two or three days to launch mass production of machinegun cartridges... If production does not start on time, the government will take over control of the plant and shoot all the rascals there."
"Of course, it was a joke," Rozogin told reporters regarding his posting but added that failures would not be tolerated.
:lol: Good one.
And which countries will they be marketing their goods from the newly revitalized armaments industry to? :huh:
You know, I dont like the Russians. Product of Cold War indoc no doubt. Always been taught to hate them. They're shifty. They smell of fish and vodka.
Austrian radio interviewed an enterpreneur in the cultural scene why she supports Putin.
"You see, in Russia you have this very large majority of unintelligent people. And a very small minority of intelligent people, like us. Putin is making policy for the large amount of unintelligent people, and that is good. Otherwise they would start a revolution and Communism would come back!"
QuoteRussia tells US: We don't want your aid money
By NBC News staff and wire reports
Russia has told the U.S. to close its aid mission in the country - a move analysts attributed to Moscow's dislike of foreign-funded, pro-democracy groups.
The U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, has spent more than $2.7 billion in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters Tuesday, adding that it had planned to spend $50 million this year.
"While our USAID physical presence in Russia is going to end, we remain committed to supporting democracy, human rights, and the development of a more robust civil society in Russia, and we look forward to continuing our close cooperation with Russian non-governmental organizations," Nuland said.
A Russian Foreign Ministry source confirmed the closure to the Russian news service RIA Novosti and added that more information would be released soon.
Nuland added that USAID had worked over the years with the Russian government to "fight AIDS there, fight tuberculosis, help orphans, help the disabled, combat trafficking, support Russian programs in the environmental area, wildlife protection."
"So it is our hope that Russia will now, itself, assume full responsibility and take forward all of this work that we were proud to do together so that the Russian people continue to have the benefit," she said.
'Rich enough'?
Asked if the Russian government had expressed "specific points of dissatisfaction with USAID's work" or had simply said "We're rich enough, we don't need it?", Nuland said she would let the Russians "characterize their motivations." But she added that "I would say it tends to trend towards the latter, their sense that they don't need this anymore."
USAID's ordered departure comes amid a broader crackdown on Russian civil society groups after fraud-tainted parliamentary election last year prompted massive anti-government protests.
President Vladimir Putin blamed Washington for trying to destabilize Russia and accused Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for signaling the start of demonstrations.
Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who is now at the Brookings Institution think tank, told Reuters that he believed the decision on USAID reflected some reluctance by the Russian government to see foreign support for pro-democracy efforts in the country.
"They see AID's efforts in Russia as being a prime funder of the NGOs that are concerned about their elections and concerned about the regression of democracy in Russia," Pifer said.
He said the Russian government may also be "trying to make it more difficult" for the outside world to support pro-democracy NGOs in Russia.
Russia a 'great power'
Matthew Rojansky, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Reuters that Russian authorities "have made clear for the better part of a decade that they see Russia as a great power and a provider of assistance, not a recipient."
"Add to that tension over the pre- and post-election protests, which the Kremlin alleges were orchestrated by U.S.-funded NGOs (non-governmental organizations), plus the deep disagreement over U.S. democracy-promotion activities in the Middle East, and you can see why Russia may have taken this decision now," he added.
NGOs receiving foreign funding and engaging in political activity must now register as "foreign agents," which is likely to undermine their credibility among Russians.
Another law sharply increases the punishment for taking part in an unauthorized protest rallies. State television has denounced the country's only independent election-monitoring body, Golos.
Grigory Melkonyants, the deputy director of Golos, which gets most of its funding from the U.S., said closing the USAID office "is an unfriendly move toward the U.S."
He criticized the Kremlin's "paranoia and nervousness" and "inability to understand the reasons behind serious public discontent. They are looking elsewhere for culprits and think it's rooted in the American funding."
"The Russian government's decision to end all USAID activities in the country is an insult to the United States and a finger in the eye of the Obama Administration," Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said in a statement.
"There should be no confusion as to why this decision was made: an increasingly autocratic government in Russia wants to limit the ability of its own citizens to freely and willingly work with American partners on the promotion of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in Russia," he added.
QuoteVladimir Putin says of Mitt Romney: At least he's direct
MOSCOW — Soviet leaders used to prefer Republicans to Democrats, in the belief that Republicans were tough but more sincere and, once they made a promise, were more likely to deliver on it.
There has been a whiff of that old way of thinking in recent remarks by President Vladimir Putin, even though plenty has changed in Russia's relations with the United States. Speaking to reporters last week, Putin said he appreciates GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's bluntness in his denunciations of Russia — because that stance lets Russia know where it stands, and reinforces Putin's opposition to a missile defense shield in Europe.
Sarcastic? Maybe just a bit.
"That Mr. Romney considers us enemy number one and apparently has bad feelings about Russia is a minus, but, considering that he expresses himself bluntly, openly and clearly, means that he is an open and sincere man, which is a plus," Putin said after a meeting with Serbia's president.
"We will be oriented toward pluses, not minuses," Putin said. "And I am actually very grateful to him for formulating his position in a straightforward manner."
Putin has also praised President Obama for his sincerity, with seemingly less spin. But even if Obama should win reelection, Putin said, someone like Romney might come along in four years, and then Russia would regret it if it had given in on the U.S. missile defense project.
Romney's characterization of Russia earlier this year as the United States' No. 1 geopolitical foe caught the attention of Russian officials, and engendered scorn in the media. But Putin views the United States as Russia's main adversary — that is, a competitor, not an enemy, as Georgy Mirsky, an expert on Russia's Middle East policy, pointed out in a recent interview.
Putin may see where Romney is coming from. In the Russian presidential campaign last winter, he and his allies heaped abuse on the United States. They accused it of financing and leading political protests in Russia; organized groups that badgered U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul; and denounced U.S. intentions in Syria as well as what Russia considered an American double cross on Libya.
Russian officials are furious about Congress's Magnitsky bill — which would impose visa and financial sanctions on identified human rights abusers in Russia — and have promised to retaliate if it becomes law. (The White House has resisted the measure.)
How much of this is rhetoric designed for public consumption is difficult to judge, in either country — but in an interview with the RT television channel, Putin presented himself as someone who would be able to deal with a President Romney.
"We'll work with whoever gets elected as president by the American people," he said. But Putin has shown time and again that he distrusts and resists change, especially on the world stage. Although he and Obama have tussled over Middle East intervention, human rights and missile defense, they have staked out their ground clearly, and Obama promises the sort of continuity that Putin values.
Putin also believes that he has a remaining debt to collect from Obama. In the much-debated "reset" in relations, in Moscow's view, Russia has agreed to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, helped the United States maintain a supply route to Afghanistan, and cooperated on Iran's nuclear program. The United States has helped Russia join the World Trade Organization — although from the Russian point of view, that may help American businesses more than Russian ones. But otherwise, in Putin's telling, the United States hasn't kept up its end of the bargain, not on missile defense or on the Middle East. And that debt would presumably become uncollectable with a Romney victory.
At a conference Saturday in the Black Sea resort of Yalta, Russian officials were eager to take shots at the GOP candidate. Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich said a Romney win could launch a new arms race. "We may have to enlarge the defense budget," he said — although big increases are already planned.
German Gref, the head of Sberbank, asked, according to the Interfax news agency, "How is it possible to cooperate when the prospective leader tags a country as an adversary?"
Fyodor Lukyanov, a foreign policy expert with a good understanding of the Kremlin's position, argued in a recent essay that Romney's choice of Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) as his running mate created a slate with no foreign policy experience. Even for a country with little interest in the world it dominates, he wrote, this is an alarming development.
In the latest Transatlantic Trends poll, a sampling of European and American public opinion that was conducted by the German Marshall Fund, 38 percent of Russians said they approved of Obama's handling of relations with Russia and of the way he deals with the fight against international terrorism. Fewer supported him on Afghanistan and Iran. Overall, 36 percent of Russians had a favorable view of Obama; 59 percent said they had no opinion about Romney, or declined to answer. Asked whom they would vote for if they could, 27 percent of Russians chose Obama, as opposed to 12 percent who opted for Romney. (In France, the split was 89 percent to 2 percent.)
Nineteen percent of Russians said that American leadership in world affairs is desirable.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 01, 2012, 01:27:05 AM
You know, I dont like the Russians. Product of Cold War indoc no doubt. Always been taught to hate them. They're shifty. They smell of fish and vodka.
Sat in on a seminar with Oleg Kalugin once, and he said the one comfortable thing about the Russians is the predictability of their paranoia; they still think the CIA and MI6 are at the bottom of everything that goes on.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 19, 2012, 06:50:34 AM
(In France, the split was 89 percent to 2 percent.)
I guess my mother must be right, Obama's policies really have been anti-Israel.
We still gave money to these guys? I'll be damned.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 19, 2012, 06:58:08 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 01, 2012, 01:27:05 AM
You know, I dont like the Russians. Product of Cold War indoc no doubt. Always been taught to hate them. They're shifty. They smell of fish and vodka.
Sat in on a seminar with Oleg Kalugin once, and he said the one comfortable thing about the Russians is the predictability of their paranoia; they still think the CIA and MI6 are at the bottom of everything that goes on.
A person who believes in conspiracy theories is much easier to hoodwink then one who doesn't.
Thanks for language practice...I checked the original Russian on Putin's comments. The article's translation is spot on.
http://news.yahoo.com/time-russias-medvedev-resists-change-133721061.html
QuoteWhen will the sun come up today? In Russia, it's a matter of fierce debate, and one that may reflect the sinking stature of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
Medvedev declared Thursday that he has no immediate intention of reversing his decision to leave Russia's clocks on summer time the whole year.
The move he made in 2011 when he was president has been widely unpopular as it has plunged the sprawling nation into darkness until late morning throughout the winter.
And now it's not clear how long that decree will actually last.
Medvedev's mentor, Vladimir Putin, who returned to the presidency in May after spending four years in the premier's seat due to term limits, has indicated that Russia could switch back the time soon.
Putin said in December that sticking permanently to summer time would make it difficult for TV audiences in Europe to watch the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi.
The games — on track to be the most expensive Olympics ever, even more than the Summer Games in London and Beijing — are known to be close to Putin's heart.
On Thursday, the daily Izvestia newspaper that kowtows to Putin said the Cabinet already had made the decision to switch Russia permanently to winter time and that a decree will be issued soon.
The government quickly denied the report, and then Medvedev himself told a Cabinet session that he sees no point in switching the clock now.
"The government considers it unfeasible to again switch time at the current moment," Medvedev said, adding that public opinion has been divided. "Let's not make sharp movements and live in those conditions without making extra fuss. Let's keep monitoring the situation and once again analyze the opinion of experts, doctors and citizens."
The switch to summer time is one of the few of Medvedev's reforms that has survived Putin's return to the presidency.
Since Putin came back, most of Medvedev's initiatives — from decriminalizing slander to ousting government officials from the boards of state-controlled companies — have been methodically reversed.
Putin's harsh course has contrasted sharply with Medvedev's modernization platform. The president has backed a series of repressive bills that introduced heavy fines for those joining unsanctioned protests and imposed new tough restrictions on groups promoting democratic rights.
Opposition activists have faced searches, interrogations and arrests and three members of the Pussy Riot punk band have been sentenced to two years in prison for an anti-Putin protest in Moscow's main cathedral.
Medvedev has avoided confronting Putin and defended his patron's new tough course, but is appearing increasingly cornered and powerless despite his show of loyalty.
State-controlled television stations have reduced their coverage of his activities, and a newspaper report recently claimed that the networks had received orders from the Kremlin to cast him in a negative light and focus on his unpopular decisions, such as the time change.
The Izvestia newspaper has recently published leaks from official documents critical of the performance of Medvedev's Cabinet, prompting an angry rebuke from his office.
On Thursday, it posted a December's letter by Jean-Claude Killy, head of the International Olympic Committee's coordination panel for Sochi, suggesting that the IOC would welcome Russia's switching back to the winter time but warning that such a decision need to be made soon.
But Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak, who was in Sochi for Thursday's one-year countdown to the games, told reporters the government has made the decision to stick to summer time and a schedule for the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi has been made accordingly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21896424
QuoteRussian police raid rights group Memorial and other NGOs
Russian police and tax inspectors have raided the offices of the human rights group Memorial and other civil society groups which get foreign funding.
Memorial is famous for documenting human rights abuses in Russia.
The US embassy in Moscow has voiced concern and asked the Russian government for an explanation.
A new Russian law says foreign-funded non-governmental groups (NGOs) linked to politics must register as "foreign agents" - a term which suggests spying.
In the worst repressions of the Soviet period the label "foreign agents" was used to denounce dissidents - or simply political rivals of Joseph Stalin - and could lead to execution.
Memorial says inspectors returned to its Moscow offices on Friday, having already seized 600 documents including accounts on Thursday.
A statement on the Memorial website said the inspections were directly linked to the new law on NGOs and the targeted groups' compliance with it.
Memorial director Arseny Roginsky, quoted by the Russian news website Vesti, said it was "a complete check on everything concerned with our sources of funding".
He insisted that the NGO law "will not change our position at all". "We won't refuse foreign donations, nor will we register as a 'foreign agent'," he said.
Pressure on NGOs
Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused foreign-funded NGOs of meddling in politics on behalf of foreign powers.
Two investigative reporters from state-controlled NTV television also turned up at Memorial's offices uninvited on Thursday. Memorial complained to police, who escorted the journalists out.
Last October NTV broadcast a controversial documentary called Anatomy Of A Protest 2, which alleged that anti-Kremlin protest leaders in Russia were funded by a Georgian MP. The leaders denounced the allegations as a fabrication. NTV is owned by Russia's Gazprom gas monopoly and is seen as close to the Kremlin.
A member of the Russian presidential Human Rights Council, Pavel Chikov, said up to 2,000 organisations had been targeted with inspections and searches this month, in connection with the NGO law.
Speaking to the Associated Press news agency, he said "it goes full circle across the whole spectrum - they're trying to find as many violations as possible".
Memorial has a representative on the Human Rights Council - Sergei Krivenko. Four other groups searched by the police also have representatives on the council, the Russian news website Vedomosti reports.
The council has complained to Russian Prosecutor-General Yuri Chaika about increased checks carried out on NGOs in 13 regions.
Last September the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) announced it had been ordered by the Russian authorities to shut down its operations. USAID has worked in Russia for two decades, spending nearly $3bn (£1.8bn) on aid and democratic programmes.
Germany ordered in the Russian ambassador to protest. Among the targeted NGOs are two German foundations with close links to Merkel's CDU and the Social Democrats. Russian officials confiscated a number of computers to "verify the software licenses".
Meanwhile, the Social Democrat frontrunner for the German election has said in an interview that Russia can't be measured by western democratic standards, calling them a partner whoe interests Germany knows very well and should take into account. Western standards of a pluralist democracy aren't applicable to Russia he said.
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2013, 01:59:09 PM
Meanwhile, the Social Democrat frontrunner for the German election has said in an interview that Russia can't be measured by western democratic standards, calling them a partner whoe interests Germany knows very well and should take into account. Western standards of a pluralist democracy aren't applicable to Russia he said.
Awesome. Now is this dude from the SPD or SED? :D
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130326/germany-complains-russia-over-ngo-raids
QuoteGermany complains to Russia over NGO raids
Germany on Tuesday expressed its "concern" to the number two envoy of the Russian embassy in Berlin over fresh raids against pro-democracy NGOs as part of what activists have called a crackdown.
A foreign ministry source said the Russian diplomat Oleg Krasnitzki, second in rank behind the ambassador to Berlin, had been "invited" for a conversation at the request of Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle.
"The concern of the German government in light of the concerted action against several non-governmental organisations including political foundations was conveyed to him," the source said.
In diplomatic terms, the invitation marked a clear form of protest but stopped short of a formal summons to the ministry.
The move came as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS), a political think tank with close ties to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, said its St Petersburg offices were the target of a second search after raids last week.
It said security forces confiscated computers, citing checks for proper software licensing.
"This morning's intrusion is alarming and in no way acceptable," KAS president Hans-Gert Poettering, a former speaker of the European Parliament, said in a statement.
"This interference in our work can lead to a strain in our (diplomatic) relations with Russia."
In Brussels, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said the raids, along with other measures, pointed to a trend in Russia that was "deeply troubling".
"The inspections and searches launched against the Russian NGO community and conducted on vague legal grounds are worrisome since they seem to be aimed at further undermining civil society activities in the country," she said in a statement.
The Friedrich Ebert Foundation, linked to Germany's main opposition Social Democrats (SPD), said it has faced similar treatment at its Moscow office.
Westerwelle had condemned the initial raids Friday, saying he was "very concerned" by developments.
The foreign ministry then warned Monday that further measures against German groups "could weigh on bilateral relations in a lasting way".
More than 100 NGOs including rights group Amnesty International have undergone similar checks in recent days, according to activists in Russia.
A controversial law passed in 2012 requires NGOs that have Western donors and are involved in political activities to register as "foreign agents" and display this title when carrying out any public activity.
Meanwhile Merkel's challenger in the September general election, Peer Steinbrueck of the SPD, came to Russia's defence, saying Moscow was a partner "whose interests we know well and respect".
"We need to admit in that context that our Western standards of pluralist democracy cannot be applied directly to Russia," he told the website of news weekly Die Zeit, warning against "pillorying" Moscow over rights abuses.
He said such problems were better discussed behind closed doors.
Merkel, who grew up in communist East Germany, has been an outspoken critic of a Russian clampdown on civil society under President Vladimir Putin.
Germany and Russia have extremely lucrative trade ties. Merkel and Putin will meet in the northern German city of Hanover next month at an industry fair.
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:02:07 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2013, 01:59:09 PM
Meanwhile, the Social Democrat frontrunner for the German election has said in an interview that Russia can't be measured by western democratic standards, calling them a partner whoe interests Germany knows very well and should take into account. Western standards of a pluralist democracy aren't applicable to Russia he said.
Awesome. Now is this dude from the SPD or SED? :D
North German, born in Hamburg. He was economics minister in my home state before becoming minister president of Germany's most populous state of North-Rhine Westphalia.
And because we're fair and balanced, the Russian view:
http://rt.com/politics/russian-ngo-probes-in-line-with-foreign-agents-law-ministry-797/
QuoteAmnesty International probe lawful, pre-scheduled - Ministry
The Russian Justice Ministry has announced that the checks in the Russian office of AI and other NGOs were held to investigate if the real activities of these organizations matched the declared ones.
In a statement released on Monday the ministry's press-service elaborated that this especially concerned the recently introduced law on regulation of activities of non-profit organizations acting as foreign agents. The statement also reads that the ministry "used the measures of legal reaction as provided by the law" and that the NGO activities were probe "within the Justice Ministry's competence."
Mass audits of Russian NGOs started on March 21 and were held together by the Justice Ministry and the Prosecutor General's Office. In earlier comments the prosecutors said this was a scheduled inspection. On Monday, law enforcers visited the Moscow office of Amnesty International.
A member of the Human Rights Council with the Russian president and head of the Agora rights group, Pavel Chikov, told the mass media that the law enforcers "raided hundreds of NGOs and rights groups."
The law on Foreign Agents came into force in November 2012. It orders all NGOs that accept foreign funding to register as foreign agents. The Russian sponsors of the bill claimed that it copied a similar US legislation and that the disclosure of foreign funding would help Russian public to better understand the motives of the activists.
Several Russian NGOs blasted the new law as an attempt to pressure them and said that it threatened the very existence of the rights movement in the country. Leading organizations, such as the Moscow Helsinki Group, Memorial, For Human Rights, Golos (Voice) and others have promised to boycott the new law.
After the last week's checks the head of the veteran NGO Moscow Helsinki Group, Lyudmila Alekseyeva, told the press that she feared that the mass crackdown would end in closure of many well-known rights organizations.
The Presidential Council for Human Rights addressed the prosecutor general with a complaint over "massive and unfounded" checks of various non-profit organizations in many of Russia's regions. The council members said in line with the law that regulated their activities and with the latest instructions from the president that the results of the inspections must be made public.
So far no Russian NGOs have received the foreign agent status. The Sword and Shield group from the central Russian region of Chuvashia has submitted an application (saying they wanted to conduct an experiment), but the Justice Ministry turned it down.
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2013, 02:05:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:02:07 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2013, 01:59:09 PM
Meanwhile, the Social Democrat frontrunner for the German election has said in an interview that Russia can't be measured by western democratic standards, calling them a partner whoe interests Germany knows very well and should take into account. Western standards of a pluralist democracy aren't applicable to Russia he said.
Awesome. Now is this dude from the SPD or SED? :D
North German, born in Hamburg. He was economics minister in my home state before becoming minister president of Germany's most populous state of North-Rhine Westphalia.
I was kidding. But what's the deal with North Germans and leftism? I mean my ancestors came from there & all so they're my peeps but I think I'd be a lot happier in Bavaria in spite of the Catholicism :P
Meh. Fuck the NGOs. They can't make the world a better place.
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2013, 02:05:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2013, 02:02:07 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2013, 01:59:09 PM
Meanwhile, the Social Democrat frontrunner for the German election has said in an interview that Russia can't be measured by western democratic standards, calling them a partner whoe interests Germany knows very well and should take into account. Western standards of a pluralist democracy aren't applicable to Russia he said.
Awesome. Now is this dude from the SPD or SED? :D
North German, born in Hamburg. He was economics minister in my home state before becoming minister president of Germany's most populous state of North-Rhine Westphalia.
I was kidding. But what's the deal with North Germans and leftism? I mean my ancestors came from there & all so they're my peeps but I think I'd be a lot happier in Bavaria in spite of the Catholicism :P
It all started with that commie Bismarck who set up the first modern welfare state :cool:
Yeah, in general the North of Germany feels more libertarian than the South.
And another opposition politician goes to jail :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/18/alexei-navalny-five-years-prison-russia
In a nutshell: guy who investigated corruption and bribery in the Russian government gets put on trial for embezzlement from his time as advisor to a regional governor. Radio this morning said that the prosecution dropped the charges twice before the Kremlin stepped in and told them to put him on trial.
QuoteThe Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has been sentenced to five years in prison at the end of a trial that was seen as politically motivated.
Navalny was taken from the courtroom in handcuffs after the judge, Sergei Blinov, ended a three-hour verdict reading by finding him guilty of embezzlement. He hugged his wife, Yulia, and was led away by police.
On Thursday night, thousands of Russians flooded the main arteries leading to the Kremlin, demanding his freedom and calling for the ousting of the president, Vladimir Putin. Dozens were detained.
An anti-corruption activist who became the most popular figure to emerge from protests that erupted around Putin's return to the Kremlin last year, Navalny was accused of embezzlement, and a handful of other charges, after Putin unleashed a crackdown on the opposition in the wake of his inauguration.
"When I heard the verdict, it felt like it was happening to one of my relatives," said Yevgeny Zakharov, a 31-year-old lawyer for a state-run oil company. "My hands were shaking."
Navalny has built a large following via corruption investigations into Putin's closest allies that he publicises on his popular social media accounts and blogs. On Tuesday, just two days before the verdict hearing, he released an investigation into alleged corruption at Russian Railways, one of Russia's largest state-run firms, headed by a close Putin ally, Vladimir Yakunin. He has dubbed Putin Russia's "main thief".
The verdict against him – that he embezzled 16m roubles (£325,000) from a timber firm while advising the governor of Russia's Kirov region – is widely seen as a means of silencing him.
The charismatic 37-year-old said goodbye to his supporters via his popular Twitter account: "OK. Don't get bored here without me. And most importantly – don't dawdle, the frog won't jump from the oil pipes itself."
He was sentenced alongside a co-defendant, Petr Ofitserov, who was given four years in jail. Ofitserov's wife, and the mother of his five children, sobbed uncontrollably after the sentence was handed down.
As the verdict was being read, Ofitserov wrote on his Facebook page: "I'm getting lots of messages saying: 'hold on, hold on'. Thanks everyone for the support – it helps. But if they jail people like us, then we're not the ones who will have to hold on. It's bad in the cage, but at least it's honest. You'll have to make a more difficult choice – either you're with them or with yourselves."
In Moscow, the centre of last year's anti-Putin protests, Russians erupted in anger at the verdict. Thousands occupied Tverskaya, the main street leading to the Kremlin, as riot police and special forces attempted to break up the gathering. Protesters shouted "Freedom" and erupted into applause as cars honked in solidarity.
In a possible sign that the Kremlin was unsure how to deal with the protesters, prosecutors announced they would challenge Navalny's arrest directly from the courtroom and ask for him to be released during the appeals process. A hearing was set for 10am on Friday.
William Hague, the UK foreign secretary, said he was concerned about the sentence, which he said pointed to the "selective application of the rule of law in Russia". Michael McFaul, the US ambassador to Moscow, said: "We are deeply disappointed in the conviction of Navalny and the apparent political motivations in this trial."
Catherine Ashton, the EU's foreign policy representative, said: "The outcome ... raises serious questions as to the state of the rule of law in Russia."
Western criticism has done little to stem the Kremlin's campaign against its critics in the past.
In a statement released after the verdict, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once Russia's richest man and now its best-known political prisoner, wrote that it was "inevitable and predictable" because of Russia's long history of jailing political opponents. Khodorkovsky was arrested 10 years ago on economic charges widely seen to be punishment for his wealth and ability to challenge Putin.
"ntil we realise that the trials of Navalny, Bolotnaya and hundreds of thousands of other guiltlessly convicted people are our trials, they are just going to keep on locking us up, one at a time," he wrote. "The era of unbelief and indifference is ending."
Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet premier, issued a rare statement to condemn the verdict against Navalny, saying it "proves that we have no independent judiciary".
The Russian elite also expressed shock and anger at the verdict.
Alexei Kudrin, a former finance minister who remains close to Putin, wrote on Twitter: "The verdict seems less like punishment and more like it is aimed at isolating him from society and from the election process."
Navalny, who largely appeals to Russia's internet-connected urban youth disillusioned with Putin's increasingly authoritarian politics, was waging a campaign for Moscow mayor in snap elections called for September. He was forced to withdraw his candidacy in the wake of the verdict.
If he is to serve the entire five-year sentence, he will be released from jail only after Russia's next presidential election, in 2018.
Meanwhile, in Russia....
Putin quietly pardons long-imprisoned oligarch/freedom fighter Mikhail Khordorkovsky, who is then subsequently absconded to Germany.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/20/mikhail-khodorkovsky-free-putin-pardon-berlin
Terror in Stalingrad! I guess it's not really a surprise given Russia's record and how ruthless they've been in the building of the olympic city. There's probably a few hundred thousand people in Russia that would like to see Sochi 14 fail, and add to that those who'd just like to see Russia fail.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25541019
So is anyone not expecting there to be a terrorist attack at Sochi?
Yes.
I don't have a very high opinion of Russian security officials, and the Caucasus Emirate has been planning this for half a decade. Also, it's in really piss-poor taste that this is on the 150th anniversary of the Circassian exodus.
It's definitely a risk. I suppose likelihood is how you judge Russian security service competence vs Russian security service clampdown :mellow:
Putin is too manly.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 29, 2013, 02:59:41 PM
So is anyone not expecting there to be a terrorist attack at Sochi?
If there is, it's Obama's fault.
Sochi will be an armed camp. Anyone who looks remotely Caucasian will be shot, including some members of the local indigenous population as well as some athletes from Caucasian countries, but there won't be a terrorist attack. There may well be several in Moscow, Petersburg, Volgograd, Stravropol, etc. during the games, however.
Ethnic Russian converts, Neonazis, Communists, etc.....I really think there's a ton of groups in Russia that are going to view this as the best way to humiliate the Putin administration.
Neonazis? What are they even doing in Russia?
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2013, 05:56:31 PM
Neonazis? What are they even doing in Russia?
Russians have a pretty fascist mindset, so it's not surprising that some go for that extreme. The misunderstanding that happened in 1941 shouldn't forever poison the relationship between Nazis and Russians.
So they're not really neonazis then, but just fascists.
Why would fascists hate Putin?
I was visiting Auschwitz. My guide was going through all the places the Slavic Poles were killed, held, and tortured (from the tour my impression was that the casualties were probably evenly divided between Jews and Slavic Poles). I asked the guide, "the nazis were so bad for the poles, so why is it I see swastika graffiti in Warsaw?"
He said, "People are ignorant. For example, there are two popular soccer teams in Krakow. They taunt each other. One side calls the other 'dirty dogs'. And that side calls the other 'dirty jews'. It is just ignorance."
I think I understood. It can be explained by "eastern europe". It is fertile ground for any stupid idea.
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2013, 06:16:08 PM
So they're not really neonazis then, but just fascists.
Why would fascists hate Putin?
There isn't as much distinction in Russian between fascists and Nazis. To Russians, Nazi Germany is the face of fascism, and WW2 Germans were most commonly referred to as fascists.
Nazi has the word Socialism in it. Communists didn't want people to think of the Nazis as Socialists.
I would like to be the first to congratulate Russia on her sweep of all 98 Gold Medals:
QuoteRussian government repressing journalists ahead of Sochi
by Alice Speri @alicesperi January 28, 2014 12:15AM ET
Obstruction by government authorities has led to fear and self-censorship among Russian journalists and severely limited coverage of the upcoming Sochi Olympics, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) charged in a report released on Tuesday.
The group, which monitors press freedom worldwide, detailed a repressive climate for journalism in Sochi, where the Winter Games kick off in less than two weeks and where arrests, tapped phones and threats have led to a virtual media silence in Russia on many controversial Olympic-related issues.
The report detailed one case in which a correspondent for a major Russian news agency — who was not named — recently filed three stories from Sochi. One dealt with the arrest of journalist Nikolai Yarst, a case that many saw as politically motivated. A second story detailed malfunctions at a hastily built compound for residents displaced by Olympic construction. A third was about the bad weather headed for the city, where torrential rains have already flooded newly constructed roads.
Yet none of the stories made it to the wires.
"You may have a storm, a twister and even a 9-Richter-scale earthquake. Still, we have to write that all skies are clear over Sochi," the unnamed correspondent told the CPJ.
Many free speech advocates see that episode as descriptive of hard times for journalism in the Olympic host city. While some reports on corruption, environmental damage, the exploitation of migrant workers and other abuses have emerged, this was largely through the independent documentation of activists, rights groups and foreign journalists. In many cases, both state-controlled and private media in Russia have ignored these issues and reported only on events and statements "officially cleared for coverage," the CPJ said.
Journalists cited in the report described pro-government television networks staging interviews with people speaking scripted lines but passing them off as off-the-cuff remarks from ordinary Sochi residents. A national TV channel aired a program depicting residents evicted from their homes as "greedy, unscrupulous people trying to blackmail the state." Human Rights Watch has documented uncompensated and poorly compensated evictions, but the issue has received relatively scarce media attention.
When fear alone doesn't work, the local branch of Russian media regulator Roskomnadzor — the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media — interferes with media organizations, the CPJ said. Since 2012, the agency has started 45 administrative cases against Sochi media outlets, on trivial pretexts like the failure to leave a copy of the paper with local libraries.
While some reports on corruption, environmental damage, the exploitation of migrant workers and other abuses have emerged, this was largely through the independent documentation of activists, rights groups and foreign journalists.
Self-censorship is widespread in Sochi, particularly since media organizations depend on public subsidies and official permits to operate, the report detailed.
"Nobody calls me. Nobody says to me what I should or should not write about. But I know what the topics that anger the authorities are," said Svetlana Sagradova, editor of a local magazine who said she practices self-censorship for fear of losing her license. "I don't want any problems, and this is why I don't publish much."
The directive to "stop spoiling the country's image," may be unspoken but is clear, said another journalist who was removed from the Sochi beat after her critical stories.
The CPJ report called on Russian authorities to let journalists do their jobs unhindered. It also called on Olympic sponsors and the International Olympic Committee to demand that press freedom is protected. "The International Olympic Committee as the Games' organizers must engage with Russian authorities to ensure that freedom of the press and freedom of expression are unobstructed in Sochi both during and after the Games," said the CPJ's Europe and Central Asia coordinator, Nina Ognianova.
Critics denounced the IOC as largely passive and called for the establishment of human-rights benchmarks for the selection of Olympic hosts. "Those benchmarks must be monitored and evaluated as thoroughly and with the same vigor that the IOC applies to monitoring a country's readiness with Olympic venues and material resources," said Jane Buchanan, Human Rights Watch's lead researcher on Sochi.
The CPJ also called on foreign reporters to investigate the stories their local colleagues have been unable to pursue. The report details harassment of foreign journalists but notes that Russian media will pick up critical stories that have already been covered internationally.
The Sochi Games are widely perceived in Russia as a project very dear to Vladimir Putin, and the Olympic-related media crackdown is seen as being in line with his repressive rule in recent years. In his third term as president, he has signed a number of restrictive laws, quickly and with little public debate.
Putin has criminalized defamation, expanded the definition of treason and blacklisted websites with loosely defined "unlawful content." A controversial "foreign agents" law passed in 2012 effectively obstructs most nongovernmental organizations, and the much discussed "homosexual propaganda" law has chilled news coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, including recent waves of homophobic violence.
"If the media cover the LGBT rights in anything that resembles a sympathetic way, they could be blamed with producing gay propaganda and punished for it," Konstantin Iablotckii, a Moscow-based LGBT activist, told the CPJ. "Better to play it safe."
Violence against journalists is also on the rise in Russia, with 16 journalists murdered in the past decade and a deeply entrenched culture of impunity.
A representative for Putin declined to respond to the allegations, citing the president's "tight schedule up to the start of the Olympics."
http://sochi.fbk.info/en/price/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsochi.fbk.info%2Fmd%2Ftr_img%2F4ce9c1c0d8c04613bebf713a9ba157b1.png&hash=b8939b09b57250c92dc2a8d99c55b79fc6659deb)
QuoteRussian officials including Vladimir Putin have recently claimed that the Olympics cost $6.5 bn. This is not true. Citizens of Russia paid nearly $45.8 bn for the Sochi Games. The Anti-Corruption Foundation explains how this adds up.
State budget, $25.1 bn
Two state-owned companies, Olimpstroy and Russian Railways (RZD), received over a half of this money. Olimpstroy spent $6.3 bn to construct 11 sport venues; most of them were built at unreasonably high prices. Most notably, Fisht Olympic Stadium cost 2.5 times as much per seat compared to similar venues.
Russian Railways received even more than Olimpstroy from the state budget: $7.6 bn were allocated for some 20 infrastructure projects. For example, the state monopoly took part in constructing the most expensive Olympic facility - the Adler-Krasnaya Polyana motorway and railway line. This facility cost $8.7 bn and helped Vladimir Yakunin, Arkadiy Rotenberg and Gennadiy Timchenko, friends of Putin, to get hold of the money.
From 2008 to 2014, the government spent $0.58 bn to ensure safety during the Olympics, fourfold the amount spent on grants for Olympic athletes. On top of that, $0.56 bn were given out to upgrade health resorts belonging to the Department of Presidential Affairs.
KRASNODAR Region budget, $1.0 bn
Another large expenditure item is a $2.6-billion federal transfer to the Krasnodar Krai region. Besides, the region also spent 1.0 bn from own funds, mostly to pay the shares of Center Omega, a 100% Krasnodar Krai-owned company which built the Adler Arena skating center at a cost exceeding the cost of similar venues by 2.4 times.
State-owned companies' expenditures, $10.5 bn
Gazprom and Russian Railways account for the largest Olympic expenditures, being $4.5 and 2.0 bn respectively. The rest was spent by Sberbank and state-owned energy companies (FSK, Inter RAO, MRSK). These funds cannot be considered private, because these are rates paid by customers of monopolies: railway fares, electricity and gas tariffs. For example, massive investment projects of Russian Railways are funded yearly from the state budget.
Vneshekonombank loans, $7.6 bn
All major private investors - billionaires Vladimir Potanin, Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg - have received substantial financial support from Vneshekonombank, reaching 90% of the whole project costs. This is a very high leverage. Commercial banks usually do not finance over 66% of the project.
This fall, it has been reported that, out of 20 Vneshekonombank loans for $7.6 bn, nine loans for $5.8 bn need to be restructured. According to the business newspaper Vedomosti, these projects are unprofitable with loans being unrecoverable without additional support. Vladimir Potanin, one of the recipients of state loans, also admitted this in an interview.
Private investments, $1.6 bn
In their statements, officials referred to investments of Gazprom, Sberbank, Russian Railways and other government-affiliated entities as private investments. According to the IFRS, these investments are considered investments of state-owned companies. In fact, private investments account for less than 4% of the Olympic budget, not 60%, as Alexander Zhukov, President of the Russian Olympic Committee, previously claimed. These are primarily billionaires' own funds they invested along with state-owned Vneshekonombank loans.
The whole idea that states should spend tax money on sport events is ridiculous to begin with. It is only natural that it is the hotbed of corruption
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 07:06:28 AM
The whole idea that states should spend tax money on sport events is ridiculous to begin with. It is only natural that it is the hotbed of corruption
Of course, in a more reasonable country the corruptors would at least make a little effort to conceal the corruption from the corruptees.
Quote from: Liep on January 29, 2014, 07:16:21 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 07:06:28 AM
The whole idea that states should spend tax money on sport events is ridiculous to begin with. It is only natural that it is the hotbed of corruption
Of course, in a more reasonable country the corruptors would at least make a little effort to conceal the corruption from the corruptees.
Of course. But in less developed societies, like Russia or Hungary, you don`t really have to, as examples are clearly showing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fnewsroom%2Fimg%2Fposts%2FHungaryAuto4.jpg.jpg&hash=355695495175c097b544f5b317ce7d36c0339d0f)
Quote from: Syt on January 29, 2014, 07:54:18 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fnewsroom%2Fimg%2Fposts%2FHungaryAuto4.jpg.jpg&hash=355695495175c097b544f5b317ce7d36c0339d0f)
I can give you the Average Hungarian Answer to those:
-jews
-we are naturally good at sports, period
-jews
-jews and gypsies
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 07:06:28 AM
The whole idea that states should spend tax money on sport events is ridiculous to begin with. It is only natural that it is the hotbed of corruption
Nonsense. London, Barcelona, Sydney were all worth it and I don't think any were terribly corrupt. Most big stadiums need at least some national or local/government involvement. Also if there's big sport events then tax money will need to be spent ensuring there's the infrastructure in place etc.
And it's not like those tickets, companies/clubs or athletes are tax free.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2014, 09:40:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 07:06:28 AM
The whole idea that states should spend tax money on sport events is ridiculous to begin with. It is only natural that it is the hotbed of corruption
Nonsense. London, Barcelona, Sydney were all worth it and I don't think any were terribly corrupt. Most big stadiums need at least some national or local/government involvement. Also if there's big sport events then tax money will need to be spent ensuring there's the infrastructure in place etc.
And it's not like those tickets, companies/clubs or athletes are tax free.
I oppose it on an ethical ground.
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 09:42:57 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2014, 09:40:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 07:06:28 AM
The whole idea that states should spend tax money on sport events is ridiculous to begin with. It is only natural that it is the hotbed of corruption
Nonsense. London, Barcelona, Sydney were all worth it and I don't think any were terribly corrupt. Most big stadiums need at least some national or local/government involvement. Also if there's big sport events then tax money will need to be spent ensuring there's the infrastructure in place etc.
And it's not like those tickets, companies/clubs or athletes are tax free.
I oppose it on an ethical ground.
You oppose states trying to make money from investments?
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 09:42:57 AMI oppose it on an ethical ground.
Oppose what? Just the Olympics/World Cup or local government helping with stadium construction or using sports events to regenerate an area or national government paying to expand Tube stations to deal with 60 000 people every other weekend?
I think it's like anything weigh up the benefits and costs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2014, 09:47:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 09:42:57 AMI oppose it on an ethical ground.
Oppose what? Just the Olympics/World Cup or local government helping with stadium construction or using sports events to regenerate an area or national government paying to expand Tube stations to deal with 60 000 people every other weekend?
I think it's like anything weigh up the benefits and costs.
I mostly oppose the idea of the state getting involved in enterprises such as sporting or other cultural events. Profit or not. If there is no profit, it shouldn't do it. If there is profit, private investors should do it. Not enough profit for that? See point one.
The Barcelona Olympics were the best thing to happen to the city since Franco kicked the bucket. I'm very glad my government ponied up for them, they completely transformed this town.
Quote from: celedhring on January 29, 2014, 10:20:44 AM
The Barcelona Olympics were the best thing to happen to the city since Franco kicked the bucket. I'm very glad my government ponied up for them, they completely transformed this town.
There is money moving from one place to an other, of course there are those who benefit. But at the core, it is still just tax money (money coerced out of citizens) spent on a
sporting event
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:13:17 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2014, 09:47:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 09:42:57 AMI oppose it on an ethical ground.
Oppose what? Just the Olympics/World Cup or local government helping with stadium construction or using sports events to regenerate an area or national government paying to expand Tube stations to deal with 60 000 people every other weekend?
I think it's like anything weigh up the benefits and costs.
I mostly oppose the idea of the state getting involved in enterprises such as sporting or other cultural events. Profit or not. If there is no profit, it shouldn't do it. If there is profit, private investors should do it. Not enough profit for that? See point one.
Poor naive Tamas.
Everything is going to be fine - this is Russia after all, the nation where freedom fighters interested in protecting our liberty from totalitarian regimes like the NSA go to find refuge.
What could go wrong?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2014, 10:30:03 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:13:17 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2014, 09:47:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 09:42:57 AMI oppose it on an ethical ground.
Oppose what? Just the Olympics/World Cup or local government helping with stadium construction or using sports events to regenerate an area or national government paying to expand Tube stations to deal with 60 000 people every other weekend?
I think it's like anything weigh up the benefits and costs.
I mostly oppose the idea of the state getting involved in enterprises such as sporting or other cultural events. Profit or not. If there is no profit, it shouldn't do it. If there is profit, private investors should do it. Not enough profit for that? See point one.
Poor naive Tamas.
Poor naïve Raz.
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:27:08 AM
There is money moving from one place to an other, of course there are those who benefit. But at the core, it is still just tax money (money coerced out of citizens) spent on a sporting event
Yep. But it helped in a process that turned Barcelona into a very rich city (thus now a cash cow for tax money) and one of Europe's cultural capitals.
And obviously I'd disagree on your view of tax money :P
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:32:02 AM
Poor naïve Raz.
Can you think of anyplace where private investors do make the all the investment in major sports infrastructure?
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:27:08 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 29, 2014, 10:20:44 AM
The Barcelona Olympics were the best thing to happen to the city since Franco kicked the bucket. I'm very glad my government ponied up for them, they completely transformed this town.
There is money moving from one place to an other, of course there are those who benefit. But at the core, it is still just tax money (money coerced out of citizens) spent on a sporting event
Paid back many times by increased international exposure for the city (tourism has skyrocketed since the 90s) and all the tax money it brings, and the use we get off the infrastructure and urban redevelopments (like the cleaning up of the shoreline that opened up the area to private investment in housing and office space). I think the Barcelona Olympics are a good case study of government spending that serves as a catalyst for growth in an urban area. It's not always necessarily the case, but I think you can't have such a black-and-white view, as with everything you balance the benefits vs the expenses.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2014, 10:30:31 AM
Everything is going to be fine - this is Russia after all, the nation where freedom fighters interested in protecting our liberty from totalitarian regimes like the NSA go to find refuge.
What could go wrong?
Wow that is weak.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2014, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:32:02 AM
Poor naïve Raz.
Can you think of anyplace where private investors do make the all the investment in major sports infrastructure?
The Dallas Cowboys. Ok they probably got massive tax incentives...
Quote from: celedhring on January 29, 2014, 10:38:16 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:27:08 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 29, 2014, 10:20:44 AM
The Barcelona Olympics were the best thing to happen to the city since Franco kicked the bucket. I'm very glad my government ponied up for them, they completely transformed this town.
There is money moving from one place to an other, of course there are those who benefit. But at the core, it is still just tax money (money coerced out of citizens) spent on a sporting event
Paid back many times by increased international exposure for the city (tourism has skyrocketed since the 90s) and all the tax money it brings, and the use we get off the infrastructure and urban redevelopments (like the cleaning up of the shoreline that opened up the area to private investment in housing and office space). I think the Barcelona Olympics are a good case study of government spending that serves as a catalyst for growth in an urban area. It's not always necessarily the case, but I think you can't have such a black-and-white view, as with everything you balance the benefits vs the expenses.
True. But the power which allows the state to have such investments is also the power which allows them to fuck up the economy and engage in abortive social engineering projects and whatnot. You must balance the benefits vs. the disadvantages.
Quote from: Valmy on January 29, 2014, 10:39:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2014, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:32:02 AM
Poor naïve Raz.
Can you think of anyplace where private investors do make the all the investment in major sports infrastructure?
The Dallas Cowboys. Ok they probably got massive tax incentives...
I want to visit jerryworld. Just to see the big board.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2014, 10:33:59 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:27:08 AM
There is money moving from one place to an other, of course there are those who benefit. But at the core, it is still just tax money (money coerced out of citizens) spent on a sporting event
Yep. But it helped in a process that turned Barcelona into a very rich city (thus now a cash cow for tax money) and one of Europe's cultural capitals.
And obviously I'd disagree on your view of tax money :P
It did not occur to me that Barcelona was a poor and culturally unimportant city prior to what, 1992? :P
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:41:19 AM
True. But the power which allows the state to have such investments is also the power which allows them to fuck up the economy and engage in abortive social engineering projects and whatnot. You must balance the benefits vs. the disadvantages.
So your real objection to government spending on sporting events is that government exists at all? :mellow:
Quote from: Valmy on January 29, 2014, 10:39:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2014, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:32:02 AM
Poor naïve Raz.
Can you think of anyplace where private investors do make the all the investment in major sports infrastructure?
The Dallas Cowboys. Ok they probably got massive tax incentives...
It appears their stadium is owned by the city of Arlington.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2014, 10:42:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:41:19 AM
True. But the power which allows the state to have such investments is also the power which allows them to fuck up the economy and engage in abortive social engineering projects and whatnot. You must balance the benefits vs. the disadvantages.
So your real objection to government spending on sporting events is that government exists at all? :mellow:
No. But as I keep saying, government spending should be reduced to a bare minimum necessary. The government should be a mediator in the affairs of the citizens, not the major influence. Where to draw that line is up for a debate most certainly, but I feel like in today`s world, the "government should fix it/finance it/ban it" sentiment has reached too big proportions especially in Europe. The "goal" to try and move for should be minimal state involvement, not maximum.
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:41:57 AM
It did not occur to me that Barcelona was a poor and culturally unimportant city prior to what, 1992? :P
My understanding is that before the Olympics it was a heavily industrial and quite overcrowded city. The Olympics was a catalyst to regenerating the city. There was lots about it as the 'good Olympics' in the run up to 2012 (the 'bad Olympics': still Montreal).
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:41:57 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2014, 10:33:59 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:27:08 AM
There is money moving from one place to an other, of course there are those who benefit. But at the core, it is still just tax money (money coerced out of citizens) spent on a sporting event
Yep. But it helped in a process that turned Barcelona into a very rich city (thus now a cash cow for tax money) and one of Europe's cultural capitals.
And obviously I'd disagree on your view of tax money :P
It did not occur to me that Barcelona was a poor and culturally unimportant city prior to what, 1992? :P
It was. Barcelona was quite a shitty town until the 80s, present-day Barcelona was born in 1992.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2014, 10:46:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 29, 2014, 10:39:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2014, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:32:02 AM
Poor naïve Raz.
Can you think of anyplace where private investors do make the all the investment in major sports infrastructure?
The Dallas Cowboys. Ok they probably got massive tax incentives...
It appears their stadium is owned by the city of Arlington.
Damn your right. Jerry-world was obviously misnamed.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2014, 10:51:04 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:41:57 AM
It did not occur to me that Barcelona was a poor and culturally unimportant city prior to what, 1992? :P
My understanding is that before the Olympics it was a heavily industrial and quite overcrowded city. The Olympics was a catalyst to regenerating the city. There was lots about it as the 'good Olympics' in the run up to 2012 (the 'bad Olympics': still Montreal).
It was also quite run down and had a severe-ish problem with slums. As Cel said, the Olympics allowed the city to redevelop a large part of its beachfront, projected its international image as a modern city and spearheaded its status as a worldwide touristic powerhouse.
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:41:57 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2014, 10:33:59 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:27:08 AM
There is money moving from one place to an other, of course there are those who benefit. But at the core, it is still just tax money (money coerced out of citizens) spent on a sporting event
Yep. But it helped in a process that turned Barcelona into a very rich city (thus now a cash cow for tax money) and one of Europe's cultural capitals.
And obviously I'd disagree on your view of tax money :P
It did not occur to me that Barcelona was a poor and culturally unimportant city prior to what, 1992? :P
It certainly was far from what it is now.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-olympic-games-changed-barcelona-forever-2012-7
Quote
Crucially the games seemed to change the way people thought of Barcelona. Between 1990 and 2001 the country went from being the 11th "best city" in Europe to the 6th, according to one ranking. The IOC says that 20 years after the games Barcelona is now the 12th most popular city destination for tourists in the world, and the 5th in Europe.
And it's not only tourists, trade show bookings multiplied, stuff like hosting a trade event such as the Mobile World Congress would have been unthinkable in the Barcelona of the 80s*. As Sheilbh said, it turned Barcelona into an European capital, not just a dirty backwaterish regional one as it was before the Olympics.
*And no, it's not because there weren't many cell phones in the 80s.
Well it certainly worked, Barcelona is gorgeous now. :wub:
Quote from: The Larch on January 29, 2014, 11:04:01 AM
It was also quite run down and had a severe-ish problem with slums. As Cel said, the Olympics allowed the city to redevelop a large part of its beachfront, projected its international image as a modern city and spearheaded its status as a worldwide touristic powerhouse.
I'm surprised. The eponymous movie (made some time in the 80's I think) made it look quite lovely.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2014, 03:55:02 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 29, 2014, 11:04:01 AM
It was also quite run down and had a severe-ish problem with slums. As Cel said, the Olympics allowed the city to redevelop a large part of its beachfront, projected its international image as a modern city and spearheaded its status as a worldwide touristic powerhouse.
I'm surprised. The eponymous movie (made some time in the 80's I think) made it look quite lovely.
The movie, even if set in the 80s, was made in 1994.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2014, 03:55:02 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 29, 2014, 11:04:01 AM
It was also quite run down and had a severe-ish problem with slums. As Cel said, the Olympics allowed the city to redevelop a large part of its beachfront, projected its international image as a modern city and spearheaded its status as a worldwide touristic powerhouse.
I'm surprised. The eponymous movie (made some time in the 80's I think) made it look quite lovely.
I had a couple Spanish teachers who gushed over how beautiful it was when they visited in the 70s & 80s.
Quote from: The Larch on January 29, 2014, 04:00:08 PM
The movie, even if set in the 80s, was made in 1994.
No shit. Coulda sworn it was older than that.
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2014, 04:03:36 PM
I had a couple Spanish teachers who gushed over how beautiful it was when they visited in the 70s & 80s.
An industrial port-town isn't necessarily a bad thing. Naples is one of the best places I've been to and when I was in Morocco Casablanca was one of my favourite cities. So Barcelona was, I'm sure, great and quite popular before the Olympics. Since then it's been a European cultural and business capital and I think a lot of that is because the Olympics gave them the opportunity and the money to do a lot of work on the city.
Quote from: Alcibiades on January 29, 2014, 11:11:43 AM
Well it certainly worked, Barcelona is gorgeous now. :wub:
Yeah. Pity it's full of Barceloneses ...
Atlanta also had a big improvement from the Olympics. Our infrastructure was upgraded and is now beyond reproach.
I was in Barcelona in the 80s. Seemed fine and popular to me.
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:13:17 AM
I mostly oppose the idea of the state getting involved in enterprises such as sporting or other cultural events. Profit or not. If there is no profit, it shouldn't do it. If there is profit, private investors should do it. Not enough profit for that? See point one.
Of course. You oppose the spending of tax money on anything other than the military or infrastructure and services you see yourself using.
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2014, 10:50:17 AMNo. But as I keep saying, government spending should be reduced to a bare minimum necessary. The government should be a mediator in the affairs of the citizens, not the major influence. Where to draw that line is up for a debate most certainly, but I feel like in today`s world, the "government should fix it/finance it/ban it" sentiment has reached too big proportions especially in Europe. The "goal" to try and move for should be minimal state involvement, not maximum.
That's silly.
Jacob supports bloated, intrusive government? :o
Quote from: The Brain on January 29, 2014, 04:36:54 PM
Jacob supports bloated, intrusive government? :o
Nope! I support government carrying out functions that are useful and/or necessary as efficiently as possible. And I believe the fetishization of private enterprise and the belief that it can address most or all of the needs of a modern society to be silly. :)
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 04:40:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 29, 2014, 04:36:54 PM
Jacob supports bloated, intrusive government? :o
Nope! I support government carrying out functions that are useful and/or necessary as efficiently as possible. And I believe the fetishization of private enterprise and the belief that it can address most or all of the needs of a modern society to be silly. :)
You sound like a poor.
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 04:40:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 29, 2014, 04:36:54 PM
Jacob supports bloated, intrusive government? :o
Nope! I support government carrying out functions that are useful and/or necessary as efficiently as possible. And I believe the fetishization of private enterprise and the belief that it can address most or all of the needs of a modern society to be silly. :)
:lol: Sounds to me like you're fetishizing big government, Comrade Yakov.
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2014, 04:46:41 PM:lol: Sounds to me like you're fetishizing big government, Comrade Yakov.
Not at all.
I simply hold that there are a bunch of situations where issues like the problem of the commons, non-monetary priorities, the public interest, etc mean that they are best addressed through action accountable directly to the public rather than to shareholders.
Also, having spent my entire career in private industry - and having experienced competent government bureaucracies - I do not agree with you and your fellow travellers that private actor solutions are inherently more efficient or competent than government ones.
My starting point is basically: what is likely to provide the best outcome? In some cases it's competent government services and action; in others it's purely private unregulated actors; in others yet it's private actors operating in a well regulated environment; and many times it's some sort of combination.
To reject any given mode of action and to vilify a specific actor or set of actors on purely ideological grounds is foolish.
Yep.
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 04:52:37 PM
I do not agree with you and your fellow travellers that private actor solutions are inherently more efficient or competent than government ones.
I don't think either route will be efficient or competent. :(
We can privatize the government and get the best of both worlds. :)
My wife did some research on cities that hosted the Olympics in her graduate studies. She found that there's a great deal of hardship to the residents of the city with the renovation that the preparation brings, and the crowds and traffic during the games; that the new buildings are almost never successfully repurposed (at least not up to their capacity); but also that the Olympics give the residents an increased and lasting feeling of civic pride and sense of community. The boost in the latter is even greater among minorities and recent immigrants. The Caucus region of Russia could certainly use a boost in sense of community, especially among ethnic minorities.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 29, 2014, 05:17:05 PM
My wife did some research on cities that hosted the Olympics in her graduate studies. She found that there's a great deal of hardship to the residents of the city with the renovation that the preparation brings, and the crowds and traffic during the games; that the new buildings are almost never successfully repurposed (at least not up to their capacity); but also that the Olympics give the residents an increased and lasting feeling of civic pride and sense of community. The boost in the latter is even greater among minorities and recent immigrants. The Caucus region of Russia could certainly use a boost in sense of community, especially among ethnic minorities.
TL;DR: Things suck more for the poors in an Olympics host city, but the poors feel better about the city even though it sucks. Right?
What the hell, DSB?
Quote from: garbon on January 29, 2014, 08:04:30 PM
What the hell, DSB?
I guess he's definitely not an expert at speed reading. :hmm: There is a first for everything after all.
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 04:52:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2014, 04:46:41 PM:lol: Sounds to me like you're fetishizing big government, Comrade Yakov.
Not at all.
I simply hold that there are a bunch of situations where issues like the problem of the commons, non-monetary priorities, the public interest, etc mean that they are best addressed through action accountable directly to the public rather than to shareholders.
Also, having spent my entire career in private industry - and having experienced competent government bureaucracies - I do not agree with you and your fellow travellers that private actor solutions are inherently more efficient or competent than government ones.
I am coming from a big corporation that was at least as bloated and ineffective as any government. The point is not that private enterprise is incapable of being as fucked up as a public one, but a private enterprise can be fucked up only so long before it fails, and even while being fucked up can only damage itself and it`s members, maybe business partners. A public enterprise, however, has an infinite source of survival called the government budget, and thus there is no incentive, or even interest, from it`s members, to turn an ineffective situation around, and their inefficiency damages all tax paying citizens.
Also, public enterprises offering services (or even privately offered services whose prices are determined by the government) are directly linked with the democratic processes, meaning all of their aspects are tools, or threats, in the political class` fight for votes, eg. the price of the services offered, or maintaining efficiency by laying off unnecessary employees.
Even with those, I am giving you that having relatively efficient public enterprises is possible, if all the ingredients are there, namely, abundant state resources, social cohesion, well developed political culture, and all levels of responsible leadership, as well as responsible and accountable workforce.
But is "if everything is ideal, then it works" a sufficient reason to mark something as the best solution? Hardly. In history we remember kings/emperors who -while being autocrats- had the wisdom and knowledge to let their countries/empires develop in a very efficient manner. Yet, we do not declare dictatorship to be an efficient way of handling a country. Why? Because we are aware that these examples are merely exceptions for a rule which sees hugely inefficient, tyranic, degrading, generally quite bad dictatorships.
Same is exactly true to heavy state involvement. Yes, it has been working seemingly efficiently for some Western countries (although lets wait 40-50 years more to give historic verdict), who instituted it after their private enterprises flourished and gave them a never before seen advantage over the rest of the world. But all the other states fail to show similar efficiency by trying to copy their methods
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 04:57:25 PM
My starting point is basically: what is likely to provide the best outcome? In some cases it's competent government services and action; in others it's purely private unregulated actors; in others yet it's private actors operating in a well regulated environment; and many times it's some sort of combination.
To reject any given mode of action and to vilify a specific actor or set of actors on purely ideological grounds is foolish.
+1.
I almost certainly disagree with you in many particulars about which choice is optimal in any given situation, but the basic foundation of what you are saying is accurate, especially the last sentence.
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 05:34:16 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2014, 04:52:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2014, 04:46:41 PM:lol: Sounds to me like you're fetishizing big government, Comrade Yakov.
Not at all.
I simply hold that there are a bunch of situations where issues like the problem of the commons, non-monetary priorities, the public interest, etc mean that they are best addressed through action accountable directly to the public rather than to shareholders.
Also, having spent my entire career in private industry - and having experienced competent government bureaucracies - I do not agree with you and your fellow travellers that private actor solutions are inherently more efficient or competent than government ones.
I am coming from a big corporation that was at least as bloated and ineffective as any government. The point is not that private enterprise is incapable of being as fucked up as a public one, but a private enterprise can be fucked up only so long before it fails, and even while being fucked up can only damage itself and it`s members, maybe business partners. A public enterprise, however, has an infinite source of survival called the government budget, and thus there is no incentive, or even interest, from it`s members, to turn an ineffective situation around, and their inefficiency damages all tax paying citizens.
What you are saying CAN be true, but is not necessarily. It is a mark of BAD government when government bureaucracies lack incentive to meet the needs of the public. This certainly does happen, just like corporations often do not meet the needs of their customers or stakeholders.
I don't really agree that there is no consequence though - of course there is, or ought to be. The government is the creation of the electorate, and it can and must be changed when it is not working. If it cannot be changed, then you have a poor system and THAT needs to be changed.
Note that the same thing happens in the private sector all the time - you end up with poorly managed/regulated/setup systems where private actors are not held to the consequences of their actions, for any number of reasons, until the damage caused extends far beyond the actual stakeholders. I don't need to remind you that human society has experienced basically constant cycles of economic pain at the systemic level as the result of misguided or actively hostile private economic actors. And of course public as well, and a combination of the two.
I don't think either "system" (and of course I use the term very loosely since in reality there has almost never been any truly "private" or truly "public" system, it is always a mix of both) is inherently "right". The trick is finding the appropriate system for specific tasks. And the biggest enemy of finding the appropriate answer is, IMO, to decide as a matter of faith that one type is inherently superior to the other without considering the specifics of the situation in question.
I fully agree Berkut, but in case of the state, the consideration is made by the state itself, so of course the conclusion will be: give more power to the state.
That is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, eyes should be set on "how best we can solve XY situation with as little government involvement as necessary for effectiveness" and not "how the government could solve this?"
This is not vilifying state intervention, nor it emphasizes private solution as the only valid one, but rather it (would) emphasize a society where individual liberty and initiative reigns as the supreme value.
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 09:52:03 AM
I fully agree Berkut, but in case of the state, the consideration is made by the state itself, so of course the conclusion will be: give more power to the state.
That is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, eyes should be set on "how best we can solve XY situation with as little government involvement as necessary for effectiveness" and not "how the government could solve this?"
This is not vilifying state intervention, nor it emphasizes private solution as the only valid one, but rather it (would) emphasize a society where individual liberty and initiative reigns as the supreme value.
Wow you are more American than most Americans. Maybe you immigrated to the wrong Anglophone country.
No beets allowed!
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 09:52:03 AM
I fully agree Berkut, but in case of the state, the consideration is made by the state itself, so of course the conclusion will be: give more power to the state.
That is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, eyes should be set on "how best we can solve XY situation with as little government involvement as necessary for effectiveness" and not "how the government could solve this?"
This is not vilifying state intervention, nor it emphasizes private solution as the only valid one, but rather it (would) emphasize a society where individual liberty and initiative reigns as the supreme value.
But that is a different (albeit related) issue - it is the issue of the danger that a public solution may be more likely to allow the state to use its power to restrict individual liberty int he name of the public good. It is a real and very significant problem, and I absolutely agree that when it comes to the practical implementation of public solutions, their impact on individual liberty is a critical variable in how they are and should be measured.
Health care is an excellent example of this, and how a public solution will inevitably involve some very serious impact on individual liberty. And certainly you get a lot of the proponents of the public solution who simply won't even acknowledge that it is an issue worthy of consideration.
However, that being said, the private sector has it's own set of practical restrictions on private liberty as well. We often don't think about them as much, because in the abstract it shouldn't even happen - Ayn assures us that any impingement on private liberty by a private sector entity ought and will be addressed via the market. Yeah, that sounds great, but the reality is that it doesn't actually happen quite as reliably as we might hope.
In reality, we see private sector companies making choices that have very serious impacts on individual liberty in a practical sense, both directly (see companies working hard to establish monopoly or near-monopoly positions in markets) and even more so indirectly (what impact on individual liberty is there from Kodak and Xeror so polluting Lake Ontario that for a long time you couldn't eat fish caught there, as an example?).
I am a pretty piss poor Libertarian these days, because I look around and realize two things:
1. The theory behind it sounds good, but in reality it doesn't actually work. The market doesn't actually correct at all in some cases, and in others does so slowly enough that those who benefit do so anyway, and those who are harmed end up still being harmed, even if it "corrects" at some point. The lake is still polluted, the resources are still consumed, the wealthy who made their money exploiting a "short term" market situation (that may last for a decade) or still rich even after the market "corrects". So the banks (as an example) are just going to look for the next loophole that they can make a few trillion off of before the market corrects, assuming of course it corrects at all.
2. The common response to #1 is that all that is a function of a not Libertarian ENOUGH free market - that in fact if only we had less interference, then the market would correct faster. To that, I say
2a. Bullshit. That is like a Communist saying that the reason Communist nations failed is that they weren't Communist enough. There are ample examples in human hustory of under regulated free markets becoming extremely exploitative and damaging to the societies that encompass them, and
2b. If in fact the requirement for Libertarian theory to work is some nearly anarchist, never before ever seen level of incredibly free market, then it is a irrelevant pipe dream that is not implementable in actual human society. Outside of some pulp fiction, every society has some controls over how its members conduct business, and if the pay off for the Libertarian ideal is only achievable when you have a level of free market that has never been seen in human history, then it is outside the bounds of actual practical discussion, so who cares? Again, it is like saying Communism could work great if human nature isn't what it is - sure, that *might* be true, but human nature IS what it is, so who cares?
I've gone well beyond your point of course, so please don't take my position as being necessarily an attempt to refute your own, per se.
Tamas, you have a real blind spot for problems with private actors. They can be far danger to more people then just themselves. Just ask the people of Bhopal.
:hmm:
Regarding 2b, yes in a "pure" form it is a pipedream and will never happen unless humans reach a level of maturity which seems impossible at this stage.
But it could still be the "guiding point" to aim toward and try and get as close to as possible. Again, as opposed to the seemingly prevailing set of values which seem to end at "the government should fix it".
Point 2 in general: any kind of state control over the markets WILL be used to the benefits of the private interests which manage to exalt influence over the decision maker (or for the decision makers themselves). So I think the threshold at which rules and regulations stop being beneficial and start just replicating the effects they nominally try to eliminate, is very thin. So again, effort should be to establish the state as a kind of mediator, or "referee" if you will. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less. Getting to that point must be extremely challenging, maybe impossible, but that does not mean that we would not benefit from efforts being made in that direction.
Quote from: Valmy on January 30, 2014, 10:00:37 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 09:52:03 AM
I fully agree Berkut, but in case of the state, the consideration is made by the state itself, so of course the conclusion will be: give more power to the state.
That is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, eyes should be set on "how best we can solve XY situation with as little government involvement as necessary for effectiveness" and not "how the government could solve this?"
This is not vilifying state intervention, nor it emphasizes private solution as the only valid one, but rather it (would) emphasize a society where individual liberty and initiative reigns as the supreme value.
Wow you are more American than most Americans. Maybe you immigrated to the wrong Anglophone country.
:hug:
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 10:29:57 AM
:hmm:
Regarding 2b, yes in a "pure" form it is a pipedream and will never happen unless humans reach a level of maturity which seems impossible at this stage.
*gulp* I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Libertarians are the 21st century Communists. The ideologies may be the perfect opposites, but the mindsets are identical.
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2014, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 10:29:57 AM
:hmm:
Regarding 2b, yes in a "pure" form it is a pipedream and will never happen unless humans reach a level of maturity which seems impossible at this stage.
*gulp* I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Libertarians are the 21st century Communists. The ideologies may be the perfect opposites, but the mindsets are identical.
Well they both dream of a stateless society. Just the Libertarians do not want a dictatorship in the middle.
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 10:29:57 AM
:hmm:
Regarding 2b, yes in a "pure" form it is a pipedream and will never happen unless humans reach a level of maturity which seems impossible at this stage.
But it could still be the "guiding point" to aim toward and try and get as close to as possible. Again, as opposed to the seemingly prevailing set of values which seem to end at "the government should fix it".
That EXACT same argument can and has been made about Communism.
If the benefits of this libertarian ideal can only be realized by reaching some threshold of libertarianism that has never once been reached, then I am perfectly content to simply reject the entire ideology. That is nothing but faith at that point, and you know if some society (say via a revolution of idealists circa Russia 1917) took over and made it their mission to drive to that ideal, they would simply continue to claim that the threshold has not been reached, the threshold has not been reached, the threshold has not been reached as the push it further and further.
Because it is nothing more than a matter of faith at that point - you are convinced that this ideal would and could be realized if "only we were mature enough", even while there is no objective reason to believe that is the case, or even that humans maturity would somehow result in uber free markets not being exploitative. How does that even follow?
We are into the realm of pure ideology at that point. We might as well argue about how whether or not the wafer really does or does not turn into the flesh of Christ when we eat it.
I actually wanted to mention "same as people pursuing communism" but decided against it. :D
Ok so pure stateless libertarianism is impossible. We agree on that, and I have never advocated doing away with the state.
Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 10:49:36 AM
Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.
I don't understand why you need to make that kind of assumption.
Sure, the government isn't always the answer, and we shouldn't always look at a problem and think "how can government best solve this problem". But that doesn't necessarily mean that government is inherently the problem itself.
Government is a tool. It should be used where it can be effective, and not when it can't. No need to throw in words about "using government as little as possible".
In a democracy government is designed by the stupid, for everyone. And democracy is the best system we have.
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2014, 11:34:06 AM
Government is a tool. It should be used where it can be effective, and not when it can't. No need to throw in words about "using government as little as possible".
I agree with you, but some people put some sort of morality in it that changes the equation a little bit. I mean, we do sometimes do things that are pragmatically bad for everyone as a whole but there is consensus that we should do it anyway.
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2014, 11:34:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 10:49:36 AM
Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.
I don't understand why you need to make that kind of assumption.
Sure, the government isn't always the answer, and we shouldn't always look at a problem and think "how can government best solve this problem". But that doesn't necessarily mean that government is inherently the problem itself.
Government is a tool. It should be used where it can be effective, and not when it can't. No need to throw in words about "using government as little as possible".
Because government is not just like any other tool. Government, or the state if you would like, is the "tool" with the monopoly on violence. (and before someone starts: that`s a good thing and there cannot be an even remotely functional society where the state does not have that monopoly). Increasing it`s power and areas it has an influence over is a process that is easy to be driven overboard by those benefiting from that, and very, very hard to turn around, especially within a democratic system.
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 12:56:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2014, 11:34:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 10:49:36 AM
Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.
I don't understand why you need to make that kind of assumption.
Sure, the government isn't always the answer, and we shouldn't always look at a problem and think "how can government best solve this problem". But that doesn't necessarily mean that government is inherently the problem itself.
Government is a tool. It should be used where it can be effective, and not when it can't. No need to throw in words about "using government as little as possible".
Because government is not just like any other tool. Government, or the state if you would like, is the "tool" with the monopoly on violence. (and before someone starts: that`s a good thing and there cannot be an even remotely functional society where the state does not have that monopoly). Increasing it`s power and areas it has an influence over is a process that is easy to be driven overboard by those benefiting from that, and very, very hard to turn around, especially within a democratic system.
:tinfoil:
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2014, 01:02:51 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 12:56:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2014, 11:34:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 10:49:36 AM
Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.
I don't understand why you need to make that kind of assumption.
Sure, the government isn't always the answer, and we shouldn't always look at a problem and think "how can government best solve this problem". But that doesn't necessarily mean that government is inherently the problem itself.
Government is a tool. It should be used where it can be effective, and not when it can't. No need to throw in words about "using government as little as possible".
Because government is not just like any other tool. Government, or the state if you would like, is the "tool" with the monopoly on violence. (and before someone starts: that`s a good thing and there cannot be an even remotely functional society where the state does not have that monopoly). Increasing it`s power and areas it has an influence over is a process that is easy to be driven overboard by those benefiting from that, and very, very hard to turn around, especially within a democratic system.
:tinfoil:
:rolleyes: I am not saying that one day you go from full democracy to people being shot on the street, but do not act like there is no way to abuse state power over the economy.
Why are you discussing limits on the power of the state with MachiavelliBoy?
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 01:08:58 PM:rolleyes: I am not saying that one day you go from full democracy to people being shot on the street, but do not act like there is no way to abuse state power over the economy.
Of course there is. Just look at Hungary, or China, or many other places.
However, the answer to corrupt public institutions harming the public interest is not inherently to discard public institutions, but to attack corruption.
If you got rid of corrupt public institutions in Hungary or China, you'd end up with corrupt private institutions running the show. It's corruption that's the problem.
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2014, 01:02:51 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 12:56:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2014, 11:34:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 10:49:36 AM
Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.
I don't understand why you need to make that kind of assumption.
Sure, the government isn't always the answer, and we shouldn't always look at a problem and think "how can government best solve this problem". But that doesn't necessarily mean that government is inherently the problem itself.
Government is a tool. It should be used where it can be effective, and not when it can't. No need to throw in words about "using government as little as possible".
Because government is not just like any other tool. Government, or the state if you would like, is the "tool" with the monopoly on violence. (and before someone starts: that`s a good thing and there cannot be an even remotely functional society where the state does not have that monopoly). Increasing it`s power and areas it has an influence over is a process that is easy to be driven overboard by those benefiting from that, and very, very hard to turn around, especially within a democratic system.
:tinfoil:
Nothing at all tinfoil about recognizing that the State monopoly on power can and has been abused much more often than not throughout human history, and that it is a unique and particular type of power that must be managed carefully.
Beeb, you are the kind of guy who lives in a great neighborhood with excellent police and no crime saying "Man, you people worry too much about crime! We hardly have any at all!"
Government is always a better option than Giant Corporate enterprises.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 30, 2014, 02:21:30 PM
Government is always a better option than Giant Corporate enterprises.
One sort of complements the other though...
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 30, 2014, 02:21:30 PM
Government is always a better option than Giant Corporate enterprises.
Fortunately, those aren't the only choices.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 30, 2014, 02:28:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 30, 2014, 02:21:30 PM
Government is always a better option than Giant Corporate enterprises.
Fortunately, those aren't the only choices.
Really? Around here, there's barely anything private that is small enterprises.
Are you sure? Small businesses make up over 99% of employers in the US and more than half of GDP. It can't be so drastically different there.
Quote from: Valmy on January 30, 2014, 02:25:02 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 30, 2014, 02:21:30 PM
Government is always a better option than Giant Corporate enterprises.
One sort of complements the other though...
I get a say in one, but not the other.
Quote from: Berkut on January 30, 2014, 09:26:20 AM+1.
I almost certainly disagree with you in many particulars about which choice is optimal in any given situation, but the basic foundation of what you are saying is accurate, especially the last sentence.
:cheers:
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 10:49:36 AM
I actually wanted to mention "same as people pursuing communism" but decided against it. :D
Ok so pure stateless libertarianism is impossible. We agree on that, and I have never advocated doing away with the state.
Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.
But that's just a baseless assertion.
Quote from: Neil on January 30, 2014, 02:57:43 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 10:49:36 AM
I actually wanted to mention "same as people pursuing communism" but decided against it. :D
Ok so pure stateless libertarianism is impossible. We agree on that, and I have never advocated doing away with the state.
Doesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.
But that's just a baseless assertion.
it is not
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 03:47:09 PM
it is not
Of course it is. It's your ideological perspective that's all. It's no different than saying fairness should be the first goal in politics.
Isn't that innocence?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 30, 2014, 03:52:28 PM
Of course it is. It's your ideological perspective that's all. It's no different than saying fairness should be the first goal in politics.
Which means that fairness should be the first goal is a baseless assertion too. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2014, 04:28:30 PM
Which means that fairness should be the first goal is a baseless assertion too. :hmm:
Obviously. It's an ideological position like any other.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 30, 2014, 04:32:15 PM
Obviously. It's an ideological position like any other.
It's a statement of preference for economic efficiency coupled with the empirical observation that government, being by definition a monopoly, is not subject to competition.
"Obama is a Muslim" is a baseless assertion.
"I prefer whiskey neat" is not a baseless assertion.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2014, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 30, 2014, 02:25:02 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 30, 2014, 02:21:30 PM
Government is always a better option than Giant Corporate enterprises.
One sort of complements the other though...
I get a say in one, but not the other.
True but my point was generally you get both. Especially in this country where government officials and corporate board members are sometimes the same people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2014, 04:41:25 PM
It's a statement of preference for economic efficiency coupled with the empirical observation that government, being by definition a monopoly, is not subject to competition.
"Obama is a Muslim" is a baseless assertion.
"I prefer whiskey neat" is not a baseless assertion.
Okay, I take your point though I'm not sure it's a hugely important distinction. This is still a baseless assertion:
QuoteDoesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.
It shouldn't necessarily be the prime guiding principle and it's not a fact.
QuoteTrue but my point was generally you get both. Especially in this country where government officials and corporate board members are sometimes the same people.
I don't mind that as long as it's all transparent.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2014, 04:41:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 30, 2014, 04:32:15 PM
Obviously. It's an ideological position like any other.
It's a statement of preference for economic efficiency coupled with the empirical observation that government, being by definition a monopoly, is not subject to competition.
"Obama is a Muslim" is a baseless assertion.
"I prefer whiskey neat" is not a baseless assertion.
You cannot compare a statement of what someone likes with a statement expounding on what everyone ought to like.
"I prefer whiskey neat" is not a baseless assertion, but "Everyone prefers their whiskey neat" certainly is.
And the statement in question is:
QuoteDoesn`t change the fact that "as little state as possible while staying effective" should be the prime guiding principle of any advanced society.
That is most certainly a baseless assertion. It is not a fact, and it is very debatable that it should be the prime etc., etc., etc.
I think the "should" makes it a statement of preference, but not that big a deal either way.
Quote from: Valmy on January 30, 2014, 10:42:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2014, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 10:29:57 AM
:hmm:
Regarding 2b, yes in a "pure" form it is a pipedream and will never happen unless humans reach a level of maturity which seems impossible at this stage.
*gulp* I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Libertarians are the 21st century Communists. The ideologies may be the perfect opposites, but the mindsets are identical.
Well they both dream of a stateless society. Just the Libertarians do not want a dictatorship in the middle.
I'm not entirely certain this is true. Libertarians are minimalist in government, but not anarcho-capitalist. They often seem rather contemptuous of democracy, as well. Benjamin Franklin's quote about democracy being two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch seems popular amongst them. A dictatorship or monarchy that that was essentially toothless might suit them fine.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2014, 06:59:00 PM
I'm not entirely certain this is true. Libertarians are minimalist in government, but not anarcho-capitalist.
The guys who want minimalist government are called 'Minarchists' and I get the feeling the ideologically pure Libertarians hold them in contempt.
I think you are mixing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2014, 06:59:00 PM
I'm not entirely certain this is true. Libertarians are minimalist in government, but not anarcho-capitalist. They often seem rather contemptuous of democracy, as well. Benjamin Franklin's quote about democracy being two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch seems popular amongst them. A dictatorship or monarchy that that was essentially toothless might suit them fine.
Good Lord. The quote was democracy without constitutional protections is two wolves and a sheep choosing lunch.
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 07:17:24 PM
I think you are mixing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists.
Yeah I have never heard those dudes identify as anything but Libertarians. Anarcho-Capitalist is not a thing outside of Paradox games that I can tell.
Quote from: Valmy on January 30, 2014, 07:25:02 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2014, 07:17:24 PM
I think you are mixing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists.
Anarcho-Capitalist is not a thing outside of Paradox games that I can tell.
:huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2014, 07:23:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2014, 06:59:00 PM
I'm not entirely certain this is true. Libertarians are minimalist in government, but not anarcho-capitalist. They often seem rather contemptuous of democracy, as well. Benjamin Franklin's quote about democracy being two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch seems popular amongst them. A dictatorship or monarchy that that was essentially toothless might suit them fine.
Good Lord. The quote was democracy without constitutional protections is two wolves and a sheep choosing lunch.
Huh, apparently he never said it. So good lord yourself.
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2014, 05:09:02 PM
We can privatize the government and get the best of both worlds. :)
We can even hand out shares to all the citizens, one per citizen with a quadriannual GM replacing the sitting board with a new one elected by the shareholders.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2014, 07:28:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2014, 07:23:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2014, 06:59:00 PM
I'm not entirely certain this is true. Libertarians are minimalist in government, but not anarcho-capitalist. They often seem rather contemptuous of democracy, as well. Benjamin Franklin's quote about democracy being two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch seems popular amongst them. A dictatorship or monarchy that that was essentially toothless might suit them fine.
Good Lord. The quote was democracy without constitutional protections is two wolves and a sheep choosing lunch.
Huh, apparently he never said it. So good lord yourself.
:face:
:unsure:
*takes a drink*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26014836
QuoteMoscow shooting: Gunman opens fire at school, takes hostages
An armed man has entered a Moscow school and taken more than 20 students hostage, officials and reports say.
It is unclear whether the gunman is still at the school and whether he is still holding anybody.
The man was the father of one of the pupils at the Moscow school number 263, an interior ministry spokesman told the Interfax news agency.
Initial reports said the man opened fire on police officers who arrived at the scene, injuring one.
More of this shit. :(
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2014/02/10/140210ta_talk_surowiecki?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=facebook
QuoteThe Sochi Effect
Whatever happens on the ice and snow of Sochi in the next couple of weeks, one thing is certain: this Winter Olympics is the greatest financial boondoggle in the history of the Games. Back in 2007, Vladimir Putin said that Russia would spend twelve billion dollars on the Games. The actual amount is more than fifty billion. (By comparison, Vancouver's Games, in 2010, cost seven billion dollars.) Exhaustive investigations by the opposition figures Boris Nemtsov, Leonid Martynyuk, and Alexei Navalny reveal dubious cost overruns and outright embezzlement. And all this lavish spending (largely paid for by Russian taxpayers) has been, as Nemtsov and Martynyuk write, "controlled largely by businesspeople and companies close to Putin."
Sochi is emblematic of Russia's economy: conflicts of interest and cronyism are endemic. But the link between corruption and construction is a problem across the globe. Transparency International has long cited the construction industry as the world's most corrupt, pointing to the prevalence of bribery, bid rigging, and bill padding. And, while the sheer scale of graft in Sochi is unusual, the practice of politicians using construction contracts to line their pockets and dole out favors isn't. In the past year alone, Quebec learned about systematic kickbacks and Mob influence in the awarding of city construction contracts. In Turkey, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has become embroiled in a vast scandal involving friendly construction tycoons who were given cheap loans and no-bid contracts. And a recent report from the accounting firm Grant Thornton estimated that, by 2025, the cost of fraud in the industry worldwide will have reached $1.5 trillion.
What makes construction so prone to shady dealings? One reason is simply that governments are such huge players in the industry. Not only are they the biggest spenders on infrastructure; even private projects require government approvals, permits, worksite inspections, and the like. The more rules you have, and the more people enforcing them, the more opportunities there are for corruption. And, in many countries, the process of awarding contracts and permits is opaque. As Erik Lioy, a forensic accountant and fraud expert at Grant Thornton, told me, "When it's not clear how projects get approved, people assume the worst, and that provides incentives to do a bribe or kickback."
On big government projects, additional factors kick in. Such projects are rare, and construction work is erratic, so politicians with contracts to award have immense leverage. For contractors, bribery will always be attractive, because the cost of a bribe is dwarfed by the value of a contract—an effect known to economists as the Tullock paradox. And, as a study by Neill Stansbury, the co-founder of the Global Infrastructure Anti-Corruption Centre, put it, when a project is really big "it is easier to hide large bribes." Then, too, Lioy explains, "most big projects involve building something unique, or at least something that's never been built in that place before, and that makes it harder to estimate if costs are reasonable." Corruption is obvious only when costs are completely absurd—which Nemtsov and Martynyuk have shown is the case with Sochi's ice arenas and ski jumps.
Sochi is a monument to Putin's Russia—a nationalist showcase, intended to demonstrate just how far the country has come in the past two decades. It has also given Russia its first world-class winter resort, and has significantly developed the infrastructure of the Caucasus. In that context, overspending can become, perversely, a point of pride. The contractors on the Pyramids almost certainly padded the bills, too.
It's no surprise that graft-ridden grandiose projects are most common in countries where government isn't accountable. But even politicians who (unlike Putin) have to worry about being reëlected often see benefits in unnecessary or wasteful construction spending, because it gives the economy a short-term boost. Turkey's construction spree, for instance, has played a major role in its economic boom. Construction creates jobs, and often reasonably well-paying ones. That's why, going back to the days of Boss Tweed, pouring money into construction projects has been a key part of what's sometimes known as "populist clientelism"—a system that allows politicians both to reward cronies and to appeal to voters.
But an economic boost based on corrupt spending is an illusion, the equivalent of a sugar high. Paolo Mauro, an economist at the I.M.F., says simply, "Corruption is bad for economic growth." It's well documented that corruption discourages investment, because it makes businesses uncertain about what it takes to get ahead; as one study put it, "Arbitrariness kills." Corruption also skews government spending. The economists Vito Tanzi and Hamid Davoodi found that corruption leads politicians to overinvest in low-quality infrastructure projects while skimping on maintaining existing projects. (It's easier to collect bribes on new construction than on maintenance.) And, in a pathbreaking study nearly twenty years ago, Mauro found that countries with high levels of corruption spent little on education. In economist-speak, corrupt politicians put too much money into physical capital and not enough into human capital. Crony construction capitalism leaves us with too few teachers and too many ski jumps to nowhere
Quote from: Syt on February 03, 2014, 07:39:11 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2014/02/10/140210ta_talk_surowiecki?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=facebook
QuoteThe Sochi Effect
Whatever happens on the ice and snow of Sochi in the next couple of weeks, one thing is certain: this Winter Olympics is the greatest financial boondoggle in the history of the Games. Back in 2007, Vladimir Putin said that Russia would spend twelve billion dollars on the Games. The actual amount is more than fifty billion. (By comparison, Vancouver's Games, in 2010, cost seven billion dollars.) Exhaustive investigations by the opposition figures Boris Nemtsov, Leonid Martynyuk, and Alexei Navalny reveal dubious cost overruns and outright embezzlement. And all this lavish spending (largely paid for by Russian taxpayers) has been, as Nemtsov and Martynyuk write, "controlled largely by businesspeople and companies close to Putin."
Sochi is emblematic of Russia's economy: conflicts of interest and cronyism are endemic. But the link between corruption and construction is a problem across the globe. Transparency International has long cited the construction industry as the world's most corrupt, pointing to the prevalence of bribery, bid rigging, and bill padding. And, while the sheer scale of graft in Sochi is unusual, the practice of politicians using construction contracts to line their pockets and dole out favors isn't. In the past year alone, Quebec learned about systematic kickbacks and Mob influence in the awarding of city construction contracts. In Turkey, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has become embroiled in a vast scandal involving friendly construction tycoons who were given cheap loans and no-bid contracts. And a recent report from the accounting firm Grant Thornton estimated that, by 2025, the cost of fraud in the industry worldwide will have reached $1.5 trillion.
What makes construction so prone to shady dealings? One reason is simply that governments are such huge players in the industry. Not only are they the biggest spenders on infrastructure; even private projects require government approvals, permits, worksite inspections, and the like. The more rules you have, and the more people enforcing them, the more opportunities there are for corruption. And, in many countries, the process of awarding contracts and permits is opaque. As Erik Lioy, a forensic accountant and fraud expert at Grant Thornton, told me, "When it's not clear how projects get approved, people assume the worst, and that provides incentives to do a bribe or kickback."
On big government projects, additional factors kick in. Such projects are rare, and construction work is erratic, so politicians with contracts to award have immense leverage. For contractors, bribery will always be attractive, because the cost of a bribe is dwarfed by the value of a contract—an effect known to economists as the Tullock paradox. And, as a study by Neill Stansbury, the co-founder of the Global Infrastructure Anti-Corruption Centre, put it, when a project is really big "it is easier to hide large bribes." Then, too, Lioy explains, "most big projects involve building something unique, or at least something that's never been built in that place before, and that makes it harder to estimate if costs are reasonable." Corruption is obvious only when costs are completely absurd—which Nemtsov and Martynyuk have shown is the case with Sochi's ice arenas and ski jumps.
Sochi is a monument to Putin's Russia—a nationalist showcase, intended to demonstrate just how far the country has come in the past two decades. It has also given Russia its first world-class winter resort, and has significantly developed the infrastructure of the Caucasus. In that context, overspending can become, perversely, a point of pride. The contractors on the Pyramids almost certainly padded the bills, too.
It's no surprise that graft-ridden grandiose projects are most common in countries where government isn't accountable. But even politicians who (unlike Putin) have to worry about being reëlected often see benefits in unnecessary or wasteful construction spending, because it gives the economy a short-term boost. Turkey's construction spree, for instance, has played a major role in its economic boom. Construction creates jobs, and often reasonably well-paying ones. That's why, going back to the days of Boss Tweed, pouring money into construction projects has been a key part of what's sometimes known as "populist clientelism"—a system that allows politicians both to reward cronies and to appeal to voters.
But an economic boost based on corrupt spending is an illusion, the equivalent of a sugar high. Paolo Mauro, an economist at the I.M.F., says simply, "Corruption is bad for economic growth." It's well documented that corruption discourages investment, because it makes businesses uncertain about what it takes to get ahead; as one study put it, "Arbitrariness kills." Corruption also skews government spending. The economists Vito Tanzi and Hamid Davoodi found that corruption leads politicians to overinvest in low-quality infrastructure projects while skimping on maintaining existing projects. (It's easier to collect bribes on new construction than on maintenance.) And, in a pathbreaking study nearly twenty years ago, Mauro found that countries with high levels of corruption spent little on education. In economist-speak, corrupt politicians put too much money into physical capital and not enough into human capital. Crony construction capitalism leaves us with too few teachers and too many ski jumps to nowhere
Yep
I would think that the financial industry would be far more prone to corruption than construction.
There's a lot of ethnic people in Russia.
Quote from: Neil on February 03, 2014, 12:28:06 PM
I would think that the financial industry would be far more prone to corruption than construction.
Government is a much bigger player in the construction industry (public works, permits for private works...) than in the financial one, where it only acts as regulator.
Quote from: Neil on February 03, 2014, 12:28:06 PM
I would think that the financial industry would be far more prone to corruption than construction.
You'd think that, but then again, the financial industry reports numbers. The construction industry only really reports the numbers at the very end, so they don't need the cooked books to serve as a cover story that the financial industry does.
The financial industry excels at the art of scamming, which is different from the art of corruption. Often it's not even illegal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/02/04/journalists-at-sochi-are-live-tweeting-their-hilarious-and-gross-hotel-experiences/
Quote
Journalists at Sochi are live-tweeting their hilarious and gross hotel experiences
Amid continued debate over whether or not Sochi is prepared to host the 2014 Olympics, which begins Thursday, reporters from around the world are starting to check into local hotels — to their apparent grief. Some journalists arriving in Sochi are describing appalling conditions in the housing there, where only six of nine media hotels are ready for guests. Hotels are still under construction. Water, if it's running, isn't drinkable. One German photographer told the AP over the weekend that his hotel still had stray dogs and construction workers wandering in and out of rooms.
This is the one hotel room @Sochi2014 have given us so far. Shambles. #cnnsochi pic.twitter.com/RTjEkmyan3
— Harry Reekie (@HarryCNN) February 4, 2014
CNN booked 11 rooms in one @Sochi2014 media hotel five months ago. We have been here for a day and only one room is available. #cnnsochi
— Harry Reekie (@HarryCNN) February 4, 2014
Still waiting for "preparations" on hotel room to finish. Hoping they're origami-folding toilet roll, rather than, say, putting the roof on.
— Shaun Walker (@shaunwalker7) February 4, 2014
I have a room! No heating or internet, but it has a (single) bed at least...
— Shaun Walker (@shaunwalker7) February 4, 2014
Got back to hotel. Lift broken after half day in use. Trekked up stairs. Door to my floor (that'd be the fire door) locked. Utter farce.
— Shaun Walker (@shaunwalker7) February 4, 2014
Water main break means no water at our hotel in #Sochi. Could take awhile to fix. #CTVSochi
— Rosa Hwang (@RosaHwangCTV) February 3, 2014
The reception of our hotel in #Sochi has no floor. But it does have this welcoming picture. pic.twitter.com/8isdoBuytl
— Kevin Bishop (@bishopk) February 4, 2014
@bruce_arthur Hotel issues have been happening to a lot of people. Left out on the street, you risk being poisoned or trapped like the dogs.
— Wayne Chow (@wayne_chow) February 2, 2014
Miss you, hot water in my hotel. You were great.
— Bruce Arthur (@bruce_arthur) February 4, 2014
People have asked me what surprised me the most here in Sochi. It's this. Without question ... it's ... THIS. pic.twitter.com/1jj05FNdCP
— Greg Wyshynski (@wyshynski) February 4, 2014
Ok, so my hotel doesn't have a lobby yet.
— Mark MacKinnon (@markmackinnon) February 4, 2014
For those of you asking, when there's no lobby in your hotel, you go to the owner's bedroom to check in. #Sochi2014
— Mark MacKinnon (@markmackinnon) February 4, 2014
My hotel has no water. If restored, the front desk says, "do not use on your face because it contains something very dangerous." #Sochi2014
— Stacy St. Clair (@StacyStClair) February 4, 2014
Water restored, sorta. On the bright side, I now know what very dangerous face water looks like. #Sochi #unfiltered pic.twitter.com/sQWM0vYtyz
— Stacy St. Clair (@StacyStClair) February 4, 2014
Also on the bright side: I just washed my face with Evian, like I'm a Kardashian or something.
— Stacy St. Clair (@StacyStClair) February 4, 2014
Made new pal from La Presse as we struggled to find hotel. When we got to our (temporary) rooms his doorknob came off in hand #roadtosochi
— katiebakes (@katiebakes) February 4, 2014
Congrats to @Dave_Schwartz only media personality who's arrived in Sochi with a hotel room that's ready, with doorknob that doesn't fall off
— Ryan Stanzel (@rstanzel) February 4, 2014
Watch your step @Sochi2014 -- I've noticed on walkway and on sidewalks that not all man holes are always covered. pic.twitter.com/a5Nv4wu5iA
— Jo-Ann Barnas (@JoAnnBarnas) February 1, 2014
The disarray seems to contradict repeated promises from both Russian and Olympic officials that Sochi is ready for the games, despite terrorist threats, unfinished construction and concerns over human rights abuses in the country. The Sochi Olympics have also run way over budget — to a record $51 billion — which seems particularly remarkable when you consider that some of the work isn't actually done. International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach has of course denied that, insisting both that the "stage is ready" and that many concerns, including those over safety and construction, are overblown. Meanwhile, Dmitry Chernyshenko, president of Sochi's Olympic organizing committee, had this Twitter exchange with a CNN producer who complained that only one of the network's 11 requested rooms was ready for them:
@DChernyshenko Our media hotel is not ready Dmitry....11 rooms booked five months ago, only one ready. Please help.
— Harry Reekie (@HarryCNN) February 4, 2014
Highlights:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Feplbqtv.jpg&hash=06c6083d3a82de2178a427e3b212b39b462fce27)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBX1hZ5g.jpg&hash=0f02d45c224b323b6591922f3ee8df99ba3b9cab)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQ9sGIOM.jpg&hash=2f0f7a013d92e3cd7654f9e209ac8573fc1c217e)
The water coming out of the faucets...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUsLMuTn.jpg&hash=b610aba9ef4d70a1cf5cdf421a548038756d8b47)
That's very similar to the sort of thing that I encountered in Georgia: Prestige projects are built quickly and with a maximum amount of graft and fall apart almost immediately. Big restaurants are mysteriously closed within a few weeks of their completion (http://www.inyourpocket.com/Georgia/Batumi/Batumi-Sightseeing/Essential-Batumi/Alphabet-Tower_117628v (http://www.inyourpocket.com/Georgia/Batumi/Batumi-Sightseeing/Essential-Batumi/Alphabet-Tower_117628v)), 'modern' schools become unusable when mold starts growing from every wall, etc. The leader will visit them when they open, and once they survive his guided tour that's the end of their utility. It's really a cultural issue, and one that predates even communism. This is a Potemkin olympic village.
I love the inevitable comments from the Russians. Not "God damnit, my country is fucking up and full of corruption!" but "Damn that western media for focusing on such negative things! We are so oppressed!"
I bet Brazil is psyched they get to go next. :P
Well, for one, Brazilians were not so happy with the high costs for both the Olympics and the World Cup some months ago. there where some huge demonstrations where they wanted money to be spent in education (shocking!) and transportation on a long-term basis.
I'm surprised nobody is making bets on if there is a terror attack.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2014, 06:43:25 AM
I'm surprised nobody is making bets on if there is a terror attack.
I want to see a Spetnaz throw a axe into a a Black Widow.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2014, 06:43:25 AM
I'm surprised nobody is making bets on if there is a terror attack.
For what I've read an attack of feral stray dogs on somebody from the Olympic troupe is more likely.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/feb/05/activist-jailed-environment-sochi-olympics
Quote
An activist who has been shedding light on environmental fallout from the Sochi Olympics has been jailed for five days for resisting police.
Igor Kharchenko is the second activist to be detained in the region in three days.
Kharchenko was grabbed on the street in the regional capital of Krasnodar as he left his house and found his car smashed, his associate Olga Soldatova said on Wednesday.
Police took him to the police station where he was charged with resisting police orders.
Soldatova said Kharchenko was put on trial without a lawyer.
Like Yevgeny Vitishko, who was jailed on Monday for swearing in public, Kharchenko is a member of the Environmental Watch on the North Caucasus, a group that has been monitoring the environmental effects of Olympic construction.
Amnesty International condemned his treatment, saying his "closed trial was brief and blatantly unfair".
It added: "Amnesty International has reviewed video footage of his arrest, which contradicts the police's allegations that he resisted orders."
Sergei Nikitin, Amnesty International's Moscow office director, said:
"It took a judge only a few minutes, behind a closed door, to decide that yet another environmental activist should be behind bars when the Games begin. This happened precisely on the day when the Olympic torch arrived in Sochi. "Sportsmanship and fair play are hallmarks of the Olympic spirit, but the Russian authorities seem to have thrown out the rule book in favour of silencing critical voices ahead of the Games.
"This foul play must come to an end. The Russian authorities must halt their harassment of civil society activists, protect the right to peaceful freedom of expression, and release the Sochi prisoners of conscience: Igor Kharchenko and his fellow environmentalist Yevgeny Vitishko, who is currently serving 15 days in administrative detention on trumped-up charges."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/05/western-leaders-boycott-sochi-winter-olympics
Quote
Western leaders stay away from Sochi Winter Olympics
China's Xi Jinping and Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovych will attend but many in west have been put off by Russian anti-gay laws
There will be no Barack Obama, no David Cameron and no Angela Merkel in the stadium when the Winter Olympics open in Sochi on Friday, but Vladimir Putin will have the company of the embattled leader of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, and the president of South Ossetia, a tiny breakaway state recognised as independent by Russia.
The Kremlin hoped to see dozens of world leaders at the opening ceremony, but the Winter Olympics is not regarded as a "must-attend" event, and many in the west have been put off by controversy in the buildup to the Games, notably the passing of a law banning "gay propaganda".
However, China's president, Xi Jinping, Japan's Shinzo Abe and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan are expected to attend, as is the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon.
Thomas Bach, the head of the International Olympic Committee, hit out at foreign leaders boycotting the Games, accusing them of making an "ostentatious gesture" that "costs nothing but makes international headlines".
Bach, speaking in front of Putin and IOC officials from around the world, said: "We are grateful to those who respect the fact that sport can only contribute to the development of peace if it's not used as a stage for political dissent, or for trying to score points in internal or external contexts."
He spoke caustically of those who decided not to attend the Olympics, saying that their "contribution to the fight for a good cause consisted of publicly declining invitations they had not even received".
In a clear rebuke to Russia over its anti-gay laws, the US is sending a delegation that includes three openly gay athletes – the tennis legend Billie Jean King, the 2006 Olympic ice hockey medallist Caitlin Cahow and the figure skater Brian Boitano.
Norway announced that its health minister, Bent Hoeie, would head its official delegation to the Paralympics, which begin in March, and would travel with his husband.
Italy and the Netherlands are among the few European countries to send high-level representation to Sochi. The Italian prime minister, Enrico Letta, will attend the opening ceremony, as will the Dutch king, Willem-Alexander. The Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, is due to meet Putin in Sochi, despite a highly turbulent year for Dutch-Russian relations and calls from the country's gay community to boycott the Games.
Protests against Russia's gay laws are expected in cities across the world on Wednesday.
Alexander Lukashenko, the president of Belarus, is likely to attend the ceremony. He shares Putin's passion for ice hockey and took part in a practice match with Putin at the Olympic hockey arena last month.
Yanukovych is likely to meet Putin at some point in the coming days, according to the Russian president's spokesman. Yanukovych's decision to abandon European integration and pursue closer integration with Russia sparked the anti-government protests that have rocked Kiev for the past two months.
A spokeswoman for Leonid Tibilov, the president of South Ossetia, said he had been invited to the opening ceremony and to a reception for heads of state. Russia recognised South Ossetia as independent in the aftermath of the 2008 war with Georgia, but the territory is not allowed to compete in the Games.
At the same time Russia also recognised Abkhazia, another breakaway province of Georgia, which has a border a few miles from Sochi. Georgia has not sent a government delegation to the Games in protest, but is sending four athletes.
Bach suck my dick.
Standing up for equal rights is not "political dissent". What a douchebag.
Quote from: Berkut on February 05, 2014, 11:12:29 AM
Bach suck my dick.
Standing up for equal rights is not "political dissent". What a douchebag.
Heads of international sporting organizations are inevitably the scum of the scum. I guess needing Chad's and Burkina Faso's vote kinda makes your morals a little more flexible.
Quote from: Berkut on February 05, 2014, 11:12:29 AM
Bach suck my dick.
Standing up for equal rights is not "political dissent". What a douchebag.
When he was voted head of IOC there was much groaning, because he stood for the continuation of business as usual there. I think I may have linked an article about him at the time.
Quote from: Berkut on February 05, 2014, 11:12:29 AM
Bach suck my dick.
Standing up for equal rights is not "political dissent". What a douchebag.
It is, though.
Quote from: Berkut on February 05, 2014, 11:12:29 AM
Bach suck my dick.
Standing up for equal rights is not "political dissent". What a douchebag.
Ummm.... That's exactly what it is. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2014, 11:14:52 AM
Heads of international sporting organizations are inevitably the scum of the scum. I guess needing Chad's and Burkina Faso's vote kinda makes your morals a little more flexible.
Did not know these two mattered for the Winter Olympics. :hmm: If so, it's hopeless.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 05, 2014, 01:49:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 05, 2014, 11:14:52 AM
Heads of international sporting organizations are inevitably the scum of the scum. I guess needing Chad's and Burkina Faso's vote kinda makes your morals a little more flexible.
Did not know these two mattered for the Winter Olympics. :hmm: If so, it's hopeless.
Did not know the IOC only staged eh Winter Olympics. :hmm: If so, it's almost certainly true that the head of the IOC that stages the Summer Games is likely just as corrupt.
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 12:28:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 05, 2014, 11:12:29 AM
Bach suck my dick.
Standing up for equal rights is not "political dissent". What a douchebag.
Ummm.... That's exactly what it is. :hmm:
Ummm... No, that's not what it is. President Obama can stand up for equal rights in the US, but arguing that he is engaging in "political dissent" by so doing is laughable.
Quote from: Berkut on February 05, 2014, 11:12:29 AM
Bach suck my dick.
Standing up for equal rights is not "political dissent". What a douchebag.
I do wish we could just enjoy the Olympics for what they are though.
In 1996 the US hosted the Olympics in a place where homosexual relations were outright criminalized. There are significant portions of the world where that is still the case (but not in Russia).
Unless we want to restrict hosting the Olympics to anglo/french north america, central and western europe, and a half dozen or so other countries, the hosts sometimes won't be perfect regarding human rights and corruption.
Quote from: Berkut on February 05, 2014, 11:12:29 AM
Bach suck my dick.
Standing up for equal rights is not "political dissent". What a douchebag.
Russia has equal rights?
In unsurprising news - go to the Olympics; get hacked: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nbc-all-visitors-sochi-olympics-immediately-hacked_778718.html
Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2014, 02:27:33 PM
Unless we want to restrict hosting the Olympics to anglo/french north america, central and western europe, and a half dozen or so other countries, the hosts sometimes won't be perfect regarding human rights and corruption.
The IOC has a choice. Either they do what they say they are going to do under their Charter. Or they should adopt the Dorsey Rule of very few are perfect so why bother.
As a reminder this is what the IOC says it stands for:
Quote2 Mission and Role of the IOC*
The mission of the IOC is to promote Olympism throughout the world and to lead the
Olympic Movement. The IOC's role is:
1. to encourage and support the promotion of ethics and good governance in sport as
well as education of youth through sport and to dedicate its efforts to ensuring that, in
sport, the spirit of fair play prevails and violence is banned;
2. to encourage and support the organisation, development and coordination of sport
and sports competitions;
3. to ensure the regular celebration of the Olympic Games;
4. to cooperate with the competent public or private organisations and authorities in the
endeavour to place sport at the service of humanity and thereby to promote peace;
5. to take action to strengthen the unity of the Olympic Movement, to protect its independence
and to preserve the autonomy of sport;
6. to act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement;
7. to encourage and support the promotion of women in sport at all levels and in all
structures with a view to implementing the principle of equality of men and women;
8. to lead the fight against doping in sport;
9. to encourage and support measures relating to the medical care and health of athletes;
I'm pretty sure the 'why bother' ship has sailed a long time back.
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 08:13:57 PM
I'm pretty sure the 'why bother' ship has sailed a long time back.
I dont subscribe to the that ship has sailed so why bother talking about humans rights theory either.
Let it go. Games are about to begin. You aren't going to change Russia, anyway.
Nonsense. One swift kick and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down!
:yes:
Why should we care about gays?
There is a lot more wrong with Russia than this silly law. You're not going to change anything.
So lesson learned is we should support them.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2014, 09:49:17 PM
So lesson learned is we should support them.
Only if they are doing something interesting or productive; like hosting the Winter Olympics.
derspiess, a Russia apologist, who would have thought. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2014, 07:56:18 PM
The IOC has a choice. Either they do what they say they are going to do under their Charter. Or they should adopt the Dorsey Rule of very few are perfect so why bother.
As a reminder this is what the IOC says it stands for:
Quote2 Mission and Role of the IOC*
The mission of the IOC is to promote Olympism throughout the world and to lead the
Olympic Movement. The IOC's role is:
1. to encourage and support the promotion of ethics and good governance in sport
6. to act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement;
1 is dubious in this instance--a general law against "homosexual propoganda" doesn't directly impact "ethics and good governance in sport".
6 also is also a close call--does this discrimination affect the Olympic Movement? Certainly many many regulations by Islamic countries do so in a much more direct way, and I believe they have since their participation began.
In both cases, clauses have been added that in theory narrow the scope of the discrimination being acted against: in 1, "in sport" and 6, "affecting the Olympic Movement".
But that isn't central to what I am saying. What is central is that there are competing priorities. There are all the items that you didn't bold, which require some sort of global buy in to the Olympic games. You can try to uphold a stand against discrimination that would exclude most of the world's population and most of the previous hosts of the games (as their laws stood then). Or we can allow somewhat dodgy countries like Russia and China host the games.
Quote from: sbr on February 05, 2014, 09:54:01 PM
derspiess, a Russia apologist, who would have thought. :D
Dislike of the gays, trump card. :(
Quote from: sbr on February 05, 2014, 09:54:01 PM
derspiess, a Russia apologist, who would have thought. :D
He recognizes Putin as a fellow right winger.
:rolleyes:
I don't dislike gays and I'm not any more fond of Putin or Russia than any of you. Stop being silly.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2014, 10:08:35 PM
:rolleyes:
I don't dislike gays and I'm not any more fond of Putin or Russia than any of you. Stop being silly.
Monster
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2014, 10:08:35 PM
:rolleyes:
I don't dislike gays and I'm not any more fond of Putin or Russia than any of you. Stop being silly.
No love for a fellow right winger?
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2014, 10:08:35 PM
:rolleyes:
I don't dislike gays and I'm not any more fond of Putin or Russia than any of you. Stop being silly.
I forgot, you were there with Hillary and the "reset" button.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2014, 09:47:47 PM
You're not going to change anything.
Yeah, why bother. Nothing ever changes. Back of the bus please. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2014, 09:56:45 PM
6 also is also a close call--does this discrimination affect the Olympic Movement? Certainly many many regulations by Islamic countries do so in a much more direct way, and I believe they have since their participation began.
You should study your Olympic history a bit more. During the last games considerable pressure was put on the IOC to do something about female participation from iirc Saudi Arabia. And it worked. But, meh, nothing ever changes. Why bother. Besides all this talk about human rights distracts from your enjoyment of the games and that is the most important thing right?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2014, 10:26:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2014, 09:56:45 PM
6 also is also a close call--does this discrimination affect the Olympic Movement? Certainly many many regulations by Islamic countries do so in a much more direct way, and I believe they have since their participation began.
You should study your Olympic history a bit more. During the last games considerable pressure was put on the IOC to do something about female participation from iirc Saudi Arabia. And it worked. But, meh, nothing ever changes. Why bother. Besides all this talk about human rights distracts from your enjoyment of the games and that is the most important thing right?
I'm aware of that history. I'm also aware that women can't drive in Saudi Arabia, and there are still some conditions on their participation. I'm not certain of the ability of open homosexuals to participate on the Saudi team, but my guess is that it is rather diminished.
If you want to pressure outliers like Saudi Arabia, that is a great place to start. But if you want to draw the line somewhere above Russia for full inclusion, you are going to leave most of the world excluded. You then have a western democracy Olympic movement, not a worldwide Olympic movement, and I think that undermines the core spirit more than the current situation.
Well it's not like the US has ever boycotted a Russian Olympics.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2014, 11:34:34 PM
Well it's not like the US has ever boycotted a Russian Olympics.
Which was ridiculous.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2Fsochi-hotels-14.jpg&hash=2352406c1d8cba0c979accca41b76db28eecaed9)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2Fsochi-hotels-13.jpg&hash=1a65360037933de5390f4c293c682d49e50ae579)
:lmfao: :bleeding:
There are some better ones around. :lol: My favourite must be the journalist arriving at his room at 2 in the morning and finding builders there finishing the bathroom, or the toxic tap water one.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2014, 02:27:33 PM
In 1996 the US hosted the Olympics in a place where homosexual relations were outright criminalized.
No they didn't. This is a rewrite of history. Georgia banned sodomy until 1998, but that was about sodomy,not "homosexual relations" and applied to heterosexuals as well.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2014, 10:38:54 PM
If you want to pressure outliers like Saudi Arabia, that is a great place to start. But if you want to draw the line somewhere above Russia for full inclusion, you are going to leave most of the world excluded. You then have a western democracy Olympic movement, not a worldwide Olympic movement, and I think that undermines the core spirit more than the current situation.
The "worldwide Olympic movement" is quite recent, and not part of the "core spirit" of the Olympics at all. The original Olympic games were quite restricted in scope, and the "modern games" as revived in the Nineteenth Century was very much built around Western values. The commercialized Olympics as developed in the 20th Century is about making money for big businesses and corrupt individuals, and has no "core spirit" to be undermined.
Quote from: The Larch on February 06, 2014, 07:00:06 AM
There are some better ones around. :lol: My favourite must be the journalist arriving at his room at 2 in the morning and finding builders there finishing the bathroom, or the toxic tap water one.
This might be the first time I bother watching the Winter Olympics, if only for the hilarious botches and protests potential.
Quote from: grumbler on February 06, 2014, 07:16:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2014, 02:27:33 PM
In 1996 the US hosted the Olympics in a place where homosexual relations were outright criminalized.
No they didn't. This is a rewrite of history. Georgia banned sodomy until 1998, but that was about sodomy,not "homosexual relations" and applied to heterosexuals as well.
IIRC (and I may not, though I did live in Georgia during the time period), the sodomy laws included oral sex and sexual relationships outside of marriage were also illegal. So yes, homosexual relations were criminalized. Though homosexual relations were clearly not the full scope of what was criminalized.
Quote from: celedhring on February 06, 2014, 07:49:37 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 06, 2014, 07:00:06 AM
There are some better ones around. :lol: My favourite must be the journalist arriving at his room at 2 in the morning and finding builders there finishing the bathroom, or the toxic tap water one.
This might be the first time I bother watching the Winter Olympics, if only for the hilarious botches and protests potential.
AFAIK they've just contracted a pest control company to cull around 2.000 stray cats and dogs because they say there's a real risk that some of them might sneak into the venues.
https://twitter.com/SochiFails
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfyP3CECYAEwliu.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bftl_PpCIAAgGkv.jpg)
2 days to go!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfthVlFCMAAiMBr.jpg)
Painting grass:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BftYK2MCUAAkLHH.jpg)
Why did the chicks on the toilets pic turn me on?
They look like typical young Czech ladies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/nyregion/russia-blocking-a-yogurt-shipment-from-reaching-us-olympians.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=NY_RBY_20140206&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=0
QuoteRussia Blocks Yogurt Bound for U.S. Athletes
The relationship between the United States and Russia is deeply strained, with recent disagreements over weighty matters like the Syrian conflict, arms control, human rights and the granting of asylum to Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who has leaked troves of documents detailing the government's eavesdropping programs.
Now the two countries are skirmishing over an unanticipated, but no less momentous subject, at least in certain parts of the United States: the delivery of Greek yogurt to the American athletes competing at the Winter Olympics in Sochi.
The Russian government is apparently blocking a shipment of 5,000 containers of Chobani yogurt — now sitting in limbo in cold storage near Newark Liberty International Airport — that had been bound for the United States Olympic team.
The blockade has prompted protests from yogurt-promoting politicians in New York and in Washington, who express outrage that American athletes could be deprived of a protein-rich food that had been part of their training regimen.
The Russian government says the American-made yogurt cannot enter Russia because the Americans have not submitted the proper paperwork. The United States says the certification required by the Russians would be impossible to attain.
The yogurt makers are growing exasperated.
"I'd like to think that yogurt could have diplomatic immunity," said Peter McGuinness, the chief marketing and brand officer for Chobani.
After beginning as a breakfast-table squabble, the dairy drama is quickly escalating.
The Obama administration has intervened, seeking to clear the way for the delivery. A United States senator fired off an urgent letter to the Russian ambassador, asking for his help.
American officials are hoping to receive a special dispensation from the Russian agency Rosselkhoznadzor, the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance, whose jurisdiction includes American-made Greek yogurt.
Yogurt production is a booming business in upstate New York, a place that does not have many booming businesses. Naturally, the industry has become a favorite for many of the state's leading elected officials.
Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten E. Gillibrand, both Democrats, have pushed for Greek yogurt to be served with school lunches. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, also a Democrat, is planning his second "yogurt summit" to celebrate the industry.
Mr. Schumer, who is fond of plain Greek yogurt and likes to add raisins, has jumped into the fray. "There is simply no time to waste in getting our Olympic athletes a nutritious and delicious food," he said in a statement.
In requesting that the blockade be lifted, Mr. Schumer added that when it comes to yogurt, "the Russian authorities should get past 'nyet.' "
No resolution is in sight. Whether American athletes will have access to any other brands of yogurt could not be determined on Wednesday. Yevgeniy Khorishko, a spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, said American officials had been told about the necessary paperwork, but had not complied.
Mr. Khorishko said there would be no special treatment just because the yogurt was bound for American lips. "We are a lawful country," he said. "You should follow the rules."
The Sochi-bound yogurt may be a victim of a broader dairy dispute. American dairy producers have been cut off from the Russian market since 2010, as the two countries have been unable to reach an agreement on health certification for American dairy exports. "The Russians have not put in the effort to try to resolve this," said Jaime Castaneda, a senior vice president of the National Milk Producers Federation, adding that Russia was an appealing market for butterfat.
Chobani is the official yogurt of the United States Olympic team, and in the run-up to Sochi, its products were made available to athletes at Olympic training centers in the United States.
For the Olympics, the company had planned to send single-serve cups of blueberry, strawberry and peach yogurt, along with larger containers of plain yogurt that could be used to make smoothies. Some of the yogurt came from upstate New York, and some from Chobani's other American factory, in Idaho.
Mr. McGuinness, the Chobani executive, said it only seemed natural to send along a shipment of Chobani, given that American athletes had enjoyed eating it during their training.
"Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished," he said.
Yogurt-sensitive politicians came to Chobani's defense on Wednesday, urging Russian officials to reconsider their crackdown.
"You'd think they'd have enough to worry about," said James L. Seward, a Republican state senator whose district includes Chobani's plant in Chenango County.
He predicted ample access to Greek yogurt could boost the Americans' medal count.
And Gary D. Finch, a Republican state assemblyman who also represents the Chobani plant, suggested that Russia should also consider importing Chobani so Russians everywhere could enjoy it.
"It would have a healthy effect on the way they look at life over there," he said.
Mr. Finch, recalling Chobani's explosive growth since its founding, walked over to his refrigerator and opened it. He counted 18 cups.
If Russia wants to have a cold war over yogurt, he said, so be it.
"Whatever they choose to bring to the table to have some conflict over, we, of course, will win," he said. "And we will have our yogurt at the end of the day."
Quote from: Syt on February 06, 2014, 09:07:01 AM
They look like typical young Czech ladies.
I'll need to Czech them out.
Twitter might become my go to source for hilarity during these olympics.
Stool evaluation committee:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.bimg.dk%2Fnode-images%2F151%2F7%2F1152x-u%2F7151704-sotji13.jpg&hash=62b99b233d36b332685438ea41f3a0506a44eefd)
Крупы = Cereals (Groats)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.bimg.dk%2Fnode-images%2F151%2F7%2Fx2048-u%2F7151656-sotji5.jpg&hash=25dfbccad376d4860dfb6733fea57d25d46a44a2)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fb.bimg.dk%2Fnode-images%2F151%2F7%2F1152x-u%2F7151671-sotji8.jpg&hash=49087baa3a1ddef490ea85c105d91059a58f41c7)
:lol: This is awesome. It's like some kid who forgot to do his science fair project and is throwing something together at the last minute.
The snaps of random furniture inside bathrooms just crack me up :lmfao:
:lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericablog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2Fsochi-toilet-4.jpg&hash=f0eb652b9db7047dd6a2f1d6586e414dfba5d053)
I like this room's decor:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfugMCVIUAAK1M3.jpg)
:lmfao:
Seriously, they must have hired all Dagestani and Chechen workmen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2014, 11:02:46 AM
:lmfao:
Seriously, they must have hired all Dagestani and Chechen workmen.
I doubt it. The workers are mostly Tadzhik.
I don't get it.
I mean, if you have to cut corners, don't do it in the hotels of the people who're likely to broadcast your incompetence to the whole world.
Then again, maybe they expected the foreign media to be as tame as the Russian one?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 05, 2014, 09:56:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2014, 07:56:18 PM
The IOC has a choice. Either they do what they say they are going to do under their Charter. Or they should adopt the Dorsey Rule of very few are perfect so why bother.
As a reminder this is what the IOC says it stands for:
Quote2 Mission and Role of the IOC*
The mission of the IOC is to promote Olympism throughout the world and to lead the
Olympic Movement. The IOC's role is:
1. to encourage and support the promotion of ethics and good governance in sport
6. to act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement;
1 is dubious in this instance--a general law against "homosexual propoganda" doesn't directly impact "ethics and good governance in sport".
6 also is also a close call--does this discrimination affect the Olympic Movement? Certainly many many regulations by Islamic countries do so in a much more direct way, and I believe they have since their participation began.
In both cases, clauses have been added that in theory narrow the scope of the discrimination being acted against: in 1, "in sport" and 6, "affecting the Olympic Movement".
But that isn't central to what I am saying. What is central is that there are competing priorities. There are all the items that you didn't bold, which require some sort of global buy in to the Olympic games. You can try to uphold a stand against discrimination that would exclude most of the world's population and most of the previous hosts of the games (as their laws stood then). Or we can allow somewhat dodgy countries like Russia and China host the games.
Or we can allow countries like Russia and China to host the games, but the IOC could hold lack of basic respect for human rights against them when it comes to making these decisions. Or the IOC could NOT hold it against them, and we could respond accordingly and decide to either take a pass on our leaders attending, or make some other clear gesture.
It isn't all or nothing.
Quote from: Syt on February 06, 2014, 11:18:38 AM
I mean, if you have to cut corners, don't do it in the hotels of the people who're likely to broadcast your incompetence to the whole world.
Then again, maybe they expected the foreign media to be as tame as the Russian one?
It's not that. The same thing happened in Beijing.
It's a none-western culture trying to anticipate & meet the expectations of westerners. Some they get, others they don't because before any of this they didn't know.
And no one told the Western, especially Americans, that most of the world's waterpipe don't have enough pressure to push paper thru them.
The 2016 Olympics are going to be an hoot.
Maybe hotels were the least shoddiest things constructed, it's just that no one has seen anything else there yet. :ph34r:
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 06, 2014, 11:21:43 AM
The 2016 Olympics are going to be an hoot.
Brazil will be fine. They're used to tourists and they've got the World Cup in 2014 to iron out their problems.
The Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 World Cups on the other hand :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2014, 11:01:53 AM
I like this room's decor:
:lol: Looks like the set for an unreleased Beckett play. Or where someone suddenly wakes up in a David Lynch movie.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 06, 2014, 11:21:43 AM
And no one told the Western, especially Americans, that most of the world's waterpipe don't have enough pressure to push paper thru them.
:huh: Back when I lived in Ukraine, used toilet paper went down the toilet with no undue drama. Well, by toilet paper I mean old newspapers for the most part, but the idea is the same.
I think it is just that they were scramble-built at the last moment, and you had Caucasian construction workers who had to deal with an insane pace of doing their job, with no time to pause on matters like "there is too little space for the toilets" ("we will make double toilet rooms then), "shit, they gave me an hour to install 30 sinks" etc.
Most obvious in those room designs. Get it good enough so they cannot say it is not done. Rush on.
I would NOT be going to the stadiums and the rest, if I were the people there.
I had also heard that flushing toilet paper is rare in other parts of the world. Don't remember where I heard ti though.
Quote from: sbr on February 06, 2014, 11:29:11 AM
I had also heard that flushing toilet paper is rare in other parts of the world. Don't remember where I heard ti though.
I don't think it's common in South America or Morocco, but I can't properly remember.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2014, 11:24:58 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 06, 2014, 11:21:43 AM
And no one told the Western, especially Americans, that most of the world's waterpipe don't have enough pressure to push paper thru them.
:huh: Back when I lived in Ukraine, used toilet paper went down the toilet with no undue drama. Well, by toilet paper I mean old newspapers for the most part, but the idea is the same.
I've been in places where you aren't supposed to put toilet paper down the drain. I've also been in places where everyone doesn't get their own bathroom stall. I've been in places where manholes are often left uncovered and unblocked and stray animals are everywhere. And I've been in hotel rooms with decor like what Sheilbh posted, even in the US.
I've never been to Russia, or Sochi, so I'm not sure where the area falls on the 1st world / 3rd world spectrum. Some of the stuff might be a case of westerners going to a less developed region and being freaked out by differences. Some of it though seems like they aren't so ready.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2014, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: sbr on February 06, 2014, 11:29:11 AM
I had also heard that flushing toilet paper is rare in other parts of the world. Don't remember where I heard ti though.
I don't think it's common in South America or Morocco, but I can't properly remember.
No issues flushing toilet paper in Brazil.
Quote from: Barrister on February 06, 2014, 11:39:33 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2014, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: sbr on February 06, 2014, 11:29:11 AM
I had also heard that flushing toilet paper is rare in other parts of the world. Don't remember where I heard ti though.
I don't think it's common in South America or Morocco, but I can't properly remember.
No issues flushing toilet paper in Brazil.
Argentina's good as well. I've flushed my share down Argentine way.
I do know that many (most?) parts of Mexico can't handle toilet paper in their sewer systems. A buddy of mine had a lot of Mexicans on his work crew when he was a field geologist, and had to keep reminding them not to throw used toilet paper in the garbage :x
No issues flushing paper in either Morocco or Egypt, but I only used restrooms in touristy establishments.
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2014, 11:21:32 AM
Or we can allow countries like Russia and China to host the games, but the IOC could hold lack of basic respect for human rights against them when it comes to making these decisions. Or the IOC could NOT hold it against them, and we could respond accordingly and decide to either take a pass on our leaders attending, or make some other clear gesture.
It isn't all or nothing.
Or you could just get over yourself & move on with your life.
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2014, 11:21:32 AM
Or we can allow countries like Russia and China to host the games, but the IOC could hold lack of basic respect for human rights against them when it comes to making these decisions. Or the IOC could NOT hold it against them, and we could respond accordingly and decide to either take a pass on our leaders attending, or make some other clear gesture.
It isn't all or nothing.
I can't prove anything, but I suspect they do hold it against them when they make the decision. China opened up quite a bit for the Olympics, for example. I doubt the IOC would have given them the games without some assurances that visitors would be welcomed and not subjected to the brunt of a communist state.
There is a lot of speculation the recent issues in Turkey pushed the Olympics to Japan in 2020. It is just that if you are going to balance those considerations with a global outreach you aren't going to get perfect hosts all the time.
Russia is a tougher situation. The gay rights issues came up after it had been awarded the games, and I'm not sure what the IOC could really do in that case. Practically you can't get a new host at a late date, and much of the membership is from countries that are more conservative on the issue than Russia anyway.
Quote from: Barrister on February 06, 2014, 11:39:33 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2014, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: sbr on February 06, 2014, 11:29:11 AM
I had also heard that flushing toilet paper is rare in other parts of the world. Don't remember where I heard ti though.
I don't think it's common in South America or Morocco, but I can't properly remember.
No issues flushing toilet paper in Brazil.
Got lucky I guess.
There was this thread over at Paradox OT not too long ago, where a Brazilian guy was in total outrage mode over the barbarism of Europe, which, for him, materialized in the fact that Europeans flush the toilet paper instead of bucketing them like civilized people.
Oh and before you assholes ask, Hungarians do flush toilet papers. :P
Quote from: Barrister on February 06, 2014, 11:39:33 AM
No issues flushing toilet paper in Brazil.
I've come across it in Peru. I think other places as well...maybe outside the cities in Brazil?
I've universally ignored it though. I just flush after every wipe and it has never backfired.
Hey Tamas, do the old ladies still sell two squares of toilet paper for you to use in the subway shitter in Hungary?
Face to face with the realities of planned economies. :bleeding:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2014, 11:52:56 AM
Hey Tamas, do the old ladies still sell two squares of toilet paper for you to use in the subway shitter in Hungary?
Face to face with the realities of planned economies. :bleeding:
I don`t think they do :lol:
Beet paper?
Too rough to be beet paper.
I would have gladly traded a real pair of Levis for some supple, fluffy beet paper.
Also Channel 4's changing their logo:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FMedia%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2014%2F2%2F6%2F1391695738810%2FChannel-4-rainbow-logo-fo-008.jpg&hash=eb72854b19ffa67030d3bcefca5c906b7bc3fc01)
And have produced an advert wishing 'good luck to everyone out in Sochi' featuring a bear singing 'good luck gays on gay mountain' with a Putin-a-like DJ :lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6RID82Ru-k
It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it is funny.
Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMdPj3HXMgQ
This is nice:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366712107461956?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304680904579366712107461956.html
QuoteSOCHI, Russia—Rooms without doorknobs, locks or heat, dysfunctional toilets, surprise early-morning fire alarms and a Welcome Wagon of stray dogs: These are the initial images of the 2014 Winter Olympics that foreign journalists have blasted around the world from their officially assigned hotels—and the wave of criticism has rankled Russian officials.
Dmitry Kozak, the deputy prime minister responsible for the Olympic preparations, reflected the view held among many Russian officials that some Western visitors are deliberately trying to sabotage Sochi's big debut out of bias against Russia. "We have surveillance video from the hotels that shows people turn on the shower, direct the nozzle at the wall and then leave the room for the whole day," he said. An aide then pulled a reporter away before Mr. Kozak could be questioned further on surveillance in hotel rooms. "We're doing a tour of the media center," the aide said.
Just kind of slipped out, I guess.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2014, 12:03:12 PM
Also Channel 4's changing their logo:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FMedia%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2014%2F2%2F6%2F1391695738810%2FChannel-4-rainbow-logo-fo-008.jpg&hash=eb72854b19ffa67030d3bcefca5c906b7bc3fc01)
And have produced an advert wishing 'good luck to everyone out in Sochi' featuring a bear singing 'good luck gays on gay mountain' with a Putin-a-like DJ :lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6RID82Ru-k
It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it is funny.
Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMdPj3HXMgQ
WTF? :D
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 06, 2014, 12:06:32 PM
This is nice:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366712107461956?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304680904579366712107461956.html
QuoteSOCHI, Russia—Rooms without doorknobs, locks or heat, dysfunctional toilets, surprise early-morning fire alarms and a Welcome Wagon of stray dogs: These are the initial images of the 2014 Winter Olympics that foreign journalists have blasted around the world from their officially assigned hotels—and the wave of criticism has rankled Russian officials.
Dmitry Kozak, the deputy prime minister responsible for the Olympic preparations, reflected the view held among many Russian officials that some Western visitors are deliberately trying to sabotage Sochi's big debut out of bias against Russia. "We have surveillance video from the hotels that shows people turn on the shower, direct the nozzle at the wall and then leave the room for the whole day," he said. An aide then pulled a reporter away before Mr. Kozak could be questioned further on surveillance in hotel rooms. "We're doing a tour of the media center," the aide said.
Just kind of slipped out, I guess.
:lmfao:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfxHThUCcAAnKzG.jpg)
RoTW : Why you hate Olympics?
Quote from: sbr on February 06, 2014, 11:29:11 AM
I had also heard that flushing toilet paper is rare in other parts of the world. Don't remember where I heard ti though.
I've seen the bucket thing in places with poor or no running water, e.g. in the Himalayas or in Sub-Saharan Africa. I guess without running water, toilet paper will inevitably clog up whatever sewage pipes they have...
Quote from: derspiess on February 06, 2014, 11:45:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2014, 11:21:32 AM
Or we can allow countries like Russia and China to host the games, but the IOC could hold lack of basic respect for human rights against them when it comes to making these decisions. Or the IOC could NOT hold it against them, and we could respond accordingly and decide to either take a pass on our leaders attending, or make some other clear gesture.
It isn't all or nothing.
Or you could just get over yourself & move on with your life.
I suppose that, if you lack an intellectual response to an intellectual argument, the
ad hom works for you. I think most of us recognize an intellectually bankrupt concession post, though.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 06, 2014, 12:12:04 PMRoTW : Why you hate Olympics?
I don't think they're shown at all over here. Winter sports are not that popular.
Quote from: grumbler on February 06, 2014, 12:17:55 PM
I suppose that, if you lack an intellectual response to an intellectual argument, the ad hom works for you. I think most of us recognize an intellectually bankrupt concession post, though.
I was just trying to get a rise out of Berkut. Relax.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 06, 2014, 11:21:43 AM
And no one told the Western, especially Americans, that most of the world's waterpipe don't have enough pressure to push paper thru them.
Generally speaking, in North America at least, sewers don't use pressure, but rather gravity flow. However this means the pipes need to be installed with a fairly high degree of precision, which is one of the reasons plumbing is a skilled trade. If you have shoddy workmanship you increase the chances of a fibrous mass of wet toilet paper clogging the pipe.
BTW isn't Drakken or someone here a professional plumber?
Quote from: Zanza on February 06, 2014, 12:16:54 PM
I've seen the bucket thing in places with poor or no running water, e.g. in the Himalayas or in Sub-Saharan Africa. I guess without running water, toilet paper will inevitably clog up whatever sewage pipes they have...
Yea, this too
Drakken is studying for it, yes.
Quote from: derspiess on February 06, 2014, 12:11:09 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 06, 2014, 12:06:32 PM
This is nice:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366712107461956?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304680904579366712107461956.html
QuoteSOCHI, Russia—Rooms without doorknobs, locks or heat, dysfunctional toilets, surprise early-morning fire alarms and a Welcome Wagon of stray dogs: These are the initial images of the 2014 Winter Olympics that foreign journalists have blasted around the world from their officially assigned hotels—and the wave of criticism has rankled Russian officials.
Dmitry Kozak, the deputy prime minister responsible for the Olympic preparations, reflected the view held among many Russian officials that some Western visitors are deliberately trying to sabotage Sochi's big debut out of bias against Russia. "We have surveillance video from the hotels that shows people turn on the shower, direct the nozzle at the wall and then leave the room for the whole day," he said. An aide then pulled a reporter away before Mr. Kozak could be questioned further on surveillance in hotel rooms. "We're doing a tour of the media center," the aide said.
Just kind of slipped out, I guess.
:lmfao:
This is funny in how it slipped out, but this is also very serious. Who knows how many foreign sources FSB will recruit once they finish going through all the hotel room footage?
If that is true, shouldn`t there be a huge scandal of it?
Quote from: Tamas on February 06, 2014, 01:02:48 PM
If that is true, shouldn`t there be a huge scandal of it?
No. In the grand scheme of things, leaving a shower on all day is wasteful, but not that big of a deal.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2014, 12:46:42 PM
This is funny in how it slipped out, but this is also very serious. Who knows how many foreign sources FSB will recruit once they finish going through all the hotel room footage?
I bet there isn't any hotel room footage. For domestic reasons, the government is probably very focused on making sure that any criticism by the foreign press is shown as anti Russian and a conspiracy against them rather than legitimate. He probably made this stuff up as defense against the criticism they are getting, without thinking through the implications.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 06, 2014, 01:12:22 PM
... For domestic reasons, the government is probably very focused on making sure that any criticism by the foreign press is shown as anti Russian and a conspiracy against them rather than legitimate. He probably made this stuff up as defense against the criticism they are getting, without thinking through the implications.
Exactly. In fact, this is the Russian government engaging in a bizarre version of the
ad hom. Just as Spicey reverts to the
ad hom when he is intellectually bankrupt, so does the Russian government. They are just intellectually bankrupt more often than he is.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 06, 2014, 12:06:32 PM
This is nice:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366712107461956?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304680904579366712107461956.html
QuoteSOCHI, Russia—Rooms without doorknobs, locks or heat, dysfunctional toilets, surprise early-morning fire alarms and a Welcome Wagon of stray dogs: These are the initial images of the 2014 Winter Olympics that foreign journalists have blasted around the world from their officially assigned hotels—and the wave of criticism has rankled Russian officials.
Dmitry Kozak, the deputy prime minister responsible for the Olympic preparations, reflected the view held among many Russian officials that some Western visitors are deliberately trying to sabotage Sochi's big debut out of bias against Russia. "We have surveillance video from the hotels that shows people turn on the shower, direct the nozzle at the wall and then leave the room for the whole day," he said. An aide then pulled a reporter away before Mr. Kozak could be questioned further on surveillance in hotel rooms. "We're doing a tour of the media center," the aide said.
Just kind of slipped out, I guess.
:lol:
Can the "best of Sochi shower footage" tapes be far behind? ;)
Quote from: Malthus on February 06, 2014, 01:37:50 PM
:lol:
Can the "best of Sochi shower footage" tapes be far behind? ;)
Please please please tell me they are surveilling the Olympic Village and not just the journalist area.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 06, 2014, 01:43:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 06, 2014, 01:37:50 PM
:lol:
Can the "best of Sochi shower footage" tapes be far behind? ;)
Please please please tell me they are surveilling the Olympic Village and not just the journalist area.
Gay.
Quote from: grumbler on February 06, 2014, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 06, 2014, 01:12:22 PM
... For domestic reasons, the government is probably very focused on making sure that any criticism by the foreign press is shown as anti Russian and a conspiracy against them rather than legitimate. He probably made this stuff up as defense against the criticism they are getting, without thinking through the implications.
Exactly. In fact, this is the Russian government engaging in a bizarre version of the ad hom. Just as Spicey reverts to the ad hom when he is intellectually bankrupt, so does the Russian government. They are just intellectually bankrupt more often than he is.
Stop stalking me, creepy old man.
Quote from: derspiess on February 06, 2014, 10:58:12 AM
:lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericablog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2Fsochi-toilet-4.jpg&hash=f0eb652b9db7047dd6a2f1d6586e414dfba5d053)
:lol:
Awesome
Quote from: The Brain on February 06, 2014, 01:48:01 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 06, 2014, 01:43:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 06, 2014, 01:37:50 PM
:lol:
Can the "best of Sochi shower footage" tapes be far behind? ;)
Please please please tell me they are surveilling the Olympic Village and not just the journalist area.
Gay.
:yes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2014%2F02%2F05%2Farticle-2552200-1B39CCCA00000578-7_634x815.jpg&hash=d84944525470ba6a4e504d08e2e3f2c069ef6a67)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2014%2F02%2F05%2Farticle-2552200-1B37E12800000578-94_634x825.jpg&hash=806b3d70d2cb2228da24fc4478541d08206c13aa)
50 Billions dollars doesn't buy you much in Russia.
If I were Kevin Bishop, that framed Putin picture would sooo be going home with me. And maybe the calendar, too.
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2014, 05:09:11 PM
50 Billions dollars doesn't buy you much in Russia.
Hold off on that judgment: no one is tweeting pictures of the contractors' dachas.
Quote from: derspiess on February 06, 2014, 04:50:40 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2014%2F02%2F05%2Farticle-2552200-1B37E12800000578-94_634x825.jpg&hash=806b3d70d2cb2228da24fc4478541d08206c13aa)
I can see how that picture can be useful, if you don't want to use Russian hookers for fear of being honeytrapped, and don't want to use Russian Internet for fear of getting hacked.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2014, 05:16:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 06, 2014, 04:50:40 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2014%2F02%2F05%2Farticle-2552200-1B37E12800000578-94_634x825.jpg&hash=806b3d70d2cb2228da24fc4478541d08206c13aa)
I can see how that picture can be useful, if you don't want to use Russian hookers for fear of being honeytrapped, and don't want to use Russian Internet for fear of getting hacked.
As mastrubation fodder, it's pretty limited in appeal. :P
Why, because he's not topless in that picture?
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2014, 05:29:50 PM
Why, because he's not topless in that picture?
But maybe he's not wearing any pants.
Quote from: derspiess on February 06, 2014, 02:11:36 PM
Stop stalking me, creepy old man.
Somebody's got sand in their vagina! :lol:
Google joins in on the fun, not that any Russians will see it. Wonder if Yandex will change their logo?
(https://www.google.dk/logos/doodles/2014/2014-winter-olympics-5710368030588928-hp.jpg)
Okay, that's dumb.
Quote from: derspiess on February 06, 2014, 10:27:43 PM
Okay, that's dumb.
There is also this little quote at the bottom:
QuoteThe practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play." –Olympic Charter
Which seems odd since I did not think Russia was banning gay people from competing.
Still anything that directs world outrage towards such a repellant bunch of assholes like the Russian Government is good.
Yeah, not discrimination if you know have people concerned about talking about themselves for fear of trumped up charges.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/01/russia-gay-rights
An example of the gay propaganda law in practice.
QuoteRussian editor fined for breaking 'gay propaganda' law
A Russian court has fined a newspaper editor for publishing an interview with a gay school teacher who was quoted as saying "homosexuality is normal."
Alexander Suturin, editor of the Molodoi Dalnevostochnik, a weekly published in the far eastern city of Khabarovsk near the border with China, was ordered to pay a fine of 50,000 rubles (£870) for violating a law that bans "gay propaganda" among minors.
Suturin, who is to appeal against the ruling, published an interview with a geography teacher, Alexander Yermoshkin, after he had been fired because of his sexual orientation (see details in the Moscow Times).
After launching an investigation, an official of the Russian state's media watchdog, the Federal Mass Media Inspection Service, pointed to a quote by Yermoshkin: "My very existence is effective proof that homosexuality is normal."
She said: "This statement goes against logic. By offering it to underage readers, the author is misleading them about the normality of homosexuality."
The "gay propaganda" law has drawn strong international criticism amid calls for a boycott of the winter Olympics in Sochi, which is due to start on Friday (7 February).
Sources: Interfax via AP via NYTimes
I saw this cartoon a few weeks ago, and thought it funny. This is as good a place as any to share it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTDZca8s.jpg&hash=597fb03c74bd46d2c98536545b74305e738e0709)
Mostly I like the idea of uncle Vlad having an inbox called "Putin" and an outgoing box labeled "Putout".
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 06, 2014, 12:12:04 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfxHThUCcAAnKzG.jpg)
RoTW : Why you hate Olympics?
I'm amused that whoever compiled that table decided that "red button" coverage doesn't
really equate to the start of "Live TV" coverage.
I watched quite a bit of qualifying for various events yesterday. :)
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2014, 12:13:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 06, 2014, 10:27:43 PM
Okay, that's dumb.
There is also this little quote at the bottom:
QuoteThe practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play." –Olympic Charter
Which seems odd since I did not think Russia was banning gay people from competing.
Yeah, they are just banning any attempt to tell young homosexuals that they are fine and leaving them to the tender mercies of the the Russian equivalent of Neil. It hard to say on the one hand that everyone can compete in an enviornment of non descrimination in a country which makes it a criminal offence to say its ok to be gay.
To limit the meaning of clause 6 to simply not banning gay athletes requires a significant amount of Derspice Right Think.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 07, 2014, 07:38:52 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 06, 2014, 12:12:04 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfxHThUCcAAnKzG.jpg)
RoTW : Why you hate Olympics?
I'm amused that whoever compiled that table decided that "red button" coverage doesn't really equate to the start of "Live TV" coverage.
I watched quite a bit of qualifying for various events yesterday. :)
My guess is a Canuck who couldn't get any info on what red button is.
What's red button?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Red_Button#Availability
Which (since as this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_digital_switchover.svg shows the digital switchover is complete) is virtually universally available on people's TVs.
Effectively it functions as an extra channel or two without having to connect to the internet and the main streaming feeds.
And it was showing live footage yesterday, at least as far as I could tell. Hence my amusement that the compiler of the table had to proclaim it not to be "real TV" to make his point*.
*My TV doesn't connect to the internet; it's a 12 year old or more analogue set with a set top box.
So it didn't get counted as it is a bizarre feature specific to the UK?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2014, 07:42:48 AM
To limit the meaning of clause 6 to simply not banning gay athletes requires a significant amount of Derspice Right Think.
So what does it mean then?
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2014, 12:13:37 AM
There is also this little quote at the bottom:
QuoteThe practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play." –Olympic Charter
Which seems odd since I did not think Russia was banning gay people from competing.
Still anything that directs world outrage towards such a repellant bunch of assholes like the Russian Government is good.
Sure, they're allowed to compete... as long as they act straight. A gay medal winner couldn't even thank their partner publicly.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 07, 2014, 12:29:11 PM
Sure, they're allowed to compete... as long as they act straight.
So did I miss the news that male figure skating was cancelled? :unsure:
QuoteA gay medal winner couldn't even thank their partner publicly.
Really?
I heard on NPR that the IOC was telling athletes to keep the medal ceremonies clean, but to do whatever they wanted to in their press conferences.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2014, 12:57:31 PM
I heard on NPR that the IOC was telling athletes to keep the medal ceremonies clean, but to do whatever they wanted to in their press conferences.
That'll keep the afoul of the IOC but that doesn't mean it'll be okay for Russia.
Quote from: garbon on February 07, 2014, 01:20:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2014, 12:57:31 PM
I heard on NPR that the IOC was telling athletes to keep the medal ceremonies clean, but to do whatever they wanted to in their press conferences.
That'll keep the afoul of the IOC but that doesn't mean it'll be okay for Russia.
but Russia isn't going to mess with any Western Athlete. Sucks if you are Russian & gay but that's nothing new to those people.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 07, 2014, 01:24:06 PM
but Russia isn't going to mess with any Western Athlete. Sucks if you are Russian & gay but that's nothing new to those people.
Is that supposed to be reverse psychology? Russia's almost as bad as the UAE for arresting foreigners for violating local morality laws. In fact, ten seconds of googling brings this up: http://www.towleroad.com/2013/07/meet-the-four-dutch-citizens-arrested-under-russias-new-anti-gay-law.html
Note that wasn't a protest or anything like that, they raided a human rights seminar.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 07, 2014, 01:33:29 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 07, 2014, 01:24:06 PM
but Russia isn't going to mess with any Western Athlete. Sucks if you are Russian & gay but that's nothing new to those people.
Is that supposed to be reverse psychology? Russia's almost as bad as the UAE for arresting foreigners for violating local morality laws. In fact, ten seconds of googling brings this up: http://www.towleroad.com/2013/07/meet-the-four-dutch-citizens-arrested-under-russias-new-anti-gay-law.html
Note that wasn't a protest or anything like that, they raided a human rights seminar.
GF said "Western athlete." Your example doesn't refer to any athletes, so isn't a counter-example that impacts his point.
It might be sarcasm, but I don't see how it could be reverse psychology, unless GF thinks high level Russian officials are browsing Languish. :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 07, 2014, 01:33:29 PM
Is that supposed to be reverse psychology? Russia's almost as bad as the UAE for arresting foreigners for violating local morality laws. In fact, ten seconds of googling brings this up: http://www.towleroad.com/2013/07/meet-the-four-dutch-citizens-arrested-under-russias-new-anti-gay-law.html
Note that wasn't a protest or anything like that, they raided a human rights seminar.
Putin said as long as they stay away from children, gay athletes should be fine.
But seriously, the Russians won't do squat during the Olympics.
Quote from: derspiess on February 07, 2014, 01:44:42 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 07, 2014, 01:33:29 PM
Is that supposed to be reverse psychology? Russia's almost as bad as the UAE for arresting foreigners for violating local morality laws. In fact, ten seconds of googling brings this up: http://www.towleroad.com/2013/07/meet-the-four-dutch-citizens-arrested-under-russias-new-anti-gay-law.html
Note that wasn't a protest or anything like that, they raided a human rights seminar.
Putin said as long as they stay away from children, gay athletes should be fine.
But seriously, the Russians won't do squat during the Olympics.
Especially when they are trying to gobble up Ukraine while the world is busy with the Olympics
The ambassador to the US from Georgia* spoke at my school recently, and had a wonderful line (attributed by him to an unknown Russian author) about how "Russia has an unpredictable past."
*I had lunch with him! :P
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2014, 08:55:07 PM
The ambassador to the US from Georgia* spoke at my school recently, and had a wonderful line (attributed by him to an unknown Russian author) about how "Russia has an unpredictable past."
*I had lunch with him! :P
In all your years that was the first time you heard that? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2014, 09:24:55 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2014, 08:55:07 PM
The ambassador to the US from Georgia* spoke at my school recently, and had a wonderful line (attributed by him to an unknown Russian author) about how "Russia has an unpredictable past."
*I had lunch with him! :P
In all your years that was the first time you heard that? :huh:
:huh: I was talking about a Georgian ambassador who only spoke on Monday. How could I have heard him "in all my years" when he spoke less than a week ago?
Kick his Slav ass Grumbles.
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT
I thought Habbaku was our ambassador from Georgia.
Georgians are a thousand miles from being Slavs.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2014, 01:18:33 AM
Georgians are a thousand miles from being Slavs.
He's talking about Dguller, who isn't actually a Slav, instead he is a Jew.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2014, 01:48:43 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2014, 01:18:33 AM
Georgians are a thousand miles from being Slavs.
He's talking about Dguller, who isn't actually a Slav, instead he is a Jew.
He's part Slav.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2014, 01:18:33 AM
Georgians are a thousand miles from being Slavs.
Six thirty in the morning and I'm taking a drink. MAH LIVER.
QuoteRoTW : Why you hate Olympics?
Its not the real olympics.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2014, 01:18:33 AM
Georgians are a thousand miles from being Slavs.
How?
Linguistically of course they're very different but culturally there seem to be a lot of similarities what with the shared history.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2014, 01:18:33 AM
Georgians are a thousand miles from being Slavs.
I thought they were a couple of hundred miles south.
A Slav subject race is a Slav.
Quote from: Neil on February 09, 2014, 11:12:25 AM
A Slav subject race is a Slav.
Wait... what the fuck do you know about people out side of central Canada, you fucking faggot?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 09, 2014, 07:32:16 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 09, 2014, 01:18:33 AM
Georgians are a thousand miles from being Slavs.
I thought they were a couple of hundred miles south.
Metaphorical divide and physical distance to eachother's homeland. Though even then I overstated. Shared Orthodox and Byzantone heritage, and the Slavic languages have some super old Caucasian influences.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2014, 07:42:48 AM
To limit the meaning of clause 6 to simply not banning gay athletes requires a significant amount of Derspice Right Think.
If we take to this extreme then nobody but the most lefty first world countries will be allowed to host the Olympics. I don't think that is how this was intended or applied. But hey maybe I will be wrong. We will see how many foreigners there participating in the Olympics get arrested under this law.
Quote from: Neil on February 09, 2014, 11:12:25 AM
A Slav subject race is a Slav.
So...East Germans? Finns? Balts? Mongolians?
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2014, 02:17:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2014, 07:42:48 AM
To limit the meaning of clause 6 to simply not banning gay athletes requires a significant amount of Derspice Right Think.
If we take to this extreme then nobody but the most lefty first world countries will be allowed to host the Olympics. I don't think that is how this was intended or applied. But hey maybe I will be wrong. We will see how many foreigners there participating in the Olympics get arrested under this law.
An excellent point Valmy, if someone were in fact advocating that we take it to this extreme.
Quote from: Tyr on February 09, 2014, 07:11:38 AM
QuoteRoTW : Why you hate Olympics?
Its not the real olympics.
That's just wrong. All Olympics are real Olympics.
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 09, 2014, 11:15:24 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 09, 2014, 11:12:25 AM
A Slav subject race is a Slav.
Wait... what the fuck do you know about people out side of central Canada, you fucking faggot?
Why must you insult Albertans by calling us "central Canada"? :ultra:
We live in Western Canada, son. :alberta:
Quote from: Barrister on February 10, 2014, 03:09:20 PM
Why must you insult Albertans by calling us "central Canada"? :ultra:
We live in Western Canada, son. :alberta:
Aren't you from Manitoba originally? :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on February 10, 2014, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 09, 2014, 11:15:24 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 09, 2014, 11:12:25 AM
A Slav subject race is a Slav.
Wait... what the fuck do you know about people out side of central Canada, you fucking faggot?
Why must you insult Albertans by calling us "central Canada"? :ultra:
We live in Western Canada, son. :alberta:
I recommend you avoid engaging the gutter trash.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 10, 2014, 03:12:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 10, 2014, 03:09:20 PM
Why must you insult Albertans by calling us "central Canada"? :ultra:
We live in Western Canada, son. :alberta:
Aren't you from Manitoba originally? :hmm:
Also western Canada (and thankfully this year even the CFL agrees with us!). :contract:
So "Central Canada" just means Ontario?
And Quebec.
Makes as much sense as calling an area in the eastern part of the country the "Midwest".
The entire country is in the West though. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on February 10, 2014, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 09, 2014, 11:15:24 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 09, 2014, 11:12:25 AM
A Slav subject race is a Slav.
Wait... what the fuck do you know about people out side of central Canada, you fucking faggot?
Why must you insult Albertans by calling us "central Canada"? :ultra:
We live in Western Canada, son. :alberta:
Not really.
After googling today, I would say Canada has some odd divisions. Eastern Canada is essentially just a rump state.
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2014, 02:44:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2014, 02:17:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2014, 07:42:48 AM
To limit the meaning of clause 6 to simply not banning gay athletes requires a significant amount of Derspice Right Think.
If we take to this extreme then nobody but the most lefty first world countries will be allowed to host the Olympics. I don't think that is how this was intended or applied. But hey maybe I will be wrong. We will see how many foreigners there participating in the Olympics get arrested under this law.
An excellent point Valmy, if someone were in fact advocating that we take it to this extreme.
Ok if that is the case I do not see how Clause 6 is being violated then, since we are not taking it to that extreme. Merely that Russia has horrible laws and is a horrible place.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 10, 2014, 02:51:22 PM
That's just wrong. All Olympics are real Olympics.
Exactly - which is why I don't understand all the fuss about what is happening in Sochi. There are dozens of Olympics every year in the US alone and, as you note, all of them are as much a "real Olympics" as the goings-on in Sochi.
For instance, Neil competes in the special Olympics every year. Doubt he'd like to see that marginalized because of Sochi. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 10, 2014, 02:51:22 PM
That's just wrong. All Olympics are real Olympics.
Exactly - which is why I don't understand all the fuss about what is happening in Sochi. There are dozens of Olympics every year in the US alone and, as you note, all of them are as much a "real Olympics" as the goings-on in Sochi.
What?
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 11, 2014, 01:15:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 10, 2014, 02:51:22 PM
That's just wrong. All Olympics are real Olympics.
Exactly - which is why I don't understand all the fuss about what is happening in Sochi. There are dozens of Olympics every year in the US alone and, as you note, all of them are as much a "real Olympics" as the goings-on in Sochi.
What?
Which words are you having trouble with?
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 11, 2014, 01:15:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 10, 2014, 02:51:22 PM
That's just wrong. All Olympics are real Olympics.
Exactly - which is why I don't understand all the fuss about what is happening in Sochi. There are dozens of Olympics every year in the US alone and, as you note, all of them are as much a "real Olympics" as the goings-on in Sochi.
What?
Special Olympics, Paralympics, etc.
Russia's got a solid point here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/winter-olympics/10632071/What-about-Britains-gingers-Russia-attacks-Channel-4-over-gay-rights-film.html
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2014, 06:06:14 PM
Russia's got a solid point here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/winter-olympics/10632071/What-about-Britains-gingers-Russia-attacks-Channel-4-over-gay-rights-film.html
How's that anti-ginger-minger-propaganda law comming in the UK? :hmm:
I'll willingly adopt a British ginger. :wub:
From the Russian news agency:
QuoteGENEVA, March 03. /ITAR-TASS/. Russia calls for strengthening and developing the legal base in the field of human rights, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at the 25th session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
Russia intends to submit a draft resolution "Judicial System Integrity" to the Council's session and hopes that the document will be supported, Lavrov said.
"We call for taking into account cultural and historic particularities of different people and note the importance of the UNHRC resolution saying deeper understanding and respect of traditional values will help encourage and protect human rights and freedoms," the Russian minister said.
"We hope that the UNHRC will pay attention to all categories of human rights - civil, political, economic, social and cultural," he said.
"Lately supporters of ultra-liberal approaches have stepped up activities. They propagate policy of all-permissiveness and hedonism, saying moral values, which are common for all religions, should be revised. Such actions are destructive for the society and for the generations. Children should be shielded from information that harms their psychology and humiliates dignity," Lavrov said.
"I would like to say the provisions of the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights envision legislative instruments to restrict the rights and freedoms in favor of the population, public security, law and order," the Russian minister added.
I'm sure some 3rd World Hell Holes will support this.
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2014, 07:22:16 PM
I'll willingly adopt a British ginger. :wub:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.fanpop.com%2Fimages%2Fimage_uploads%2FGinger-Spice-spice-girls-49322_235_400.jpg&hash=802564c77a7125996fe8e3d9a4c4560431b4b06b)
?
weird.
Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2014, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2014, 07:22:16 PM
I'll willingly adopt a British ginger. :wub:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.fanpop.com%2Fimages%2Fimage_uploads%2FGinger-Spice-spice-girls-49322_235_400.jpg&hash=802564c77a7125996fe8e3d9a4c4560431b4b06b)
?
weird.
No pretty sure it'd make more sense if she adopted me.
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2014, 10:32:17 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2014, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2014, 07:22:16 PM
I'll willingly adopt a British ginger. :wub:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.fanpop.com%2Fimages%2Fimage_uploads%2FGinger-Spice-spice-girls-49322_235_400.jpg&hash=802564c77a7125996fe8e3d9a4c4560431b4b06b)
?
weird.
No pretty sure it'd make more sense if she adopted me.
:P
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/arts_n_ideas/article/culture-ministry-affirms-russia-is-not-europe/497658.html
QuoteCulture Ministry Affirms 'Russia is not Europe'
A state commission working on a much-discussed report titled "Foundations of State Cultural Politics" will release their findings in two weeks, presidential advisor Vladimir Tolstoi announced last week, adding that the basic formula of the report could be summarized as "Russia is not Europe."
"Russia should be examined as a unique and distinctive civilization, belonging neither to the 'West' nor the 'East,' Tolstoi said, Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported.
The formulation of the document was announced earlier by President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin on March 25 at a ceremony presenting prizes for young cultural figures. "In Russian society, it is necessary to form the kind of culture and values which could buttress our history and traditions, unite times and generations and allow for the consolidation of the nation," Putin said.
While the Culture Ministry has released few details about the reasons for the formulation of the report, the excerpts revealed thus far seem to suggest that the report calls for the protection of "traditional Russian values."
"It appears necessary to include in the draft document a thesis on the rejection of the principles of multiculturalism and tolerance," says an excerpt released by Nezavisimaya Gazeta. "The preservation of a single cultural code requires the rejection of state support for cultural projects imposing alien values upon society."
"The document under discussion is a serious project," said Mikhail Shvydko, presidential adviser for cultural cooperation, remarking on the importance of culture in education and the need to preserve Russian language as "not only a language of inter-regional communication, but as the foundation of a general multiethnic state."
While Putin's government has traditionally supported the development of diverse ethnic cultures on the territory of the Russian Federation, the report may represent a concession to the increasingly powerful Russian nationalist movement.
The report also comes as Putin has expressed irredentist sentiments regarding populations of Russian speakers abroad, like those in Crimea, where Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine after a referendum held by the local government found residents in favor of joining Russia.
If the shit goes down, do you get called up Syt?
First of all I doubt it'll come to that.
Even so: unlikely. When I was discharged in '96, I was still recovering from my broken knee cap, so my degree of fitness was rated "4", meaning I'd need medical re-evaluation before commencing duty.
Similarly, I was never called up for a reservists' field maneuver (first of all, the regiment I served in no longer exists - possibly not even the brigade; and secondly I think after the end of the cold war the regular reservist action was phased out).
They'd also have to train me on the new weapons. While I served using a 30 year old G3 and a 40 year old MG-42 MG-3, the rifle at least has since been replaced. :lol: (I think the MG-3 is still in use).
EDIT: Seems the MG-3 is supposed to be replaced by the HK121:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forygie.ru%2F1311168868.jpg&hash=6732050db811d226d1a3efc0d7f701794cc9ae7e)
That looks rather more complicated than this old beauty (WW2 aficionados will admire the classic design):
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffile1.npage.de%2F000909%2F22%2Fbilder%2Fmachine-gun-mg3.jpg&hash=c876fe46b95f97192400ae932dcb7a467854991b)
Jesus, that's an awfully ugly MG.
The H&K one, obviously, not the MG3. :wub:
Quote from: Syt on April 12, 2014, 02:29:19 AM
First of all I doubt it'll come to that.
Even so: unlikely. When I was discharged in '96, I was still recovering from my broken knee cap, so my degree of fitness was rated "4", meaning I'd need medical re-evaluation before commencing duty.
Similarly, I was never called up for a reservists' field maneuver (first of all, the regiment I served in no longer exists - possibly not even the brigade; and secondly I think after the end of the cold war the regular reservist action was phased out).
What regiment did you serve in?
Artillery Regiment 6, attached to the 6th Division.
Battalion 61 was missile artillery.
Battalion 62 (my unit) was recon - 1st battery was staff & logistics, 2nd battery (my unit) was the recon part, 3rd and 4th battery were 155mm field howitzers.
Our job was to recon enemy artillery, using sight and sound. For the sound bit you would place a string of listening posts who would signal when they hear enemy artillery. Using weather data from our weather balloon team you could then guesstimate where the enemy arty is at. A few recon cars would operate far forward, possibly behind enemy lines, to get visual (muzzle flashes). I was a surveyor, meaning I would measure out the coordinates of our microphone positions.
When I served in the unit the army started to introduce a new recon vehicle, operated by 4 or 5 men, that could do alone the job of our battery.
Sheesh, by the time you guys figured out where the Soviet arty was at, they'd probably be knocking on the French border. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 12, 2014, 05:40:33 PM
Sheesh, by the time you guys figured out where the Soviet arty was at, they'd probably be knocking on the French border. :P
And Moscow would be an irradiated glow.
FORCE DE FRAPPE! :frog: :deGaulle:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 12, 2014, 05:57:00 PM
And Moscow would be an irradiated glow.
FORCE DE FRAPPE! :frog: :deGaulle:
Now you're just pandering to Valmy.
The Soviets knew there was only one country with the élan to nuke them should they stream across the Elbe :frog:
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 12, 2014, 05:40:33 PM
Sheesh, by the time you guys figured out where the Soviet arty was at, they'd probably be knocking on the French border. :P
Probably. :P
Our inofficial motto was, "Wir schießen nie, wir kämpfen nie, wir sind die Freizeit-Batterie". (We never shoot, we never fight, we're the leisure battery. It rhymes in German.)
Quote from: Syt on April 12, 2014, 11:50:03 PM
Our inofficial motto was, "Wir schießen nie, wir kämpfen nie, wir sind die Freizeit-Batterie". (We never shoot, we never fight, we're the leisure battery. It rhymes in German.)
The Japanese comfort women had a similar motto.
In other news, the headline story on CNN is still that fucking airplane.
http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_04_10/Orwellian-US-propaganda-tool-VOA-finished-in-Russia-7886/
QuoteOrwellian US propaganda tool VOA finished in Russia
The US Broadcast Board of Governors, the organization which runs the US Government's media and internet operations, recently received a letter from Dmitry Kiselyov, the head of Rossiya Segodnya, in which he stated that the Voice of America and Radio Liberty would not be allowed to broadcast in Russia any longer after their contract with Russia ran out.
The move is yet another indicator of the fact that the Russian Government, which has so far been patient as the US/NATO attempt to continue to surround it with missiles and continue to demonize everything Russian, is beginning to take serious measures to protect itself, its people and its allies.
In another example of Russia following the rule of law and honoring its agreements and contracts with all its partners and at a detriment to itself, the US Government's propaganda tool the Voice of America was allowed to continue its subversive sanctimonious self-serving propaganda disguised as democracy and freedom (as long as you are with them) broadcasting into the territory of the Russian Federation until the expiration of its contract. The grudging cooperation of the Russian Government with the main instrument of American subversion has come to an end with one simple sentence from Rossiya Segodnya's outspoken head Dmitry Kiselyov who the US recently added to its useless sanctions list because he dared to tell the truth about Ukraine.
"We are not going to cooperate anymore," said Mr. Kiselyov in a letter dated March 21, 2014 to the US Government's Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and to be honest nothing more needed to be said.
With headlines from the Orwellian alternate universe that the United States exists in like "Experts Liken Ukraine Crisis to Soviet's Afghanistan Invasion" it can be no wonder that the Russian Government and in fact any truth loving country or citizen of the world might want to ban the voice of the aging recidivist Cold War propaganda machine seeking to stay relevant by creating its own bogeymen and brainwashing the masses to promote knuckle dragging caveman policies of force and subservience.
[...] Brzezinski brigades in Washington [...]
[...] the US and its subservient "West" continue to demonize Russia and its leader President Putin (who enjoys an over 92% approval rating [...]
[...] patriotic incorruptible member of the security services as a president (which is how I would describe President Putin), [...]
Presidents and leaders of the world please take note: if you value your country's sovereignty and want to advance the interests of it and your people pay attention to what President Putin has been doing and doing well. During his first terms he brought about a complete turnaround to the neocon/Brzezinski plan to divide Russia into 68 autonomous regions, he put an end to the rampant US promoted corruption (Washington's favorite type of country and official is a corrupt one), he stopped the nose-diving population numbers, he stopped the brain drain and the massive runaway escape of capital from Russia and he ended to 1990s near anarchy that was tearing Russia apart after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That was internally.
[...] President Putin is like a chess player who is playing 250 moves ahead while the rest are struggling with 3 (not even close to the grandmaster level of 12). [...]
His moves for securing Russia from the out of control imperial hegemon included the law on NGOs (which Ukraine, Egypt, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Yugoslavia and other US regime change targets should have done) and foreign agents, the expulsion of CIA front company USAID which since the 90s had infected everything from pre-natal centers (eugenics?) to the banking sector, the very professional and subtle neutralization of McFaul and his color revolution brigades of church defilers rent-a-mobs and his principled and uncompromising insistence on pursuing international relations based on mutual respect and rule of law.
[...]
So the big loser, when the world begins trading its oil in something other than the dollar and the whole worthless paper currency house of cards comes crashing down will be the United States of America, which really produces nothing to offer the world except weapons, some clever computer stuff that they use to spy on you and death and destruction.
The US is failing, in Russia, Ukraine, Syria and worldwide. And the world is beginning to wake up to the fact that the US is a rogue superpower, trampling on international law worldwide, engaged in an attempt at global domination through force and subversion and has only its own quick-fix-interests in mind.
No matter the current alternative universe Orwellian Ministry of Truth operations of the subservient corporate controlled media, which have attempted to paint the US billion dollar regime change/resource grab/NATO expansion/destruction of a state as somehow being Russia's fault. The US will fail because there is one weapon that there is no way they can win against and at the end of the day that weapon will win. That weapon is the truth.
[...] Russians are too smart to fall for rent-a-mobs running in the streets screaming for regime change while offering no reasonable alternative. Russians are too smart to fall for infantile American propaganda, which is the main reason US elites and the government make sure their educational system continues to be one of the worst in the world and higher education is only available to their own kind.
Unfortunately the average American is kept dumbed-down focused on non-issues like abortion and two men engaged in grotesque relations as marriage and terrorized and perplexed by never ending laws and ever more oppression by their own security state which has enslaved them. [...]
[...] as in Afghanistan where the US "created" Al-Qaeda and backed murderous Islamic lunatics to overthrow the socialist government, the US "created" the Right Sector and backed murderous Nazi lunatics to overthrow the democratic government; also Russia was asked to intervene in Afghanistan and helped the Afghan people just as Russia was asked to intervene (no invasion) in Crimea and helped the Crimean people; [...]
[...]
The BBG should not worry though, last July they were allowed to broadcast their Ministry of Truth vitriol disguised as "democracy radio" into the United States after being previously banned. Useful tool I imagine for Obama's brainwashing of the American populace as they are being trampled upon and oppressed.
I [...] will not, unlike the Voice of America, try to convince you I am "fair and balanced", I work for the Voice of Russia and love Russia and President Putin, so I have a certain pro Russia bias. The difference is I am not hiding that fact and you dear reader can therefore adjust appropriately. I will say that we at the Voice of Russia are not trying to change reality unlike the Voice of America, and as for myself I am always trying to inform my readers of the truth.
[...]
(HEAVILY trimmed down.)
Quote from: alfred russel on April 12, 2014, 11:53:31 PM
In other news, the headline story on CNN is still that fucking airplane.
CNN does tend to get obsessed with stories and run them into the fucking
ocean ground, don't they? :sleep:
OHNOES THEY READ ORWELL!!!!!111
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2014, 02:32:01 PM
OHNOES THEY READ ORWELL!!!!!111
They think it's a manual.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-BZv9YV6QUBc%2FTyGXCL-noDI%2FAAAAAAAABlw%2FkXhG5x2a7Yk%2Fs1600%2Finigo.jpg&hash=80212039a3d790d23d3ea794f36405df4d717321)
"You keep using that word. Orwellian. I don't think it means what you think it means."
You know what Russia needs? More censorship!
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/729015
QuoteRussia's Duma to consider bill on penalties for obscene words in stage productions
MOSCOW, April 22, /ITAR-TASS/. Russia's Duma is expected to have the second - and the main - reading of a bill introducing penalties for obscene words in theatrical productions, entertainment shows on the stage and movies shown through cinematic distribution networks.
The bill was endorsed in the first reading more than a year ago. It was initiated by a group of MPs with the chairman of the parliamentary committee for culture, film director Stanislav Govorukhin.
The bill proposes to levy fines for organizing "a public display of a work of literature, art or folk arts containing obscene expletives in the form of a theatrical performance or entertainment show." The penalties will range from 2,000 to 2,500 rubles of individuals, from 4,000 to 5,000 rubles for officials, and from 40,000 to 50,000 rubles for legal entities.
Repeat offenders will face tougher sanctions up to a suspension of business licenses for three months.
The bill also bans the use of obscene expletives during the public demonstration of films at movie houses, as well as in stage productions, at the opening ceremonies of exhibitions, at concerts and so on. Only the literary Russian language can be used in all of these situations.
Special expert commissions will be set up to track down the words and expressions that are not deemed publically acceptable.
One of the most important provisions of the bill is a ban on the issuance of distribution licenses if a movie contains obscene words and expressions. Along with it, the releasing of movies without licenses will be subject to fines varying from 50,000 to 100,000 rubles.
A repeated offense will entail a fine of 100,000 to 200,000 rubles or a suspension of business operations for up to three months.
Also, no movie of Russian make shall be deemed part of national heritage if it contains obscene swearwords and expressions.
Also, the MPs propose to make it mandatory for releasers of audio/visual produce and books to put a special mark saying 'obscene swearwords' on their products and to introduce a mandatory requirement, along with which such products will be sold in packages only.
The absence of such warnings will be punishable by the penalties identical to those for obscenities in theatrical productions and films.
The bill is not retroactive and its provisions will not be applied to the products released prior to its passage into law.
If the Duma passes it Tuesday, it will take effect as of July 1, 2014.
Goshdarnit!
Golly that is not very nice Russian Duma.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 08:38:32 AM
Golly that is not very nice Russian Duma.
Heck, you can see why they'd be p.o.ed about the dadblamed swear words!
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2014, 09:04:17 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 08:38:32 AM
Golly that is not very nice Russian Duma.
Heck, you can see why they'd be p.o.ed about the dadblamed swear words!
:o :mad: Restore penalties for minced oaths!
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russian-social-media-ceo-quits-flees-country
QuoteRUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CEO QUITS, FLEES COUNTRY
MOSCOW (AP) — The founder of Russia's leading social media network — a wunderkind often described as Russia's Mark Zuckerberg — has left his post as CEO and fled the country as cronies of President Vladimir Putin have made steady inroads into the company's ownership.
The slow-motion ouster of Pavel Durov from the network known as VKontakte, or "In Contact," is the latest sign that independent media outlets in Russia have become increasingly imperiled.
Although months in the making, the loss of Durov's leadership in VKontakte means that the space for free speech on the Russian web could shrink even further.
Users on VKontakte were even spreading jokes this week that the new nickname for the "In Contact" website should be "In Censorship."
As one of his final acts of defiance, Durov posted online last week what he said were documents from the security services, demanding personal details from 39 Ukraine-linked groups on VKontakte, also known as VK.
Kremlin pressure on VK has been accompanied by increasing enforcement of Russia's law against extremism, which took some prominent opposition and pro-Ukraine sites off the web in March.
On Tuesday, the Russian parliament passed a law requiring social media websites to keep their servers in Russia and save all information about their users for at least half a year. The same law, which will go into effect in August if signed by Putin, gave bloggers the same legal status — and responsibilities — as media outlets, making them more vulnerable to accusations of libel or extremism.
Since the protests began in Ukraine, Putin and much of Russian media have amplified the patriotic rhetoric, proclaiming the need to secure Russia from enemies both foreign and domestic. In a televised call-in show last week, Putin equated those critical of Kremlin policy in Ukraine with Bolshevik revolutionaries who rooted for Russia's defeat in World War I, and discussions about the country's traitorous Fifth Column have become the fare of state television.
VK, which largely resembles an older version of Facebook, attracts about 60 million users daily, primarily from countries in the former Soviet Union, vastly outstripping Facebook's reach in the region. It played an instrumental role in bringing hundreds of thousands of protesters into the streets in late 2011 in the wake of widely manipulated parliamentary elections, and it has played a part in drawing crowds to the Kiev protest movement that helped oust Ukraine's pro-Russian president in February.
"There's been a trend that started with the protests of December 2011, when the authorities started fearing the crowd and especially the online crowd," said Anton Nossik, Russia's leading Internet entrepreneur. "The pressure of censorship is mounting on Russian websites from lawmakers who think that the Internet is their foe."
The 29-year-old Durov has cultivated a reputation as a rebel willing to stand up to Kremlin pressure, ostentatiously refusing to shut down VK groups linked to the Russian opposition movement or to give out personal information on its leaders.
He also has become known for more eccentric stunts, like throwing paper airplanes made of 5,000 ruble notes (about $140 each) out of his office window, or posting a picture of his middle finger online after breaking up a major deal with a pro-Kremlin investor.
Since opening in 2006, VK has thrived on the same devil-may-care reputation as its founder. While much of the website's success was thanks to Facebook's sluggish adaptation to the Russian market, VK cemented its status as a Russian staple by hosting thousands of pirated video and music files, which users can watch for free.
It didn't take long for VK to attract the attention of investors as well as the government. In 2010, one major investor who was friendly with Durov handed his stake in the company over to Mail.ru Group, a holding company owned by Russia's richest man and Putin crony Alisher Usmanov
That move was followed by a large sell-off by Durov's old allies in April 2013 to UCP, a company reportedly owned by Igor Sechin, the chief of Russian oil giant Rosneft and a member of Putin's inner circle.
That left Durov himself, who only learned of the deal after it had been signed, as the last remaining holdout in the company ownership. He stayed on as CEO, but increasingly found himself in standoffs with its new stakeholders.
"A shareholder war started," said Nikolai Kononov, who wrote the book "Durov's Code" about VK. "It seems that Durov already understood at that moment that he should sell his shares. But at the same time, he wanted to preserve the project he built, as well as his reputation. Hence why it's taken so long."
That same month, a criminal investigation was opened into Durov's alleged participation in a hit-and-run incident with a St. Petersburg police officer — a case that Durov's supporters said was fabricated and linked to political pressure on the organization.
In June 2013, the case against Durov was quietly closed, but the message it sent was clear. In January, he sold his remaining 12 percent share in the company to Ilya Tavrin, another businessman linked to Usmanov. He also moved to diversify his portfolio outside Russia: With the help of his brother, he developed the messenger service Telegram, a Berlin-based company that he marketed as a completely hack-resistant communication tool, impenetrable even to the prying eyes of the National Security Agency.
If Durov wanted to develop Telegram and cultivate a name for himself as an uncompromising businessman abroad, that would mean keeping VK free of Kremlin influence as long as he was CEO of the company. Kononov said.
But Durov's timing couldn't have been worse: After Putin returned to the presidency in 2012 amid the large anti-Kremlin street protests, he tried to consolidate his power by passing a series of laws clamping down on the opposition.
Many deemed social media, which had provided a platform for protest leaders, a likely next casualty. This spring, the Livejournal blog of opposition leader and anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny was wiped off the web. For VK, which continued to allow groups in support of Navalny or Ukraine's protest movement to exist, it appeared it would only be a matter of time before its pro-Kremlin investors would start cracking down.
Durov's exit from the company was drawn out and chaotic. After selling his shares in January, Durov posted a message April 1 that he was quitting the company — only to say two days later it had been an April Fool's joke.
On Tuesday, he said he had been fired from the company and only found out through the media. One of the pro-Kremlin stakeholders claimed Durov had signed his own resignation letter a month ago and never withdrew it, while another insisted that Durov had no right to quit. Durov is being sued by one of the stakeholders, UCP, which accuses him of diverting money and programming talent from VK and using them to develop Telegram instead.
Durov told the technology magazine Techcrunch that he had left Russia and had no plans to return in the near future.
"In this way, today VKontakte will be transferred to the full control of Igor Sechin and Alisher Usmanov," he wrote on his VK page Monday night. "Under the conditions in Russia something like this was probably inevitable, but I am happy that we held out for seven and a half years. We did a lot."
Quote from: Syt on April 24, 2014, 09:21:47 AM
RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CEO QUITS, FLEES COUNTRY
I've seen this one before. He is going to later get caught in Russia and detained, where he will meet Edward Snowden, and despite initial racial friction will become friends. Snowden will finally admit to himself that Russia isn't so great and he wants to leave, and they will try to escape together.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 24, 2014, 09:29:42 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 24, 2014, 09:21:47 AM
RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CEO QUITS, FLEES COUNTRY
I've seen this one before. He is going to later get caught in Russia and detained, where he will meet Edward Snowden, and despite initial racial friction will become friends. Snowden will finally admit to himself that Russia isn't so great and he wants to leave, and they will try to escape together.
We eagerly await the screenplay!
And there goes 2 Live Crew's opportunity to be goodwill ambassadors:
QuoteRUSSIAN LAW CENSORS SWEARING IN THE ARTS
The move is the latest in a series of laws aimed at stifling free speech in the country
May 6, 2014 10:24AM ET
by Lisa De Bode @lisadebode
Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law censoring the use of curse words in the arts — the latest in a series of measures aimed at restricting freedom of speech and intimidating activists critical of his government.
The law – which affects books, movies, music and more – has far reaching consequences for Russian artists and cultural institutions, which face fines of $70 and $1,400, respectively, for each offense, the BBC reported.
The measure will be enforced from July 1, but which specific curse words will be censored has not been disclosed. It is in line with previous attempts to crack down on the freedom of expression.
In 2012, members of the punk protest group Pussy Riot were arrested for performing a song deemed offensive in Moscow's main cathedral. It is unclear how the new law will affect the name of the Russian collective. An email for response from Pyotr Verzilov, the group's unoffical spokesman was not answered.
Russian artists have responded with both criticism and shock. Some of the nation's most well-known poets and playwrights use curse words prolifically — from classical Alexander Pushkin to contemporary post-modernist Vladimir Sorokin, The Moscow Times reported.
The law comes one year after Putin banned the use of curse words in media. That measure also did not stipulate which words were prohibited. However, The Russian Academy of Science said it mainly applied to words describing male and female reproductive organs, copulation and "women of loose morals," according to the BBC.
In accordance with the new law, books containing curse words will be required to feature warning labels on their front covers. Indications of how the law would be applied to films, television broadcasts and plays remained vague. Distributors who fail to warn their customers about swearing in videos would risk losing their license, reported the BBC.
Also, a computer program that scans the Internet for curse words will go live in the autumn, the BCC reported, putting bloggers at increased risk of persecution in Russia's tightly controlled media arena.
Russia ranks 148th out of 179 countries that are listed in the Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders, an international media watchdog. Various censorship laws, such as a law issued Monday that punishes criticism of the Soviet's Union role in World War II and a 2013 measure that criminalizes calls for separatism limit press freedom in the country.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 06, 2014, 12:34:11 PM
And there goes 2 Live Crew's opportunity to be goodwill ambassadors:
Man Sav, what a hip and up-to-date cultural reference! :P
And on the subject of last year's censorship law:
http://rt.com/politics/157032-russian-swearing-robot-watchdog/
QuoteE-bots to enforce new Russian ban on obscenities
The federal agency for mass media control has started to test software to automatically monitor online media for the use of obscene language, both in articles and in user comments.
A spokesman for the Roskomnadzor agency, Vadim Ampelonskiy, told the mass circulation daily Izvestia that the system was expected to be launched before the end of the year. The cost of the project is estimated at 25 million rubles or about $694,000. Technicians are making lists of keywords for the searches as they manually monitor the Russian language sector of the internet.
The current version of the software only scans text, but in the future it will be also work with audio and video files, Ampelonskiy said.
The monitoring of the internet for obscene language has become necessary as in April 2013 President Vladimir Putin signed into force a federal law banning the use of obscene language in mass media under threat of fines up to 200,000 rubles ($5,500). Breaking the law will result in an official warning to the media outlet and two such warning within 12 months could mean the outlet's government license is revoked. The law applies both to text prepared by editorial teams and to user comments if they are publicly accessible.
Roskomnadzor has come up with two lists of swear words – those that were completely outlawed and those that were allowed under condition that printed and internet media publish them under "16+" parental advisory.
According to the head of the agency, Aleksandr Zharov, within the first year Roscomnadzor issued warnings to 65 mass media outlets, mostly over internet user comments. The official also said that the amount of obscenities in the Russian mass media had dropped dramatically because of the new regulations.
On Monday this week Vladimir Putin signed into law another bill concerning the use of obscene language – the ban on swear words in literature and art, including concerts, theatre, plays and public movie shows.
The violation of the new rules is also punishable by fines of between 200 and 2500 rubles for individuals, between 4000 and 5000 for civil servants and between 40,000 and 50,000 for companies. Movies containing obscene language will be denied official distribution licenses and any showing of a film without a license will be punished with much heavier fines – between 100,000 and 200,000 rubles as well as suspending of the cinema for up to three months.
The law has drawn a lot of criticism from some parts of the Russian artistic community who fear their freedom of expression is being denied. However, according to a poll conducted by the Public Opinion foundation in 2013, 84 percent of Russians supported the ban on obscenities.
It should be noted that the law is not retrospective, and does not apply to creative products released before it came into force.
Also of note. Does anyone have an overview of the "218 principal orders"?
http://rt.com/politics/157300-russia-government-putin-orders/
QuoteHalf of Putin's 218 principal orders fulfilled - government
The Russian government reports it has fulfilled about a half of the 218 "May Orders" – the points in the major social and economic program signed by President Putin right after his inauguration two years ago.
According to the report published on the government's web-site on Wednesday, ministers have managed to execute 121 presidential orders in two years. The reports on the execution of 17 more orders are currently being reviewed by the Presidential Administration and 97 orders are still being worked on, the report reads.
The authors of the document add that the execution of three orders are overdue – they should have been implemented before December 2013. The work on the rest is on schedule and the program must be fully completed before 2020 – well beyond Vladimir Putin's current presidential term that expires in 2018.
The government released a report a year ago that said it had managed to fulfill only two thirds of the presidential plans for the period, and President Putin said that he had deliberately set high objectives to make civil servants work harder.
The May Orders are the major guidelines for national development signed by Putin after his inauguration as president in May 2012. They include the plan for economic development, reforms in state administration, foreign policy, in science and the military, and also various social reforms, including healthcare, demographics and ethnic policies.
The orders are based on Putin's 2012 electoral program and are used by the President's political allies for promoting their course. The United Popular Front movement announced in late 2013 that its representatives would oversee the implementation of the May Orders and report all violations to officials, including the presidential administration. In early April this year the pro-Putin leftist party Fair Russia drafted a bill in which state officials responsible for failures in executing the presidential orders should be fined up to 200,000 rubles or even jailed for up to three years. [dafuq?]
Also on Wednesday the Russian press wrote that Vladimir Putin was marking his tenth combined year in office. The government's newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazetaran an editorial detailing five most important events in Putin's presidency. According to reporters, these were the recent accession of the Crimean Republic into the Russian Federation, the Sochi Olympics, the successful ecological projects on Lake Baikal, the demographic boom in Russia and the peaceful political solution of the Syrian crisis in 2013.
Public opinion polls show that Vladimir Putin is enjoying extremely high support from the Russian population. The Levada Center puts the current presidential rating at 82 percent – the second highest in history, next to 86 percent in April 2008 when Putin met with US President George W. Bush in Sochi.
Another pollster – the All Russian Public Opinion Center – says the "happiness index" in Russia is now at its highest in the country's modern history. According to the research conducted in late April 78 percent of Russians consider themselves to be happy in general and most of thr respondents explain this simply by the fact that their life brings them joy.
Quote from: Syt on April 15, 2014, 02:28:52 PM
(HEAVILY trimmed down.)
I like how the Voice of Russia complains in english to americans about how Voice of America gets to broadcast in russian to russians.
What is going on in Russia, with all the censorship and continued heavy hand of government? Badly broken economy, kind of a kleptocracy isn't it? I love how the polls say Russians are pleased with the way things are, and that they're happy. Must be the same polling that was done in Crimea. :glare:
http://news.yahoo.com/major-moscow-show-explores-lenin-stalin-personality-cults-153057719.html
That main pic of Lenin looks like he's showing his O-face. Gross.
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2014, 08:46:39 AM
Also of note. Does anyone have an overview of the "218 principal orders"?
http://rt.com/politics/157300-russia-government-putin-orders/
QuoteHalf of Putin's 218 principal orders fulfilled - government
The Russian government reports it has fulfilled about a half of the 218 "May Orders" – the points in the major social and economic program signed by President Putin right after his inauguration two years ago.
According to the report published on the government's web-site on Wednesday, ministers have managed to execute 121 presidential orders in two years. The reports on the execution of 17 more orders are currently being reviewed by the Presidential Administration and 97 orders are still being worked on, the report reads.
The authors of the document add that the execution of three orders are overdue – they should have been implemented before December 2013. The work on the rest is on schedule and the program must be fully completed before 2020 – well beyond Vladimir Putin's current presidential term that expires in 2018.
The government released a report a year ago that said it had managed to fulfill only two thirds of the presidential plans for the period, and President Putin said that he had deliberately set high objectives to make civil servants work harder.
The May Orders are the major guidelines for national development signed by Putin after his inauguration as president in May 2012. They include the plan for economic development, reforms in state administration, foreign policy, in science and the military, and also various social reforms, including healthcare, demographics and ethnic policies.
The orders are based on Putin's 2012 electoral program and are used by the President's political allies for promoting their course. The United Popular Front movement announced in late 2013 that its representatives would oversee the implementation of the May Orders and report all violations to officials, including the presidential administration. In early April this year the pro-Putin leftist party Fair Russia drafted a bill in which state officials responsible for failures in executing the presidential orders should be fined up to 200,000 rubles or even jailed for up to three years. [dafuq?]
Also on Wednesday the Russian press wrote that Vladimir Putin was marking his tenth combined year in office. The government's newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazetaran an editorial detailing five most important events in Putin's presidency. According to reporters, these were the recent accession of the Crimean Republic into the Russian Federation, the Sochi Olympics, the successful ecological projects on Lake Baikal, the demographic boom in Russia and the peaceful political solution of the Syrian crisis in 2013.
Public opinion polls show that Vladimir Putin is enjoying extremely high support from the Russian population. The Levada Center puts the current presidential rating at 82 percent – the second highest in history, next to 86 percent in April 2008 when Putin met with US President George W. Bush in Sochi.
Another pollster – the All Russian Public Opinion Center – says the "happiness index" in Russia is now at its highest in the country's modern history. According to the research conducted in late April 78 percent of Russians consider themselves to be happy in general and most of thr respondents explain this simply by the fact that their life brings them joy.
Those 5 most important events are...really impressive.
Putin is responsible for demographic boom? No wonder he never has his shirt on.
It just occurred to me - and it seems so basic now, that I'm sure it must have been brought up and discussed before - what Putin's game is re: Ukraine:
He doesn't give a damn about the Russians in Eastern Ukraine, nor about what happens in Western Ukraine. Putin's interest in the situation is to have a nice external enemy which he can use to unite significant portions of the Russian population behind him and which he can use to make himself look strong, restrained, noble, and/or statesmanlike as required.
Based on that, I think his priorities in Ukraine/ Crimea are:
- keep the conflict going
- avoid any embarrassing losses
Russia may grab further bits of Ukraine if the opportunity presents itself, but I think the priority is to look strong back home and avoid an Afghanistan scenario. This, to me, explains why Russia hasn't moved on any kind of "end game". The simmering conflict, with a nice option to escalate if necessary, is the "end game".
Yes? No? Maybe? What do you think?
Quote
He doesn't give a damn about the Russians in Eastern Ukraine, nor about what happens in Western Ukraine. Putin's interest in the situation is to have a nice external enemy which he can use to unite significant portions of the Russian population behind him and which he can use to make himself look strong, restrained, noble, and/or statesmanlike as required.
I said this in the Ukraine thread maybe 8 pages back.
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2014, 01:47:56 PM
It just occurred to me - and it seems so basic now, that I'm sure it must have been brought up and discussed before - what Putin's game is re: Ukraine:
He doesn't give a damn about the Russians in Eastern Ukraine, nor about what happens in Western Ukraine. Putin's interest in the situation is to have a nice external enemy which he can use to unite significant portions of the Russian population behind him and which he can use to make himself look strong, restrained, noble, and/or statesmanlike as required.
Based on that, I think his priorities in Ukraine/ Crimea are:
- keep the conflict going
- avoid any embarrassing losses
Russia may grab further bits of Ukraine if the opportunity presents itself, but I think the priority is to look strong back home and avoid an Afghanistan scenario. This, to me, explains why Russia hasn't moved on any kind of "end game". The simmering conflict, with a nice option to escalate if necessary, is the "end game".
Yes? No? Maybe? What do you think?
It's anyone's guess and you may be right, but I think Putin genuinely wants to unite all Russians (and Russian wanna-bes) under the Russian Federation. I think that is his end-game, and he is going to be as aggressive or patient as the situation allows or dictates. Secondarily he wants to weaken the West and/or bring parts of it under strong Russian influence. Obviously he loves his power and popular support and building both are probably always in his objectives. But I think he's a genuine expansionist.
Also it appears we're just 16 years away from a Russian moon colony :lol:
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140508/189666959/Russia-to-Begin-Moon-Colonization-in-2030--Report.html
I predict this will go as well as their space shuttle program.
I wanted to buy Prada on the moon, not Pravda. :angry:
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2014, 03:29:55 PM
I predict this will go as well as their space shuttle program.
Dude, if there is one thing Americans shouldn't use in a mocking example against Russians, it would be the state of their space program.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2014, 03:31:17 PM
Dude, if there is one thing Americans shouldn't use in a mocking example against Russians, it would be the state of their space program.
I'm not. Just mocking their capabilities, or lack thereof.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2014, 03:29:55 PM
Also it appears we're just 16 years away from a Russian moon colony :lol:
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140508/189666959/Russia-to-Begin-Moon-Colonization-in-2030--Report.html
I predict this will go as well as their space shuttle program.
damn, and you people missed your chance to elect Newt Gingrich....
From today's victory parade:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvideocdn.itar-tass.com%2Ffit%2F816x458_7de8e174%2Ftass%2Fm2%2Fen%2Fuploads%2Fi%2F20140509%2F1039457.jpg&hash=688ca87e82f284b1e20528a68d24668fa7f45370)
Classic '80s design.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvideocdn.itar-tass.com%2Ffit%2F816x458_7de8e174%2Ftass%2Fm2%2Fen%2Fuploads%2Fi%2F20140509%2F1039460.jpg&hash=c1918295fdcd5cabbc9bbbfe5ac038e6f5f0655a)
Collective blowjob? :unsure:
Looks like they're doing the Cobain.
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2014, 04:41:48 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvideocdn.itar-tass.com%2Ffit%2F816x458_7de8e174%2Ftass%2Fm2%2Fen%2Fuploads%2Fi%2F20140509%2F1039460.jpg&hash=c1918295fdcd5cabbc9bbbfe5ac038e6f5f0655a)
Collective blowjob? :unsure:
Maybe they just saw Putin on top of the mausoleum take his shirt off.
At any rate, that's a lot of o-faces.
:mellow:
I wonder if all the current shenanigans will spiral out of control and bring us to war...?
G.
http://imgur.com/a/rj75V
:lol:
^_^
:thumbsup:
Awesome.
The Daily Mail sector of the UK is apparently having a minor fit because a Russian carrier group went through the English Channel.
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2014, 03:00:56 PM
The Daily Mail sector of the UK is apparently having a minor fit because a Russian carrier group went through the English Channel.
OMG Channel Dash Flashback!
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2014, 03:00:56 PM
The Daily Mail sector of the UK is apparently having a minor fit because a Russian carrier group went through the English Channel.
Does such a thing actually exist? :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on May 09, 2014, 07:57:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2014, 03:00:56 PM
The Daily Mail sector of the UK is apparently having a minor fit because a Russian carrier group went through the English Channel.
Does such a thing actually exist? :hmm:
Well, from what I read it was a group of ships including an aircraft carrier.
I didn't know that carrier could still leave port.
It occasionally breaks down at sea.
The "group of ships" are tugs
Tug life.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.idolol.com%2Fpictures%2F51cbd6b911b93afedb9c39a0310bc140.jpg&hash=94500a09728c1ffb4048732dc19d781bb433a389)
I will admit that I enjoy the Fail more when it flounders around trying to whip up sales by misreporting naval events than I do when it flounders around trying to whip up sales by lying about political events.
Apparently, the editors of the fail think that there can be no Cold War without a Russian carrier group transiting the Channel, and there cannot be a Russian carrier group transiting the Channel without a Cold War! :lol:
Also, the Brits have produced a most remarkably ugly ship in the form of the Type 45s. They make the Perry class look like the Picasso class. I wonder how much extra the ships cost to pay for the uglyization.
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2014, 04:41:48 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvideocdn.itar-tass.com%2Ffit%2F816x458_7de8e174%2Ftass%2Fm2%2Fen%2Fuploads%2Fi%2F20140509%2F1039460.jpg&hash=c1918295fdcd5cabbc9bbbfe5ac038e6f5f0655a)
Collective blowjob? :unsure:
These guys part of an Elite force, modeled on the US Navy SEALS. The Russians didn't quite get the idea right though. For instance, this is the part of the parade where Putin throws them fish.
Right after Barack Obama's inauguration in 2009 the local shows on Detroit Public Radios went nuts. There were not enough superlatives in the English language to describe Barack. I listened to a program discussing Barack's athletic prowess; both comentators agreed that Barack was easily the most athletic President the United States ever had. Be that as it may, no puny American president can compare with athletic ability of glorious Russian President:
QuotePutin dominates hockey game with 6 goals; Obama content on the course with bogey 6
First bare-chested horseback riding and hunting. Then hang-gliding and diving. Now, ice hockey.
Russian President Vladimir Putin's latest high-profile, athletic event covered by government-run media is the prime-time win of his amateur hockey team, stocked with former Russian puck stars, over a series opponent.
And no doubt, Mr. Putin was named the game's first star: He scored six goals and dished five assists in his team's 21-4 win.
Mr. Putin's image, decked in hockey helmet and gear, interrupted the news hour — just at the point when the coverage had turned to the battle between Russia and neighboring Ukraine, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Mr. Putin has been a semi-regular on news sporting coverage, making international headlines for previous bare-chested horseback rides that were sometimes used in comparison with President Obama's sandal-footed vacations.
After the lopsided win, Mr. Putin remarked: "There are no winners or losers here. This is a friendly game," the Wall Street Journal reported.
Pavel Bure, the former Vancouver Canuck known in NHL circles as the 'Russian Rocket,' hailed Mr. Putin's excellent physical condition.
"That the president of the world's largest country with a busy schedule has learned to play ice hockey and found time for that is an indication of his excellent shape," Mr. Bure said, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Mr. Putin's obsession with projecting athletic domination may be a sign of overcompensation, psychologists say.
On the flip side, President Obama regularly plays basketball without trying to choreograph the game's outcome. And he's a 17-handicap golfer, which is respectable — though not outstanding.
That honor goes to former North Korea dictator Kim Jong-il: He shot 38-under par with 11 holes-in-one while playing his very first round of golf.
Surprised it hasn't been mentioned much in the media that Mussolini did the exact same thing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnuovonovalis.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fmussolini_skiing.jpg%3Fw%3D529&hash=8b818869fd5fee7469e9434816cd493888428f50)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnuovonovalis.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fmussolini_swimming.jpg%3Fw%3D529%26amp%3Bh%3D244&hash=fa09751324000e1939d82791918437d2b1aa213c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnuovonovalis.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fmussolini_pilot.jpg%3Fw%3D529%26amp%3Bh%3D275&hash=f1d07992e1bac434013c4a39e6034da4a424135c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gaumont-pathe-archives.com%2Fmedia%2Fhtml%2FImage%2Frouge_mussolini.jpg&hash=bd133b45dfcda132da47deaa074c498bf612787f)
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2014, 01:06:39 PM
Surprised it hasn't been mentioned much in the media that Mussolini did the exact same thing.
Mussolini? Who is that?
Some guy who lived like a million years ago. #generationlettow
Il Duce. :wub:
http://en.itar-tass.com/world/731443
QuoteMOSCOW, May 13./ITAR-TASS/.Russia suspends operation of US GPS signal transmission stations as of June 1, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said.
GPS stations in Russia to be closed down altogether, if talks on placement of GLONASS stations in the US end inconclusively, he added.
I'm sure smartphone users in Russia will love this.
Quote from: celedhring on May 13, 2014, 10:05:31 AM
I'm sure smartphone users in Russia will love this.
I'm guessing most of them would have phones that support GLONASS, wouldn't they?
Quote from: celedhring on May 13, 2014, 10:05:31 AM
I'm sure smartphone users in Russia will love this.
Meh, Russians always threaten tit for tat like this. Remember when they threatened to close their airspace for airlines didn't submit all passenger data to Russian authorities?
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2014, 10:07:07 AM
Quote from: celedhring on May 13, 2014, 10:05:31 AM
I'm sure smartphone users in Russia will love this.
I'm guessing most of them would have phones that support GLONASS, wouldn't they?
Can't see most global brands changing their designs to include a glonass radio just for that single market if gps was working there up until now.
EDIT: Looks like I'm wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smartphones_using_GLONASS_Navigation
Also I thought GLONASS was available pretty much anywhere now.
Long article in the New Republic about Russia/Ukraine and its historical context:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117692/fascism-returns-ukraine
I shared it on facebook, and my sister commented that some stuff from the first paragraph would also apply to the U.S.:
QuoteWe easily forget how fascism works: as a bright and shining alternative to the mundane duties of everyday life, as a celebration of the obviously and totally irrational against good sense and experience. Fascism features armed forces that do not look like armed forces, indifference to the laws of war in their application to people deemed inferior, the celebration of "empire" after counterproductive land grabs. Fascism means the celebration of the nude male form, the obsession with homosexuality, simultaneously criminalized and imitated. Fascism rejects liberalism and democracy as sham forms of individualism, insists on the collective will over the individual choice, and fetishizes the glorious deed. Because the deed is everything and the word is nothing, words are only there to make deeds possible, and then to make myths of them. Truth cannot exist, and so history is nothing more than a political resource. Hitler could speak of St. Paul as his enemy,Mussolini could summon the Roman emperors. Seventy years after the end of World War II, we forgot how appealing all this once was to Europeans, and indeed that only defeat in war discredited it. Today these ideas are on the rise in Russia, a country that organizes its historical politics around the Soviet victory in that war, and the Russian siren song has a strange appeal in Germany, the defeated country that was supposed to have learned from it.
When I asked her about it, she said it would be too much to cover in a post, but particularly pointed to the eminence of collective will over individual choice, see Obamacare.
Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2014, 11:04:41 PM
When I asked her about it, she said it would be too much to cover in a post, but particularly pointed to the eminence of collective will over individual choice, see Obamacare.
And, with one pathetic loser bit of hyperbole, she loses all credibility. It must suck to have a sister so silly that she thinks that the US is or was a "fascist" state.
I tend to not discuss politics much with them. -_-
Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2014, 11:04:41 PM
When I asked her about it, she said it would be too much to cover in a post, but particularly pointed to the eminence of collective will over individual choice, see Obamacare.
So in that case we have been a fascist state since the Whisky Rebellion. Fascist before it was cool.
I've been reading some '20s-'30s-era contemporary analyses of fascism, and some Trotskyists made a decent case for treating fascism as an extension of Bonapartism (in the N.III sense). :frog:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 14, 2014, 02:02:37 PM
I've been reading some '20s-'30s-era contemporary analyses of fascism, and some Trotskyists made a decent case for treating fascism as an extension of Bonapartism (in the N.III sense). :frog:
The ideological component of Bonapartism, as outlined in N. III's writings and as carried out in practice in the 1860s, was a transition to a constitutional partiamentary democracy on the British model with a transitional period of...you know the short of shit N. III and N. I did in practice before the Liberal Empire. The phony elections of N. III were supposed to be practice for real elections later (and, actually that turned out to be the case). I do not recall that being the stated or practical aim of Fascism, which was rather an alternative to the British Parliamentary model, so that strikes me as dubious.
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/731882
QuoteTwitter can be blocked in Russia — watchdog
Russia accused Twitter of violating the law protecting personal data and limiting banned information on the web
MOSCOW, May 16. /ITAR-TASS/. US microblogging service Twitter continues to ignore Russian laws and authorities' demands, Advisor of the upper house's chairman Ruslan Gattarov said on Friday.
The service barely reacted to the demands of the Russian media watchdog Roskomnadzor in connection with fake accounts and libel. In particular, Russia accused Twitter of violating the law protecting personal data and limiting banned information on the web, said Gattarov.
Twitter could be blocked in the whole of Russia, Deputy Head of Roskomnadzor Maxim Ksenzov told the Izvestia daily on Friday as "persisting in not fulfilling our demands" Tiwtter specially created the conditions which make blocking of the service in Russia "almost inevitable", he said.
Media watchdog Roskomnadzor's press secretary Vadim Ampelonsky confirmed that Twitter can be blocked in Russia.
Twitter systematically refused to fulfil Roskomnadzor's and Prosecutor General's demands that the service deletes extremist content, Ampelonsky said adding the company's "unconstructive position" rendered blocking of Twitter inevitable.
The last demand was satisfied on February 26, when the service removed a Russian-language account disseminating banned information about Syria, including photos of corpses and executions. Other demands were ignored, said Ampelonsky.
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/731878
QuoteMass events prohibited in Crimea until June 6
The measure is connected with "continuing developments in many cities of the south-east of Ukraine that resulted in deaths and injuries of civilians"
SIMFEROPOL, May 16. /ITAR-TASS/. Crimea's acting Prime Minister Sergey Aksyonov has signed a law prohibiting mass events until June 6. The document was uploaded to the official Facebook page of the Council of Ministers of Crimea. The Council's press service confirmed to ITAR-TASS that the document had been signed.
The measure is connected with "continuing developments in many cities of the south-east of Ukraine that resulted in deaths and injuries of civilians," the document says. It also aims "to prevent possible provocations from extremists that may enter the territory of the Republic of Crimea and jeopardize the tourist season in Crimea," the document adds.
The republic's government and cultural institutions are advised to postpone scheduled mass events to a later date.
QuoteAlexander Lukashenko is living up to his reputation as Europe's last remaining dictator. The president of Belarus has decided to bring back serfdom on farms in a bid to stop urban migration.
Lukashenko has announced plans to introduce legislation prohibiting farm labourers from quitting their jobs and moving to the cities. "Yesterday, a decree was put on my table concerning – we are speaking bluntly – serfdom," the Belarus leader told a meeting on Tuesday to discuss improvements to livestock farming, gazeta.ru reported.
The serfdom decree would beef up the power of regional governors and "teach the peasants to work more efficiently," Lukashenko said. Governors who failed to ensure timely and efficient harvests in their regions would get the sack, he added.
Lukashenko, who was deputy chairman of a Soviet collective farm before entering politics in 1990, is famous for his obsession with agriculture. Belarus produces large amounts of potatoes and cereals as well as livestock, but farming methods have hardly been reformed since the Soviet era. Low agricultural wages and limited prospects have persuaded many farm workers to leave the countryside to seek opportunities in the cities or in neighbouring Russia.
Serfdom was abolished in the Russian empire by Tsar Alexander II in 1861 but made a comeback under a different guise in the Soviet era. Workers at the kind of collective farm that Lukashenko once ran were tied to the land by travel restrictions and laws obliging all able bodied adults to register as employed.
If Lukashenko signs the serfdom decree, Belarus will be in violation of the 1957 international convention on the abolition of forced labour to which it is a signatory. That didn't stop him adopting a law in 2012 stopping timber industry workers from quitting their jobs and it probably won't stop him now.
It's hard to believe that this isn't from The Onion but from the Financial Times...
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/05/29/belarus-plans-to-bring-back-serfdom/
Smurfdom?
Diocletian approves.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 14, 2014, 02:02:37 PM
I've been reading some '20s-'30s-era contemporary analyses of fascism, and some Trotskyists made a decent case for treating fascism as an extension of Bonapartism (in the N.III sense). :frog:
The Soviet Union could have used a Bonaparte.
Quote from: Zanza on May 31, 2014, 02:52:40 PM
QuoteLukashenko has announced plans to introduce legislation prohibiting farm labourers from quitting their jobs and moving to the cities. "Yesterday, a decree was put on my table concerning – we are speaking bluntly – serfdom," the Belarus leader told a meeting on Tuesday to discuss improvements to livestock farming, gazeta.ru reported.
It's hard to believe that this isn't from The Onion but from the Financial Times...
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/05/29/belarus-plans-to-bring-back-serfdom/
]
:blink: Well he doesn't try and sugar-coat it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2014, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 31, 2014, 02:52:40 PM
QuoteLukashenko has announced plans to introduce legislation prohibiting farm labourers from quitting their jobs and moving to the cities. "Yesterday, a decree was put on my table concerning – we are speaking bluntly – serfdom," the Belarus leader told a meeting on Tuesday to discuss improvements to livestock farming, gazeta.ru reported.
It's hard to believe that this isn't from The Onion but from the Financial Times...
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/05/29/belarus-plans-to-bring-back-serfdom/
]
:blink: Well he doesn't try and sugar-coat it.
The heirs of Paul Ivanovitch Chichikov can rejoice! :)
Long but interesting piece:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/04/21/putin_s_empire_of_the_mind_russia_geopolitics
Poor Putin, all red-faced from being shunned by the West :(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2650730/Obama-publicly-ignores-Putin-leaders-photo-opp-White-House-confirms-pair-lengthy-informal-conversation-D-Day-lunch.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2014%2F06%2F06%2Farticle-2650730-1E86929200000578-92_634x479.jpg&hash=fa919e951c1c6db09a1e7905829796ccd6762a9d)
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_06_07/Putin-says-Russian-city-Volgograd-may-become-Stalingrad-again-5805/
QuotePutin says Russian city Volgograd may become Stalingrad again
Russian President Vladimir Putin does not rule out the possibility of returning the name of Stalingrad to the Russian city of Volgograd located on the Volga River Stalingrad was the epicenter of the most grandiose battle of World War II and was almost completely destroyed by the unparalleled intensity of fighting between Soviet and Nazi troops.
Answering a question of a WWII veteran, Putin said that "in line with our legislation the issue can be settled by the regional and municipal authorities."
"In this case residents should hold a referendum where they will decide on it (the change of the name)," Putin said.
"We'll do as the residents say," the president said, TASS reports.
He recalled that in Paris there is a square named Stalingrad and other cities in Europe keep this name in memory.
"It wasn't me who changed the name," Putin said as a joke adding seriously that "we'll mull over how it can be done" [the referendum].
Quote(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.thedailybeast.com%2Fcontent%2Fdailybeast%2Farticles%2F2014%2F06%2F09%2Fhomophobia-in-russia-is-taking-a-kafkaesque-turn%2Fjcr%3Acontent%2Fimage.crop.800.500.jpg%2F1402307177684.cached.jpg&hash=5146bab853f11699f224accdc870a0289a9e4135)
Homophobia in Russia Is Taking a Kafkaesque Turn
LGBT organizations declared foreign agents in one fell swoop, gays being blacklisted by banks, employers, and landlords—welcome to the new reality of being LGBT under Putin.
We all know things are bad for LGBT people in Russia, right?
In fact, we have no idea. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, Tatiana Vinnichenko, director of the Russian LGBT organization Rakurs, revealed how much most of us in the West don't know about Russia's anti-gay crackdown. And all of it is bad news.
First, official state prosecutions and persecution of LGBT organizations has morphed and intensified. Previously, LGBT organizations were pressured to register as "foreign agents"—spies, basically—but those registrations were subject to judicial review. The results were uneven: Some courts rubber-stamped the government's positions, but others found a lack of evidence and ruled for the LGBT organizations.
Earlier this year, says Vinnichenko, the law was quietly changed. Now the government has the power to declare an organization a foreign agent as an administrative matter. In other words, what was once a matter of law, however imperfect, is now a matter of bureaucracy. With one fell swoop—and one that can come at any moment, without warning—a gay community center, or film festival, or support group can be branded a spy.
The St. Petersburg-based LGBT organization Coming Out has been immersed in Russia's Kafkaesque bureaucracy for months, having endured four hearings to ascertain whether it is a foreign agent. But it has endured, thanks to the rule of law. Without that protection, Coming Out would have no recourse. And once one is labeled a foreign agent, even routine administrative errors can result in criminal prosecution.
"We are being boiled in a pot," Vinnichenko said.
The foreign agents law and the "anti-propaganda law" are really just the tip of the anti-gay iceberg, however. The newest phase of Putin's campaign has been, ironically, privatization.
According to Vinnichenko, Russian authorities are putting pressure on all kinds of institutions—banks, landlords, employers—not to do business with LGBT people and LGBT organizations. Because licenses are required for just about everything in Russia, this "pressure" is existential. Banks are being told, "Dump your LGBT customers, or we'll shut you down," she said.
In Vinnichenko's case, the threat is immediate and personal. A mother of two, she works for the Northern Federal University. Her employers have been pressured from above and have in turn demanded that she stop her advocacy work. "I am going on leave, because you cannot be fired while on leave, but as soon as I return, I expect to be fired," she said. How she will replace her lost income, especially as she is publicly blacklisted, she has no idea.
Rakurs's bank and landlord have come under similar pressure. Vinnichenko says all banks have been told that if they have any LGBT organizations as clients, they will lose their licenses; it's just a matter of time until all of the organizations' accounts are closed. And the local LGBT community center she runs, she says, is in danger of losing its lease and will have nowhere else to go. No one will rent to her.
This subcontracted homophobia has largely escaped the notice of the Western media so far. It is off the books, so to speak, propelled by threats and extortion rather than overt acts like legislation or prosecution. And it has plausible deniability. "Putin is asked about LGBT people whenever he goes abroad, and he just lies or says he doesn't know," said Vinnichenko. "But he knows the situation—he's the homophobe in chief."
Surprisingly, Vinnichenko—like other Russian LGBT activists I've spoken to—insists that Western pressure would be helpful, despite the obvious potential for backlash. "We're going to lose anyway," she said, with typically Russian fatalism. "The only question is whether anyone will know about it."
What she has in mind is for the Russian businesses participating in the privatization of homophobia to be confronted overseas. She points to her own university, which frequently partners with other European and American universities. "The president should be picketed everywhere she goes," Vinnichenko said. So, too, should the leaders of banks and other businesses.
And Vinnichenko is calling for the United States to follow Canada in providing expedited and "favored" review to LGBT applicants for asylum.
Including herself? I asked Vinnichenko what's keeping her in Russia, and she replied: "Everyone I know. Not everyone can leave—there are people without enough money, without specialized skills, women with children. How can I leave them?"
But her altruism does have limits. The Duma is considering a law that would strip children from LGBT families like Vinnichenko's. "This bill is in committee and could be voted on at any time," she said. "They could do it tomorrow." If the bill were to become law, Vinnichenko predicts "a mass exodus" of LGBT families, including her own.
For the moment, she is staying. But even her resilient stance carries a strong sense of hopelessness. "So far," she said, "I have not been physically threatened. No one writes anti-gay graffiti on my door—they write it on the organization's office door. If nothing changes, I think I could stay another two years."
:(
QuoteThe Duma is considering a law that would strip children from LGBT families like Vinnichenko's. "This bill is in committee and could be voted on at any time," she said. "They could do it tomorrow." If the bill were to become law, Vinnichenko predicts "a mass exodus" of LGBT families, including her own.
I hope we grant them asylum from political persecution then. Russia's anti-LGBT policies are really disgusting.
Well the dictatorship Putin has built needs enemies to justify its existence. Going after the Jews is a bit out of style nowadays. Homosexuals, however, are easier targets.
At this point all I'm hoping for is that Putin's insanity stays within Russian borders. At least the Russian people deserve what they get, as a group.
The ironic thing is that Putin is getting all sorts of approval from the extreme right in the West - he's like their wet dream come true, with his anti-gay, anti-Muslim and pro-Church policies, not to mention his "muscular" foreign policy - while at the same time, the extreme left loves him for his anti-American, anti-Western policies. It is bizzare.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2014, 08:05:22 AM
The ironic thing is that Putin is getting all sorts of approval from the extreme right in the West - he's like their wet dream come true, with his anti-gay, anti-Muslim and pro-Church policies, not to mention his "muscular" foreign policy - while at the same time, the extreme left loves him for his anti-American, anti-Western policies. It is bizzare.
It really does kind-of remind me of Russia in the 19th century.
QuoteIncluding herself? I asked Vinnichenko what's keeping her in Russia, and she replied: "Everyone I know. Not everyone can leave—there are people without enough money, without specialized skills, women with children. How can I leave them?"
But her altruism does have limits. The Duma is considering a law that would strip children from LGBT families like Vinnichenko's. "This bill is in committee and could be voted on at any time," she said. "They could do it tomorrow." If the bill were to become law, Vinnichenko predicts "a mass exodus" of LGBT families, including her own.
It might be too late then for her to leave. :(
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2014, 08:05:22 AM
The ironic thing is that Putin is getting all sorts of approval from the extreme right in the West - he's like their wet dream come true, with his anti-gay, anti-Muslim and pro-Church policies, not to mention his "muscular" foreign policy - while at the same time, the extreme left loves him for his anti-American, anti-Western policies. It is bizzare.
What is ironic about that? It is boringly typical.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 09:19:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2014, 08:05:22 AM
The ironic thing is that Putin is getting all sorts of approval from the extreme right in the West - he's like their wet dream come true, with his anti-gay, anti-Muslim and pro-Church policies, not to mention his "muscular" foreign policy - while at the same time, the extreme left loves him for his anti-American, anti-Western policies. It is bizzare.
What is ironic about that? It is boringly typical.
Other contemporary examples of this do not spring to my mind.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2014, 09:26:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 09:19:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2014, 08:05:22 AM
The ironic thing is that Putin is getting all sorts of approval from the extreme right in the West - he's like their wet dream come true, with his anti-gay, anti-Muslim and pro-Church policies, not to mention his "muscular" foreign policy - while at the same time, the extreme left loves him for his anti-American, anti-Western policies. It is bizzare.
What is ironic about that? It is boringly typical.
Other contemporary examples of this do not spring to my mind.
Israel is hated by both extremes, at least in Europe.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/9765/20140707/russia-passes-law-forcing-personal-data-to-stay-in-servers-within-borders.htm
QuoteA Russian law was passed in the lower house Thursday requiring all Internet firms that keep personal data of its users to move and store personal information of Russian citizens to servers in the country, or else face the punishment of getting blocked from the World Wide Web.
The government explains the bill is aimed at protecting data of its Russian citizens who are Internet users.
TechCrunch was able to secure a Google-translated version of a few parts of the said bill.
"When collecting personal data, including through information and the internet telecommunications network, the operator is required to provide a record that the systematization, accumulation, storage, updating and retrieval of personal data of citizens of the Russian Federation, is held on databases located in the territory of the Russian Federation," read the bill.
Critics though believe it is rather a move to suppress social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Protestors opposing the return to Kremlin of Russian President Vladimir Putin used social networks in 2012.
"The aim of this law is to create ... (another) quasi-legal pretext to close Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and all other services," blogger and Internet expert Anton Nossik told to Reuters.
"The ultimate goal is to shut mouths, enforce censorship in the country and shape a situation where Internet business would not be able to exist and function properly."
Political analysts are also looking at the angle that maybe Russia is pursuing to censor Internet and pass those within its borders alone.
Putin, who is a former KGB officer, once called the Internet as a project of the CIA. His main concern in the recent bill, he said, was to protect minors from indecent Internet content. He previously said he has no plans to ban social networks such as Twitter and Facebook.
Initial research indicates that Russia may also be trying to combat piracy and to assure national security. Edward Snowden, an NSA whistleblower, now resides in Russia, and this may have also intensified the awareness of Kremlin on how government agencies try to collect user data.
Earlier reports say the Russian government approved a law that gives authorities the power to block any website it deemed extremist or threat to public order without the need for court ruling. Such law gave way for the blocking of websites of critics Garry Kasparov and Alexei Navalny for the reason that their websites "contained calls for illegal activity."
The bill yet awaits decision from the upper house and the President. If it passes through, all Internet-based products and services—social networks, email and cloud services, shopping websites—will have no choice but to establish data centers in Russia starting September 2016.
Will they carve out an exception for Kremlin bots posting on American sites?
I'm sure this is not politically motivated, like, at all:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28480496
QuoteMcDonald's in Russian court case over standards
Russia's main consumer watchdog has filed a lawsuit in Moscow against McDonald's, urging the restaurant chain to withdraw certain products.
Rospotrebnadzor said its inspectors in the city of Novgorod, western Russia, had found violations of food standards by McDonald's.
The US fast-food chain could not immediately be reached for comment.
Cheeseburgers and Filet-o-Fish are among the foods named in the complaint. Russia is a major market for the firm.
In early April McDonald's suspended work at its three Crimean restaurants, following Russia's annexation of the Ukrainian Black Sea peninsula.
McDonald's operates about 400 restaurants in Russia. The first one opened in Moscow in 1990, and the burgers quickly became very popular among Russians.
The court case comes at a low point in Russian-US relations, after Washington imposed sanctions on some top Russian officials and firms allegedly linked to the pro-Russian uprising in eastern Ukraine.
Rospotrebnadzor's complaint alleges contamination of a McDonald's product tested in Novgorod and misleading nutritional information, Russian media report.
Ukraine dairy boycott
Separately, Russia's food hygiene authorities have announced a ban on dairy imports from Ukraine.
Russian officials spoke of sub-standard quality controls. Dairy produce accounts for only a small fraction of Ukraine's exports to Russia, Reuters news agency reports.
The ban follows similar moves against Ukrainian food and drink exports in recent months, amid a crisis in relations between Kiev and Moscow. The Ukrainian authorities say Russia is using trade to exert political pressure.
Previously Russia has also imposed such boycotts on Georgia and Moldova - former Soviet republics, like Ukraine, whose pro-Western policies have angered the Kremlin.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 08:26:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2014, 08:05:22 AM
The ironic thing is that Putin is getting all sorts of approval from the extreme right in the West - he's like their wet dream come true, with his anti-gay, anti-Muslim and pro-Church policies, not to mention his "muscular" foreign policy - while at the same time, the extreme left loves him for his anti-American, anti-Western policies. It is bizzare.
It really does kind-of remind me of Russia in the 19th century.
I don't think that's an accident. I think a lot of the smarter Russian Nationalist types look to Pobedonostsev and his ilk.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2014, 09:26:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 09:19:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2014, 08:05:22 AM
The ironic thing is that Putin is getting all sorts of approval from the extreme right in the West - he's like their wet dream come true, with his anti-gay, anti-Muslim and pro-Church policies, not to mention his "muscular" foreign policy - while at the same time, the extreme left loves him for his anti-American, anti-Western policies. It is bizzare.
What is ironic about that? It is boringly typical.
Other contemporary examples of this do not spring to my mind.
Pre-WWII fascist states had some similar appeal.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2014, 12:45:54 PMPre-WWII fascist states had some similar appeal.
general boulanger, too. iirc, he was a precursor to fascism
A Royalist who tried to backdoor the Bourbons back to the throne by pretending to be a radical nationalist leftist? Boulanger strikes me as too bizarre to really be a precursor to anything.
Quote from: Valmy on July 26, 2014, 03:06:55 PM
A Royalist who tried to backdoor the Bourbons back to the throne by pretending to be a radical nationalist leftist? Boulanger strikes me as too bizarre to really be a precursor to anything.
i don't think even boulanger knew what he wanted, but the left and right loved him.
Hey, Paranoia!
http://rt.com/politics/177752-russian-spetsnaz-maidan-council/
QuoteSpetsnaz veterans to launch 'anti-Maidan council' in Russia
Veterans of the Russian military and special forces, together with rights activists and representatives of Orthodox Christian community, are to jointly launch a group to try and thwart any attempts to forcefully change the political system in the country.
Immediately after the founding convention, scheduled for late August, The 'Anti-Fascist Anti-Maidan Council' will concentrate on informing Russian citizens on the methods of Western propaganda that seeks to disrupt the constitutional order in the country and forcefully overthrow the lawfully elected authorities, the activists told the mass circulation daily Izvestia.
The council's founders claim they possess information that after the nearest all-Russian election day on September 14, anti-government activists will launch their own committees and headquarters for organizing street protest and other actions aimed at sowing discord in the Russian community.
Apart from disclosing the objectives and means of the Western propaganda, the council will organize own rallies and events in order to promote the interests of the Russian state and prevent ethnic tensions in Russian regions.
The body will also work help law enforcers who fight against extremism and other anti-constitutional attempts.
Leading members of the group include deputy head of the 'Spetsnaz-Army Spetsnaz' group, uniting the veterans of Russian military intelligence, Yury Kalitov, the head of the 'Russians' foundation, Major General Leonid Shershnev, the chairman of the Union of Russian Orthodox citizens of Russia, Valentin Lebedev, and a representative of the Night Wolves motorcycle club and State Duma MP, Viktor Vodolatsky (United Russia), who also represents the major South Russian Cossack organization, the Don Troop.
Analysts have labeled the initiative correct and timely, noting that the current events in Ukraine are a perfect example of where 'Orange Revolutions' could lead.
"We understand very well that the Ukrainian conflict is not just an internal event, but a point of application for all forces in the world that have declared a secret war against Russia," said the head of the Institute of Eurasian Economic Union, Vladimir Lepekhin, who was also invited to participate in the anti-Maidan council.
He noted that the recent appointment of former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Georgia and Lithuania, John Tefft, as a new ambassador to Russia could be a sign that the information war will move on to Russian territory.
The head of the Institute of Political Research, Sergey Markov, agreed that though there was no immediate threat of revolution in Russia, the future situation was not safe, as the "party of war" in Washington was not hiding its desire to repeat the Kiev scenario in Moscow.
Markov also noted that the new anti-fascist committee should study the statements of leading politicians and activists in order to establish their attitude towards the Ukrainian crisis and duly inform the Russian public about the results of this study. He noted that those who had not resolutely denounced the coup in Ukraine and the current policy of terror towards civilians could be among the first to support the anti-constitutional attempts in Russia.
Quote from: Syt on August 04, 2014, 07:52:18 AM
“We understand very well that the Ukrainian conflict is not just an internal event, but a point of application for all forces in the world that have declared a secret war against Russia,” said the head of the Institute of Eurasian Economic Union, Vladimir Lepekhin,
That is hilarious. Something just so absurd it is hard to even respond.
Especially after the recent breakup of the US it's hard to see America waging a secret war against Russia.
http://rt.com/politics/177248-russia-bloggers-law-restrictions/
QuoteLegislative restrictions on popular bloggers come into force in Russia
As of August 1 all blogs having 3,000 daily readers or more will have to follow many of the rules that exist in conventional mass media, such as tougher control on published information or the ban on use of explicit language.
The set of amendments to the Administrative Code, the Law on Information and the Law on Communications , dubbed by reporters as the 'Bill on Bloggers', was signed into force by President Putin in early May this year.
The draft introduced the definition of a popular blogger as someone whose internet page attracts at least 3,000 readers every day (earlier this week the authorities announced that these should be unique visitors, not just page hits). Such authors will now have to register with the state watchdog Roskomnadzor, disclose their real identity and follow the same rules as journalists working in conventional state-registered mass media.
The restrictions include the demand to verify information before publishing it and abstain from releasing reports containing slander, hate speech, extremist calls or other banned information such as, for example, advice on suicide. Also, the law bans popular bloggers from using obscene language, drawing heavy criticism and mockery from the online crowd.
Roskomnadzor representatives have noted in press comments that the physical location of the web authors makes no difference for them – everyone writing in Russian and targeting Russian audience must comply with the rules or the access to their content would be blocked on the Russian territory.
Individuals who violate the law can be fined between 10,000 and 30,000 rubles (US$285-$855) and in cases when popular blogs are maintained by legal entities fines can reach 500,000 rubles ($14,285).
Russian internet companies have protested against the additional responsibilities and limitations and even have taken some measures to bypass the new law. For example Yandex Corporation stopped publishing the statistics on blogs and the major blogging platform LiveJournal has altered the presentation of readers' statistics making the top figure '2500+'. To this the state officials noted that they had own tools for counting visitors and promised that the law would be enforced properly and in time. In early June, Yandex closed its own blogging service that was not very popular anyway.
On August 1, the Izvestia daily quoted its sources in Roskomnadzor as saying that the agency had already prepared the list of six people who fall under the definition of popular blogger. They are comedian and actor Mikhail Galustyan, photographer Sergey Dolya, journalist Dmitry Chernyshev, writer and leftist politician Eduard Limonov and writer Boris Akunin, who also uses his blog for spreading liberal opposition views.
The pro-Kremlin blogosphere is represented by Ashot Gabrelyanov – the head and owner of the NewsMedia corporation, which is known for pushing the official line despite technically being in private hands.
On August 1 Roskomnadzor was considering 83 more applications from bloggers who wanted to be recognized as popular, the agency's spokesman told the press.
Independent web counter LiveInternet estimates the number of independent Russian bloggers with audience exceeding 3,000 unique daily visitors at about 500. As far as social networks are concerned, LiveInternet owner German Knimenko has told the RBC news agency that he personally thought that about 1,500 Russian-speaking Facebook users had audience of 3,000 readers or more.
Meh, Russians deserve what they get. You can't be a fascist and have your liberty too.
Orban wanted to do that in Hungary around 2011 or so but the EU didn't let him.
Wow, and Russia keeps up the march to solidify it's authoritarian government. Putin probably expects to be leader for life, and he has plans to keep expanding the nation's territory, while preventing the expansion of citizen liberties.
Quote from: Tamas on August 05, 2014, 08:10:54 AM
Orban wanted to do that in Hungary around 2011 or so but the EU didn't let him.
Well maybe when the Minsk Pact forms he can join that.
Quote from: DGuller on August 05, 2014, 07:43:40 AM
Meh, Russians deserve what they get. You can't be a fascist and have your liberty too.
That's not really fair. I've found the inveterately unpopular, ineffectual, and now oppressed liberal intelligentsia to be generally decent people, if a bit haughty. This isn't targeting knuckle-dragging gopniks.
Russia continues to play an important role of informing the West of what can go wrong.
What I find interesting is that if you check the news sites of en.ria.ru and en.itar-tass.com, how many of their news are about the military (modernizing equipment, holding contests and maneuvers etc.). As these are in English language they're obviously meant for foreign consumption.
But you don't see anything like it in Western state media (like BBC, or ARD/ZDF in Germany).
Also, Russian celebrates "We love the king day":
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140805/191747499/Poll-Shows-Happiness-Index-in-Russia-Remains-High.html
QuotePoll Shows Happiness Index in Russia Remains High
MOSCOW, August 5 (RIA Novosti) – Happiness index in Russia has remained at 78 points for the past three months despite the increasing sanctions burden, according to the country's opinion research agency VCIOM.
A public opinion poll conducted by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) showed Tuesday that the "satisfaction with life" index has remained unchanged at 78 points since July.
According to the early August poll, the social optimism index is flat at 77 points, while welfare standards assessments have been on the rise since May, climbing to 76 points.
The survey, which polled 1,600 Russians across 42 regions, shows that the nation's overall assessment of the country's economy rose by six points to 69 points following a slump in June.
The economic sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union over the crisis in Ukraine seem to have little effect on Russians. According to the polls, Russians are now far less concerned about the future of their country than they were last year.
Twenty-three percent of Russians have not ruled out the possibility of a war with neighboring countries, up from just 10 percent last year. However, those concerned about a Western military threat has held steady at 13 percent for the past eight years.
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/743661
QuoteRussia to further examine provocative interview on BBC website
The examination is aimed at confirming an apparent violation of the law, the agency's press service said
MOSCOW, August 05. /ITAR-TASS/. Russian telecommunications regulator Roskomnadzor will examine once more a provocative interview with a Siberian activist who called on people to attend an unsanctioned protest, published by on BBC's local website.
The examination is aimed at confirming an apparent violation of the law, the agency's press service said on Tuesday, adding that it was premature to talk about any possible measures against the BBC Russian Service until the investigation was completed.
In the BBC interview with Artem Loskutov last week the activist urged people to attend a so-called "March for a Federal Siberia" in support of giving the Siberia region more rights within Russia.
Roskomnadzor said in a statement that the general prosecutor's office had earlier asked it to stem the flow of information about the proposed event.
The regulator said it had "repeatedly sent" notices to the BBC Russian Service and accused its website of purposely ignoring state orders. "If the editorial staff of the BBC Russian Service, unlike most other Russian media, continues assuming an unconstructive stance, Roskomnadzor will have no alternative... but to block the BBC Russian Service website," it added.
BBC Russian Service's acting head, Artyom Liss, said in a blog post earlier that in response to a Roskomnadzor request to remove the material considered "extremist" editors had added an introduction to the interview featuring the artist's own description of the event as nothing more than a "parody" that in no way promoted Siberia's independence from Moscow.
Obviously federalization and freedom of assembly/speech is only good if it happens to other people.
Quote from: Syt on August 05, 2014, 01:59:26 PM
What I find interesting is that if you check the news sites of en.ria.ru and en.itar-tass.com, how many of their news are about the military (modernizing equipment, holding contests and maneuvers etc.). As these are in English language they're obviously meant for foreign consumption.
But you don't see anything like it in Western state media (like BBC, or ARD/ZDF in Germany).
Not too long ago they had a show where tank crews from different military districts competed with each other. I think you can Youtube it somewhere. It had a very distinct Soviet feel, with all the Soviet military bigwigs with oversized officer caps watching on.
Well, they're currently proudly hosting an international tank biathlon, and want to found a federation for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
Makes you think how easy it is for powerplays and distrust to get out of hand and destroy us all.
Polish PM says the risk of Russian intervention is rising.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/06/russia-ukraine-military-intervention-risk-rise-donald-tusk-poland
Quote
Risk of Russian military deployment in Ukraine has risen, says Polish PM
Donald Tusk's warning about troop buildup comes as Kiev government forces advance on rebel strongholds in the east
Alec Luhn in Moscow
theguardian.com, Wednesday 6 August 2014 13.15 BST
The Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, has said that the possibility of Russia deploying military forces in Ukraine has risen, as western officials said Moscow has begun a new troop buildup on its border.
"We have reasons to suspect – we have been receiving such information in the last several hours – that the risk of a direct intervention is higher than it was several days ago," Tusk told a press conference on Wednesday.
The deployments came as Ukrainian government forces advanced on rebel strongholds in the east.
Russia's defence ministry has announced large-scale war games near its border with Ukraine that will involve about 100 fighter jets, helicopters and bombers, further heightening tensions in the region.
The Polish foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, said on Tuesday that Russia had concentrated troops and military hardware on Ukraine's border "to exert pressure or to enter", and the Pentagon spokesman, Rear Admiral John Kirby, said the forces were "very capable and very ready" for an invasion.
Nato officials said 20,000 Russian troops were gathered on the border, with 8,000 deployed in the last week. A Ukrainian military spokesman, Andriy Lysenko, put the figure higher, at 45,000 soldiers accompanied by tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery and rocket launchers.
Kiev's "anti-terrorist operation" has been pressing ahead with its offensive against the pro-Russia rebels. Ukraine's president, Petro Poroshenko, said on Tuesday that his forces had retaken three-quarters of previously contested territory over the last two months. At least 1,500 civilians and fighters have been killed.
Ukrainian troops are currently trying to retake the rebel stronghold of Donetsk, and residents reported hearing air strikes overnight.
Fighting has been ongoing elsewhere in eastern Ukraine, and as a result the international team investigating the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was only able to work at the crash site for two hours on Tuesday.
This spring, Russia massed about 40,000 troops on Ukraine's border before Vladimir Putin announced a withdrawal in May. Kiev has claimed its forces have regularly come under fire from Russian territory, although shells have also reportedly landed on the Russian side.
The independent defence analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said Russia had supplied more serious weapons to the rebels and trained its own special forces near the border in response to the Ukrainian advance. Russian media reports have suggested the rebels now have TOS-1 tank-mounted rocket launchers, which can shoot two dozen fuel bombs in quick succession.
"Right now Russia's introducing powerful weapons that can cause mass casualties and destruction of Ukrainian troops, hoping that will stop the Ukrainian offensive," Felgenhauer said. "If the fall of Donetsk and Lugansk and Novorossiya seems imminent, then Russia could intervene covertly, with special forces and air support and more powerful weapons. I would believe that's right now in the cards." Novorossiya or "New Russia" is a term used by supporters of Moscow for the regions in southern and eastern Ukraine.
A large-scale troop intervention would be a last resort, Felgenhauer said.
On Monday, 438 Ukrainian troops entered Russian territory, where some have been put up in a tent camp. Moscow said the troops had sought asylum, while Kiev said they were forced to flee into Russian territory after running out of ammunition.
Quote from: Tamas on August 06, 2014, 07:14:05 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
Makes you think how easy it is for powerplays and distrust to get out of hand and destroy us all.
Actually, it shows the opposite; if the closest that the USSR got to war with the West was Able Archer, it never got close at all.
The lessons to be learned from the AA story is that people will hype things to sell books, and that Timmay types write for Wikipedia.
Has anyone else wondered about those crazy Polish conspiracy theories about the Smolensk flight since all this happened?
Quote from: DGuller on August 05, 2014, 02:24:10 PM
It had a very distinct Soviet feel, with all the Soviet military bigwigs with oversized officer caps watching on.
I love those caps. Seems like they've grown each year since the end of WWII.
http://rt.com/politics/179116-russia-fsb-social-media/
QuoteIt's official: Russia's FSB will keep an eye on social media
Many Russian social media users are less than pleased about a new law enabling the Federal Security Service (FSB) to keep tabs on them online. Others say they're not surprised, pointing to Washington's practice of eavesdropping on its own population.
The new law, which came into effect August 1, requires social network platforms in Russia to install hardware and software which will allow Russia's secret service to access users' personal information.
Social media users equated the law to the dystopian novel '1984' and posted caricatures of the state spying on their internet activities. "They are not ashamed. They forgot the word conscience," LiveJournal user sarvasvladimir wrote. Another user, Ruslan Kozhaev, suggested that "soon they will start wiretapping houses."
Others said they were not surprised by the news, stating that they expected it to happen, considering recent revelations that the US National Security Agency has been spying on its own citizens.
Facebook user Eden Ostrovsky said the law was likely introduced because some social networks refused to share information, and now they will be forced to do so.
Caricatures of the secret service gathering user data have been posted online. This one says: "Motherland hears [you]."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BugnCpYIYAAtOO3.jpg:large)
One user posted a picture of Dmitry Medvedev with his Mac, saying the Russian prime minister has been captured "entering his passport information while registering with VKontakte social network, so the FSB could lawfully read his communications."
The law is understood to be a clarification of the 'Bill on Bloggers,' which consists of amendments to the Administrative Code, the Law on Information, and the Law on Communications. It was signed into law by Medvedev in July 31 and implements certain restrictions on popular bloggers.
Restrictions include a requirement to verify information before publishing it and abstaining from releasing reports containing slander, hate speech, extremist calls, or other banned information such as, for example, advice on suicide.
READ MORE: Legislative restrictions on popular bloggers come into force in Russia
The new clarifications force bloggers to disclose information about who visited their website and save users' personal information and online activity on servers in Russia for six months. If requested, they must share this information with security services.
The news came as a surprise to many internet companies such as Yandex and Mail.ru. It is still unclear how the law will be implemented.
I am glad to see we are finally ahead of the curve in spying on our own citizens.
Also:
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/744055
QuoteMedvedev signs order banning anonymous Wi-Fi
Access to the Internet will be possible upon registration, where a user will have to give the full name confirmed by an ID
MOSCOW, August 08. /ITAR-TASS/. Russia's Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has signed an order banning anonymous access to the Internet in restaurants, metro, parks and other places offering Wi-Fi connections, the government reports on its website.
The document reads communication operators will be responsible for identifying users. Access to the Internet will be possible upon registration, where a user will have to give the full name "confirmed by an ID."
Besides, hardware is to be identified, too.
Putin is scarily good at this. Time after time he uses war to tighten the screws on his own people. And with 80% approval rating, you don't need to be subtle or pick your battles. I hope Eastern Ukraine was worth the last residual freedoms to Russians.
Quote from: DGuller on August 09, 2014, 11:45:59 AM
Putin is scarily good at this. Time after time he uses war to tighten the screws on his own people. And with 80% approval rating, you don't need to be subtle or pick your battles. I hope Eastern Ukraine was worth the last residual freedoms to Russians.
I think he is ultimately going to lose, and probably with the stunts he is pulling now as significant contributing factors.
He won a legitimate victory with the Crimea. Without real violence or consequences he added territory to his country while the rest of the world protested. The rest of this stuff is creating economic isolation and isn't going to help the economy. The educated younger generation wants to be more open to europe.
Confrontation is good for a politician in the short term---see bush post 9/11--but those 80% approval ratings will fall fast when the economy falters and good things aren't being produced by the repression.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2014, 01:09:12 PM
I think he is ultimately going to lose, and probably with the stunts he is pulling now as significant contributing factors.
I'm not so sure. Russia will definitely lose, but I'm not sure Putin will.
QuoteThe educated younger generation wants to be more open to europe.
Not so sure either. Education doesn't innoculate from fascism, often it just makes it more well-spoken. The problem with Russia is that fascism exists at the grassroots level; Putin didn't exactly impose it with his own iron will.
QuoteConfrontation is good for a politician in the short term---see bush post 9/11--but those 80% approval ratings will fall fast when the economy falters and good things aren't being produced by the repression.
The 80% approval ratings won't last, but repressive measures will. Yes, repression is not good for Russia at all, but it's not good for the rest of the world either. It's not always a zero-sum game.
Quote from: DGuller on August 09, 2014, 01:29:12 PMThe 80% approval ratings won't last, but repressive measures will.
for the short term, sure, but i doubt intensely repressive measures will last in the long term. it's difficult for a nation the size of russia to remain stuck in the past. it
seems to work for north korea because it's a small, isolated country.
Quote from: LaCroix on August 09, 2014, 02:42:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 09, 2014, 01:29:12 PMThe 80% approval ratings won't last, but repressive measures will.
for the short term, sure, but i doubt intensely repressive measures will last in the long term. it's difficult for a nation the size of russia to remain stuck in the past. it seems to work for north korea because it's a small, isolated country.
I don't doubt it that much. There is nothing in Russian culture that creates pressures to ease repressions. Like most Muslim societies, they utterly lack a tolerant mindset necessary for liberty to stick. Yes, there are always a few liberal intellectuals here or there, but they're always disdained by the majority, and even those liberal intellectuals are liberal only in comparison to neanderthals around them.
cultures change, though. globalization has changed every nation's culture to some extent. russia's past may allow for more general repression than UK/US, but today's repression is far less than fifty years ago.
Quote from: LaCroix on August 09, 2014, 03:33:30 PM
cultures change, though. globalization has changed every nation's culture to some extent. russia's past may allow for more general repression than UK/US, but today's repression is far less than fifty years ago.
Today's, maybe. But Putin's not done yet.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2014, 01:09:12 PMHe won a legitimate victory with the Crimea. Without real violence or consequences he added territory to his country while the rest of the world protested. The rest of this stuff is creating economic isolation and isn't going to help the economy. The educated younger generation wants to be more open to europe.
There's always an educated younger generation - from young Italy to the Green revolution they're never the problem and they're always there. You need the uneducated young, drafted generation to care more for them than the status quo.
Also who's to say Putin doesn't want to isolate and weaken his oligarchs who, so long as they're rich in the West, can cause problems. If he locks them into the Russian system then they need him far more.
I don't think fascism is a useful comparison. As I've said elsewhere I think Putinism (for want of a better word) is the first exportable ideology since 1990. It's a shadow of the West, a sort of post-modern version of liberal market democracy, with all the forms but none of the content covering up massive, insinuating graft and corruption. I doubt there's a better image than the Russian Metropolitan wearing a Rolex kissing Putin's hand.
And I think it's what we see in Hungary and Turkey and may well see in India.
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2014, 05:18:18 PM
Also, the Brits have produced a most remarkably ugly ship in the form of the Type 45s.
Only thing missing from that atrocious superstructure is
********** LIVE TONIGHT ONLY ***** WAYNE NEWTON ***** W/SPECIAL GUEST LOUIE ANDERSON ********** LIVE TONIGHT ONLY ***** WAYNE NEWTON ***** W/SPECIAL GUEST LOUIE ANDERSON **********
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2014, 01:09:12 PM
He won a legitimate victory with the Crimea. Without real violence or consequences he added territory to his country while the rest of the world protested.
I wouldn't be quick to call that a victory.
Before this mess started, Putin had secured a lease extension on the navy base, which is the only real asset there that mattered. De jure sovereign control over pieces of dirt OTOH isn't all that it is cracked up to be. Crimea is underdeveloped whether viewed in absolute terms and relatively to the rest of Russia, so the upshot of the acquisition is a significant drain to Russian resources for the foreseeable future.
More generally compared to the status quo ante, Russia has exchanged powerful, informal influence over Ukraine generally to de jure or de facto control over small pieces of it + mass alienation of the remaining majority. To the extent Russia's foremost strategic goal was to keep Ukraine out of NATO, it already "won" that battle in Georgia - there was no appetite in NATO to consider such a thing. But now Russia's action has restored relevance to NATO and specifically re-energized it as a anti-Russian coalition. Further enlargement of the alliance east is still unlikely but is a little easier to contemplate than before.
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/748608
QuoteProtest activity lowest in Russia in 14 years
MOSCOW, September 08./ITAR-TASS/. Protest activity in Russia is at the lowest level in 14 years, a public opinion poll shows.
Russia's Levada Centre, an independent analytical orgaization, said, referring to its recent poll, that the number of people who were ready to participate in protests decreased in half to 8%.
In September 2001, 17% of respondents, when asked whether they were ready to participate in social protests, answered "sooner yes than no". In August this year, eight percent answered "yes", almost twice as low as in June (15%).
When asked whether mass protests were possible in your city or a rural area, 17% answered "possible" and 78% said "unlikely". In September 1999, 28% said "quite possible" and 55% said protests were unlikely.
The number of those who are ready to come out with political demands decreased in the past five years from 13% in August 2009 to seven percent in August this year. The number of people who oppose such protests remain high - 83% at present (75% in August 2009).
The Levada Centre conducted the poll from August 22 to 25, 2014 among 1,600 people in 134 cities and towns in 46 regions of the country. A statistical margin of error of such surveys does not exceed 3.4% The poll results were published on the Levada Centre website.
Meanwhile, opposition activists plan "marches of peace" in Moscow and other Russian cities for September 21.
Opposition activists applied to Moscow authorities on Monday to organize a march of up to 50,000 people on September 21, Sunday, one of the organizers told ITAR-TASS. A Moscow security department official said the proposed route would cross the route of a traditional Moscow marathon that was also planned for September 21. No decision was taken yet, he said, adding "By the way, no 'march of peace' or 'peace' were mentioned in the application. The announced aim was to 'express a view on violation of human rights and international law norms'." Earlier, RPR-Parnas party co-chairman Boris Nemtsov said that opposition activists planned marches of peace in Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk and other cities for September 21.
Interesting, how the state news agency chose to illustrate the article. Because all protests are violent.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvideocdn.itar-tass.com%2Fwidth%2F744_b12f2926%2Ftass%2Fm2%2Fen%2Fuploads%2Fi%2F20140908%2F1060532.jpg&hash=25d5a44febf3ba50d368369a8e5437a1e01f427f)
Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2014, 08:57:32 AM
Interesting, how the state news agency chose to illustrate the article. Because all protests are violent.
They are just illustrating why protests have reached an all-time low. It's good journalism.
Quote from: celedhring on September 08, 2014, 09:00:46 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2014, 08:57:32 AM
Interesting, how the state news agency chose to illustrate the article. Because all protests are violent.
They are just illustrating why protests have reached an all-time low. It's good journalism.
:XD:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2014, 03:37:30 PM
Has anyone else wondered about those crazy Polish conspiracy theories about the Smolensk flight since all this happened?
I have, actually. Although I consider the Potato Twin to be perfectly capable of tantruming his own plane into tragedy, as well.
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=11502
QuoteAustrian MP condemns USA in attempts to blow up traditional European values
[Note: he's leader of the FPÖ faction in the Vienna city parliament, not Austrian parliament as the article claims.]
Moscow, September 11, Interfax - Member of the Austrian Parliament Johann Gudenus believes the United States stand behind the attempts to destroy traditional values in Europe.
"Europe is more than the European Union. Europe is a big Christian family. But there is someone who wants to break up our values, our family. And we know that the USA continues war till the last European soldier," he said Thursday at the international forum Large Family and Future of Humanity.
He said that policy of the European Union "is the NATO policy, American policy."
"I'm ashamed of it. People of Austria, people of the European Union don't share it. We are Russia's friends and it is important for me to say that," Gudenus said.
He also said that "homosexual lobby is very strong in Europe: they master mass-media, papers, TV channels."
"Today they seek absolute equality in rights, they want to adopt children and where it can lead it is difficult to imagine," he said.
Needless to say, all other Austrian parties are jumping down his throat. FPÖ party leader Strache hasn't reacted yet. According to latest polls, FPÖ would score ca. 1/4 of votes in federal elections at the moment.
The event where Gudenus spoke (in Russian) also welcomed members of FIDESZ and Front National.
Actually, it's a continuation of tradition.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.zeit.de%2Fpolitik%2Fausland%2F2010-08%2Fhaider-hussein%2Fhaider-hussein-540x304.jpg&hash=e5bf8bb9442f740c8b84d9006488499f7d65e945)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbluthilde.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F08%2Fgaddafi_haider.jpg&hash=3975511d36c7cac609af02e61dcdf44a8f9fbe90)
QuoteHe also said that "homosexual lobby is very strong in Europe: they master mass-media, papers, TV channels."
"Today they seek absolute equality in rights, they want to adopt children and where it can lead it is difficult to imagine," he said.
:lol:
Yes, just thing about what would happen if gays raised children! :D
I, for one, welcome our homosexual overlords. :P
Lulz, what "traditional European values" are we attempting to blow up again? Jew baking?
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/election-day-illustrates-firmer-kremlin-grip/507028.html
QuoteRussian Regional Election Day Showcases Kremlin Grip
Mass apathy and a scarcity of serious challengers to state-preferred candidates were the recurrent themes of Russia's nationwide voting day on Sunday, which pundits said attested to the Kremlin's tightening grip on all levels of the Russian electoral system.
Voters in 84 of the country's 85 federal subjects were summoned to some 64,000 polling stations to elect 30 regional governors, 14 regional and 21 municipal legislatures, as well as other forms of regional authority. But the scale of the exercise did not match the population's lackluster enthusiasm for Sunday's events, which has been molded by two decades of electoral rigging and the stifling of political alternatives, according to independent observers.
Low Turnouts
Members of the opposition have accused President Vladimir Putin of constricting the country's electoral system by creating a facade of openness, which they say has contributed to a consolidation of the Kremlin's control over regional and local politics.
In 2012, Putin reinstated direct gubernatorial elections, after having initially banned them in 2004.
Last year, Putin signed legislation vesting regions with the right to choose whether to elect their governors directly, or to let regional legislatures pick from a list of Kremlin-approved candidates.
The vast majority of those registered to vote in Moscow's City Duma elections, in fact, snubbed Sunday's poll. As of 3 p.m., the turnout was nearly 13 percent. Dmitry Oreshkin, the head of the Merkator research group, which monitors regional Russian politics, told The Moscow Times on Sunday that the turnout would be unlikely to exceed 15 to 20 percent by close of polling stations at 8 p.m.
"The fewer people that come out and vote, the better it is for authorities," Oreshkin said, adding: "People don't trust the system and feel the regional and local levels in government don't really have a say in anything."
Interest in the gubernatorial and regional legislative votes were only slightly higher outside Moscow. By 3 p.m the turnout for St. Petersburg's gubernatorial elections was nearly 20 percent, while 19 percent of voters of the Rostov region had cast their ballots in municipal elections. Enthusiasm for the polls was only marginally higher in Crimea and Sevastopol, Russia's latest additions into its federal fold, where turnouts had risen respectively to 22 and 19 percent by midday.
Sunday's political exercise in Moscow had been rehearsed last June through the city's first non-binding primaries. But while supporters of this rehearsal insisted it would help voters get acquainted with candidates' platforms without affecting the results on election day, its detractors warned that doubling the exercise could blur Muscovites' electoral judgement and increase voter fatigue.
The apathy infused into the bloodstream of the Russian population feeds into the general sentiment that decisions are made at the highest echelons of power, and that the elected regional and municipal leaders answer to decision-makers at the federal level. This sentiment translates into far greater popular interest in federal politics, where the turnout of the latest parliamentary and presidential elections in 2011 and 2012 exceeded 60 percent.
Weeding Out the Opposition
The self-confessed weakness and lack of consolidation within Russia's nonsystemic opposition have created significant problems for candidates that fall outside of the political mainstream, but these factors alone may not account for the lack of true opposition candidates on the ballots, analysts said.
"Even if the nonsystemic opposition members were more active, the situation would be the same," said Andrei Buzin, election-monitoring director at Golos, an independent election monitoring organization. "The level of competition is very low. All the serious challengers were filtered out before they could even run."
The only potential challenger to the long-standing governor of St. Petersburg, Georgy Poltavchenko, was State Duma deputy Oksana Dmitriyeva, of opposition party A Just Russia. Dmitriyeva, a liberal economist who has been eyed by her party as a potential presidential candidate, was unable to gather enough signatures on the municipal level to register to run in her region's gubernatorial elections.
"My party will likely not recognize the results of the St. Petersburg gubernatorial elections and other polls," Dmitriyeva told The Moscow Times in a telephone interview Sunday, after having spoiled her ballot by entering check marks in every single box. "There have been criminal violations during these electoral procedures."
Political activists Olga Romanova and Maria Gaidar were faced with similar registration barriers when they attempted to register as candidates for the Moscow legislature. In August, a Moscow court rejected Gaidar's appeal of the decision that prevented her from running in Sunday's election.
Violations
Election monitor Golos had received 656 complaints of electoral violations from voters by 8 p.m. Sunday, including 115 from Moscow. Authorities meanwhile maintained that electoral procedures and regulations were generally closely observed across the country.
The Public Committee for Election Observation in Moscow monitoring group said that its observers had not recorded recorded any electoral violations as of 1 p.m., and that the dozen or so suspected violations witnessed via video surveillance of the polls had not, in fact, constituted violations.
The committee conceded that 46 polling stations had encountered technical difficulties with at least one of their two cameras. The secretary of the public committee, Oleg Bocharov, said that both cameras in three polling stations had failed at the same time, preventing video monitoring of the political exercise for a maximum of 20 minutes, but that no violations had taken place during that time, Interfax reported.
The stated absence of blatant electoral fraud in the polls came as no surprise to leaders of the nonsystemic opposition. Firebrand opposition blogger Alexei Navalny, a leader of the anti-government street protests of 2011 and 2012 who is currently under house arrest, wrote in a blog post that the constriction of the electoral system had naturally led to the state-approved candidate's "ability to achieve victory without significant fraud."
A number of colorful incidents also reportedly hampered voting at certain polling stations.
Three Femen activists, including citizens of Ukraine, were detained after removing their clothing at a polling station in downtown Moscow, TASS reported. Other incidents included an inebriated individual who allegedly obstructed Dmitriyeva's access to the ballot box in St. Petersburg.
Quote from: Syt on September 13, 2014, 12:10:30 PM
QuoteAustrian MP condemns USA in attempts to blow up traditional European values
Wait the evil atheistic Americans destroying Christian Europe? Us expecting Europeans to do our fighting for us? Woah.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2014, 11:43:13 PM
Wait the evil atheistic Americans destroying Christian Europe? Us expecting Europeans to do our fighting for us? Woah.
Yeah, that's pretty trippy.
Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2014, 08:57:32 AMInteresting, how the state news agency chose to illustrate the article. Because all protests are violent.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvideocdn.itar-tass.com%2Fwidth%2F744_b12f2926%2Ftass%2Fm2%2Fen%2Fuploads%2Fi%2F20140908%2F1060532.jpg&hash=25d5a44febf3ba50d368369a8e5437a1e01f427f)
I think you didn't get the point. This is how non-violent protests are dealt with in Russia. For example, gay rights sit-ins.
P.S. I am not joking.
In other news:
QuoteQueer Tango Instructor Murdered in St. Petersburg, Throat Slashed
Posted 12 September 2014 20:13 GMT
Ekaterina Khomenko, a 29-year-old queer tango teacher, was found in her car early on September 7 with a four-inch gash across her throat. The engine was still running when a street cleaner chanced on her vehicle. Police, who initially entertained the theory that Khomenko may have killed herself, are now treating her death as a murder. Early reports in local newspapers made no mention of Khomenko's ties to the LGBT community.
Khomenko's father, Valery, was one of the first to publicize the killing. Commenting on the last photograph Ekaterina posted to her Vkontakte account (see above), he announced that detectives phoned him at 9am on September 7 to inform him that his daughter's body had been discovered. According to his comment online, police were most interested to learn if Katya had any history with drugs, money problems, or suicidal tendencies.
Two days later, a Vkontakte user named Timur Isaev launched a flame war in the comments below this photograph, saying that gay people "always die earlier than healthy people [sic]." Isaev would leave 48 more comments in the next 48 hours, repeating his homophobic message for Khomenko's mourning friends.
Lesbiru.com, an online portal for Russian-speaking lesbians, points out that Isaev is a member of the anti-gay Vkontakte community "Gay Hunters," where he shares homophobic materials with the group's 122 other subscribers. Isaev is also active on Twitter, where he posts more anti-gay content and praises Russia's recent annexation of Crimea.
According to the guerilla news website Contraband, St. Petersburg's LGBT community is certain Khomenko's career as a gay tango instructor played a role in her murder. Khomenko's friend and colleague, Angelina Tishina, has launched a closed group on Vkontakte to collect money for Valery Khomenko, presumably to help pay the costs of Katya's funeral, which took place yesterday outside Moscow.
Russia's LGBT community faces many legal and social challenges. Though homosexuality was officially removed from the Russian list of mental illnesses in 1999, human rights activists have watched in dismay as local, regional, and federal lawmakers have passed several bans on so-called "gay propaganda" in recent years. Before Moscow's military intervention in Eastern Ukraine, the crackdown on gay rights in Russia was perhaps the Kremlin's biggest publicity problem internationally.
Update: The news portal Spbdnevnik.ru reports that Ekaterina Khomenko was once a driver for a St. Petersburg ride-sharing service called "Rainbow Taxi," an Uber-like service that caters to the local LGBT community, offering safe rides to the city's gay-friendly clubs and bars. The taxi service says Khomenko hasn't worked as a driver in over two years, but her friends suspect that she may have responded to a "Rainbow" call on the night she was murdered.
Russia is like nazi Germany, only gays are like Jews. Film at 11. <_<
FPÖ head H.C. Strache has defended Gudenus' quotes in Russia re: homolobby.
He stressed that the FPÖ is against adoptions by homosexual couples and against a complete emancipation of "registered partnerships" with marriages. Says he, "We are the lobby of families!"
Patriarch Kirill will soon be able to rain fire upon non-believers:
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2014/09/17/factory-gives-su-35-fighter-jet-to-russian-orthodox-patriarch-kirill/
QuoteFactory gives SU-35 fighter jet to Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill
Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, was presented with an unlikely gift for a religious leader this week as he toured a factory in Russia's far-east – a single-seater fighter jet SU-35.
Kirill was presented with the jet after giving workers at the civilian and military aircraft plant icons blessed by himself, the church said in a statement on its official website on Tuesday.
The patriarch, with whom President Vladimir Putin has fostered increasingly close ties in recent years, addressed the workers on the importance of protecting Russia.
"Russia cannot be a vassal. Because Russia is not only a country, it is a whole civilization, it is a thousand-year story, a cultural melting-pot, of enormous power," RIA news agency quoted him as saying.
"In order for us to be able to live a sovereign life, we must, if necessary, be able to defend our homeland."
Kirill's church is aligned with Putin's drive to reunite the former Soviet sphere of countries, with the Russian Orthodox Church exerting considerable influence through its 165 million members in Russia and other former USSR republics.
Critics of the Russian Orthodox Church have said it is acting as a de-facto government ministry for Putin, including in foreign affairs, and have warned that such political engagements could backfire.
That also goes for Ukraine, where Kirill's Moscow Patriarchate is at odds with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kiev Patriarchate that seceded from Moscow after Ukraine gained independence in 1991.
The Moscow Patriarchate dominates in the Russian-speaking East, where Ukrainian forces have been battling a pro-Russian separatist insurgency since April.
The US should give an F-35 to Pat Robertson.
Quote from: Syt on September 18, 2014, 03:16:00 AM
QuoteFactory gives SU-35 fighter jet to Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill
Is it gold-plated? It needs to be gold-plated.
Quote from: celedhring on September 18, 2014, 07:13:52 AM
The US should give an F-35 to Pat Robertson.
You just know somewhere there is a Japanese anime show in the works, with world religious figures as schoolgirls armed with jet fighters in dogfight school.
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2014, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: celedhring on September 18, 2014, 07:13:52 AM
The US should give an F-35 to Pat Robertson.
You just know somewhere there is a Japanese anime show in the works, with world religious figures as schoolgirls being jet fighters in dogfight school.
FYPFY
A few of them could be wearing a skirt or slacks or something.
Oops, didn't notice that. Image redacted.
I didn't believe they could outdo the battleship schoolgirls, but they managed it with what looks like prepubescent girls in underwear, dressed up as planes.
Are you sure we should stay allied with that lot?
:hmm:
Were the prepubescent girls in underwear dressed up as planes wearing religious gear, too? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2014, 12:53:07 PM
:hmm:
Were the prepubescent girls in underwear dressed up as planes wearing religious gear, too? :hmm:
Not unless you're the kind to worship white panties.
Quote from: celedhring on September 18, 2014, 01:09:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2014, 12:53:07 PM
:hmm:
Were the prepubescent girls in underwear dressed up as planes wearing religious gear, too? :hmm:
Not unless you're the kind to worship white panties.
So there is still room for the animetards to put together a series featuring a Papal popsy firing a cross-headed missile at some MIG-flying jezebel in a kippah?
Quote from: celedhring on September 18, 2014, 12:35:59 PM
I didn't believe they could outdo the battleship schoolgirls, but they managed it with what looks like prepubescent girls in underwear, dressed up as planes.
There was a show about girls as fighter planes, but I couldn't find the name or images from it.
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2014, 09:22:37 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 18, 2014, 03:16:00 AM
QuoteFactory gives SU-35 fighter jet to Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill
Is it gold-plated? It needs to be gold-plated.
If it's not already, it will be in a month. :lol:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 18, 2014, 01:22:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2014, 09:22:37 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 18, 2014, 03:16:00 AM
QuoteFactory gives SU-35 fighter jet to Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill
Is it gold-plated? It needs to be gold-plated.
If it's not already, it will be in a month. :lol:
If they do that and add some Orthodox iconography and imagery, Putin's Russia will be one step closer to being the Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40K.
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2014, 01:24:02 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 18, 2014, 01:22:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2014, 09:22:37 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 18, 2014, 03:16:00 AM
QuoteFactory gives SU-35 fighter jet to Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill
Is it gold-plated? It needs to be gold-plated.
If it's not already, it will be in a month. :lol:
If they do that and add some Orthodox iconography and imagery, Putin's Russia will be one step closer to being the Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40K.
You ever read the Mote in God's Eye? There is a planet colonized by Russians in the book and they often use soviet and Orthodox iconography. The juxtaposition is meant to be strange (it was written when there was still a Soviet Union), and I often think of that when I see modern expression of the Russian nationalism.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2014, 01:43:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2014, 01:24:02 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 18, 2014, 01:22:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2014, 09:22:37 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 18, 2014, 03:16:00 AM
QuoteFactory gives SU-35 fighter jet to Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill
Is it gold-plated? It needs to be gold-plated.
If it's not already, it will be in a month. :lol:
If they do that and add some Orthodox iconography and imagery, Putin's Russia will be one step closer to being the Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40K.
You ever read the Mote in God's Eye? There is a planet colonized by Russians in the book and they often use soviet and Orthodox iconography. The juxtaposition is meant to be strange (it was written when there was still a Soviet Union), and I often think of that when I see modern expression of the Russian nationalism.
My fave sci fi book. :wub:
:o
QuotePass the Brewski? Pabst Sold to Russian Company
Attention, hipsters. Pabst Brewing Company — and its signature Pabst Blue Ribbon, the ironic, iconic favorite of the young and the cool — has sold to a Russian beverage firm after a century and a half of American ownership, an investing firm announced Thursday. Oasis Beverages, the largest independent brewer in Russia, bought Pabst, which also produces Colt .45, Old Milwaukee and Lone Star beers, according to a statement by the American investment firm TSG Consumer Partners, which will hold a minority stake.
Oasis Board Chairman Eugene Kashper said, "Pabst Blue Ribbon is the quintessential American brand — it represents individualism, egalitarianism and freedom of expression — all the things that make this country great." PBC's headquarters will remain in Los Angeles, according to the statement, but the terms of the sale were not disclosed. Pabst was established in 1844 in Milwaukee, according to the brewer's website. PBC was bought by investor Dean Metropoulos in 2010, and since then, he has managed the company with his two sons, Evan and Darren. "We are very supportive of the new ownership group and their exciting plans for the future," Metropoulos said.
:ccr = Blue Ribbon Comrade? :unsure:
:o
Time to boycott! :angry:
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2014, 03:58:47 PM
Time to boycott! :angry:
I was doing it already & didn't know it. Or something.
Are the gays still boycotting Stoli & whatnot?
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2014, 04:10:51 PM
I was doing it already & didn't know it. Or something.
Yeah I can never participate in these boycotts as they are all things that I don't actually consume. :(
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2014, 04:10:51 PM
Are the gays still boycotting Stoli & whatnot?
No idea. It was back in July when I saw SKYY advertising that it wasn't connected to Russia.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/19/vladimir-putin-plan-unplug-russia-internet-emergency-kremlin-moscow
QuotePutin considers plan to unplug Russia from the internet 'in an emergency'
Kremlin to discuss taking control of the .ru domain and measures to disconnect Russians from the web in the event of unrest
The Kremlin is considering radical plans to unplug Russia from the global internet in the event of a serious military confrontation or big anti-government protests at home, Russian officials hinted on Friday.
President Vladimir Putin will convene a meeting of his security council on Monday. It will discuss what steps Moscow might take to disconnect Russian citizens from the web "in an emergency", the Vedomosti newspaper reported. The goal would be to strengthen Russia's sovereignty in cyberspace. The proposals could also bring the domain .ru under state control, it suggested.
Russian TV and most of the country's newspapers are under the Kremlin's thumb. But unlike in China, the Russian internet has so far remained a comparatively open place for discussion, albeit one contested by state-sponsored bloggers and Putin fans.
The move comes at a time when Russia has been bitterly critical of the western media, which Moscow says has adopted a biased attitude towards events in Ukraine. Russian channels have portrayed the conflict in Ukraine as a heroic fight against "fascists" in Kiev. They have disputed western reports that Russian soldiers and heavy weapons are involved. A BBC team that went to investigate reports of Russian servicemen killed in Ukraine was beaten up this week.
According to Vedomosti, Russia plans to introduce the new measures early next year. The Kremlin has been wrestling for some time with how to reduce Russia's dependency on American technology and digital infrastructure, amid fears that its communications are vulnerable to US spying. It has mooted building a "national internet", which would in effect be a domestic intranet. These proposals go further, expanding the government's control over ordinary Russian internet users and their digital habits.
Andrei Soldatov, an expert on Russia's spy agencies, described the plans as big news. In an email from Moscow he said he "didn't actually believe" Russian officials would disconnect the internet. But he said the moves were a "real step forward in the development of a besieged fortress mentality".
He wrote: "Before, such ideas were mostly to do with so-called government communications (how to make them independent from western technologies). Now they want to expand this crazy idea to the entire internet of the country."
Soldatov said it would be technically possible for Moscow to shut off the internet because Russia has "surprisingly few" international exchange points. All of them are under the control of national long-distance operations, like Rostelecom, which are close to the authorities, he said.
The most ominous element, he added, was the security council's apparent proposal to take control over .ru, as well as the domains .su (for Soviet Union) and .рф (Russian Federation in Cyrillic). These domains currently belong to a non-government organisation, the coordination centre of the national domain, rather than to government. Many are currently hosted abroad.
"The thing might be approved very quickly, and this means it shows a way to the next step – to force all domains in the .ru zone to be hosted in Russia," Soldatov said. Kazakhstan, an authoritarian state intolerant of online criticism, did something similar two years ago, he said, adding that such a move would affect his own website Agentura.ru, which is hosted in Germany.
Putin's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, confirmed the meeting would take place on Monday, adding that much of it was likely to be in closed session. The communications ministry declined to comment on Friday.
While Putin enjoys popular support, with his approval ratings boosted by Russia's takeover of Crimea from Ukraine in March, the danger of mass unrest is not lost on the Kremlin. In 2011-2012 tens of thousands of Russians protested in Moscow after Putin announced he was returning as president and shoving aside his temporary successor Dmitry Medvedev. The protests fizzled out following a series of arrests, harassment of opposition figures, and high-profile trials.
The Russian economy, which is already teetering on the verge of recession, is reeling from ever more stringent Western sanctions over Moscow's alleged support for separatists in eastern-Ukraine. Washington and Brussels have introduced several rounds of sanctions that are the toughest punitive measures since the cold war.
An employee of a large communications provider told Vedomosti Moscow did not want to unplug the world wide web but to protect Russian cyberspace in case of further western sanctions that may affect the internet.
no one would miss them
If that happens, how would "Nick", "Ben", and "Larry" post coincidentally similar critiques of American foreign policy in various comments sections?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 20, 2014, 01:17:55 PM
no one would miss them
Well that's the truth.
"Viruses and Identity theft are down 60% since the Russians left the internet".
Internet without Russotards to stink it up? :cheers:
No offense DG.
Quote from: The Brain on September 20, 2014, 01:53:18 PM
Internet without Russotards to stink it up? :cheers:
No offense DG.
:mad:
Quote from: The Brain on September 20, 2014, 01:53:18 PM
Internet without Russotards to stink it up? :cheers:
No shitski. just imagine the cascade effect in EVE.
Actually, I have a feeling we have been working on the capability of unplugging Russia from the Internet in the event of an emergency for them. :bullwinklevirus: :ph34r:
Much less rape porn I imagine.
Actually, the more I think of it, the more I like the idea of Russia pulling the plug on the net. We should really try to get Putin do that.
The porn must flow. :mad:
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2014, 01:30:29 PM
If that happens, how would "Nick", "Ben", and "Larry" post coincidentally similar critiques of American foreign policy in various comments sections?
I'm sure the FSB will retain some Compuserve or AOL accounts just in case. :P
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/750657
QuoteRussia's ruling party backs cutting foreign media ownership
MOSCOW, September 22. /ITAR-TASS/. Russia's ruling United Russia party will support a bill to restrict foreign ownership in the country's media, Sergei Zheleznyak, deputy speaker of Russia's lower house of parliament told journalists on Monday.
Proposed legislation, introduced by deputies from Russia's Communist Party, Just Russia and the Liberal Democratic Party, would debar overseas individuals or companies from setting up their own media outlets in Russia and from owning more than 20% of any business in broadcasting or print media. Restrictions would apply equally to Russians who have dual citizenship and non-citizen residents.
If passed, the bill will go into force on January 1, 2016 but stakeholders will have until February 1, 2017 to bring ownership into line with regulations.
To become law, the bill must be passed in three readings in the lower house of parliament before being approved by parliament's upper house and signed into law by President Vladimir Putin. The bill goes before Duma deputies on September 23.
Can Russians cut the bullshit already and go straight to the self-extermination stage? You know the sheep aren't going to mind going to the slaughterhouse for the glory of Russia, so what are they waiting for?
So someone with dual-citizenship counts as a foreigner?
Quote from: Jacob on September 22, 2014, 09:41:38 AM
So someone with dual-citizenship counts as a foreigner?
Well, consider the source of the typical second citizenship. :Joos
More generally, my guess is that this is Putin tightening the screws on the oligarchs while the approval rating remains strong, like I predicted earlier. They're the last source of potential trouble for him, as minimal as it is. I guess is that there will be more such measures coming.
Yeah I figured. It's a "don't try to have an escape route out of Russia and own media stuff at the same time" kind of thing.
Makes sense from Putin's POV.
Quote from: Jacob on September 22, 2014, 09:41:38 AM
So someone with dual-citizenship counts as a foreigner?
Wouldn't be surprised. From what I've read, Russians living abroad would be counted as foreigners under the law.
I feel like pointing out that Canada does have laws restricting foreign ownership of media companies... :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2014, 09:52:52 AM
I feel like pointing out that Canada does have laws restricting foreign ownership of media companies... :unsure:
Including for people with dual citizenship?
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2014, 09:52:52 AM
I feel like pointing out that Canada does have laws restricting foreign ownership of media companies... :unsure:
Francophone isn't foreign.
Spain used too, and they haven't been completely repealed by EU free market stipulations. (they are easily circumvented though).
Quote from: Jacob on September 22, 2014, 10:06:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2014, 09:52:52 AM
I feel like pointing out that Canada does have laws restricting foreign ownership of media companies... :unsure:
Including for people with dual citizenship?
No, that would be silly, of course.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2014, 09:52:52 AM
I feel like pointing out that Canada does have laws restricting foreign ownership of media companies... :unsure:
OK I have to ask, what is the purpose of those laws?
Quote from: The Brain on September 22, 2014, 04:00:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2014, 09:52:52 AM
I feel like pointing out that Canada does have laws restricting foreign ownership of media companies... :unsure:
OK I have to ask, what is the purpose of those laws?
Stated purpose is to ensure that Canadian content is available to Canadians.
The unintended purpose (or is it... :shifty:) is to protect a small handful of Canadian media conglomerates from foreign competition.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2014, 04:10:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 22, 2014, 04:00:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2014, 09:52:52 AM
I feel like pointing out that Canada does have laws restricting foreign ownership of media companies... :unsure:
OK I have to ask, what is the purpose of those laws?
Stated purpose is to ensure that Canadian content is available to Canadians.
The unintended purpose (or is it... :shifty:) is to protect a small handful of Canadian media conglomerates from foreign competition.
First one: insert an "only" and I'm fully behind it.
Second one: Oh Canada, fuck yeah!
Quote from: The Brain on September 22, 2014, 04:14:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2014, 04:10:52 PM
Stated purpose is to ensure that Canadian content is available to Canadians.
The unintended purpose (or is it... :shifty:) is to protect a small handful of Canadian media conglomerates from foreign competition.
First one: insert an "only" and I'm fully behind it.
But then the world would be denied cultural treasures like this:
(https://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/30/MPW-15360)
Has Ide reviewed it? :w00t:
I didn't know Nielsen was a Canucklehead. :homestar:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 22, 2014, 04:23:31 PM
I didn't know Nielsen was a Canucklehead. :homestar:
:o
How could you not? His brother was the Deputy Prime Minister back in the 80s (and is the namesake for Whitehorse's Eric Neilsen International Airport).
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2014, 04:27:14 PM
How could you not?
No shit.
QuoteHis brother was the Deputy Prime Minister back in the 80s (and is the namesake for Whitehorse's Eric Neilsen International Airport).
:lol: Dude, we don't even know the names of your Prime Ministers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2014, 04:28:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2014, 04:27:14 PM
How could you not?
No shit.
QuoteHis brother was the Deputy Prime Minister back in the 80s (and is the namesake for Whitehorse's Eric Neilsen International Airport).
:lol: Dude, we don't even know the names of your Prime Ministers.
:o
For shame, America. For shame.
How many Mexican presidents can you name? :ph34r:
No comment.
Vicente Fox. Uhh, Pancho Villa? :blush:
Canadians, I can name 3. Harper, Mulroney, and Trudeau.
I don't think Americans get to name the PM of Canada. Hubris much?
You are so naive, Brain. :console:
Quote from: The Brain on September 22, 2014, 04:36:56 PM
I don't think Americans get to name the PM of Canada. Hubris much?
Only 3. That still leaves a bunch Canuckistan can choose for itself. :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on September 22, 2014, 10:06:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2014, 09:52:52 AM
I feel like pointing out that Canada does have laws restricting foreign ownership of media companies... :unsure:
Including for people with dual citizenship?
I wouldn't mind restricting foreign ownership of media companies. In my view it should be based on residency. So Murdoch and the Barclay brothers can come here and pay taxes :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2014, 05:05:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 22, 2014, 04:36:56 PM
I don't think Americans get to name the PM of Canada. Hubris much?
Only 3. That still leaves a bunch Canuckistan can choose for itself. :mad:
They still get Kim Campbell.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 22, 2014, 05:13:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2014, 05:05:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 22, 2014, 04:36:56 PM
I don't think Americans get to name the PM of Canada. Hubris much?
Only 3. That still leaves a bunch Canuckistan can choose for itself. :mad:
They still get Kim Campbell.
I believe she lives in the US these days. :contract:
I liked how Robert Borden was fighting to get Britain to turn over its Caribbean possessions to Canada. Not only did Britain not do so it made Canada take Newfoundland. Talk about adding insult to injury.
http://rt.com/politics/190620-court-gay-propaganda-ban/
QuoteRussia's Constitutional Court backs ban on 'gay propaganda to minors'
The Constitutional Court of Russia has acknowledged the ban of homosexual propaganda among the under age as lawful and dismissed a complaint by well-known LGBT activists.
The ruling was made in response to a complaint lodged by activists Nikolay Alekseev, Yaroslav Evtushenko and Dmitry Isakov. They tried to dispute the law section of Russia's administrative code that describes how the law defines "propaganda of non-conventional sexual relationships to minors."
The activists claimed this law section undermines their constitutional right of freedom of speech and discriminates against them. The law prohibits the dissemination of information about non-traditional sexual relationships that could spark interest from young people under the age of 18.
The Constitutional Court said that the law was aimed at "saving a child from the information impact, which could push him to nonconventional sexual relationships, which in their turn prevent from building a family, as it is traditionally understood in Russia."
The court also ruled that the ban on propagandizing non-conventional sexual relationships is not a ban or censure of homosexuality itself. "They don't require an automatic ban of promotion of any information concerning unconventional sexual relations," the court's statement said.
Previously the complainants had been found guilty of disseminating propaganda of unconventional sexual relations to minors. Each was fined 4,000 rubles ($100).
Alekseev and Evtushenko were held to account in December 2013 for taking part in a picket in front of a children's library in a northern Russian city of Arkhangelsk. The poster read "There is no gay propaganda." In Kazan in January, Isakov held a similar poster in a one-person protest.
The court said it has dismissed Alekseev's arguments that "his actions were not propaganda, but were aimed at spreading objective information, which cannot inflict harm to health, moral or spiritual development of minors." Alekseev's claim was "contradicted by the materials in the case," the court said. Similar statements were made regarding Evtushenko's and Isakov's cases.
Constitutional Court judge Nikolay Bondar told Rossiyskaya Gazeta: "Minors must not be involved in corresponding events, such as rallies or discussions, and the information promoted must not be aimed at them." He added: "The practices of some European countries, which are connected with the deformation of traditional values of family and marriage, can't be an example for us."
The law on "gay propaganda to minors" came into force on June 30, 2013. Fines for breaking the law are 4-5,000 rubles ($100-130) for private citizens and 40-50,000 rubles ($1,000-1,300) for civil servants. Propaganda via the media or the Internet by legal entities raises the fine to 1 million rubles ($26,000).
What a surprising turn of events.
I was actually a bit surprised by the open criticism of Western countries' more tolerant policies.
Quote from: Syt on September 25, 2014, 03:01:18 PM
I was actually a bit surprised by the open criticism of Western countries' more tolerant policies.
Seems to me that Russia is very deliberately drifting in that direction. I expect it'll keep drifting.
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2014, 05:27:33 PM
I liked how Robert Borden was fighting to get Britain to turn over its Caribbean possessions to Canada. Not only did Britain not do so it made Canada take Newfoundland. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Someone has been telling you stories. Borden was PM during the 1920s, and while there was interest in adding some Caribbean islands to Confederation, nothing ever came of it (much as nothing has some of the idea every time it comes up, even today).
But Borden was long gone from the scene when Newfounland enterested confederation. This was in the late 40s, more than 20 years after Borden's era. And nobody was forced to take anyone - Newfoundland voted (reluctantly) to enter Confederation, and Canada gladly accepted them, even offering some inducements.
This is why I don't feel sorry for Russians themselves as their country becomes a fascist state. If you want to have a free society, you kinda have to grit your teeth and tolerate some things you don't approve of.
Quote from: Syt on September 25, 2014, 03:01:18 PM
I was actually a bit surprised by the open criticism of Western countries' more tolerant policies.
"Tolerantnost'" has been used as a term of disparagement for a while now in Russia. Russians see tolerance as akin to not disciplining your children for acting out.
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2014, 03:12:09 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 25, 2014, 03:01:18 PM
I was actually a bit surprised by the open criticism of Western countries' more tolerant policies.
"Tolerantnost'" has been used as a term of disparagement for a while now in Russia. Russians see tolerance as akin to not disciplining your children for acting out.
Thanks. Always nice to have an insider to explain the nuances. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 22, 2014, 04:35:22 PM
Canadians, I can name 3. Harper, Mulroney, and Trudeau.
Gary Trudeau was an awesome PM. Is he able to run again?
I find it quite apt that Russia's currency sounds a lot like "rubble". What a shithole.
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2014, 03:08:43 PM
But Borden was long gone from the scene when Newfounland enterested confederation. This was in the late 40s, more than 20 years after Borden's era. And nobody was forced to take anyone - Newfoundland voted (reluctantly) to enter Confederation, and Canada gladly accepted them, even offering some inducements.
Wasn't there a movement within Newfoundland to get in the US after WWII, too? Which was quickly shut down by all involved powers.
The timeline for companies to store personal data of Russians exclusively on servers located within Russia has been moved up by 20 months to 2015:
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/751082
QuoteForeign companies should keep Russians' personal data on servers in Russia from 2015
MOSCOW, September 24. /ITAR-TASS/. Russia's State Duma lower house of parliament has approved the second reading of a bill obliging foreign companies to keep Russians' personal data only on servers in Russia starting from January 1, 2015.
This was planned earlier that this rule would take effect starting from September 2016. But, in the view of authors of the initiative, the deadline for the regulation entering into force delayed until January 2015 will promote "more urgent and effective exercising of rights of Russian citizens for preserving personal data and observing the secrecy of correspondence in information and telecommunications networks."
In July, the lower house has endorsed a law compelling foreign companies which particularly run mail exchange services, social networks and search engines, post personal data of Russian users only on servers in Russia. Companies will have to lease or build their own data centers in Russia that, in the view of specialists, may complicate their operation.
Experts are concerned that companies will not manage to build their data storages before 2015 and those operating in Russia will not be enough. Meanwhile, the State Duma pledged that there would be enough possibilities for all. "We realize that from the start of the next year someone will hardly be able to build its data center, but if companies want to work in Russia, possibilities are quite large here, including in terms of leasing," one of authors of amendments from the Communist Party Alexander Yushchenko said.
Under the bill adopted on Wednesday, when collecting personal data, including through the Internet starting from 2015 "an operator should provide for registration, systemizing, accumulation, storage, specifying [update, changes], extraction of personal data of Russian citizens with the use of databases located in Russia."
The specific State Duma committee for information policy noted that new rules would not embrace popular foreign services related with foreign hotel, taxi, ticket booking and etc. "If someone wants to book a hotel room, rent a car, travel abroad, he or she can use transfer of trans-border data as before, but should give a personal permission for this transaction," first deputy chairman of the committee Leonid Levin pledged.
The bill also envisaged some concrete sanctions. For instance, domain names and Internet addresses which will violate regulations of this law are offered to put on a special register of rights breakers of personal data holders. Russian telecommunications supervising agency should keep this register and a valid legal act will give a reason for putting on the list. Meanwhile, violation of the law will entail a restricted access to this resource, but after violations are eliminated the access will be restored.
Today, a Duma member from Zhirinovsky's party asked to review the legality of the sale of Fort Ross and wants to check the Alaska sale too. So watch out America, Putin might be coming for Alaska eventually. :P
He nukes the Palins, I'm happy.
Quote from: celedhring on September 26, 2014, 03:23:13 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2014, 03:08:43 PM
But Borden was long gone from the scene when Newfounland enterested confederation. This was in the late 40s, more than 20 years after Borden's era. And nobody was forced to take anyone - Newfoundland voted (reluctantly) to enter Confederation, and Canada gladly accepted them, even offering some inducements.
Wasn't there a movement within Newfoundland to get in the US after WWII, too? Which was quickly shut down by all involved powers.
I don't know about a "movement", but with all the dollars the US was spending in Newfoundland during WWII there was some sense among Newfoundlanders that joining the US would be the way to go. No idea how realistic that would be at the time though. Remember this was the late 40s - the UK was dead broke (which was why Newfoundland had to find a new path in the first place - the UK couldn't subsidize the island any more) and the US had a whole hell of a lot of other commitments around the world.
Newfoundland was pretty pro-British and loyal too - hell they used the Union Jack as the Newfoundland flag up till the 80s.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 26, 2014, 01:26:27 PM
He nukes the Palins, I'm happy.
Whoa...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F01465%2Fpalindone_1465395c.jpg&hash=5d4208a28870e6b703bd524f4ab470182b98ea03)
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-rights-group-calls-state-legal-attack-insult-004339866.html
QuoteRussia rights group calls state legal attack an 'insult'
Moscow (AFP) - Russia's most prominent rights group Memorial on Saturday called a legal assault on their organization an "insult", warning it could seriously disrupt their work.
Senior members of Memorial, which investigates everything from the Stalin-era Gulag to government death squads in Chechnya, said a justice ministry case against the organization's coordinating body was groundless.
The Supreme Court is set on November 13 to hear the case in which the government seeks to liquidate Memorial's umbrella organisation, overseeing dozens of human rights groups nationwide.
"The very existence of the case is an insult against people who have for the past 20 years been doing the work that the state should have done," Yan Rachinsky, a senior Memorial member, told AFP.
If prosecutors succeed, many individual groups working under the Memorial name would "have to re-register," Rachinksy said.
That would throw many separate branches into legal limbo, even if the most famous offshoot -- the Moscow-based Memorial human rights centre -- would not be affected for now.
Rachinsky's colleague Oleg Orlov called the case "a shot across the bow."
"Further pressure can be expected," Orlov told AFP, adding that authorities could move against the Moscow rights centre, seen as the group's most prized asset.
- 'Severe blow to Russia's image' -
President Vladimir Putin's rights adviser Mikhail Fedotov said that if the court indeed ordered the shutdown of the group it would be a "severe blow to Russia's image."
"I hope it will not happen," Fedotov, head of the Kremlin's rights council, told AFP, expressing hope that the court would postpone the hearing.
Memorial said it would file a complaint to the Constitutional Court.
Memorial executive director Elena Zhemkova said separately that the group would ask the Supreme Court to postpone the hearing so that they could change its charter.
In the worst case scenario, "we will come up with a new form and structure," she said on Echo of Moscow radio.
Registered in 1992, Memorial is one of Russia's most respected human rights organisations.
It gained prominence for chronicling the victims of Communist repression, a painful subject that modern Russia has been reluctant to address.
The group became an even bigger presence through its investigations of executions and kidnappings committed against civilians during Moscow's wars, starting in the 1990s, to subdue Chechen separatists.
The authorities have steadily clamped down on rights organizations since the outbreak of street protests against Putin's return for a third term in the Kremlin in 2012.
Memorial, along with other rights groups, has been ordered to register itself as a "foreign agent" under a controversial 2012 law.
The legislation forced NGOs which carry out political activities and receive international funding to register and name themselves as "foreign agents" in all their documents -- a term laden with connotations of treachery and espionage.
-'This is Russia, baby'-
On Friday, another prominent rights group, the Mosow-based Sakharov Centre, became the target of religious activists when it hosted a meeting of gays and transgender people.
Around 30 activists, some clutching icons, tried to break into the centre and pelted its employees and guests with eggs, said gay rights activist Dmitry Svetly, who helped organise the meeting.
Svetly complained that police on the scene were more interested in ensuring that no minors had participated in the meeting than in maintaining public order.
Meanwhile, top opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta said it had received a reprimand from the state media watchdog on Friday.
The watchdog claimed one of the newspaper's articles, headlined "If we are not the West, then who are we?" and penned by outspoken commentator Yulia Latynina, violated a law against extremism, Novaya Gazeta said.
Two reprimands within the space of a year give authorities legal grounds to shut down a media outlet.
The paper, which had been seen as a contender for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize, quipped that instead of the prestigious award it got a state warning.
"This is Russia, baby," it said on Facebook.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fen.ria.ru%2Fimages%2F19394%2F70%2F193947066.jpg&hash=14ae968fc07bbdd802d3f2aa48e143ca17072768)
The blue on white says "International Agent."
Quote from: Syt on October 11, 2014, 11:33:33 AM
The blue on white says "International Agent."
Real estate?
http://rt.com/politics/199739-russian-prostitutes-marriage-bill/
QuoteClients must marry prostitutes or face jail – St Pete deputy
A municipal lawmaker in Russia's second-largest city has drafted a bill introducing heavy fines for the clients of prostitutes, but they'll be forgotten if client agrees to marry the sex worker.
The initiative is from Olga Galkina who represents the pro-business Civil Platform party in the St Petersburg city legislature. She stressed that her bill was in response to the recent suggestion to make prostitution a criminal offence drafted by Vitaly Milonov, known for his anti-gay drive, and other campaigns bordering Christian fundamentalism.
In an interview with business daily Kommersant-St Petersburg Galkina said she wants to change the Russian Administrative Code and introduce fines of between 4000 and 10000 rubles ($95- $240)or up to 5 days of arrest for buying sex services. If clients know that prostitutes had been forced into this business the fines increase to 50-100 thousand rubles ($1200 - $2380) and the terms of administrative arrest to 10 or 15 days. The bill would also see convicted foreign nationals deported immediately after they pay the fines or their time of arrest ends.
The most interesting part of the bill is the possibility for clients to evade punishment altogether if they "marry the person that provided the sex services."
In the explanatory note attached to the bill Galkina quotes international experience, saying that introducing responsibility for clients had helped to decrease the prostitution rate in Finland, Norway, Sweden and Iceland.
If the St. Petersburg city legislature approves the bill in two readings it would be sent to the Federal parliament with the possibility to become a national Russian law.
Law experts say that while the purpose of the bill is good it might face difficulties in real life as it would be very difficult to collect proof of the crime.
In further comments with Kommersant-St Petersburg Galkina said that in reality she advocated legalization of prostitution and drafted the controversial bill in order to start a public discussion on the issue.
:lol:
The thread title was never more appropriate.
Needs dashcams.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russian-advertising-ban-on-paid-cable-and-satellite-channels-threatens-independents/2014/11/05/ebbf933e-6370-11e4-ab86-46000e1d0035_story.html
QuoteMOSCOW — An advertising ban on Russian cable and satellite TV stations could decimate regional television broadcasting from the suburbs of the capital to the far reaches of Siberia, leaving the country almost entirely dependent on state media for news and information.
The law, which will prohibit commercial advertisements on paid cable and satellite channels starting next year, is one of many measures Russian authorities have adopted in recent months to tighten control over the flow of information, reduce foreign money in Russian media and force journalists to hew closer to a pro-Kremlin line.
And...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/new-putin-art-exhibit-shows-him-spanking-obama.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpixel.nymag.com%2Fimgs%2Fdaily%2Fintelligencer%2F2014%2F11%2F03%2Fputin-art%2F03-putin-art3.w529.h352.2x.jpg&hash=77d3fe6abb99d682b4e423404b45483cc20b464f)
QuoteNot even a month has passed since Vladimir Putin's devotees organized a Hercules-themed art show for the Russian president's birthday, but that doesn't mean it's too soon for another round of Vlad in Celebratory Caricature. An exhibit called "No Filters" opened Friday in Moscow, and despite the Halloween-y date, it was no trick.
Organized by the youth arm of Putin's party, United Russia, the exhibit shows the Russian leader facing off with adversaries in the European Union and the U.S. In the image above, for instance, the artist is trying to convey a more accurate illustration of anti-Russian sanctions. Check out some of the latest Putin masterpieces below.
Well he got the GOP vote.
That "art exhibit" looks like a collection of Russian shopped internet memes. If so, I'm eagerly waiting for MOMA's upcoming lolcat exhibit.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/27/news/companies/jack-daniels-russia/
MAH EXPORTS :(
QuoteJack Daniel's getting smacked in Russia
By Alanna Petroff @AlannaPetroff August 27, 2014: 12:00 PM ET
LONDON (CNNMoney)
The company behind Jack Daniel's whiskey is under pressure in Russia as Cold War-style tensions make it increasingly difficult for Western brands to operate.
Brown-Forman (BFB), also known for its Southern Comfort drinks line, warned Wednesday about its Russian business.
"The geopolitical environment remains fragile, particularly in Russia, where iconic American brands are experiencing increased scrutiny," the company said.
This comes just days after Russian state media reported that the country's consumer watchdog found insect poison inside samples of Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey whiskey. Batches of the whiskey were reportedly withdrawn from stores.
Brown-Forman said it "vehemently" denied that there was anything harmful in its products and said it had not been contacted by Russian officials about any issues.
It's Russia- somebody at the store probably took a swig and just filled the bottle back up with whatever they thought smelled closest to the real deal.
Russian mint jubilee: Prestone antifreeze
http://en.ria.ru/politics/20141109/195371776/Putin-Says-Cooperation-Between-Russia-China-Important-for.html
QuotePutin Says Cooperation Between Russia, China Important for International Law, Stability
BEIJING, November 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and China should stick to the existing line of cooperation, despite current geopolitical changes as it is important for the international law and stability, Russia's President Vladimir Putin said Sunday.
"Cooperation between Russia and China is extremely important for keeping the world in line with the international law, making it [the world] more stable," Putin stated during the talks with the Chinese President Xi Jinping held on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Beijing.
The Chinese leader accentuated the importance for both countries to adhere to the chosen line of cooperation, to expand and deepen it, despite the current geopolitical situation.
On Thursday Russian President Vladimir Putin said that increasing cooperation with China, including in the energy sector, is one of Russia's top foreign policy priorities.
The APEC summit is taking place this weekend in Beijing, China and will be followed by the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting (AELM) on Monday and Tuesday next week. The two meetings will bring together 21 nations to discuss economic issues as well as joining forces to respond to the Ebola virus epidemic, the situation in Ukraine and other ongoing issues.
I wonder at what point Putin will realize that in this partnership Russia is Mussolini's Italy to China's Nazi Germany.
QuoteMOSCOW — An advertising ban on Russian cable and satellite TV stations could decimate regional television broadcasting from the suburbs of the capital to the far reaches of Siberia, leaving the country almost entirely dependent on state media for news and information.
The law, which will prohibit commercial advertisements on paid cable and satellite channels starting next year, is one of many measures Russian authorities have adopted in recent months to tighten control over the flow of information, reduce foreign money in Russian media and force journalists to hew closer to a pro-Kremlin line.
Sweet. That'll work well for the Russians given that they support this tyrant so strongly, and fall too heavily already for the propaganda and BS put out by the government. They'll eventually figure it out, as they get closer and closer to Soviet era rule. Younger folks are going to have to relearn what the previous generations already know, and I'm sure this all looks so familiar to those earlier generations who lived under the Soviets.
CNN has just announced it is pulling out of Russia because of this new law.
It appears that en.ria.ru now reroutes to http://www.sputniknews.com/
http://www.sputniknews.com/russia/20141110/1014584450.html
QuoteNew media brand Sputnik, designed by International Information Agency Rossiya Segodnya for a global audience, will give an alternative viewpoint on the world events, Rossiya Segodnya Director General Dmitry Kiselev said at the presentation of the Sputnik group Monday.
MOSCOW, November 10 (Sputnik) – New media brand Sputnik, designed by International Information Agency Rossiya Segodnya for a global audience, will give an alternative viewpoint on the world events, Rossiya Segodnya Director General Dmitry Kiselev said at the presentation of the Sputnik group Monday.
"We will verify information, our information will be reliable. We will provide alternative interpretations that are, undoubtedly, in demand around the world. We think that the world is tired of the unipolar point of view... We believe that the basis of such a multicolored and multipolar world is international law, a world by rule," Kiselev said.
New media brand Sputnik, with modern multimedia centers in dozens of countries, went live on November 10. Sputnik's multimedia centers, located in major world capitals, will maintain their own websites and broadcast from local radio stations.
In 2015, Sputnik is expected to broadcast in 30 languages, with over 800 hours of radio programming daily, covering over 130 cities in 34 countries. Sputnik's exclusive content is designed for a global audience of billions of people who are tired of aggressive propaganda promoting a unipolar world and want a different perspective.
They do report that CNN is pulling out of Russia and that CNN want to assess the new media laws (though not explaining what those are), while also saying that CNN didn't say why they pulled out. RT, ITAR-TASS and RIA/Sputnik have no articles about the change in cable TV laws which is strange, because they're normally up front about it and put some nationalist spin of defending against bad influences on it.
What are they talking about? Every single news organization in the entire world agrees on everything? What the Russians say is just so wacky I have a hard time understanding it.
Quote from: Syt on November 10, 2014, 02:20:45 AM
http://en.ria.ru/politics/20141109/195371776/Putin-Says-Cooperation-Between-Russia-China-Important-for.html
QuotePutin Says Cooperation Between Russia, China Important for International Law, Stability
BEIJING, November 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and China should stick to the existing line of cooperation, despite current geopolitical changes as it is important for the international law and stability, Russia's President Vladimir Putin said Sunday.
"Cooperation between Russia and China is extremely important for keeping the world in line with the international law, making it [the world] more stable," Putin stated during the talks with the Chinese President Xi Jinping held on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Beijing.
The Chinese leader accentuated the importance for both countries to adhere to the chosen line of cooperation, to expand and deepen it, despite the current geopolitical situation.
On Thursday Russian President Vladimir Putin said that increasing cooperation with China, including in the energy sector, is one of Russia's top foreign policy priorities.
The APEC summit is taking place this weekend in Beijing, China and will be followed by the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting (AELM) on Monday and Tuesday next week. The two meetings will bring together 21 nations to discuss economic issues as well as joining forces to respond to the Ebola virus epidemic, the situation in Ukraine and other ongoing issues.
I wonder at what point Putin will realize that in this partnership Russia is Mussolini's Italy to China's Nazi Germany.
If the USSR had survived, maybe he could pull off Fascist Italy. Putin's Russia is more like Horthy's Hungary in comparison to China.
Russia still has nukes and lots and lots of natural resources.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2014, 12:51:31 AM
What are they talking about? Every single news organization in the entire world agrees on everything?
Western media = controlled by CIA/NSA (they had a few articles on that with some ex-journo nutjobs to corroborate their stories) and making one sided propaganda against Russia.
Quote from: Syt on November 11, 2014, 01:26:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2014, 12:51:31 AM
What are they talking about? Every single news organization in the entire world agrees on everything?
Western media = controlled by CIA/NSA (they had a few articles on that with some ex-journo nutjobs to corroborate their stories) and making one sided propaganda against Russia.
How do they know Russian media is not also controlled by the CIA/NSA? Maybe Putin is a CIA/NSA puppet.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 11, 2014, 01:16:09 AM
Russia still has nukes and lots and lots of natural resources.
Having lots of natural resources does not help you when they are very cheap. And having nukes does not help you if you do not have money to keep them operational.
Quote from: Syt on November 11, 2014, 12:42:02 AM
It appears that en.ria.ru now reroutes to http://www.sputniknews.com/
http://www.sputniknews.com/russia/20141110/1014584450.html
QuoteNew media brand Sputnik, designed by International Information Agency Rossiya Segodnya for a global audience, will give an alternative viewpoint on the world events, Rossiya Segodnya Director General Dmitry Kiselev said at the presentation of the Sputnik group Monday.
MOSCOW, November 10 (Sputnik) – New media brand Sputnik, designed by International Information Agency Rossiya Segodnya for a global audience, will give an alternative viewpoint on the world events, Rossiya Segodnya Director General Dmitry Kiselev said at the presentation of the Sputnik group Monday.
"We will verify information, our information will be reliable. We will provide alternative interpretations that are, undoubtedly, in demand around the world. We think that the world is tired of the unipolar point of view... We believe that the basis of such a multicolored and multipolar world is international law, a world by rule," Kiselev said.
New media brand Sputnik, with modern multimedia centers in dozens of countries, went live on November 10. Sputnik's multimedia centers, located in major world capitals, will maintain their own websites and broadcast from local radio stations.
In 2015, Sputnik is expected to broadcast in 30 languages, with over 800 hours of radio programming daily, covering over 130 cities in 34 countries. Sputnik's exclusive content is designed for a global audience of billions of people who are tired of aggressive propaganda promoting a unipolar world and want a different perspective.
They do report that CNN is pulling out of Russia and that CNN want to assess the new media laws (though not explaining what those are), while also saying that CNN didn't say why they pulled out. RT, ITAR-TASS and RIA/Sputnik have no articles about the change in cable TV laws which is strange, because they're normally up front about it and put some nationalist spin of defending against bad influences on it.
Their slogan should be "Alternative news for alternative reality"
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2014, 12:51:31 AM
What are they talking about? Every single news organization in the entire world agrees on everything? What the Russians say is just so wacky I have a hard time understanding it.
:huh:
Russia feigns ignorance over CNN pulling the plug in Russia.
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/759077
QuoteRussian laws not hamper CNN broadcasting — telecom ministry
The Telecommunications Ministry has set up a working group which "provides comfortable conditions for work and development of business of such enterprises within actual reforms of Russian legislation"
MOSCOW, November 11. /TASS/. Effective Russian legislation does not hamper US TV news channel CNN broadcasting in Russian cable TV and satellite networks, the press service of Russian Ministry of Telecommunications and Mass Media said on Tuesday.
"The legislation permits foreign TV news channels to broadcast in Russia, legal forms and ways are provided for this. Representatives of the TV news broadcaster can apply in the Ministry of Telecommunications and Mass Media for consultations to receive required licences. The ministry calls for an opportunity of access to Russian citizens to different sources of information, including foreign ones," the ministry said.
The Telecommunications Ministry has set up a working group which "provides comfortable conditions for work and development of business of such enterprises within actual reforms of Russian legislation."
Spokesperson of Turner International, which owns CNN, in London Claudia Coles told TASS on November 10 that US TV news channel CNN stopped its broadcasting in Russian cable TV networks starting from December 31, 2014 over recent amendments in Russian media legislation. The company will keep only a CNN office in Moscow.
In other news, Russian parties are not allowed to accept money from foreigners, or NGOs registered as foreign agents.
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/759080
QuoteRussia introduces ban on financial support to political parties
MOSCOW, November 11. /TASS/. Russia's State Duma (lower house) on Tuesday approved an amendment to the president's draft law on responsibility for illegal financial support to political parties.
The amendment bans accepting contributions for political parties from NGOs registered as foreign agents.
The parties are banned from concluding deals with foreign citizens, international organizations and public movements, and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) registered as foreign agents. Penalties of up to $22,000 will be set up for violations in financial support to parties during elections.
Though to be fair, Germany also doesn't allow donations to German parties by foreigners.
Quote from: Syt on November 11, 2014, 05:18:40 AM
Though to be fair, Germany also doesn't allow donations to German parties by foreigners.
Yes, but probably has parties financed from the budget - which I assume Russia does not have. The thing with authoritarian, pseudo-democratic regimes like Russia and, now, Hungary is that when taken in isolation, their policies do not seem that problematic - it's just after you consider the full picture you see how they distort the socio-political landscape.
Say, France bans driving on the left side of the road, and the UK bans driving on the right side of the road - in Russia, if people were banned from driving on both right and left side of the road, you wouldn't necessarily say "oh everything is fine, they just adopted French and British policy at the same time". ;)
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2014, 05:45:07 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 11, 2014, 05:18:40 AM
Though to be fair, Germany also doesn't allow donations to German parties by foreigners.
Yes, but probably has parties financed from the budget - which I assume Russia does not have. The thing with authoritarian, pseudo-democratic regimes like Russia and, now, Hungary is that when taken in isolation, their policies do not seem that problematic - it's just after you consider the full picture you see how they distort the socio-political landscape.
Say, France bans driving on the left side of the road, and the UK bans driving on the right side of the road - in Russia, if people were banned from driving on both right and left side of the road, you wouldn't necessarily say "oh everything is fine, they just adopted French and British policy at the same time". ;)
Yes, one of the biggest "advances" Putin and Orban provided to politics is the discovery that the era where you had to actually physically oppress people to have an autocratic grip on society is long gone. You just need a solid mass of supporters held together via a constant state of war (against an internal or outside enemy), and then you can make laws that do not ban your opponents, "just" makes it impossible for them to maintain their operation/themselves.
Ouch. :pinch:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/11/10/putin_hits_on_china__first_lady_apec_censors_go_wild
QuotePutin Hits on China's First Lady, Censors Go Wild
Russia's Don Juan-in-chief just got a little too friendly with Xi Jinping's wife.
BY BETHANY ALLEN-EBRAHIMIAN NOVEMBER 10, 2014
The first unspoken rule of diplomacy might be "Don't hit on the president's wife," but Russia's newly single president Vladimir Putin seems to have missed the memo.
Leaders of 21 Asia-Pacific nations including Russia have converged upon Beijing for the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, slated to run through Nov. 11. At an APEC event held on the evening of Nov. 10 at the Water Cube, the resplendent aquatic stadium constructed for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Putin was seated next to Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan, who in turn sat next to her husband, Chinese President Xi Jinping.
That's a seating arrangement Xi may now regret.
While Xi was distracted talking to U.S. President Barack Obama, who was sitting on his right, Russia's tiger-shooting, horseback-riding president made his move. After a brief exchange -- you can almost imagine Peng making appropriately cliché small talk like "my, isn't it chilly in here" -- Putin abruptly stood up, grasped a tan coat in both hands, and wrapped it chivalrously around the first lady's shoulders. She smiled gracefully, thanked him, and sat down -- only to surreptitiously slip the coat from her shoulders moments later into the waiting arms of an attendant.
State broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) caught the whole encounter on video. Peng and Putin cut small figures from the camera's distant perch across the vast Water Cube, but the CCTV commentator had no trouble making out their identities. She remarked upon Putin's chivalrous gesture just moments later, saying, "Putin has just placed his coat around Peng Liyuan's body." Major Chinese news outlets including web giant Sina and Phoenix Media quickly posted the video, which also began circulating on Chinese social media. The encounter even spawned a short-lived hashtag, "Putin Gives Peng Liyuan His Coat," on Weibo, China's Twitter-like microblogging site.
But that was when the censors kicked in. Within hours of posting the video, Chinese news sites had already pulled it off their sites, and censors scrubbed it from social media sites.
China hopes to project a squeaky-clean image while international attention centers on APEC's host. But that's not the only reason why the Putin-Peng Coatgate has China's censors on high alert. China's tightly controlled state media carefully protects the reputation of its top government leaders, and the names of China's top leaders are frequently some of the most heavily censored terms on Chinese social media. In addition, the sweeping anti-corruption campaign Xi himself directs specifically targets infidelity as both a sign and a symptom of graft. And given China's growing economic and military ties with Russia, even the hint of less than squeaky-clean behavior involving Russia's president and China's First Lady is certainly strictly verboten.
Quote from: Syt on November 11, 2014, 05:16:26 AM
In other news, Russian parties are not allowed to accept money from foreigners, or NGOs registered as foreign agents.
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/759080
QuoteRussia introduces ban on financial support to political parties
MOSCOW, November 11. /TASS/. Russia's State Duma (lower house) on Tuesday approved an amendment to the president's draft law on responsibility for illegal financial support to political parties.
The amendment bans accepting contributions for political parties from NGOs registered as foreign agents.
The parties are banned from concluding deals with foreign citizens, international organizations and public movements, and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) registered as foreign agents. Penalties of up to $22,000 will be set up for violations in financial support to parties during elections.
Expect any NGO funding Putin's enemies to be registered as as a foreign agent.
While the principle of limiting the political process those eligible to vote is fine, but we know the Russian government has behaved towards civic society NGOs; going as far as to label anybody they don't like foreign agents.
Quote from: Syt on November 11, 2014, 05:18:40 AM
Though to be fair, Germany also doesn't allow donations to German parties by foreigners.
What an incredibly novel concept.
Water Cube? Is that like the Time Cube?
They're giving Western media too much credit in terms of coordination. :P
http://rt.com/politics/204827-ukraine-west-information-warfare/
Quote'Ukraine, West wage information war against us' – Russians
The overwhelming majority of Russians think that Ukraine and Western nations are conducting a coordinated and hostile propaganda campaign against their country, a recent poll shows.
In the research conducted by pollsters the Levada Center in late October, 83 percent of respondents agreed that Ukraine was conducting an information war against Russia. Fifty-five percent said they were absolutely sure that this was true, and 29 percent said that this was the most likely explanation for the current situation. Only 8 percent of Russians disagreed with another 9 percent not offering an opinion.
A question concerning an anti-Russian information campaign by Western nations yielded approximately the same results – 54 percent of those interviewed were absolutely sure that it is taking place, and 29 percent said they were somewhat sure. Four percent answered that they could not see any anti-Russian campaign on the part of the West and 9 percent remained undecided.
At the same time, about a quarter of respondents think that Russia is also waging an information war against Ukraine and the West :lol: . Thirteen percent thought that this was the right thing to do, given the current situation, meanwhile 11 percent disapproved.
Fifty-nine percent of those polled think that the coverage of the conflict by Russian media was fully balanced and objective. :lol:
In a different poll conducted by the VTSIOM agency in early October 32 percent of respondents said they considered Ukraine to be Russia's "enemy number one." The United States topped this anti-rating with 73 percent of Russians seeing it as the primary foe.
Silly Russkies. The ones doing the propaganda and deception campaigns reside in their own government and it's controlled newspaper. How easily they've forgotten what it was like about twenty-five years ago. So I guess they can enjoy their new Overlords, and become assimilated into the hive... :ph34r:
Quote from: KRonn on November 12, 2014, 11:37:37 AM
Silly Russkies. The ones doing the propaganda and deception campaigns reside in their own government and it's controlled newspaper. How easily they've forgotten what it was like about twenty-five years ago. So I guess they can enjoy their new Overlords, and become assimilated into the hive... :ph34r:
That's once again something I have been able to observe closely thanks to Orban's party: if they are accused of something nasty, or just doing something nasty, they go full throttle in attacking their enemy with the accusation of the enemy doing what they in fact are doing. Seems to be working great if you have a thick enough skin.
http://rt.com/news/204991-russia-aviation-gulf-mexico/
QuoteRussia to expand aviation patrol mission to Gulf of Mexico – defense minister
Russia plans to expand its air patrol missions of long-range aircrafts to cover the Gulf of Mexico, the country's defense minister, Sergey Shoigu, says. He added that military training will include flights along the Russian border and the Arctic Ocean.
READ MORE: Russian army beefs up Artic presence over Western threat
"In the current situation we have to maintain military presence in the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific, as well as the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico," Shoigu said on Wednesday.
As part of the military training, long-range aircrafts will also fly along the Russian border and over the Arctic Ocean, the defense minister said.
This kind of expansion relies on the serviceability of aircrafts, Shoigu noted. "I approved a plan to improve the state of long-range aircrafts, including repair and serviceability."
The news follows an announcement at the end of October that Russia will be completing a network of radar stations in the Arctic by next year.
"The plan involves the building of 13 airfields, one land test range for the Air Forces, 10 radar sites and direction centers," said Lt. Gen. Mikhail Mizintsev, head of the National Defense Control Center.
Shoigu added during the announcement that Russia will continue upgrading its foreign military bases as well.
Russia's plans come as NATO has stepped up its activities near the Russian border, including in the Black Sea and Baltic waters.
NATO has conducted five military exercises near the Russian border over the past six months, according to the head of the ministry's Department of International Cooperation, Sergey Koshelev.
READ MORE: NATO's Estonia drills are anti-Russian, don't make Europe more secure – Moscow
The latest example is NATO's so-called Trident Juncture exercise in Estonia, which started on November 9 and will run until November 17.
On top of the increased military activity, NATO asked the Pentagon a week ago to send more troops to Eastern Europe to counter the perceived Russian threat.
There are currently 750 US soldiers in Poland and the Baltic states, which the organization believes is not enough.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 11, 2014, 11:48:16 PM
Water Cube? Is that like the Time Cube?
Isn't Water Cube some sort of rapper?
Used to be Ice Cube, but he's gone soft. :(
He was left out in the sun too long.
(That's also the reason he's black.)
Did he come straight outta some dark place into the sun?
Jehova's Witnesses in Samara branded "extremist organization":
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/759625
QuoteRussia's Supreme court rules Jehovah's Witnesses from Samara extremist organization
The appeal of the organization on the decision of the regional court was rejected
SAMARA, November 13. /TASS/. Russia's Supreme court has sustained the ruling of Samara's regional court on declaring the Jehovah's Witnesses from Samara an extremist organization.
On May 29, 2014, the regional court of Russia's Samara ruled in favor of the prosecutor in the case against the Jehovah's Witnesses. The reason for its submission was the discovery of extremist materials that the organization had kept for mass distribution.
The literature included in the Federal list of extremist materials was seized from the premises of the community. As it was noted in the regional prosecutor's office, last year the prosecutor warned members of the organization on prohibition of extremist activity.
The Prosecutor's office of Russia's Tver region wants the organization's website shut down
On August 7, 2013, the Central district court of Tver ruled in favor of the prosecution calling the website of the Jehovah's Witnesses organixation extremist. The ground for the ruling was that the information on the website diminishes the rights of believers who are not members of the organization, and stirs up enmity between people on religious grounds.
January 22 the regional court of Tver has cancelled the decision of the court of first instance, that recognized it as extremist, and on May 7 the court didn't satisfy the cassational appeal of the regional prosecutor's office concerning the court's decision to open the Jehovah Witnesses' international site.
Jehovah's Witnesses' booklets declared extremist in Russia's Kurgan
On January 12 the Kurgan municipal court declared the Jehovah Witnesses' booklets extremist literature. The booklets entitled «How to achieve happiness in life», «What is the people's hope? », «How to develop close relations with God? », «What should we know about God and its sense? » were prohibited, the court's press-service said. TASS reported that this decision of court would also be appealed.
Shocking news to anyone who believed Russia was a free country.
Russia has come so far since Lincoln's day in developing hypocrisy. :(
Pretty striking behaviour here:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25496667/russian-warships-bearing-down-on-australia/
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 05:13:12 PM
Pretty striking behaviour here:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25496667/russian-warships-bearing-down-on-australia/
Yeah, no kidding.
Also: I don't watch Australian TV much. They sound so Australian! :o
I've seen more Aussies pop up in American news...a local station in Seattle had one doing morning/commute traffic, and I've recently seen a very Aussie-accent reporter on a local station here in Anchorage too.
Both are hotties too. :P
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 05:49:50 PM
Also: I don't watch Australian TV much. They sound so Australian! :o
Off topic but you may enjoy this, one of the most Kiwi things I've ever seen:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/12/new-zealand-commentator-six-lands-on-car
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 07:03:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 05:49:50 PM
Also: I don't watch Australian TV much. They sound so Australian! :o
Off topic but you may enjoy this, one of the most Kiwi things I've ever seen:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/12/new-zealand-commentator-six-lands-on-car
No sheep involved. :sleep:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 07:03:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 05:49:50 PM
Also: I don't watch Australian TV much. They sound so Australian! :o
Off topic but you may enjoy this, one of the most Kiwi things I've ever seen:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/12/new-zealand-commentator-six-lands-on-car
:lol:
So WTF is wrong with Russia then? I get the flyovers in the Baltics. Its full of Russians and the only legitimisation left for Putin at this stage is that he is the protector of poor opressered Russians.
But sending a bunch of warships under the nose of the G20 leaders because they dare criticising the Dear Bear. Come on.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141105/DEFREG01/311050029/Portugal-Escorts-Russian-Boat-From-Its-Waters (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141105/DEFREG01/311050029/Portugal-Escorts-Russian-Boat-From-Its-Waters)
QuoteLISBON — The Portugese Navy escorted a Russian oceanographic ship out of its waters Wednesday in response to the latest in a series of territorial incursions by a Russian vessel or plane.
Portugal identified the ship in the section of sea it has exclusive resource rights over and then guided the vessel back into international waters, Portugal's Defense Minister Jose Pedro Aguiar-Branco told Portuguese press agency LUSA.
The incident comes just a week after Portuguese fighter jets intercepted on two separate occasions Russian military planes in international airspace that was under Portugal's jurisdiction.
Russia denied its planes had violated Portuguese airspace.
Russian military jets have significantly increased their activity over Europe since the crisis in Ukraine erupted last year.
NATO has intercepted Russian aircraft on more than 100 occasions so far this year, three times more than all of 2013, its new head Jens Stoltenberg said in October.
Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok, Putin style!
Other link, but it's the same incident dating from November 6th
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/portugal-escorts-russian-ship-from-its-waters (http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/portugal-escorts-russian-ship-from-its-waters)
QuoteFrom AFP: The Portugese Navy escorted a Russian oceanographic ship out of its waters Wednesday in response to the latest in a series of territorial incursions by a Russian vessel or plane.
Portugal identified the ship in the section of sea it has exclusive resource rights over and then guided the vessel back into international waters, Portugal's Defence Minister Jose Pedro Aguiar-Branco told Portugese press agency LUSA.
From BBC: Last week Portuguese F-16 fighter jets tracked Russian fighters in the Baltic.
Nato says Russia has intensified military flights in international airspace close to Nato member states' borders.
A pair of Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers flew all the way to Portugal - in international airspace - before heading back to northern Russia. . . .
Portugal was one of several Nato countries whose airspace was approached last week by Russian planes without notice or explanation - a move alliance officials described as "provocative".
Now Portugal says the waters of its economic zone have also been breached.
The fact that Mr Aguiar Branco made his comments in Lithuania, where he was visiting members of a Portuguese air force mission leading Nato patrols in the Baltic states, would seem to confirm the linkage to tensions arising from the situation in Ukraine.
http://rt.com/politics/205615-eurasia-integration-eu-media/
Poor Russia, all they want is be left alone, but the West have ordered their media into a totalitarian propaganda campaign to keep them down. :( :( :(
Quote'We didn't block EU creation, but they're blocking us' – Russian lawmaker
CIS countries should unite in order to resist the vast media and sanction pressure from the West, which is aimed at hampering the integration in Eurasia, a Russian senator says.
"Today the area of totalitarian manipulation of the media extends to the Eurasian integration. We are experiencing massive information and sanction pressure [from the West]," Vladimir Dzhabarov, deputy head of the International Affairs Committee in the Federal Council, is cited by Gazeta.ru.
According to Dzhabarov, the Western powers want to disturb the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) between Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia.
"We didn't interfere with them when they put together the EU, but they keep interfering with us," he stressed.
The senator also called for the creation of a special information center to counter US and EU information plots within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which unites nine former republics of the Soviet Union.
The treaty to form the Eurasian Economic Union was signed earlier this year, with the new bloc to go into effect on January 1, 2015.
The EEU will create a single economic market of 171 million people and is expected to gross domestic product of $3 trillion.
In recent months, the US and EU have implemented several waves of sanctions against Russia, which targeted not only individual politicians and businessmen, but also the country's financial, energy and defense sectors.
The West accuses Russia of masterminding the current turmoil in Ukraine, widely using mass media to ignite anti-Russian moods despite being unable to provide any significant proof.
Uh-oh.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/17/russia-poland-expel-diplomats
Quote from: Tamas on November 14, 2014, 05:29:16 AM
So WTF is wrong with Russia then? I get the flyovers in the Baltics. Its full of Russians and the only legitimisation left for Putin at this stage is that he is the protector of poor opressered Russians.
But sending a bunch of warships under the nose of the G20 leaders because they dare criticising the Dear Bear. Come on.
Sending aircraft and ships into Portuguese space too. I guess he's just trying to be as annoying as he can to everyone.
The news reported that he got a very chilly reception at the G20. That may have been the reason he left early.
Good going Putin. The world needs another possible Cold War between nations with nukes, as if there isn't enough going on already, some of which affects Putin, such as Islamic extremism problems in his own country.
An optimistic piece from the generally phlegmatic Gideon Rachman:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/db21a852-6e4a-11e4-afe5-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3JN8mPDDv
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2014, 06:49:35 PM
An optimistic piece from the generally phlegmatic Gideon Rachman:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/db21a852-6e4a-11e4-afe5-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3JN8mPDDv
Is there a version that doesn't require sign in and registration?
No. I'll steal :ph34r: :blush:
QuoteThe nuclear gun is back on the table
Gideon Rachman
Both in private and in public, Russia is making explicit references to its nuclear arsenal
I never had much time for the Greenham Common women. As a mildly reactionary student of the 1980s, I regarded them – and their protest camp outside a British nuclear-weapons base – as silly and misguided. After all, decades of experience taught that nuclear deterrence worked.
Thirty years on and the nuclear peace is still holding. But I am becoming a little less secure in my belief that nukes will never be used.
There are three reasons for my anxiety. First, the spread of nuclear weapons to unstable countries such as Pakistan and North Korea. Second, the growing body of evidence about how close the world has come, at various times, to nuclear conflict. My third reason for worry is more immediate: a significant increase in threatening nuclear talk from Russia.
Both in private and in public, the Russians are now making increasingly explicit references to their country's nuclear arsenal. A couple of weeks ago, I witnessed a prominent Russian warn an audience, at a private seminar in Washington, that "President [Vladimir] Putin has put the nuclear gun on the table." The Russian president has indeed told an audience at home that outsiders should not "mess with us", because "Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers".
Last week, Pravda – the Soviet mouthpiece during the cold war – ran an article headlined, "Russia Prepares Nuclear Surprise for Nato". It crowed that Russia has parity with the US in strategic nuclear weapons and boasted: "As for tactical nuclear weapons, the superiority of modern-day Russia over Nato is even stronger. The Americans are well aware of this. They were convinced before that Russia would never rise again. Now it is too late."
My only hesitation in writing about this is that I have little doubt that one aim of all this nuclear posturing from Moscow is precisely to get western commentators talking about a Russian nuclear threat. Russia is desperate to stop the west supplying military aid to Ukraine. So, they want to get across the message that any such escalation would provoke a ferocious reaction from Moscow and – who knows – perhaps even the use of nuclear weapons.
Mr Putin seems to adhere to what Richard Nixon called the "madman theory" of leadership. The former US president explained: "If the adversary feels that you are unpredictable, even rash, he will be deterred from pressing you too far. The odds that he will fold increase greatly." President Putin may be right in calculating that, by putting the nuclear gun on the table, he can always out-madman Barack Obama, the coolly rational US president.
Nonetheless, even assuming that the Russian nuclear talk is a bluff, it is still dangerous – since to make the bluff intimidating, the Russians have to raise tensions and take risks. Last week, General Philip Breedlove, commander of Nato forces in Europe, said that Russia had "moved forces that are capable of being nuclear" into Crimea. As fighting in Ukraine continues, the danger of Russia and Nato misreading each other's intentions increases.
Historians of the cold war have shown that mistakes and miscalculation have brought the world closer to accidental nuclear warfare more often than is commonly realised. A recent report by Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs, entitled, "Too Close for Comfort" documents several incidents. Some involved computer malfunctions that led either the US or the USSR to believe that they were under nuclear attack. As the report notes: "Individual decision making, often in disobedience of protocol and political guidance, has on several occasions saved the day."
Several of the most dangerous near-misses took place during periods of heightened political tension between Moscow and Washington. The most famous such incident was the Cuban Missile crisis of 1962. A more recent instance – with a stronger contemporary resonance – was the Able Archer incident of November 1983.
In September of that year, the Soviet Union had shot down a Korean Air civilian airliner, killing 267 people. That tragedy, like the shooting down of a Malaysia Airways flight over Ukraine this year, had significantly raised east-west tensions with the Russians, then as now, accusing America of militarism and plans for world domination.
Against this background, Nato staged a military exercise that acted out a western nuclear strike on the USSR. Operation Able Archer was so thorough and so realistic that many in Moscow interpreted it as preparation for a Nato first-strike. In response, the Russians readied their own nuclear weapons. It appears that intelligence services alerted the west to how Able Archer was being seen in Moscow, allowing for de-escalation.
One lesson of that episode is that the existence of a "hotline" between Moscow and Washington is no guarantee that the two sides will not blunder. Another is that any ambiguous moves, involving nuclear weapons, can cause a dangerous panic.
My parents' generation got grimly used to living in the shadow of the bomb. But for my generation, the very idea of nuclear warfare seems like something from science-fiction or even dark comedy, such as Dr Strangelove. But the world's nuclear arsenals were not abolished after the cold war. Sadly, we may now be returning to an era in which the threat of nuclear warfare can no longer be treated as the stuff of science fiction.
Incidentally General Philip Breedlove :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2014, 07:35:44 PM
Incidentally General Philip Breedlove :)
Yeah. Strange.
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2014, 10:14:12 AM
Uh-oh.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/17/russia-poland-expel-diplomats
Russian / Polish diplomacy...back when I was working in Warsaw, I got the idea to drive to the Kaliningrad Oblast one weekend. I called the russian embassy in Warsaw to see what I needed to do. The embassy told me I needed a recommendation from a travel advisor based in Warsaw. I asked him to tell me the identity of such a person. He said no. I said I didn't know how to find such a person. He said I needed a recommendation from a travel advisor with a good relationship with the Russian government then hung up on me. I called back and got hung up on again.
So I decided to visit the embassy/consulate one morning. I get to the address. There is a locked gate. No instructions, security guard, or anything. I press the call box. Someone answers in some slavic language. I ask in English if this is the Russian embassy, and get more slavic gibberish. I press the call box again, and explain that I just want to visit the Russian embassy to see about a travel visa. Again slavic gibberish, but the mechanical gate opens. I walk in. There is no one around and I'm not sure I'm even in the right place. The walkway leads to a door, so I walk in. The room I'm in is empty, except for me. Someone speaks to me in a slavic language from behind a one way glass. I explain that I'm just trying to get a travel visa. More slavic comes back at me. I ask if I can speak english or if someone speaks english. Finally I hear my first english word. "No."
The guy steps out from behind the glass and points me to a room. I walk into the room. There are 5 people behind desks. One summons me over. The guy doesn't speak english. He points me to another desk. The english expert. She speaks extremely limited english. She explains it will be 5 days processing, with a recommendation from a polish travel avisor with a good relationship with the russian government. Then she asks what type of passport I have. I say US. She says, "5 days processing everyone else, 10 days American." I asked for the names of the travel advisors I could use, and she resisted, before giving me the names of apparently the 2 people they accept in Warsaw.
I visited one, and he said he could help, but there was no way to expedite the 10 days of processing for an American, and that was just too long for me. He explained that the Russians are pains in the ass. So I never drove to Kaliningrad and have never seen their shitty city.
Should have went to Gdansk. It is shitty.
A few months old, but good reading if you missed it...
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/01/behind-scenes-putins-court-private-habits-latter-day-dictator-260640.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.newsweek.com%2Fsites%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fcover%2Fpublic%2F2014%2F07%2F22%2Fcover010814.jpg%3Fitok%3DyteJmwbd&hash=6a360d53801bf3165e2115da8585c0c2fe4df153)
I was surprised they wasn't installing screen doors on the ships at the shipyards.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 17, 2014, 09:56:30 PM
I was surprised they wasn't installing screen doors on the ships at the shipyards.
I went down to the shipyards because it was the epicenter of the solidarity movement, and sadly it seems there isn't much activity there these days. It seems the democracy movement kicked off by the shipyard workers ended up putting the shipyards out of business.
Very little. I think they was growing rust as a cash crop.
Putin is more of a nuisance than an enemy.
Maybe.
What I think it shows, though, if a failing in Russian leadership that doesn't need to be.
Russia has/had the potential to be a cooperative, modern, functional western-style democratic power (at least, in their western, European core) that could have eventually matched even the Germans. And with the added benefit of rich natural resources (and the downside of peripheral ethnic difficulties) to boot. But the paranoia against outsiders, and even more, their own people...leading to the the crackdowns on media/journalistic freedom...is wholly unnecessary. There would have been no need to co-opt Ukraine and force a showdown between Russia and the EU if Russia felt that it could be in a cooperative relationship with the EU as well.
Between Russia's own internal political paranoia, and frankly, our skepticism at first in the 90's keeping them at arms length...I think the last 20-ish years since the fall of the USSR has been a lot of wasted opportunities and potential on both sides.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 17, 2014, 10:38:44 PM
Between Russia's own internal political paranoia, and frankly, our skepticism at first in the 90's keeping them at arms length...I think the last 20-ish years since the fall of the USSR has been a lot of wasted opportunities and potential on both sides.
Nah...I realize this is a chicken and egg argument, but I think the present state of affairs vindicates the skeptics of the early 90s. It seems unlikely that the reason Russia isn't politically like Germany or France today is because 25 years ago we didn't embrace them with open arms.
Through the same line of reasoning I find it odd that it is taken for granted that we were wrong to support the shah (our thoughts then being that he was better than whatever would replace him).
Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2014, 09:49:51 PM
So I never drove to Kaliningrad and have never seen their shitty city.
Too bad you Kant go there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2014, 10:38:53 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2014, 09:49:51 PM
So I never drove to Kaliningrad and have never seen their shitty city.
Too bad you Kant go there.
It was categorically imperative that he get his visa first.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2014, 10:46:53 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2014, 10:38:53 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2014, 09:49:51 PM
So I never drove to Kaliningrad and have never seen their shitty city.
Too bad you Kant go there.
It was categorically imperative that he get his visa first.
And yet there were practical reasons he could not, according to his critique.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2014, 11:18:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2014, 10:46:53 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2014, 10:38:53 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2014, 09:49:51 PM
So I never drove to Kaliningrad and have never seen their shitty city.
Too bad you Kant go there.
It was categorically imperative that he get his visa first.
And yet there were practical reasons he could not, according to his critique.
If N was the number of visits needed to get the visa andreduce the weight of his wallet, he had to ask himself "What is N? Lightenment?"
RT is now available in German. http://www.rtdeutsch.com/
Also, Russia increased the 2015 budget for RT by over 40% to over 1/4 Billion Euro.
Their top headlines:
"The isolated Putin" - ARD and ZDF [German public TV stations] caught manipulating the media (again)
1984 in Ukrainian: Kiev plans Propaganda Ministry [illustrated with INGSOC logo]
New development plan for Eastern Ukraine: Soup instead of salary
International:
Budget dispute 2015: is the EU paralyzing itself?
Clashes in front of the US embassy in Athens
US Air Force is planning surveillance flights over Russia
Kiev closes all school and hospitals in Eastern Ukraine
Germany
Ex-Spy talking about MH-17 and Merkel's and Gauck's Stasi connections
Blatant election fraud by CDU - learning from SED means learning to win? [play on old GDR slogan - replace SED with Soviet Union]
Who stops this man? [about president Gauck and his supposedly excessive comments about foreign policy outside his range of competencies]
Out of control: US drone crashes in Germany
Economy
28 to 6 - EU split over new sanctions against Russia
Economic development: BRICS top, EU flop
Coal running out in Ukraine
Siemens losing billions in Russia
Society
Ruble is falling on hard times - how does the population react
London: Lego now also for (poor) adults
Donetsk, as seen by a US American
Cyber attack on Iranian nuclear facilities
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
1/4 billion? so 250 millions, it's ok to say that.
250 million? That's really not much for an international TV channel, actually. The BBC world service is almost twice that, and it piggybacks on BBC's already enormous existing structure.
http://rt.com/politics/208551-russia-governors-military-training/
QuoteDM Shoigu asks Putin to launch obligatory military training for all Russian governors
The Russian defense minister is suggesting that all Russian governors undergo regular military training in basic logistics management and mobilization in case a major war breaks out.
"We would like all elected and appointed governors, mayors and other heads of regions in the Russian Federation to undergo obligatory two-week training in the General Staff Academy specializing in mobilization readiness and managing their regions in times of mobilization," the ITAR-TASS news agency quoted Sergey Soigu as saying at a recent Russian defense industry conference.
"The same applies to federal bodies of executive power," the minister said, adding that the initiative must be enforced by a presidential decree or legislative amendments to existing federal laws.
The suggestion comes in the wake of the Vostok-2014 military exercises that took place in September in 13 eastern regions. After these, Shoigu said many officials and in particular Sakhalin Governor Aleksandr Khorshavin weren't ready for times of war and couldn't summon reserve forces in time. Popular business daily Kommersant quoted an unnamed source in the General Staff.
"Regional authorities often fail to understand the importance of military exercises and prefer to drag their feet in executing orders because they simply don't know what they should do and how to do it," the source added.
The head of the Lower House Committee for Defense, MP Vladimir Komoyedov (Communist Party), has said that the defense minister's initiative was wise and absolutely right.
"Russia is different from Switzerland or France. It's a huge country, which has special mobilization tasks for whole territories. Heads of regions, many of whom are young people, must know how to use their resources," the MP said.
Several governors told Kommersant that they were ready to fulfill Shoigu's plan as soon as the order from the president arrives.
In mid-Summer, Defense Minister Shoigu organized and personally supervised reserve officer training for about 400 people occupying high political posts or working as technical staff in the top federal bodies of power. 286 State Duma MPs and staff members, 72 senators and upper house staff, 23 people from the Audit Chamber and nine representatives of the Central Elections Commission took part in the event.
The drills comprised firearms training and the operation of various vehicles, including modern tanks and APCs.
Yesterday the BBC reported the Russian finance minister as saying low oil prices and Western sanctions are costing Russian $140 Billion a year ($100B from oil; $40B from sanctions). He suggested that this might be bad for the world economy.
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2014, 03:27:40 AM
Society
Cyber attack on Iranian nuclear facilities
Wait that is in the society pages?
http://rt.com/politics/208691-naryshkin-nato-oust-states/
QuoteNATO should oust US to secure stability in Europe – Duma chief
State Duma speaker Sergey Naryshkin suggested that NATO members should expel the United States from the bloc, asserting such a move should return the security situation in Europe to normal levels.
"I have one fantastical proposal – I would suggest that European partners oust the USA from NATO," Naryshkin said on Tuesday, as he spoke at an international conference dedicated to looking at possible ways of overcoming the current crisis in Europe.
"I am sure that after this step, the level of stability and security in Europe would quite soon return to its proper state," the Russian politician added, as quoted by the ITAR-TASS news agency.
The NATO charter allows any member-state to leave the alliance with a year's notice, but so far the bloc has only been enlarging and encompassing former Eastern European nations. The United States provides about 72 percent of the 28-member alliance's budget and over 1.4 million servicemen in a 3.3 million-strong NATO force.
In late October, Naryshkin told a Russian newspaper he believed the United States wanted to end mutual dialogue between Russia and Europe. He also noted that this would not happen, as Russia would keep looking for every opportunity to mend ties with its neighbors.
"Let us not play by their rules, not do what they are pressing for. If we help them in this it would be a big present to the 'hawks.' On the contrary, we will seek for every opportunity to hold a dialogue so that everyone can hear our position," the Duma speaker said.
In September, Naryshkin told fellow lawmakers, in a parliamentary speech, that recent steps taken by the US and its allies were "cynical and irresponsible" and could cause a new Cold War.
Top FPÖ politicians are attending this conference in question. Following the disclosure that the French Front National had received a multi-million dollar loan from a Russian bank they came under fire by all other parties who pointed out that FPÖ had a very cuddly attitude to Russia, wondering if they also had their palms greased. FPÖ head Strache obviously denied any such claims and said they're the only party supporting Austrian neutrality, asking the other parties if they maybe got financing from NATO/USA.
There is instability and a lack of security in Europe? I mean for people not bordering Russia.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2014, 01:49:41 AM
There is instability and a lack of security in Europe? I mean for people not bordering Russia.
Their foreign ministry also says there's a serious threat of the Ukrainian neo-nazi terror movement spilling to the rest of Europe and beyond.
They should know, they're bankrolling a bunch of those parties.
And again, Russia only wants peace and prosperity from Lisbon to Vladivostok:
http://rt.com/politics/208239-naryshkin-eurasian-economoc-union/
QuoteDuma chief praises Eurasian bloc as unique tool of global cooperation
The Eurasian Economic Union is a major new geopolitical organization contributing to the further integration of Western Europe and the dynamic economies of the Asia-Pacific region, according to a top Russian parliamentarian.
"Those who due to misunderstanding or inherent foolishness see the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as a threat only confirm the fact that a new serious player has appeared in the world that would probably build the missing bridges," :huh: State Duma Chairman Sergey Naryshkin said in a speech at an international conference in Astana, Kazakhstan.
The Russian politician called for the international community to stop seeing the EAEU as some fictional threat but instead see it as a unique chance for the peoples of Europe and Asia and the World as a whole.
He said that it was wrong to see European and Eurasian development as two opposing forces. "In historical perspectives one of them is a part of the other as Europe is a part of the Eurasian continent. From the very beginning our nations seek to harmonize the integration processes in the EU and the EAEU, and in future create a single European space without divisions from Lisbon to Vladivostok, as foreseen by French President Charles De Gaulle," Naryshkin said.
The State Duma chief added that Eurasian integration was among the most positive aspects of modern global politics. In the face of the growing instability in international relations, and expansion of chaos zones, humanity must concentrate on building a new secure, stable and polycentric world order, where the centers of forces would be cooperating rather than opposing each other, he said.
But before this happens, Western nations continue to wage an aggressive anti-Russian policy in the form of sanctions, Naryshkin stated. He called the current sanctions policy a tool of political and economic pressure and blackmail adding that such steps were contradicting the WTO rules as well as international law in general. "I would like to add that the nations who claim that they have established the rule of law simply have no right to such behavior, it is uncivilized." :ike:
At the same conference the State Duma chief said five countries had already chosen to join the Eurasian Economic Union and 40 more had decided to enter a free trade zone with the bloc. He also criticized countries like Ukraine in which the government had decided to associate with the European Union.
"Such geopolitical choice is a sovereign right of any state, of course. But when politicians make decisions they must base them on positions of all population strata and all regions of their countries. They must consider all ethnic and cultural particularities as well as the interests of neighboring nations," Naryshkin told the conference members.
The Eurasian Economic Union is an economic and political bloc formed in 2014 and uniting Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia. The treaty to form it will go into full effect on January 1, 2015. The overall population of the union is about 171 million people and its gross domestic product is expected to reach $3 trillion next year.
Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia - yep, that's a club everybody is rushing to join!
Is it a competition to see who can say the most nonsensical thing?
It looks like they go full retard in many respects. It would be one thing if media were to quote them out of context, but this being official state media ... :hmm:
I think all European countries should follow suit and create state media agencies that release a steady stream of completely nonsensical nationalist articles. 'Luxembourg only wants a unified space from Lyon to Dusseldorf as forseen by Eva Peron. Those who doubt this new force on the world stage only show its grand importance and we call on the state of Thuringia to build the missing bridges.'
Yet they throw a hissy fit when ukraine moves towarda the eu :hmm:
Quote from: Tyr on November 26, 2014, 02:12:43 AM
Yet they throw a hissy fit when ukraine moves towarda the eu :hmm:
Yeah they call for a merger with the EU and in the same article attack Ukraine for wanting to be part of the EU :lol:
It is just amazing.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2014, 02:15:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 26, 2014, 02:12:43 AM
Yet they throw a hissy fit when ukraine moves towarda the eu :hmm:
Yeah they call for a merger with the EU and in the same article attack Ukraine for wanting to be part of the EU :lol:
It is just amazing.
I think their problem is that Ukraine wants to ONLY be with the EU.
Reminds me of the old joke:
- Sorry, we're only open Tuesdays and Thursdays.
- But today is Tuesday!
- But not Thursday.
What's baffling is that Russia seems genuinely surprised that they're not universally beloved in Eastern Europe after liberating them from Fascism. And that countries there, after 40 years of being under Communist rule jump at the chance of joining NATO and/or the EU. It's not that NATO/EU expand eastwards, it's that the countries there rush westwards. Yet Russian politicians seem unable to understand how they might have alienated those nations.
It's kind of like if Germany after WW2 wanted to keep Poland, Austria and Czechoslovakia in their sphere of influence and follow her lead, because of "common shared history."
Vienna hasn't torn down the Soviet monument in Belvedere Park.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 26, 2014, 02:47:43 AM
Vienna hasn't torn down the Soviet monument in Belvedere Park.
Vienna was not under 40 years of Communist rule. Besides that is there to remind everybody the Austrians were not Nazis and something totally different from Germans.
You know, I've just about had it with those filthy ass cossacks. I gave Obama the benefit with the doubt with the whole "reset" thingy, but it's obvious the Russians are not interested in being anything more than Douchebagistan.
They're still more of a regional nuisance than a true international geopolitical threat--at least at this time; just wait until the Arctic Circle ice recedes even more and they have unfettered access to rare mineral deposits in the next few decades--but we should just go all 1980s on their asses, and bankrupt them all over again.
Even with their new wealth in oil and gas they're still a fucked up country, and just like any other syndicate run by the Mob they can collapse under their own weight, they just need a good enough push.
German RT doesn't seem to take off much yet. They mostly hired young, inexperienced folks and their website updates with maybe 3 to 5 articles per day. And they use professional headlines like "Yawn: NATO again claims Russian troops in Ukraine."
Even TAZ, a very left-wing/liberal paper mocks them.
Ukraine re-evaluating WW2 = embracing nazism.
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/763661
QuoteUnited Russia condemns Kiev's plans to remove Great Patriotic War mentions from textbooks
The arguments of the Ukrainian government are becoming more and more reckless, a deputy chairman of the International Committee of the Russian State Duma Ivan Kvitka said
MOSCOW, November 25. /TASS/. Russia's ruling United Russia party has condemned Ukraine's plans to remove any mention of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 from history textbooks.
These plans were announced on Tuesday by Volodymyr Vyatovich, director of the Ukrainian National Memory Institute. All after-effects of "the Soviet-era propaganda and primarily a myth about the Great Patriotic War" should be dropped from educational materials and textbooks, he said. "For us, the Second World War started on September 1, 1939, and we have no right to narrow it to the Great Patriotic War, as it was much more horrible and tragic."
The arguments of the Ukrainian government are becoming more and more reckless, Ivan Kvitka, a deputy chairman of the International Committee of the Russian State Duma lower parliament house, said on Tuesday. "They have already denied their Soviet past. Now they are denying the feat of their fathers and grandfathers. I don't think attempts to deny their own roots could bring Ukraine closer to Europe," he said.
He said this initiative of the Kiev authorities was a manifestation of disrespect to the people who had given their lives to defend Ukraine. "As of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, Ukraine had a population of about 41 million, whereas by the end of the war there were only 27 million people living in Ukraine," Kvitka said. "More than ten million Ukrainians died defending their families, their homeland from fascism. And Kiev wants its citizens to forget about this irreplaceable loss. No wonder the Nazi ideology is flourishing in the present-day Ukraine on such background."
This seems to make sense, what the Ukrainian minister defined. And I'm sure it'll ruffle Russian feathers but given that Russia has basically invaded parts of eastern Ukraine, shades of WW2, perhaps Ukrainian officials see this as justified change in the way history of WW2 should be taught.
Quote from: KRonn on November 26, 2014, 10:26:16 AM
This seems to make sense, what the Ukrainian minister defined. And I'm sure it'll ruffle Russian feathers but given that Russia has basically invaded parts of eastern Ukraine, shades of WW2, perhaps Ukrainian officials see this as justified change in the way history of WW2 should be taught.
Given all that over-acted anti-Nazi rhetoric, I have always wondered how the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is spun in Russia.
Stalin was buying time to build up his forces to fight Hitler, hoping to weaken Hitler and strengthen his position before the inevitable confrontation.
Which was why he was so prepared to fight off the invasion in 1941, was eager to cooperate with the UK in its war against Nazi Germany, encouraged the Comintern to assist the French Government anyway it could before June 1940, and stopped sending trainloads of raw materials to fuel Germany's war machine. Or, you know, the opposite of those things.
I loved a section in Tony Judt's Post War Europe where he talks about the Marshall Plan. Czechoslovakia (at the time not yet under Communist government) was happy to accept the offer and attended the meetings.
Then Soviet Union told them that if they accepted the aid, it would have serious repercussions for the relationship of the two countries, and that this was all just a plan to isolate the Soviet Union and establish an American hegemony in Europe and the world.
The more things change ...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2014, 03:05:44 AM.
They're still more of a regional nuisance than a true international geopolitical threat--at least at this time
Somewhere inbtween I'd say. That veto fucks things up globally.
Quote from: Gups on November 26, 2014, 12:46:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2014, 03:05:44 AM.
They're still more of a regional nuisance than a true international geopolitical threat--at least at this time
Somewhere inbtween I'd say. That veto fucks things up globally.
True, but "coalitions of the willing" have been in vogue, it's time-tested and it works now. Going to the UNSC isn't the "or else" option it used to be.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-spy-anna-chapman-stars-propaganda-video-n257271 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-spy-anna-chapman-stars-propaganda-video-n257271)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F03116%2FAnna-Chapman_3116784b.jpg&hash=b17e36911800223ff9b3eeb1494c39b3f9cac4d4) (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-spy-anna-chapman-stars-propaganda-video-n257271)
I try to load that and it just skips to a clip of Al Roker interviewing some singer.
Ok, third time was a charm.
That story is actually pretty silly. I'm sure we've had a number of reality shows with some celeb making the rounds with our military, and we don't call it "bizarre" or "propaganda".
I missed out most of the first Cold War. I really dig this constant stream of surreal statements coming from Russia.
Do you know what'd be useful right now? An aircraft carrier <_< :weep:
QuoteRussian warships pass through Channel
Conflicting reports about whether squadron was holding drills in strait of Dover or just waiting out a storm
Haroon Siddique and agencies
The Guardian, Friday 28 November 2014 13.20 GMT
A squadron of Russian warships has passed through the Channel.
State-owned Russian news agency Ria Novosti said crews on the vessels from the Russian navy's northern fleet were "holding drills" in the strait of Dover on Friday, citing the fleet's press service. But the Russian defence ministry was quoted by other Russian media as saying its ships entered the Channel to wait out a storm after a week of manoeuvres in the North Sea.
The ministry said in a statement carried by Russian news agencies that a naval destroyer, a landing craft, a rescue tugboat and a tank ship had to anchor in the international waters of the Bay of the Seine, off the coast of France. It said the ships had been conducting naval exercises in the North Sea since 20 November.
The ships' presence in British waters comes amid tension between the UK and Russia over Vladimir Putin's backing of separatist rebels in Ukraine. The European Union has imposed a number of sanctions on Russia, including asset freezes and travel bans on individuals.
At the G20 summit earlier this month David Cameron warned Putin that the west's relations with Russia had reached a crossroads. The prime minister was one of a number of world leaders to take Putin to task over Ukraine and warn him of the prospect of further economic sanctions.
Russia has conducted a variety of exercises since the Kremlin's annexation of Crimea and its involvement in eastern Ukraine. A recent thinktank report recorded a sharp rise in Russian-Nato military encounters since the annexation, including violations of national airspace and close encounters at sea.
The British Ministry of Defence tweeted on Friday afternoon: "Four Russian ships escorted through Dover Strait from North Sea by @RoyalNavy HMS Tyne this morning. Ships have left UK waters."
How about of helicopter carriers? I think the French have a couple of spare ones.
Helicopter carriers aren't much use against surface ships.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2014, 06:48:52 PM
Helicopter carriers aren't much use against surface ships.
I think it's about the carriers the French were going to sell to the Russians :P
I got that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 28, 2014, 04:38:03 PM
Do you know what'd be useful right now? An aircraft carrier <_< :weep:
NATO says it's not an exercise, and that they're waiting out bad weather in a spot where they show up relatively regularly, so nothing out of the ordinary.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-warships-enter-english-channel-to-escape-storm/512005.html
QuoteNATO Denies Russia Conducting Military Exercises in English Channel
A squadron of Russian warships entered the English Channel on Friday but a NATO official dismissed a Russian media report that they were there to conduct military exercises.
Russian news agency RIA quoted the Northern Fleet as saying its vessels, led by anti-submarine ship Severomorsk, had passed through the Strait of Dover and were now in international waters in the Seine Bay to wait for a storm to pass.
"While it is anchored the crew are undertaking a series of exercises on how to tackle infiltrating submarine forces and are training on survival techniques in the case of flooding or fire," RIA quoted the Northern Fleet as saying in a statement.
The Russian Navy could not reached for comment and the Defense Ministry declined to comment on the report.
France's navy confirmed the location of the ships and said it was not unusual to have Russian warships in the Channel.
"They are not holding exercises. They're just waiting in a zone where they can be several times a year," said the French Navy's information service.
Lieutenant-Colonel Jay Janzen, NATO's military spokesman, also said the alliance was aware of the Russian ships' location.
"Our information indicates that the ships are transiting and have been delayed by weather conditions. They are not exercising in the Channel, as some Russian headlines would have us believe," he said.
Russia has flexed its military muscle recently, with the NATO military alliance reporting more incursions by Russian fighters and long-range bombers.
The Russian maneuvers followed months of tension over Ukraine, where Moscow has annexed the Crimean peninsula and has supported armed separatists opposed to the Kiev government
I think our PR reaction to Russia's military movements is all wrong. We're all "OMG, Russia is threatening the world", when we should be all "do whatever guys, we can blow that shit up anytime".
I like the cut of your jib Tonto.
That's why fast attack subs don't make good geopolitical weapons. Gotta be visible.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 29, 2014, 01:41:47 AM
I think our PR reaction to Russia's military movements is all wrong. We're all "OMG, Russia is threatening the world", when we should be all "do whatever guys, we can blow that shit up anytime".
That's what I think as well. Them flying with those vintage turboprop bombers close to our airspace? Who gives a shit?
Can't Obama just push the correct button and then we can move forward? I'm tired of Russia, let some other fags shine.
http://rt.com/news/210307-russia-national-defence-center/
QuoteRussia launches 'wartime government' HQ in major military upgrade
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.rt.com%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F33%2F58%2F30%2F00%2Frussia-national-defence-center.si.jpg&hash=ea94053b579dfe30d8e613386afd172efe7c14e2)
NDCC war room. Computer simulation. Image by Defence Ministy
Russia is launching a new national defense facility, which is meant to monitor threats to national security in peacetime, but would take control of the entire country in case of war.
The new top-secret fortified facility in Moscow includes several large war rooms, a brand new supercomputer in the heart of a state-of-the-art data processing center, underground facilities, secret transport routes for emergency evacuation and a helicopter pad, which was deployed for the first time on Nov. 24 on the Moscow River. The Defense Ministry won't disclose the price tag for the site, but it is estimated at the equivalent of several billion dollars.
The new National Defense Control Center (NDCC) is a major upgrade on what was previously called the Central Command of the General Staff, a unit tasked with round-the-clock monitoring of military threats against Russia, particularly ballistic missile launches, and deployment of strategic nuclear weapons. It was roughly a counterpart to the US National Military Command Center, the Pentagon's principal command and control site.
The NDCC inherits all those functions, but also has plenty of extra roles as well. In peacetime, an additional task is to monitor all of Russia's important military assets, from hardware being produced by defense contractors to the state of oil refineries, to weather conditions and their effect on transportation routes.
And if Russia does get into a war, the center would act as a major communication hub and a form of wartime government, delivering reports to the country's military command and giving orders to all ministries, state-owned companies and other organizations, according to the needs of the armed forces.
"The creation of NDCC was one of the biggest military projects of the past few years. The closest analogy in the past in terms of functions and tasks was the Commander-in-Chief HQ in 1941-1945, which centralized all controls of both the military machine and the economy of the nation in the interests of the war," Lt. General Mikhail Mizintsev, the NDCC chief, told Lenta.ru in an interview.
The military says the upgrade has been long overdue. The national security situation may be very fluid in modern times, and instead of days the leadership may have only an hour to take crucial military decisions. The center's job is to offer the Defense Minister and the President options in case of emergency, which would be based on facts, figures and accurate projections.
Potentially the biggest part of the upgrade was the creation of communication and data processing equipment that would give the military computer power and software needed to factor in hundreds of parameters in their mathematical models. The Defense Ministry had to use only domestically-produced hardware due to security considerations, which limited its options.
According to officials, the result is a very robust computer network with state-of-art data encryption and multiple backup sites spread throughout the country, which would keep the center functional even if its main facility in Moscow is damaged by an enemy attack or sabotage.
The center employs over 1,000 officers working on a rotating watch system. Mizintsev said the armed forces selected their best officer for the posts, many of which are new for the Russian military and require skills not previously taught to officers on a regular basis until recently. They have been operating in trial mode since April.
A thoroughly military facility, the NDCC has an unexpected civilian component to it. Its location in Moscow is close to two major hospitals, including the Pirogov trauma center. Both hospitals are quite old and their original designs didn't provide for dedicated helicopter pads.
The Defense Ministry said the medics can share NDCC's new pad on the Moscow River for emergency patient transportation. The pad can accommodate helicopters weighing up to 15 tons, enough to land a Mil Mi-8, world's most-produced transport helicopter, or a Mil Mi-38, its designated replacement.
Now all their credit card hacking gigs can be centralized. MAY I HAFF YOUR WIZA EXPIRATION DATE PLEACE
QuoteThe Defense Ministry had to use only domestically-produced hardware due to security considerations, which limited its options.
LOL, I guess so. Microsoft.ru
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-will-never-introduce-sex-education-in-schools-children-s-ombudsman/512222.html
QuoteRussia Will Never Introduce Sex Education in Schools – Children's Ombudsman
Russia's children's rights ombudsman Pavel Astakhov said sex education will never become part of the curriculum in Russian schools, regardless of what the practice is in Europe, Interfax reported Monday.
"I am often asked: When will you [Russia] introduce sex education? I say: Never," Astakhov said at a meeting in Moscow.
According to Astakhov, sex education is against the moral norms and traditions of Russia.
The children's rights ombudsman will meet with his European counterparts in Brussels next week. He said his colleagues were beginning to consider him an "ideological opponent and enemy," but that they would cooperate.
Last year Astakhov said in a televised interview that Russian literature was the best kind of sex education for teenagers.
Last year he said that "Russian literature is the best sex ed for young people."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/russian-literature-sex-education-schools-childrens-ombudsman
Quote
Russian literature is best sex education for young people, says ombudsman
Pavel Astakhov opposes introduction of sex education in schools and suggests reading the classics as an alternative
Forget condoms, contraceptive pills and chlamydia, and turn instead to Chekhov, Tolstoy and Gogol. That is the message from Russia's children's ombudsman, Pavel Astakhov, who has opposed the introduction of sex education to schools and says young Russians can learn everything they need to know about love and sex from Russian literature.
"I am against any kind of sex education among children," said Astakhov in a television interview. "It is unacceptable to allow things that could corrupt children."
Despite having one of the world's fastest-growing HIV epidemics, Russia has no sex education in schools, owing to the influence of the Russian Orthodox church and conservative social forces.
Astakhov, a powerful official who reports directly to the president, Vladimir Putin, now wants legislation to ensure sex education does not sneak on to the curriculum. Instead, he suggests reading the classics.
"The best sex education that exists is Russian literature," said Astakhov. "In fact, literature in general. Everything is there, about love and about relationships between sexes. Schools should raise children chastely and with an understanding of family values."
This is not the first time government officials have moved to protect the "innocence" of Russian children.
Over the summer, parliament passed a law to ensure children are not subjected to "gay propaganda", which is defined as any information suggesting homosexuality is normal.
Astakhov was also a vocal advocate of the ban this year on the adoption of Russian children by US citizens.
Rights groups said that rather than banning sex education, the exact opposite is needed, and called on the government to allow children to be educated about sex and sexuality.
"All our surveys show that 90% of Russians are sexually experienced by the age of 17, and the government wants to deny them the right to be properly informed about their choices," said Tanya Evlampieva, of the Russian campaign group Focus-Media.
"Sex education isn't just about the act of sex," she said.
"Children should be able to discuss things like how to choose the right partner, and how to say no. By denying young people access to accurate information, we put them at increased risk of unplanned pregnancies and contracting HIV."
Russia has more than 1 million people living with HIV, and half of new cases are now sexually transmitted.
Astakhov admitted that in the modern world children might find out about sex from outside school, and suggested that parents should watch over their offspring carefully and be ready to answer questions.
Rather than introduce sex education to schools, he suggested it might be worthwhile to reintroduce the Soviet era subject of "ethics and the psychology of family life" for older teenagers.
Sex education from the Russian classics
Eugene Onegin, Alexander Pushkin, 1833
Onegin, a Petersburg dandy, travels to the countryside with his friend Lensky to meet Lensky's fiancee Olga and her sister Tatyana, who declares her love for him in a passionate letter. Onegin rejects Tatyana callously and flirts with Olga from boredom, which leads to a duel with Lensky, whom he kills. Years later, he meets the married Tatyana and professes his love for her. Although it is requited, she refuses to leave her husband, and Onegin is plunged into despair.
Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy, 1877
Anna is trapped in a loveless marriage to the stiff government official Karenin, and begins an affair with the dashing Count Vronsky. Her marriage collapses, and she becomes increasingly depressed and paranoid about her relationship with Vronsky. Angry and upset, Anna commits suicide by throwing herself under a train.
The Abyss, Leonid Andreyev, 1901
A short story that caused huge controversy on its publication, and was part of a decadent, fin-de-siècle school of literature in Russia obsessed with death and sex. A young couple in love go for a romantic walk in the forest at dusk, but get lost and are accosted by a gang of youths. They beat up the man, drag off the woman and rape her. When the man comes to, he finds his wife naked and unconscious but alive. He begins kissing her body passionately, and then "is swallowed by the dark abyss". The story ends.
Novel With Cocaine, M Ageyev, 1934
Set in 1917, the novel deals with the sexual coming of age of a young man in Moscow. "Sporting a face powdered like a clown and eyes lined with vaseline, I would stroll up and down the boulevard and try to catch the eye of every passing woman," writes the protagonist. If they smiled at him, he knew they were a "prostitute or a virgin"; if they looked terrified, he began his seduction routine.
Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov, 1955
Written in English by the Russian emigré writer Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita charts the all-consuming obsession and subsequent sexual relationship between a middle-aged professor, Humbert Humbert, and Dolores Haze, a 12-year-old girl.
My russophobia meter has been broken due to high workload for the past few years.
And I notice moderately sane people posting "news" from RT to "balance" things on Twitter and Facebook.
Russian sex ed sounds like a brilliant idea. Get some incest porn in as well.
Quote from: Norgy on December 02, 2014, 07:00:25 AMAnd I notice moderately sane people posting "news" from RT to "balance" things on Twitter and Facebook.
I guess you are friends with the wrong people. I don't see stuff like that on my Facebook*.
*Admittedly, I blocked Spellus over his Russian retardation.
Nah, my friends are pretty much apolitical, centrist or moderately right or left-wing, it happens more in public fora for discussions.
Quote from: Norgy on December 02, 2014, 07:00:25 AM
And I notice moderately sane people posting "news" from RT to "balance" things on Twitter and Facebook.
See, I post stuff from RT and ITAR-TASS to show how crazy Russians are. :P
Sure, like you're not the first to beta play the Soviet Union in HoI IV!!! :mad:
;)
I did a public beta AAR for the USSR for HoI1. :lol:
I've never really played/liked the HoI series much, though.
Piece on the situation and Russia suggesting they may be contemplating capital controls:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11266746/Capital-controls-feared-as-Russian-rouble-collapses.html
With this startling paragraph:
QuoteThe rouble's slide has led to fury in the Duma, where populist politician Evgeny Fedorov has called for a criminal investigation of the central bank. Critics say the institution had been taken over by "feminist liberals" and is a tool of the International Monetary Fund. The office of the Russia general prosecutor said on Monday it was opening a probe.
:blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2014, 08:42:51 AM
Piece on the situation and Russia suggesting they may be contemplating capital controls:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11266746/Capital-controls-feared-as-Russian-rouble-collapses.html
With this startling paragraph:
QuoteThe rouble's slide has led to fury in the Duma, where populist politician Evgeny Fedorov has called for a criminal investigation of the central bank. Critics say the institution had been taken over by "feminist liberals" and is a tool of the International Monetary Fund. The office of the Russia general prosecutor said on Monday it was opening a probe.
:blink:
:lol:
Wait, oil is $67 a barrel now? Holy shit. Wasn't it already at an all time low at $80-something a barrel few months ago, or was that a different kind? :blink:
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 08:56:57 AM
Wait, oil is $67 a barrel now? Holy shit. Wasn't it already at an all time low at $80-something a barrel few months ago, or was that a different kind? :blink:
All-time low? :huh:
Even adjusted for inflation, it's more expensive now than it was in the 90s.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2014, 08:42:51 AM
Piece on the situation and Russia suggesting they may be contemplating capital controls:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11266746/Capital-controls-feared-as-Russian-rouble-collapses.html
With this startling paragraph:
QuoteThe rouble's slide has led to fury in the Duma, where populist politician Evgeny Fedorov has called for a criminal investigation of the central bank. Critics say the institution had been taken over by "feminist liberals" and is a tool of the International Monetary Fund. The office of the Russia general prosecutor said on Monday it was opening a probe.
:blink:
You need to get used to the list of names/categories which have replaced "jews". Liberals and the IMF are high on that.
Russia is blocking access to Vimeo, because an IS video was posted there.
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/764530
Which is strange, because so far their MO has been to ask the site to remove the offending video. And in the case of IS videos, hosting services have so far been relatively quick to remove them, anyways.
Quote from: Tamas on December 02, 2014, 09:14:05 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2014, 08:42:51 AM
Piece on the situation and Russia suggesting they may be contemplating capital controls:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11266746/Capital-controls-feared-as-Russian-rouble-collapses.html
With this startling paragraph:
QuoteThe rouble's slide has led to fury in the Duma, where populist politician Evgeny Fedorov has called for a criminal investigation of the central bank. Critics say the institution had been taken over by "feminist liberals" and is a tool of the International Monetary Fund. The office of the Russia general prosecutor said on Monday it was opening a probe.
:blink:
You need to get used to the list of names/categories which have replaced "jews". Liberals and the IMF are high on that.
Yup. Gays and feminists are the new Jews, with "gender ideology" replacing "zionism".
Putin's becoming the idol of many on the far right (and I mean far right, not relatively sane conservatives) here. After all, he tells women where it's at and doesn't tolerate liberal media. I just don't get it.
Quote from: Norgy on December 02, 2014, 09:31:38 AM
Putin's becoming the idol of many on the far right (and I mean far right, not relatively sane conservatives) here. After all, he tells women where it's at and doesn't tolerate liberal media. I just don't get it.
Women need a good talking to.
Quote from: Norgy on December 02, 2014, 09:31:38 AM
Putin's becoming the idol of many on the far right (and I mean far right, not relatively sane conservatives) here. After all, he tells women where it's at and doesn't tolerate liberal media. I just don't get it.
One think I have found stunning is the sheer number of people posting in various places around the Internet who appear to love Putin. Granted, many of them are no doubt Russians, but many appear not to be - it seems like folks on the extreme right and left alike see things they like in him and/or blame any confrontation on the West.
Considering how outright full-retard batshit insane he and his supporters appear to be, this is very odd.
Quote from: Malthus on December 02, 2014, 09:35:47 AM
Quote from: Norgy on December 02, 2014, 09:31:38 AM
Putin's becoming the idol of many on the far right (and I mean far right, not relatively sane conservatives) here. After all, he tells women where it's at and doesn't tolerate liberal media. I just don't get it.
One think I have found stunning is the sheer number of people posting in various places around the Internet who appear to love Putin. Granted, many of them are no doubt Russians, but many appear not to be - it seems like folks on the extreme right and left alike see things they like in him and/or blame any confrontation on the West.
Considering how outright full-retard batshit insane he and his supporters appear to be, this is very odd.
They may be genuine but many of them can also be Russian spies/agents. They spend surprisingly significant resources on propaganda actions like that. In Poland, some people took the effort to track the IPs of posters commenting that Poland should not support Ukraine during the conflict, for example, but rather to side with Putin - and it turned out a surprising number of accounts came from the same IP addresses.
Here's an article on buzzfeed (yeah I know :rolleyes: ) on this phenomenon.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/documents-show-how-russias-troll-army-hit-america
Admittedly, this has to be taken with a grain of salt, as it has a whiff of a conspiracy theory to it. But then, if anyone would be crazy enough to do something like that, and at the same time have sufficient resources to do so, my bet would be on Putin's Russia.
Buzzfeed's a great site with some very fine journos. Link it with pride :)
Quote from: Malthus on December 02, 2014, 09:35:47 AM
Quote from: Norgy on December 02, 2014, 09:31:38 AM
Putin's becoming the idol of many on the far right (and I mean far right, not relatively sane conservatives) here. After all, he tells women where it's at and doesn't tolerate liberal media. I just don't get it.
One think I have found stunning is the sheer number of people posting in various places around the Internet who appear to love Putin. Granted, many of them are no doubt Russians, but many appear not to be - it seems like folks on the extreme right and left alike see things they like in him and/or blame any confrontation on the West.
Considering how outright full-retard batshit insane he and his supporters appear to be, this is very odd.
There are a lot of shills there, FSB knows full well the value of Internet trolls. But, yes, we can't blame it all on shills. There really is a fifth column of useful idiots out there in the West, like there always was.
Well, for everyone dissatisfies/disillusioned with democracy, political parties, politicians and media, he seems to be the no-nonsense guy who puts national interests first and doesn't take shit from no one. I can see how that carefully crafted image would appeal to a certain demographic.
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 09:39:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 02, 2014, 09:35:47 AM
Quote from: Norgy on December 02, 2014, 09:31:38 AM
Putin's becoming the idol of many on the far right (and I mean far right, not relatively sane conservatives) here. After all, he tells women where it's at and doesn't tolerate liberal media. I just don't get it.
One think I have found stunning is the sheer number of people posting in various places around the Internet who appear to love Putin. Granted, many of them are no doubt Russians, but many appear not to be - it seems like folks on the extreme right and left alike see things they like in him and/or blame any confrontation on the West.
Considering how outright full-retard batshit insane he and his supporters appear to be, this is very odd.
They may be genuine but many of them can also be Russian spies/agents. They spend surprisingly significant resources on propaganda actions like that. In Poland, some people took the effort to track the IPs of posters commenting that Poland should not support Ukraine during the conflict, for example, but rather to side with Putin - and it turned out a surprising number of accounts came from the same IP addresses.
Yup, no doubt many are simply paid Russian trolls - but many I think are not.
Quote from: Syt on December 02, 2014, 10:05:45 AM
Well, for everyone dissatisfies/disillusioned with democracy, political parties, politicians and media, he seems to be the no-nonsense guy who puts national interests first and doesn't take shit from no one. I can see how that carefully crafted image would appeal to a certain demographic.
Unfortunately he is an 'all-nonsense' guy. Anyway yeah he is the anti-Western values hero of the moment. The dudes who the anti-Western people rally to is the biggest endorsement of Western values one could find.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 02, 2014, 09:09:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 08:56:57 AM
Wait, oil is $67 a barrel now? Holy shit. Wasn't it already at an all time low at $80-something a barrel few months ago, or was that a different kind? :blink:
All-time low? :huh:
Even adjusted for inflation, it's more expensive now than it was in the 90s.
Oh and it is going to plunge lower. The Saudis are on a mission to destroy the North American oil threat. It is hard not to take immense pleasure in lower gas prices and the inconvenience this is causing all the petro-tyrannies, but we have to remember this is ultimately done on their behalf.
We should nationalize our oil industry. Our government has never felt the need to turn a yearly profit, so gimmicks like this won't work. :D
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2014, 10:17:40 AM
Oh and it is going to plunge lower. The Saudis are on a mission to destroy the North American oil threat. It is hard not to take immense pleasure in lower gas prices and the inconvenience this is causing all the petro-tyrannies, but we have to remember this is ultimately done on their behalf.
How is this expected to work? I mean, we know the oil is there and we know how to extract it - sure they can shut down production with super cheap oil, but if they want to make cash they have to raise prices again - making that more expensive NA oil worth extracting again.
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 08:56:57 AM
Wait, oil is $67 a barrel now? Holy shit. Wasn't it already at an all time low at $80-something a barrel few months ago, or was that a different kind? :blink:
It dipped under $45/barrel briefly right around the beginning of 2009. :contract:
http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil.aspx?timeframe=7y
Quote from: Malthus on December 02, 2014, 10:26:34 AM
How is this expected to work? I mean, we know the oil is there and we know how to extract it - sure they can shut down production with super cheap oil, but if they want to make cash they have to raise prices again - making that more expensive NA oil worth extracting again.
Well it worked when the prices tanked in the 80s. Took oil and gas decades to recover here. So maybe they figure they can do it again.
Quote from: Malthus on December 02, 2014, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2014, 10:17:40 AM
Oh and it is going to plunge lower. The Saudis are on a mission to destroy the North American oil threat. It is hard not to take immense pleasure in lower gas prices and the inconvenience this is causing all the petro-tyrannies, but we have to remember this is ultimately done on their behalf.
How is this expected to work? I mean, we know the oil is there and we know how to extract it - sure they can shut down production with super cheap oil, but if they want to make cash they have to raise prices again - making that more expensive NA oil worth extracting again.
Predatory pricing can work when fixed expenses are sizable. It takes a lot of up-front investment to dig up oil.
Yeah. The biggest costs in oil industry involve land acquisition and prospecting. Once you have the oil fields going, it's liquid cash.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2014, 10:17:40 AM
Oh and it is going to plunge lower. The Saudis are on a mission to destroy the North American oil threat. It is hard not to take immense pleasure in lower gas prices and the inconvenience this is causing all the petro-tyrannies, but we have to remember this is ultimately done on their behalf.
The Saudis aren't concerned about the North American oil threat. They're dialing back the spigots specifically to poke Tehran in the eye.
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 11:51:01 AM
Yeah. The biggest costs in oil industry involve land acquisition and prospecting. Once you have the oil fields going, it's liquid cash.
Depends on what kind of oil field. A conventional field, sure. But if you're looking at offshore stuff, or unconventional plays like the oilsands, the upfront capital costs of developing the field are enormous.
Quote from: Malthus on December 02, 2014, 09:35:47 AM
Quote from: Norgy on December 02, 2014, 09:31:38 AM
Putin's becoming the idol of many on the far right (and I mean far right, not relatively sane conservatives) here. After all, he tells women where it's at and doesn't tolerate liberal media. I just don't get it.
One think I have found stunning is the sheer number of people posting in various places around the Internet who appear to love Putin. Granted, many of them are no doubt Russians, but many appear not to be - it seems like folks on the extreme right and left alike see things they like in him and/or blame any confrontation on the West.
Considering how outright full-retard batshit insane he and his supporters appear to be, this is very odd.
Yes and no, I suppose. In the post-modern world a point of view is as good as a fact, and if one is critical towards Western behaviour (which is far from coherent and uniform, I might add), Putin offers an alternative. A shirtless, riding on a horse while petting tigers and hunting game alternative. An alternative where critical voices suffer from vertigo and fall down from windows or have an uncanny knack of being caught up in "unrelated shootings" and get hit by stray bullets.
To me, the RT retweeting, Facebook-sharing people are the same as the anti-vaccination chemtrails believers. They're listening to Alex Jones and getting their minds blown. Up.
Quote from: Malthus on December 02, 2014, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2014, 10:17:40 AM
Oh and it is going to plunge lower. The Saudis are on a mission to destroy the North American oil threat. It is hard not to take immense pleasure in lower gas prices and the inconvenience this is causing all the petro-tyrannies, but we have to remember this is ultimately done on their behalf.
How is this expected to work? I mean, we know the oil is there and we know how to extract it - sure they can shut down production with super cheap oil, but if they want to make cash they have to raise prices again - making that more expensive NA oil worth extracting again.
The idea is that you drive the financially weaker companies to the wall and take out that supply. If prices later go up, investment will return but there are lead times before that leads to more supply again.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2014, 11:56:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2014, 10:17:40 AM
Oh and it is going to plunge lower. The Saudis are on a mission to destroy the North American oil threat. It is hard not to take immense pleasure in lower gas prices and the inconvenience this is causing all the petro-tyrannies, but we have to remember this is ultimately done on their behalf.
The Saudis aren't concerned about the North American oil threat. They're dialing back the spigots specifically to poke Tehran in the eye.
One stone, two birds.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 02, 2014, 03:59:18 PM
One stone, two birds.
We've been reduced to squeezing the oil out of sand. It's not a sustainable solution. It's not going to make the Saudis sweat the long game.
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2014, 11:57:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 11:51:01 AM
Yeah. The biggest costs in oil industry involve land acquisition and prospecting. Once you have the oil fields going, it's liquid cash.
Depends on what kind of oil field. A conventional field, sure. But if you're looking at offshore stuff, or unconventional plays like the oilsands, the upfront capital costs of developing the field are enormous.
The environmental impact reports alone take armies of lawyers and nearly a decade sometimes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2014, 06:41:47 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 02, 2014, 03:59:18 PM
One stone, two birds.
We've been reduced to squeezing the oil out of sand. It's not a sustainable solution. It's not going to make the Saudis sweat the long game.
No not forever, but possibly for many years to come. It may severely damage Russia though and with a lot of luck maybe Putin will be dethroned. Honestly, this is a beautiful opportunity for foreign policy. Our enemies are weakened, we may be able to wring concession out of Iran and Russia. Angola and Nigeria are not countries we have a beef with, but if they are hurting we could increase our influence there and possibly make important allies in the region. Venezuela may simply go into free fall which is nice. If this is the result of fracking then Frack me up, Scotty!
Putin won't be dethroned in any case. Russians are good at hunkering down and enduring the suffering.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 02, 2014, 09:15:32 PM
Putin won't be dethroned in any case. Russians are good at hunkering down and enduring the suffering.
Yeah, it's not like the Russian government was overthrown in our life time. Putin is popular, that's why he has power. He's popular because the economy is better under him and he is making Russia look strong again. The oil money drives both of these. If those are undermined he'll have to rely on the security apparatus. He knows this and worked hard at strengthening it. The question is if it's enough.
He has also done a much better job than the Soviet state in playing the propaganda card in such a way that even when things take a turn for the worse, his popularity shouldn't suffer.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 02, 2014, 09:49:52 PM
He has also done a much better job than the Soviet state in playing the propaganda card in such a way that even when things take a turn for the worse, his popularity shouldn't suffer.
The Soviets never played the race card. At least openly.
I don't think the Soviets could every be accused of being deficient in propaganda. The problem was the enormous gap between what was being said and what people actually experienced. I don't think Putin is as secure or as strong as he'd like us to think. One thing that stays the same from Czars, to Soviets, to Putin is the Russian tendency to talk big.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2014, 10:01:35 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 02, 2014, 09:49:52 PM
He has also done a much better job than the Soviet state in playing the propaganda card in such a way that even when things take a turn for the worse, his popularity shouldn't suffer.
The Soviets never played the race card. At least openly.
Bullshit. They frequently and repeatedly attacked the US for its treatment of black citizens (despite Soviet society being incredibly racist itself).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2014, 06:41:47 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 02, 2014, 03:59:18 PM
One stone, two birds.
We've been reduced to squeezing the oil out of sand. It's not a sustainable solution. It's not going to make the Saudis sweat the long game.
What's this "we" shit? :yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2014, 10:25:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2014, 10:01:35 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 02, 2014, 09:49:52 PM
He has also done a much better job than the Soviet state in playing the propaganda card in such a way that even when things take a turn for the worse, his popularity shouldn't suffer.
The Soviets never played the race card. At least openly.
Bullshit. They frequently and repeatedly attacked the US for its treatment of black citizens (despite Soviet society being incredibly racist itself).
:yes: "And you are lynching Negroes".
Racism was nationalized in the Soviet Union. Privatized forms of racism was frowned on, but persecution of minorities by the state was okay.
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2014, 10:25:19 PM
Bullshit. They frequently and repeatedly attacked the US for its treatment of black citizens (despite Soviet society being incredibly racist itself).
Not playing our race card; their race card. :P
Quote from: Malthus on December 02, 2014, 09:35:47 AM
Quote from: Norgy on December 02, 2014, 09:31:38 AM
Putin's becoming the idol of many on the far right (and I mean far right, not relatively sane conservatives) here. After all, he tells women where it's at and doesn't tolerate liberal media. I just don't get it.
One think I have found stunning is the sheer number of people posting in various places around the Internet who appear to love Putin. Granted, many of them are no doubt Russians, but many appear not to be - it seems like folks on the extreme right and left alike see things they like in him and/or blame any confrontation on the West.
Considering how outright full-retard batshit insane he and his supporters appear to be, this is very odd.
I agree, at least Stalin's useful idiots were blinded by an ideology that "worked in theory", as Homer would say. These guys don't even have that. It's just a mix of pure contrarianism and ignorance.
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2014, 11:57:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 11:51:01 AM
Yeah. The biggest costs in oil industry involve land acquisition and prospecting. Once you have the oil fields going, it's liquid cash.
Depends on what kind of oil field. A conventional field, sure. But if you're looking at offshore stuff, or unconventional plays like the oilsands, the upfront capital costs of developing the field are enormous.
Do Saudis do a lot of either?
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 02, 2014, 09:15:32 PM
Putin won't be dethroned in any case. Russians are good at hunkering down and enduring the suffering.
Not by the people, but by the oligarchs? This is not the situation when someone like Khodorkovsky grows too ambitious and wants to turn from money-making to politics. This is the situation when all oligarchs suddenly lose a significant part of their ability to make money (this, of course, assumes that sanctions will continue).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 01:17:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2014, 10:25:19 PM
Bullshit. They frequently and repeatedly attacked the US for its treatment of black citizens (despite Soviet society being incredibly racist itself).
Not playing our race card; their race card. :P
Well, hard to play a victim when you also consider yourself the master race. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 03, 2014, 02:06:07 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 02, 2014, 09:15:32 PM
Putin won't be dethroned in any case. Russians are good at hunkering down and enduring the suffering.
Not by the people, but by the oligarchs? This is not the situation when someone like Khodorkovsky grows too ambitious and wants to turn from money-making to politics. This is the situation when all oligarchs suddenly lose a significant part of their ability to make money (this, of course, assumes that sanctions will continue).
Putin is probably not only an oligarch, but the oligarch king.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2014, 01:46:28 AMI agree, at least Stalin's useful idiots were blinded by an ideology that "worked in theory", as Homer would say. These guys don't even have that. It's just a mix of pure contrarianism and ignorance.
I liked Nick Cohen's piece on this:
QuoteRussia Today: why western cynics lap up Putin's TV poison
It's no surprise that the Kremlin delights in piping TV propaganda to the world – it is guaranteed a receptive audience
Nick Cohen
The Observer, Saturday 8 November 2014 18.00 GMT
Vladimir Putin is the world's corrupt policeman. He finds the seediness in every country and nurtures it. On some occasions, he exploits cynicism and paranoia at once; on others, he banks it for later use. Often he appears to fan corruption for the hell of it because that is all he knows how to do.
The posters appearing on British advertising hoardings promoting his propaganda channel give a notion of the scale of his effort. His underlings have rebranded his Russia Today station "RT" – in the hope that its dumb viewers will not realise that they are watching a channel whose political line follows the Kremlin line with puppyish eagerness.
While reputable news organisations from the BBC to the New York Times fire news reporters who try, however inadequately, to tell the truth, Russia Today has extended its reach. Putin is about to increase its $300m budget by 40%. Its resources will soon compare with Fox News. But while Fox serves the peculiar tastes of the American right, Russia Today has global ambitions. The channel broadcasts in English, Arabic and Spanish and can reach 600 million people. It claims to have surpassed a billion hits on YouTube, and will add German- and French-language channels. For the supposedly pariah leader of a country whose population is collapsing and mafia economy stagnating, Putin has the best publicity money can buy.
Anyone who writes critically about him soon learns the price of lese majeste. BuzzFeed revealed that state-sponsored Russian trolls maintain a Stakhanovite regime of tweeting and commenting on hostile news pieces as they spread the Kremlin's message across the web. (Hello down there in the comments, by the way. Hope the sanctions aren't hurting the pay cheques.)
The reaction of the naive observer to Russia's prostitution of journalism is to think its elite has found a new way to steal from the Russian masses. The obvious question is the best one: what's the point? However many the communists killed, Marxist-Leninists still persuaded people to follow them in large numbers until the 1970s. No one tries to persuade you today that Britain or any other country would be happier if the prime minister had Putin's dictatorial powers and the state became a collection of thieves without an independent judiciary, opposition parties or free press to constrain it.
But the reality of modern Russia is not the impediment it seems. Suppose instead of trying to sell you Putin, Russia Today were to sell you the idea that Britain is as bad as a dictatorship. You might agree, however foolish the sentiment. If you are campaigning for change in a manifestly imperfect but still free and prosperous society, you exaggerate in the hope of attracting attention. (If the government passes this restriction on freedom of speech, we'll be no better than Iran. If the Tories stay in control of the NHS, we'll have third-world hospitals and so on.) A lie is still a lie, even if it is made in a good cause. But I can see why people do it.
The disbelief that oozes through much of public debate in our time is rarely in the service of any cause, however. It is radical indifference; a furious determination to condemn accompanied by an equally determined refusal to commit. Like Russell Brand, millions of people don't want to say what change they want to see, because a commitment would force them to take a position and lay them open to attack.
They aren't cynics but pseudo-sophisticated innocents. They shout "liar" automatically at everyone who tries to rule over them – and doubtless they are right more often than not. But to dispense with the search for proof – the need to demonstrate that the politician or banker is lying – leaves the supposedly wised-up open to capture by cults, conspiracy theorists and Russia.
The Institute of Modern Russia releases a report this week that shows how the collapse of communism liberated Moscow. Communists had to pretend to support leftwing movements – Putin can support anyone. Where the old communists claimed the Soviet Union was freer and more democratic than the west, Putinists claim "all liberalism is cant and anyone can be bought". Russia Today feeds the huge western audience that wants to believe that human rights are a sham and democracy a fix. Believe that and you will ask: what right have we to criticise Putin? At least he is honest in his way.
David Remnick of the New Yorker described Russia Today's "nastily brilliant" ability to feed "resentment of western superiority and resentment of western moralism". He forgot to add that nowhere is that resentment stronger than in the west.
Russia Today's second mission is to spread conspiracy theories that help Russian power and provide sensational audience-grabbing stories – in every sense of the word. If you have heard that the Ukrainians who oppose Putin are fascists, that there is a land called "Novorossiya" in south-east Ukraine that historically belonged to Moscow, or that Assad did not gas Syrians, the odds are the story will have started on Russia Today.
Occasionally, its journalists have crises of conscience – Sara Firth, a London-based correspondent for Russia Today, resigned because of its lies about flight MH17. But replacements can always be found among the ranks of the desperate and unscrupulous.
I said that no one believed Putin offered a future for humanity. But his post-communist, postmodern flexibility means that many are prepared cut a deal when the bent copper makes an offer. Alex Salmond admires him because the break-up of Britain is in Russia's interests. Nigel Farage, Marine le Pen and all the other leaders of Europe's far right run to him because he shares their hatred of the EU. Despite his alliance with what we once called neofascism, the old communist left in Germany, George Galloway and Julian Assange support him because opposition to the west trumps anti-fascism in their book.
Russia Today provides a platform for anti-fracking greens because Putin wants us to remain dependent on Russian oil and gas. Viktor Orbán and Recep Tayyip Erdogan see how Putin has accumulated dictatorial power in Russia and wish to imitate him in Hungary and Turkey. London's banks and law and PR firms work for him because the oligarchy pumps money their way. In Europe and at the United Nations, bigots of all descriptions welcome Putin's leadership in fighting calls for gay equality and religious freedom.
However battered he looks, Putin knows how to manipulate all he comes across. It is about time the rest of the world knew it too.
Today in WTF Russia? This front page:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B36l8GmIMAA7f0z.jpg)
I think it's a Titanic reference. Not sure about the pose, though. :P
They seem to like those sorts of things:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsstand.co.uk%2Fi2428766%2FZoom%2FARGUMENTI-FAKTI_19092014.jpg&hash=5605bce83c19e41f5a50e47dde001eeaf1c0b8a8)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.english-magazines.com%2Fi2425628%2FZoom%2FARGUMENTI-FAKTI_05092014.jpg&hash=743e7cae1efc9157ed9762174746b9a73ae8e3d5)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.english-magazines.com%2Fi2424101%2FZoom%2FARGUMENTI-FAKTI_08082014.jpg&hash=f1778e299da37f3cbd25d1183659dc7ce9318640)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tv5monde.com%2Fcms%2Fuserdata%2Fc_page%2F14%2F14557%2F14557_vignette_egypte-argufakti.jpg&hash=aee25dab6f50447ac95e7637e6df4885384c47c4)
I like the line about "pseudo-sophisticated innocents" in particular. I think it describes useful idiots of all masters well.
I like the headline accompanying the "Cameron playing bagpipes" cover - "Will Scotland follow the way of Crimea?".
These fuckers have some nerve. :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 03, 2014, 03:10:42 AM
Today in WTF Russia? This front page:
Oh,dear. Is Adobe boycotting them too?
Admittedly, this is apparently a weekly (sic!) tabloid. So I don't think this is a particular departure from the standard elsewhere.
I mean, this is a sample from Poland :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.natemat.pl%2Fefcba2b74366fd7dcb325100185961c5%2C750%2C470%2C0%2C0.jpg&hash=fa8a4dc78b3da41db3baddd4d0db786f4c81021a)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wprost.pl%2FG%2Fcache%2F4%2F4%2Fd%2F44d392b777bae0c6c25bb4506022e13b77329a94.jpg&hash=3da273987898053f3713c1aab72524dd1d01dbeb)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbi.gazeta.pl%2Fim%2F83%2F42%2Fd1%2Fz13714051Q%2CAngela-Merkel-w-oswiecimskim-pasiaku-na-okladce--U.jpg&hash=085ce4a2c16f1eb96b481d22460ee8406550472e)
QuoteBuzzFeed revealed that state-sponsored Russian trolls maintain a Stakhanovite regime of tweeting and commenting on hostile news pieces as they spread the Kremlin's message across the web.
It does sound like a PR person's creative writing dream job, though. :lol: It's like writing The Onion for a government.
Quote(Hello down there in the comments, by the way. Hope the sanctions aren't hurting the pay cheques.)
Just lookink for Moose and Sqvirrel, nothink to see here.
I think there's enough idiots going around that do it for free.
Speaking of pay cheques, I just read that last year all Russian bureaucrats got a 20% pay raise and currently their average pay is 300% of the average pay in the private sector. Talk about a dream job.
I can't wait for this all to collapse. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 02, 2014, 09:43:03 PM
Yeah, it's not like the Russian government was overthrown in our life time.
Sure, but that was 70 years after the last time.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 08:00:17 AM
QuoteBuzzFeed revealed that state-sponsored Russian trolls maintain a Stakhanovite regime of tweeting and commenting on hostile news pieces as they spread the Kremlin's message across the web.
It does sound like a PR person's creative writing dream job, though. :lol: It's like writing The Onion for a government.
Didn't think about it that way. I'm sending an open application for junior propaganda writer now.
"What do you think, Lou?"
"I like your story's angle, kid, but it needs more Jews. And toss something in about the CIA."
"Lack of black bears, shirtless leaders show European weakness, NATO-insider tells Russia Today
- Our leaders are just too cowardly to go on a bear hunt. It's probably the Jewish element that is to blame, and our lack of bears.
The source also mentions the fondness for mussels and mayonnaise in the NATO headquarters to be 'almost sickening', and that NATO in general is rather gay.
- Just look at the new secretary general, he wears a helmet when biking, for ****'s sake. And every year most member countries have to turn away thousands of youths from service because all they do is fondling the members of other squad members.
Russia's foreign office declined to comment on the revelation, but the sniggers heard tell all that needs to be told."
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 08:00:17 AM
QuoteBuzzFeed revealed that state-sponsored Russian trolls maintain a Stakhanovite regime of tweeting and commenting on hostile news pieces as they spread the Kremlin's message across the web.
It does sound like a PR person's creative writing dream job, though. :lol: It's like writing The Onion for a government.
Quote(Hello down there in the comments, by the way. Hope the sanctions aren't hurting the pay cheques.)
Just lookink for Moose and Sqvirrel, nothink to see here.
Lol, as the Russians try to relive their past Soviet glory days, it all must feel very comfortable and familiar.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2014, 06:41:47 PM
We've been reduced to squeezing the oil out of sand. It's not a sustainable solution.
There is a LOT of unconventional oil and gas. It is quite sustainable as long as we are prepared to pay over 80/barrel for it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 03, 2014, 03:30:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2014, 06:41:47 PM
We've been reduced to squeezing the oil out of sand. It's not a sustainable solution.
There is a LOT of unconventional oil and gas. It is quite sustainable as long as we are prepared to pay over 80/barrel for it.
And destroy our own immediate environment in the process. Winner winner, chicken dinner.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 03:34:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 03, 2014, 03:30:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2014, 06:41:47 PM
We've been reduced to squeezing the oil out of sand. It's not a sustainable solution.
There is a LOT of unconventional oil and gas. It is quite sustainable as long as we are prepared to pay over 80/barrel for it.
And destroy our own immediate environment in the process. Winner winner, chicken dinner.
True but that will happen regardless of whether one uses conventional or unconventional fossil fuels.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 03, 2014, 03:38:29 PM
True but that will happen regardless of whether one uses conventional or unconventional fossil fuels.
Depends.
But hey, let's burn up our finite supply of natural resources in North America, while extending the lifespan of the Middle East's resources. What can happen?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2014, 03:34:49 PM
And destroy our own immediate environment in the process. Winner winner, chicken dinner.
North Dakota's not really that close.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30322198
QuoteRussia's Putin calls for Russians to be self-reliant
President Vladimir Putin has warned Russians of hard times and urged self-reliance, in his annual state of the nation address to parliament.
Speaking to both chambers in the Kremlin, Mr Putin condemned Western governments for seeking to raise a new iron curtain around Russia.
Western sanctions, in response to Russia's role in eastern Ukraine, and falling oil prices have hit hard.
The government has warned that Russia will fall into recession next year.
In an attempt to kick-start the economy he proposed a "full amnesty" for capital to return to Russia. Capital flight is estimated at more than $100bn (£64bn; €81bn) this year.
Repatriating capital to Russia legally would mean "there will be no questions from the tax and law enforcement bodies", Mr Putin promised.
He also proposed a four-year freeze on tax rates.
Rouble's woes
On Monday, the rouble suffered its biggest one-day fall since 1998.
The currency slid almost 9% against the dollar before rallying after suspected central bank intervention.
Mr Putin called for "tough co-ordinated actions" by the Russian Central Bank and government "to quell the desire of so-called speculators to profit from changes in the Russian currency's rate".
In order to release funding for important projects, Mr Putin said, the state's National Welfare Fund would lend money on favourable terms to Russia's major banks. It is one of two big sovereign wealth funds created mainly out of revenue from energy sales.
From the outset of his speech, in front of an audience of 1,100 people, Mr Putin defended Russia's annexation of Crimea in March, saying that the Ukrainian peninsula's residents were "our people".
He insisted that the "tragedy" in Ukraine's south-east had proved that Russian policy had been right, but said Russia would respect its neighbour as a brotherly country.
Western 'cynicism'
Condemning the "pure cynicism" of the West, he complained that even if Crimea had not been annexed, the West would have come up with a different pretext to impose sanctions to contain Russia's resurgence.
Then he began to accuse Western governments of trying to raise a new iron curtain around Russia.
While he asserted that Russia would not enter an "expensive arms race", it would provide its own security, including with "unconventional means", so that nobody would gain military domination. Russia had enough "power, will and courage" to protect itself, he added.
Moving on to the economy, Mr Putin pledged that Russia would be open to the world - to foreign investment and joint projects. But he warned that it faced a "hard time ahead: much depends on each of us at our workplace". Western sanctions should be seen as a stimulus, he argued.
"We have a huge internal market and resources... capable, intelligent people," he said. The key was to give people the chance to flourish.
Underlining the message of self-reliance, Mr Putin said "our people have demonstrated national strength, patriotism - and the difficulties we are facing create new opportunities". "We are prepared to take any challenge of the time and win," he said.
Falling oil prices have affected Russia because of the country's reliance on energy exports, the BBC's Steve Rosenberg reports from Moscow.
And Western sanctions over Russia's annexation of Crimea and its role in destabilising eastern Ukraine are contributing to the country's economic problems.
The estimated cost of sanctions and falling oil prices to Russia is $140bn a year, according to Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov.
Over the last year the rouble has lost around 40% of its value against the dollar and inflation is expected to reach 10% early next year.
However, President Putin remains popular, our correspondent adds. According to one opinion poll this week, 72% of Russians approve of the way he is running the country.
QuoteCondemning the "pure cynicism" of the West, he complained that even if Crimea had not been annexed, the West would have come up with a different pretext to impose sanctions to contain Russia's resurgence.
I am not so sure about that. So, thank all the Gods that he annexed Crimea.
Quote
However, President Putin remains popular, our correspondent adds. According to one opinion poll this week, 72% of Russians approve of the way he is running the country.
By Putin's standards that must be extremely low. At least 50-60 percentage points below the benchmark.
And here's the Russian state media summary:
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/765032
QuoteKey points of Vladimir Putin's annual state of the nation address
Vladimir Putin has given his view of Russia's future development in an annual address to both the chambers of the country's parliament
On December 4 Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered his annual state of the nation address to the Federal Assembly, the both chambers of Russia's parliament. The state of the nation address is a basic document, which outlines the president's positions on major directions of the Russian policies not only for the coming year, but also for future.
Position on the Ukrainian crisis and Crimea's unification with Russia
Russia has the right to pursue its sole line of development, the president said. "This applies to Ukraine as well," Putin said. He called hypocritical the use of human's rights issue to cover for the state coup in Ukraine.
The president recalled the Crimean referendum and the reunification of the republic with Russia. The reunification, he said, is a major historic event. Crimea has significance for Russia, he said, and Russians will handle it that way forever.
On US influence
The United States always influences Russia's relations with neighbouring states directly or behind-the-scenes, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.
Getting back to the way Russia's dialogue with Europe and the US on Ukraine was developing, the president said "It is not by chance that I have mentioned our American friends, as they have always been influencing our relations with neighbours directly or behind-the-scenes".
"If some European countries have forgotten about their national pride long ago and are considering sovereignty to be a great luxury, real state sovereignty is an absolutely essential condition for Russia's existence," Putin said.
On sanctions
"Of course, sanctions are harmful, but they are harmful for everyone, including for those who initiate them," Putin stressed. The Russian president however said sanctions and restrictions motivate to reach the set aims. Putin said he's sure that the sanctions are not just a "nervous reaction of the United States and its allies" to Russia's behavior in connection with events in Ukraine and not due to "the Crimean spring."
"The policy of containment was not invented yesterday. It has been carried out against this country for many and many years — always, if one can say. For decades if not centuries," Putin said.
"Each time when someone believes that Russia has become too strong, independent, these tools are used immediately," the Russian leader said.
Russia isn't going to stop relations with Europe or America. Besides, Putin said, Russia has many strategic friends and partners in the world. The country will be open for the world and for attracting investments from abroad for joint projects, the president said. He sets a task of increasing the investment in the Russian economy to 25% of the GDP by 2018.
On import substitution
Reasonable import substitution is Russia's strategic goal in the near future, Vladimir Putin said in his address. Russia should get rid of dependency on foreign equipment, including for oil drilling in the Arctic, the president said. According to him, when foreign companies buy equipment abroad, it doesn't do any good for Russia. They should use local products, Putin said. If Rusia buys anything abroad, the products have to be unique. Putin set the task to create conditions fot the SME to take part in the government procurement programs.
On support of terrorism in Russia from abroad and disbalance in the world
Since 2002, when the US abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, there's been a threat of strategic disbalance in the world, and it's bad even for the US itself, Vladimir Putin said. "I think this is harmful for the United States as well, because it creates the dangerous illusion of invincibility," Putin said.
He noted Russia isn't going to get involved in the arms race though it will do its best to provide its security. The president added that Russia has nonstandard solutions.
It's useless to try talking to Russia from position of strength. "We remember the countries that supported the terrorists in Russia ...and those people make trouble today in Chechnya," Putin said. The terrorists, according to the president, still receive support from abroad. "Those countries want the Yugoslavian scenario to happen in Russia, he said. Putin noted they will fail just as Hitler failed with his misanthropic idea.
On government spending
According to the president, Defense Ministry should create a new system for control of budget spending. Improper spending in the sphere of defense can be considered as a threat to national security, he says.
Vladimir Putin says all budget corporations should have a common treasury, and all companies with large state share should reduce their costs several per cent each year.
On industry modernization
Putin says Russia is capable of modernizing its economy and being leader in the world in certain industries. To achieve that, Russia has to use internal resources, like the Academy of Sciences, and attract Russian nationals from abroad. By 2020 half of Russian colleges should have training cources for 50 most popular professions, says the president.
On demography and care for the disabled
Russian demography programs have proven efficient and the programs will be extended for Crimea, says the president.
"The country's population is almost 144 million people, it's 8 million over the UN outlook," says Putin. Russia has life a expectancy of over 71 years and has all chances to increase it to 74, he says.
Putin thanks the Russian athletes for their participation in the Sochi Paralympic Games. He says Russia should increase support for the disabled. This, according to the president, includes professional training, production of specific goods, among other things.
Russia is resurgent? :unsure:
It looks like they are committing political and economic suicide to me.
I would like to think Tamas for explaining to me how Putinism works. Otherwise Putin claiming the West was engaging in 'pure cynicism' would be hilariously insane, but instead I understand the strategy involved.
Quote"We have a huge internal market and resources... capable, intelligent people," he said. The key was to give people the chance to flourish.
Seems more like they've become mainly an energy supplier with nothing coming close to matching that industry or the revenue from it. With oil prices falling their economy is supposedly being hit hard because of the huge reliance on energy.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/04/police-killed-as-gun-battle-erupts-in-chechnyas-capital
QuoteGun battles erupt in Chechnya's capital after militants launch attack
At least six gunmen and 10 security officers killed in Grozny attack that started in early hours of morning
Militants attacked buildings in Chechnya's capital, Grozny, in the early hours of yesterday morning, prompting gun battles that left at least 10 security officers and six insurgents dead.
According to Russia's anti-terrorist committee, three cars carrying militants drove into the city overnight, killing three traffic police officers who tried to stop them.
The committee said militants then occupied Grozny's Press House, which was later destroyed, killing six of the gunmen. Video footage showed the upper floors of the Press House engulfed in flames.
The gunmen later holed themselves up in a school, though no students or teachers were present at the time, RIA Novosti quoted its vice-principal as saying. Russian state television showed video footage of security officers firing automatic weapons and grenade launchers at the three-storey building.
The fighting left 10 security officers dead and 28 injured, Russian authorities said.
Russian forces fought two wars in Chechnya in the 1990s, and Putin cites the pacification of Chechnya as one of the main achievements of his early years in power.
Under the Kremlin-backed leader Ramzan Kadyrov terror attacks have indeed become rare. Stability under Kadyrov has come at a price, with violent and controversial methods often employed to tame critics, and punitive tactics such as house-burning used against the families of men believed to have joined the insurgency.
But Grozny is unrecognisable from the charred ruins it was reduced to by Russian forces in 2000. New buildings have sprung up, a five-star hotel has opened, and the main street has been renamed Putin Avenue. The region remains volatile, and attacks in the neighbouring republics of Dagestan and Ingushetia are more frequent.
All schools in Grozny were closed yesterday and a "counter-terrorist operation" status was introduced by Russian authorities to allow for enhanced security measures and the use of force.
Kadyrov, who travelled to Moscow for Putin's address, told journalists the security operation was over and that nine militants had been killed, though this was not verified. "We have found the bodies of nine [militants], but they [the security officers] are continuing to search," the Interfax news agency quoted Kadyrov as saying.
Earlier he had uploaded a photograph to Instagram of what appeared to be the lower-half of a dead body on the street. "Dogs will die like dogs," he wrote.
A video posted to the Kavkaz Centre website, which North Caucasus Islamic insurgents often use for communication, featured a man speaking Chechen who said the gunmen were acting on the orders of the rebel leader, Emir Khamzat.
"There are already results; Allah has destroyed them using our hand," said the man in the clip.
Kadyrov has introduced a number of Islamic regulations to the region, including a ban on alcohol sales and strong advice that women should cover their heads at all times. However, the Caucasus Emirate, an Islamic terrorist group which wants to set up an Islamic state across the north Caucasus, has declared war on Kadyrov and his forces. Many of their members operate from abroad, and it is not known how many insurgents remain hiding in the forests and mountains of Chechnya.
I don't think tautologies are Russia's biggest problem.
The bolded comment at the end is a great example of the Russian people's great penchant for internal defeatism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russian-youths-find-politics-as-their-pop-icons-face-pressure/2014/12/01/1b1898c0-4f26-44e1-a6c6-dd076a315983_story.html
QuoteRussian youths find politics as their pop icons face pressure
MOSCOW — Courting and cultivating loyalty among the Russian youth has long been a part of the Kremlin's governing strategy. But the latest apparent move to command allegiance from younger Russians may be backfiring.
When young people in former Soviet republics organized "color revolutions" to push out undemocratic leaders a decade ago, the Kremlin lent support to Nashi, a nationalist, pro-state youth organization whose ideals thrive in spinoff groups to this day. When the West began protesting Russia's annexation of Crimea earlier this year, the Russian government introduced a new patriotism curriculum to emphasize the territories' historic bond.
But when Russian authorities started going after outspoken pop icons this fall, they struck a nerve with many young people who claim to be largely apolitical but suddenly became wary of officials muzzling stars of their generation.
"I'm not that involved in politics. I'm more interested in what's happening to my idols, and politics only as a consequence of that," said Alexei Kornev, 19, a student from Tomsk who studies in Moscow. "But nobody and nothing should be in the way of music."
For Kornev and many others, the performer whose experience inspired such concerns is Russia's biggest homegrown hip-hop star, Ivan Alekseev — better known by his rap alias, Noize MC.
Noize MC has been a feature on the Russian music scene for the past seven or eight years, building a following as a skilled lyricist with a knack for peddling catchy riffs and social commentary through storytelling. His audience is young — predominantly teens and 20-somethings. And though he often displays a healthy disregard for authority, he had never really went head-on with the government until the past few months, when he began to get heat for accepting a Ukrainian flag from a female fan during a music festival in Lviv, Ukraine.
It happened in August as Ukrainian officials were openly accusing Russia of sending troops and tanks to aid separatists fighting a war in the east of the country. Other Russian headliners had already pulled out of the Lviv concert lineup. But Noize MC performed and accepted the flag as he sang "Tanzy," a remix of a Ukrainian song that he has been rapping in Russian since 2012.
"I didn't think of it as something specific or important," Alekseev said during an interview in Moscow. "I was just in Ukraine and sang in Ukrainian, and someone gave me a Ukrainian flag. And in Ukraine, everything was okay — it was totally fine."
But when the pictures from the show emerged, Russia was not fine with the display of solidarity with its Slavic neighbor.
Within weeks, most of the star's live shows were canceled under pressure from authorities, he said, or raided by federal drug officials and bomb squads reporting tips of criminal activity. Alekseev said more than 60 percent of his shows were canceled, including almost every stop on a tour of Siberia and Russia's Far East — where authorities even met him and his band at their hotels and train stations, he said, to keep them from playing alternative venues.
"It was [like] if you were doing a three-day tour of gigs in Ohio and you have guys from the CIA, FBI and local police coming and telling you to go," Alekseev said.
Each time, the reaction on Noize MC's social-media pages — he claims he has more than 75 times the number of VKontakte fans as Network, the pro-Putin youth organization of the moment — was a mixture of confusion, shock and anger, especially from fans in far-flung regions, where a Noize MC show is a rare and precious event.
Even at a recent show in Moscow, frustration was still resonating among many Noize MC fans.
"It's stupid. It happened because Noize appeared onstage in Ukraine, and they called him a traitor," said Egor Kaluga, 21, who likened the cancellations to something out of Soviet times. "Then, there were persecutions of non-conformist artists, but with Noize MC, there is no politics. He only speaks his opinion — he doesn't organize demonstrations or call on anyone to do anything."
Others said Noize MC was being unfairly targeted because of his popularity — much like Andrei Makarevich, often called Russia's Paul McCartney. Makarevich had concerts canned after performing this summer for children in eastern Ukraine.
"In Russia, we always have to have a guilty party," said Pyotr Semekevich, 19, explaining that just as Makarevich had been singled out as "a symbol" for his parents' generation, "for us, it's Noize MC."
As concerts are called off, Russian sociologists are wondering what effect marginalizing artists such as Noize MC will have on young fans, a generation brought up in an environment of what one called "exaggerated patriotism," in which Putin has held almost unrivaled power.
"You cannot ban people from listening to the music that they want to — this is not efficient, and it is dangerous," said Elena Omelchenko, director of the Center for Youth Studies at Russia's Higher School of Economics. She said she receives letters from all over Russia asking about banned shows.
If things continue, it could give rise to new youth subcultures, Omelchenko said, much like those that developed during the Soviet Union, when direct bans drove many rock artists and their fans underground.
There is a chance that performers such as Noize MC could lose their audience to other artists. While there are other exceptions, the vast majority of Russian pop stars, as Alekseev put it, "don't protest against anything. They just play music about love."
But the more noise Noize MC makes about the apparent political target on his back, the more his fans are waking to political realities in Russia.
"I don't care about politics, but I care that this is happening and it's having an influence on my life, my favorite musicians," Elena Talalina, 21, said of the canceled Noize MC concerts. "It's disturbing. But I guess it's normal in this country."
Karoun Demirjian is a reporting fellow in The Post's Moscow bureau. She previously served as the Washington Correspondent for the Las Vegas Sun, and reported for the Associated Press in Jerusalem and the Chicago Tribune in Chicago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/opinion/bad-mannered-russians-in-the-west.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar
QuoteBad-Mannered Russians in the West
By KAREN DAWISHADEC. 3, 2014
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, an entirely new architecture was envisaged to incorporate Russia into Western institutions, from the Council of Europe to the World Trade Organization, from the High Courts of London to the New York Stock Exchange. Now, under Vladimir Putin, these institutions themselves risk being undermined by unethical Russian practices that provide at best a fig leaf of respectability for Russian behavior that no longer meets the minimal standards for classification as a "European" state. Kremlin-coordinated actions in Ukraine and elsewhere threaten to overwhelm European institutions meant to deepen Russian economic and political freedoms.
Welcoming Russian companies to Wall Street and the City should have improved the quality of Russian corporate governance and transparency. But it has not. Shady Russian oligarchs connected to the Kremlin have become fabulously wealthy from dozens of I.P.O.s in London and New York.
Until recently, the higher burden of compliance at the New York Stock Exchange had kept Russian companies away. But instead of protecting American investors, a large percentage of which are public pension funds, Congress included a provision in the 2012 Jobs Act that opened up the N.Y.S.E. to more Russian businesses by allowing emerging growth companies with revenues of less than $1 billion a five-year exemption from independent audits. The number of Russian companies traded on the N.Y.S.E. grew from two to over three dozen by 2014.
The market increasingly recognizes the risk of dealing with Russian companies, the largest of which is Gazprom. Despite having the world's largest net profits, Gazprom was trading at one-third the stock market valuation of Exxon Mobil, due to what is widely regarded as rampant and Kremlin-directed corruption. Russian courts continued the house arrest of Vladimir Yevtushenko even after he had forfeited to the state his shares in Bashneft, a subsidiary of Sistema, the first Russian company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This suggests that even those companies of long standing are going to be subject to Kremlin pressure. Fearing that Sistema itself would collapse, its one-year return has plummeted by over 75 percent, losing investors, including Western investors, over $13 billion in the last year.
No one objects to Russian companies taking their rightful place in global markets, but not when it comes at the expense of investors who assume that Russian corporate governance will improve when actually the opposite is occurring.
Russian capitalism depends on the Kremlin's closest circle marauding freely inside the country while safeguarding gains abroad. Russian oligarchs consume the public goods produced in the West — including the rule of law and a reliable investment climate — while maintaining vast networks of shell companies. Their presence strengthens the worst aspects of our system, and weakens the best.
Mr. Putin has said he wants an end to corruption and bureaucratic bullying. If he is serious, this would be good news for Russia, as it might show that he is actually willing to lay down laws that everyone will have to abide by. But thus far he has only increased the power of the state at home, while treating the West like an à la carte menu — with public goods of his own choosing to be freely consumed. What he doesn't understand, however, is that "the West" is a prix fixe menu: Its values and obligations must be consumed along with its pleasures.
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Members of Mr. Putin's inner elite routinely sue for damages in European courts even as the rule of law is flagrantly undermined in Russia. The largest cases in the U.K. Commercial Court involve Russians. The Kremlin is opening a case in London against the banker Sergey Pugachev, whose assets he alleges were raided by the Russian state, leading him to flee to Britain and claim that in Russia there is no private property — "only serfs who belong to Putin."
In addition, soon to appear on the legal horizon in Europe will be the Russian challenge to European Union sanctions. In the United States, sanctions are imposed, and removed, by administrative fiat; but in Europe, they can, and they will, be challenged in court. In the European Court of Justice, Mr. Putin's longtime friend and crony Arkady Rotenberg, along with the oil giant Rosneft, Russia's largest commercial bank Sberbank and Gazprom Neft, the oil branch of Gazprom, are suing the European Union, claiming they had nothing to do with the annexation of Crimea.
The European Union is fighting what looks like a losing battle to stanch the tide of corrupt, predatory and anti-democratic behavior by Russia. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption have repeatedly investigated Russia's refusal to sign more than a handful of the conventions it is legally bound to uphold, including provisions for election monitoring and the criminalization of corruption. Russia's membership in PACE bought the regime time to parade as a country upholding European values, until its voting rights were suspended after the annexation of Crimea. The council will consider extending the suspension, but the chances of Russia being readmitted to full voting membership are slim.
Appearing to live up to its obligations to the Council of Europe — which Russia joined in 1996, committing it to a democratic path — gave Russia the status of a legitimate state with European values long after the regime had taken the country in the opposite direction. It is of course the case that as long as European institutions were able to make headway in gaining Russian compliance with European norms, it was beneficial for Europe to maintain Russian membership. But one must now wonder whether that benefit hasn't faded.
Many Russians dream of Europe and embrace its values, but sadly they cannot enjoy these values any longer in Russia. As many Russians left the country in the first eight months of 2014 as left it annually in the hard-pressed 1990s.
No one wants to build new barriers between Russia and Europe. But membership in European institutions was intended to shape Russian institutions in European directions. If these institutions instead risk being undermined by Russian actions that threaten to overwhelm them, then Russia should be excluded. By the standards of political freedoms, Russia is now barely above Belarus. Why should the one be in Europe when the other, closer to Europe, is denied?
Karen Dawisha is the author of "Putin's Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?" and the director of Miami University's Center for Russian and Post-Soviet Studies.
http://rt.com/news/211599-ruble-oil-sanctions-russia/
QuoteWest behind falling ruble and oil prices - Russian spy chief
Washington and its allies are pursuing a regime change policy towards Russia, deliberately introducing sanctions and attacking the ruble through manipulation of world oil prices, the head of Russia's external intelligence agency has said.
Mikhail Fradkov, the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), warned that Moscow is aware of US moves to oust Putin from power.
"Such a desire has been noticed, it's a small secret," Fradkov - a former prime minister - told Bloomberg on Thursday. "No one wants to see a strong and independent Russia."
He also attributed the more than 30 percent drop in oil price partly to US actions. Lower prices on one of Russia's main exports placed immense pressure on the ruble, which is also suffering from sanctions. The ruble has lost 39 percent of its value against the dollar so far this year.
Foreign investment funds are "taking part" in ruble speculation via intermediaries, Fradkov said. "Any speculation has specific schemes and the schemes have a number of participants."
READ MORE: Those looking to profit from plunging ruble will be 'dealt with' – Putin
Earlier on Thursday, Russian president Vladimir Putin in his address to the Federal Assembly said that the government knows exactly who is profiting from speculation against the Russian ruble, and that the government and central bank have tools to punish them.
"The government knows who these profiteers are. It is time to do something about them," Vladimir Putin said during his 11th state of the nation address in the Kremlin's St. George's Hall in Moscow.
The political and economic tensions can only be halted once the West learns to respect Moscow's interests, but for now Russia will focus on solving domestic issues.
It will take two to four years to reach the "more objective understanding needed for lifting some barriers and cooperation," Fradkov concluded.
Lol, the ruble. I remember the days when even the peso laughed at that shit.
You can't have good economy when even your currency name sounds like "rubble". :P
QuoteHe also attributed the more than 30 percent drop in oil price partly to US actions
Well it is partly due to US actions, along with every other nation non earth that either produces or consumes oil, but this super spy at least got that right.
Wait, the sanctions were deliberate? Is he sure of that?
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2014, 02:15:48 AM
QuoteHe also attributed the more than 30 percent drop in oil price partly to US actions
Well it is partly due to US actions, along with every other nation non earth that either produces or consumes oil, but this super spy at least got that right.
It's mostly due to slowing in the rate of growth of Chinese energy demand, really.
http://rt.com/news/212527-eye-sauron-moscow-scyscraper/
QuoteReal-life 'Eye of Sauron' will open up over Moscow skyscraper tower
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.rt.com%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F33%2Fe2%2Ff0%2F00%2Fmoscow-small.si.jpg&hash=267d8a466e854d961c243bd031b0cd45c39f0b97)
Tolkien fans rejoice! The 'Eye of Sauron' now is not just fiction – it will light up the skyline of Moscow-City to ominously watch down on the Russian capital as the latest "Hobbit" movie premiers in Russia on Thursday night.
Fans of the British fiction novelist J. R. R. Tolkien will re-create the Eye of the Dark Lord Sauron from the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy on Wednesday night, according to The Hollywood Reporter Russia.
The creators from a Russian art-group 'Svechenie' dreamed up this wild installation as a tribute to the great saga and its film adaptation.
They said that the installation of a real life Eye of the Dark Lord of Mordor will "let millions of fans visit Middle-earth" – the fictional world where the adventures of the trilogy take place.
The light installation of the perilous Eye engulfed in flames will be set up on the roof of the "IQ-quarter" complex at the Gals-development company in Moscow International Business Center "Moscow-City".
In Tolkien's saga the lidless Eye was the symbol of power and fear though which the Dark Lord Sauron was able to exert his will over Middle-earth. It was stationed atop the Barad-dûr tower – the fortress from which Sauron watched over the world. The All Seeing Eye is an allusion to mass surveillance and control.
The epic fantasy adventure films based on Tolkien's novel were directed by Peter Jackson. The first part of the trilogy - The Fellowship of the Ring - was released in 2001. Following the global success Jackson filmed Tolkien's prequel novel "The Hobbit. Or There and Back Again." The movie series features three parts, the last of which was released in December.
:lmfao: I have an odd feeling that the initiators have an intended subtext with this, but I can't quite put my finger on it ... :hmm: :P
Hahahaha. I saw that in passing on Facebook and thought it was the Onion. :lmfao:
But if there is one skill former Eastern Bloc's artists excel at it's the ability to sneak stuff like that past the censors. :lol:
I thought that The Shard in London already fulfilled that "eye of Sauron" role. :P
Quote from: The Larch on December 09, 2014, 06:44:44 AM
I thought that The Shard in London already fulfilled that "eye of Sauron" role. :P
I like The Shard :)
Interesting interview with Gary Kasparov on the news last night, seems a decent guy and unusually for a top chess player has a non-egotistical view of the world.
Said he was in effect in exile now, as to go back would be "a one way ticket".
Quote from: Tamas on December 09, 2014, 07:07:11 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 09, 2014, 06:44:44 AM
I thought that The Shard in London already fulfilled that "eye of Sauron" role. :P
I like The Shard :)
Even if they don't admit people wearing sport shoes? :ph34r:
Quote from: The Larch on December 09, 2014, 07:13:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 09, 2014, 07:07:11 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 09, 2014, 06:44:44 AM
I thought that The Shard in London already fulfilled that "eye of Sauron" role. :P
I like The Shard :)
Even if they don't admit people wearing sport shoes? :ph34r:
:lol: :P
Worth watching to the end for the final leer. For the profoundly tasteless oligarch:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S9KClr9x8NI
http://rt.com/news/212891-sauron-moscow-orthodox-church/
Quote'Eye of Sauron' on Moscow skyscraper to end up badly for city, Orthodox Church says
Russian Orthodox Church has slammed plans to erect a real-life 'Eye of Sauron' in Moscow, saying that the art project dedicated to the premiere of the final part of the "Hobbit" movie trilogy may have bad consequences for the Russian capital.
'Eye of Sauron' is "in any case, a demonic symbol," Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, a senior church official in charge of relations with the society, stressed.
"Such a symbol of triumphant evil rising above Moscow and becoming one of the tallest objects in the city...is it good or bad? I am afraid it's mostly bad. One shouldn't be surprised if something goes wrong with the city after that," Chaplin told Govorit Moskva radio station.
Russian art-group 'Svechenie' plan to create the scary installation which will be in place for some 9 hours is a tribute to British novelist J. R. R. Tolkien and film adaptations of his most famous works "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit."
A giant orb, with the projection of the fiery 'Eye of Sauron' on it, will be lit on the roof of one of the towers of the Moscow-City International Business Center on Wednesday, a day ahead of the Russian premiere of "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies."
According to Chaplin, such installations must be discussed "if not with the population of the capital, then with some cultural authority" before being erected.
READ MORE: Real-life 'Eye of Sauron' will open up over Moscow skyscraper tower
In Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" saga the 'Eye of Sauron' Eye was the symbol of power and fear through which the Dark Lord Sauron was able to exert his will over Middle-earth.
The epic fantasy adventure film trilogy based on Tolkien's novel was directed by New Zealand filmmaker, Peter Jackson.
The three movies, which were released between 2001 and 2004, won 17 Oscars and grossed $2.92 billion worldwide.
Following the global success of the "The Lord of the Rings," Tolkien's prequel novel "The Hobbit. Or There and Back Again" was also turned into a movie trilogy, with Jackson returning in the director's chair.
Well, that's bonkers.
But then I am surprised at people constantly being surprised by churches saying something that is bonkers. These people believe in invisible God, angels and demons. Why is that not already enough to institutionalise them?
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2014, 03:57:41 AM
Well, that's bonkers.
But then I am surprised at people constantly being surprised by churches saying something that is bonkers. These people believe in invisible God, angels and demons. Why is that not already enough to institutionalise them?
Well, this is the Russian Orthodox Church we are talking about - they mostly believe in an all-too-tangible Putin. ;)
Cockpit footage of fighters from the Royal Netherlands Air Force assigned to NATO's Baltic air policing mission that intercepted Russian fighter aircraft off the coast of Norway.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/europe/nato-jets-intercept-russian-military-aircraft-over-baltic-sea-n265266
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2014, 03:57:41 AM
Well, that's bonkers.
But then I am surprised at people constantly being surprised by churches saying something that is bonkers. These people believe in invisible God, angels and demons. Why is that not already enough to institutionalise them?
I don't think that applies to Russian Orthodox Church. KGB didn't hire theists.
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2014, 03:57:41 AM
But then I am surprised at people constantly being surprised by churches saying something that is bonkers. These people believe in invisible God, angels and demons. Why is that not already enough to institutionalise them?
How are the sessions with the therapist going these days? Making any progress?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2014, 11:52:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 10, 2014, 03:57:41 AM
But then I am surprised at people constantly being surprised by churches saying something that is bonkers. These people believe in invisible God, angels and demons. Why is that not already enough to institutionalise them?
How are the sessions with the therapist going these days? Making any progress?
No, I quit.
Apparently. :lol:
http://rt.com/politics/213407-russian-pensions-veterans-baltic/
QuoteWWII vets in Baltic countries to receive Russian pensions
The Russian government has ordered that all WWII veterans from Baltic nations who fought against Nazi Germany should receive lifelong pensions from the Russian state in the currency of their choice.
Veterans in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia can choose whether they prefer to receive their money monthly from Russian banks, or twice a year by wire transfer to accounts in local banks, reads the decree published on the government web portal on Thursday.
The document says that the Russian Foreign Ministry is responsible for compiling the full list of pensioners. It will include former citizens of the USSR, who fought against Nazism in the Soviet Army or in guerilla units as well as some defense industry workers, whose status during the war was similar to people in the military. The pensioners can be citizens of Baltic nations or hold a non-citizen status there. The payments will range from 500 to 1,000 rubles (about $10-$20) a month, depending on the recipients' military rank and service history, and the exchange will be calculated on the Russian Central Bank's rate for the day of payment.
The initiative to award state pensions to WWII veterans from Baltic countries comes from President Vladimir Putin who ordered the government to make the necessary moves on May 8, 2014 – on the eve of the Russian holiday celebrating victory over Nazism.
Authorities in the Baltic countries protested against the decree while it was still in the discussion phase. The country with the largest share of Russian-speaking population – Latvia – was especially vocal in denouncing the Russian document – its Foreign Ministry issued an official protest earlier this year and the Latvian defense minister accused Russia of attempts to split Latvian society.
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia and the Baltic countries have regularly exchanged protests and accusations over the official history of the WWII and disputed honors and benefits to veterans who fought on different sides. Russia has repeatedly blasted its adversaries for honoring veterans of Waffen-SS units – Nazi troops manned with local recruits that were used for fighting against the Soviet Army, punitive operations against partisans and also in enforcement of the Holocaust.
How they illustrate the article:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.rt.com%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F34%2F19%2Ff0%2F00%2Frussian-pensions-veterans-baltic.si.jpg&hash=8a049fb7163656a4a7349b3ba0ec19dc988f5de8)
Veterans of the WWII during Victory Day events by the Monument to the Liberators in Riga's Victory Park. (RIA Novosti/Oksana Dzhadan)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frt.com%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F34%2F19%2Ff0%2F00%2Fta-1.jpg&hash=e8c0d0076764edfe19c4253b5c911db7c711ffde)
Estonian riot police arrest a Russian-speaking protestor demonstrating against the removal of a bronze statue of a Red Army Soviet soldier in Tallinn April 27, 2007. (Reuters/Ints Kalnins)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frt.com%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F34%2F19%2Ff0%2F00%2Fta-2.jpg&hash=a648cad7c470464ced3811330a96964b215ad7fa)
Riot policemen use tear gas during clashes with protesters demonstrating against the government's decision to close the entrance to the Bronze Soldier monument in downtown Tallinn April 26, 2007. (Reuters)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frt.com%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F34%2F19%2Ff0%2F00%2Fpapam-1.jpg&hash=480836028eb459ab4c76669ee173a187f137fd51)
Monument to the Soviet Soldier the Liberator at the Tallinn military cemetery, that was moved here from the Tynismagi Square. (RIA Novosti/Ilya Matusihis)
This is one thorny issue - much more so than in the case of Hungary, for example.
QuoteXi chosen as 'Person of the Year' in Russia
By REN QI And SU ZHOU ( China Daily ) Updated: 2014-12-11 04:56:55
President Xi Jinping was named as "Person of the Year 2014" by the Russian Biographical Institute for the "strengthening of economic and political ties with the Russia", which reflects the rising influence of China and its leader.
It is the first time the institute has given the award to a leader of a country that doesn't belong to the Commonwealth of Independent States.
The Russian Biographical Institute, founded in 1992, is a nongovernmental and noncommercial organization based in Moscow. Its Person of the Year award acknowledges the recipients involved as being guided by the principles of social, spiritual and moral responsibility.
Besides Xi, four other national leaders have been given the award: Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan.
In all, the institute handed out awards to 42 individuals, companies and institutions in areas including culture, science, charity, medicine and health, and national defense.
"China is a fast-developing country with growing global influence. It is natural that more and more attention is being attached to its leader and decision-maker," said Zheng Yu, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Even Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has said he is a fan of Xi. China.com.cn released a photo on Monday of Zuckerberg with a copy of Xi's book on governance on his desk. The website quoted him as saying that he had purchased several copies of the book so he and colleagues could learn about "socialism with Chinese characteristics".
The book, Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, a collection of 79 speeches and 45 photos of the president, was released by China's Foreign Languages Press in October. So far, more than 260,000 copies have been bought by overseas distributors.
Zhong Xin, professor of Renmin University of China, said Xi's political ideas and style of language make it easier to communicate with the world.
"His language is very simple but contains a lot of information, and he doesn't mention a lot of ideological confrontation," said Zhong.
"There are a lot of overseas scholars who still believe in the China threat theory. At least, the popularity of Xi's book can help to eliminate the misunderstanding," the professor said.
QuoteEven Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has said he is a fan of Xi. China.com.cn released a photo on Monday of Zuckerberg with a copy of Xi's book on governance on his desk. The website quoted him as saying that he had purchased several copies of the book so he and colleagues could learn about "socialism with Chinese characteristics".
I can see some similarities. One is a sociopathic tyrant heading an oppressive machine bent on Big-Brother-style surveillance and the other is the President of China.
QuoteBesides Xi, four other national leaders have been given the award: Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan.
:D
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 08:12:38 AM
This is one thorny issue - much more so than in the case of Hungary, for example.
How so?
Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2014, 12:06:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 08:12:38 AM
This is one thorny issue - much more so than in the case of Hungary, for example.
How so?
Well, nazis were the liberating army who kicked the Soviet occupants out. So many people who joined the nazis were not doing that out of love for nazism or hatred for Jews; and conversely many of those who joined the Soviets and fought the nazis were actually traitors.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 12:07:50 PM
Well, nazis were the liberating army who kicked the Soviet occupants out. So many people who joined the nazis were not doing that out of love for nazism or hatred for Jews; and conversely many of those who joined the Soviets and fought the nazis were actually traitors.
Oh I see.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 12:05:28 PM
QuoteBesides Xi, four other national leaders have been given the award: Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan.
:D
Yeah, I thought that was great.
That being said, the Balts took to Holocaust much more gleefully than the other nations under nazi rule. I remember reading an account that would be grotesque if it wasn't so gruesome of a professional Lithuanian football team that played a match with a German team (composed of SS or Wehrmacht - not sure). The Lithuanians won and, as a prize, were taken on a trip a local ghetto so they can shoot themselves some Jews.
Whether this is because, say, Poles hindered Holocaust more to spite the nazis or out of sympathy for the Jews is another story, of course.
The entire region is pretty fucked up.
Yeah, a lot of Lithuanians took great pleasure in having weapons-free rampages to kill their share of Jews while under German occupation.
At least Germans went through a nation-wide therapy to try and exorcise these demons. The problem with the Eastern European mini-nations (which include Poles and Ukrainians, despite being more numerous) and Russians is that they have (and still do) considered themselves victims, and react hysterically whenever anyone suggests they have been anything but martyrs. So entire nations are suffering from a deep psychosis.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 12:18:41 PM
The problem with the Eastern European mini-nations (which include Poles and Ukrainians, despite being more numerous) and Russians is that they have (and still do) considered themselves victims, and react hysterically whenever anyone suggests they have been anything but martyrs. So entire nations are suffering from a deep psychosis.
Sounds like somebody we know in the Pacific. :D
You know what else is the West's fault? Religious extremism.
http://rt.com/politics/213511-ivanov-religion-crisis-russian/
QuoteSurge in religious extremism must be blamed on West – Kremlin official
The current outburst of religious extremism is a direct consequence of the short-sighted policies of Western nations, the head of Russian Presidential Administration says.
"You all know about the serious processes that are taking place in the Middle East and North Africa, where the ethnic and confessional balance is now being blatantly destroyed," Sergey Ivanov stated on Thursday.
"First of all we must talk about the sharp surge of religious extremism that is largely a consequence of the, diplomatically speaking, shortsighted policy of a number of Western countries," he told the Presidential Council for Interaction with Religious Organizations.
"Everyone sees this very clearly," he noted.
Ivanov added that the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) was the most vivid example of the disastrous results yielded by the West's policies in the region.
The official said various religious minorities in the East – Alawites, Druze, Yazidis and Christians were all in a very vulnerable situation. "Hundreds if not thousands of Christian churches and other temples have been destroyed in Syria and Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of people have had to flee from their traditional dwelling places," Ivanov told the council. He gave examples of members of the Christian community in Mosul who had to hide from IS radicals in Kurdistan, saying that those who remained at home are under constant threat of death. He added that people who follow traditional Islam were also suffering from repression and threats from Islamic State.
In the same speech the Kremlin official said that the ongoing crisis in Ukraine caused many physical attacks on Russian Orthodox churches and priests, on which the Kiev authorities were turning a blind eye.
"And I would like to emphasize that this is happening in the center of educated and civilized Europe," Ivanov added.
"The illegal takeover of power that happened in Ukraine in February this year led to a very serious outburst of radicalism and caused mass violations of law, religious hatred and violence against believers," he noted.
According to Ivanov, such a situation would have been impossible if the opposing parties in Ukraine from the very beginning solved their disagreements through dialogue and without external interference.
"Russia has always supported this approach and it will continue to do so," he added.
In early November, a former general of Russian military intelligence service suggested in a press interview that the leaders of the IS could be under the direct influence of NATO and certain Western states.
"There are some grounds to suspect that American and British special services could support the Islamic extremists in order to target the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation," RIA Novosti quoted Nikolay Pushkaryov as saying.
"The top of these movements could be under the influence of NATO agents," he added.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 12:18:41 PM
At least Germans went through a nation-wide therapy to try and exorcise these demons. The problem with the Eastern European mini-nations (which include Poles and Ukrainians, despite being more numerous) and Russians is that they have (and still do) considered themselves victims, and react hysterically whenever anyone suggests they have been anything but martyrs. So entire nations are suffering from a deep psychosis.
yeah
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 12:13:37 PM
That being said, the Balts took to Holocaust much more gleefully than the other nations under nazi rule. I remember reading an account that would be grotesque if it wasn't so gruesome of a professional Lithuanian football team that played a match with a German team (composed of SS or Wehrmacht - not sure). The Lithuanians won and, as a prize, were taken on a trip a local ghetto so they can shoot themselves some Jews.
Whether this is because, say, Poles hindered Holocaust more to spite the nazis or out of sympathy for the Jews is another story, of course.
The entire region is pretty fucked up.
Well, more Polacks did more to save Jews than Baltics or Hungarians (or Ukrainians) I give you that much. But as far as general population goes, Poles weren't that vehemently opposing the whole cleansing thing, were they?
Quote from: Tamas on December 11, 2014, 12:39:47 PMWell, more Polacks did more to save Jews than Baltics or Hungarians (or Ukrainians) I give you that much. But as far as general population goes, Poles weren't that vehemently opposing the whole cleansing thing, were they?
Yeah, it's not my impression that Poland comes off particularly well when it comes to how Polish Jews were treated. They look better than some others, but that's primarily because those others were just plain terrible.
... that's my impression, anyhow.
A slightly similar situation is the difficulty of the Republic of Ireland's remembrance of the around 150 000 or so Irish volunteers during WW2 - in the forces there were actually more volunteers from the South than conscripts from the North. It was only really recognised (and even then only in an all-Ireland context) 50 years after the war.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 11, 2014, 12:59:32 PM
A slightly similar situation is the difficulty of the Republic of Ireland's remembrance of the around 150 000 or so Irish volunteers during WW2 - in the forces there were actually more volunteers from the South than conscripts from the North. It was only really recognised (and even then only in an all-Ireland context) 50 years after the war.
I am no expert of that particular history, but I doubt the Irish conflicts have any serious chance of measuring up to the savagery of East Euro ethnic strife.
Quote from: Tamas on December 11, 2014, 01:30:09 PM
I am no expert of that particular history, but I doubt the Irish conflicts have any serious chance of measuring up to the savagery of East Euro ethnic strife.
I said slightly similar :P
Though Ireland was bad historically, I think the paupers in large parts of Ireland were probably in as bad a situation as the poor in any other part of Europe for a long time. I agree in the modern era absolutely but I'm not sure pre-20th century - foreign visitors including some from Eastern Europe always comment on how bad the situation was in Ireland compared to, say, the Baltics.
But I meant more that you've a country that's just won its independence (with a civil war on the way) and volunteers go and join the old oppressor in their war effort. There's always been an element of treachery there which made it difficult to acknowledge, far less remember - which is made even more difficult by the knowledge that the force they were fighting was evil and Ireland's neutrality, in retrospect, a bit too punctilious (Eamon de Valera famously visited the German Embassy to pass on his condolences on Hitler's death).
Ruble at an all time low. Which made me think, if things got bad enough you think Putin would ever have an unfortunate accident? Could he be toppled legitimately?
Quote from: HVC on December 15, 2014, 12:48:48 PM
Ruble at an all time low. Which made me think, if things got bad enough you think Putin would ever have an unfortunate accident? Could he be toppled legitimately?
I think it's very hard to predict. It's probably easier to predict bubble bursts than it is to predict dictators falling. At least with bubbles, you have some early warning, but dictators can literally go from being considered a sure thing to seeking asylum in a matter of weeks.
Quote from: HVC on December 15, 2014, 12:48:48 PM
Ruble at an all time low. Which made me think, if things got bad enough you think Putin would ever have an unfortunate accident? Could he be toppled legitimately?
Lulz, Vlad's not going anywhere, ever.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2014, 12:33:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 12:18:41 PM
The problem with the Eastern European mini-nations (which include Poles and Ukrainians, despite being more numerous) and Russians is that they have (and still do) considered themselves victims, and react hysterically whenever anyone suggests they have been anything but martyrs. So entire nations are suffering from a deep psychosis.
Sounds like somebody we know in the Pacific. :D
Sounds like all of 'em, really. Except maybe Taiwan.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 12:53:44 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 15, 2014, 12:48:48 PM
Ruble at an all time low. Which made me think, if things got bad enough you think Putin would ever have an unfortunate accident? Could he be toppled legitimately?
Lulz, Vlad's not going anywhere, ever.
A good op-ed touching on the issue, and those who think the oligarchs might outs Putin if the economy goes south too far....
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/opinion/masha-gessen-the-myth-of-the-russian-oligarchs.html
QuoteThe Myth of the Russian Oligarchs
DEC. 10, 2014
Continue reading the main story
Contributing Op-Ed Writer
By MASHA GESSEN
Moscow's most popular joke today is unfunny: "Next year Putin, the ruble, and a barrel of oil will converge at just over 63." Allow me to translate: The ruble will soon be trading at 63 to the dollar, or nearly double what the dollar was worth in Russia a year ago (meaning most Russians will be roughly 50 percent poorer); a barrel of oil will fall to $63 a barrel, roughly 2005-level prices, devastating the Russian economy; and President Vladimir Putin will turn 63. All three predictions are depressingly realistic: The Russian economy appears headed for disaster just as certainly as Mr. Putin will most likely celebrate his next birthday in October 2015. And more likely than not, he will still be president of Russia then.
Conventional wisdom — or conventional hope — among many of the people who would like to see the end of the Putin regime has long been that a turn for the worse in the Russian economy will make the moneyed elite turn on the Russian president. Journalists, pundits and Mr. Putin's political opponents in Russia have predicted that Western sanctions and the economic disaster they hasten will result in a coup d'état staged by oligarchs. There is just one problem with that argument: There are no oligarchs anymore.
When Mr. Putin became acting president 15 years ago this month, Russia was an oligarchy — indeed the oligarchs, a small group of men who had grown very rich in the preceding decade, were instrumental in picking Putin out of obscurity and installing him at the helm. But within months, he made the oligarchs an offer they could not refuse: give up all of their political power and some of their wealth in exchange for safety, security and continued prosperity, or else be stripped of all power and assets.
He meant it. The media mogul Vladimir Gusinsky, who rejected the new rules, was forced into exile in the summer of 2000, and uber-oligarch Boris Berezovsky followed him a few months later. When the richest man in Russia, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, refused any such bargain, he was jailed and his company was taken away. The process of destroying the Russian oligarchy was completed.
In the 11 years since Mr. Khodorkovsky's arrest, Mr. Putin has consolidated power into what the political scientist Karen Dawisha calls "kleptocratic authoritarianism." Its essential characteristic is all-encompassing corruption, which makes all the moneyed men of the Russian elite — and they are all men, and all moneyed — profoundly interdependent. Many of them have held public office during this time, but it has invariably been subject to three interlocking conditions: They had to pay to get into office, and though they could use the office for accumulating greater wealth, they could not use it to wield or gain political power.
Giving up any pretense of independent political action has remained a condition for staying wealthy and safe. When the billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov tried, and rather modestly, to test this condition by reshaping an essentially pro-Kremlin but populist political party three years ago, he was yanked back harshly. Faced with the threat of losing his assets, he then fell back into line. In the new era of economic hardship, he has stayed in line: In his most recent demonstration of loyalty to the Kremlin, a media company Prokhorov owns has just kicked the tiny, embattled independent television company Dozhd (Rain) TV out of a temporary studio on its property.
Over these years of helping Mr. Putin solidify his regime, the Russian rich have not only become entrenched in this corrupt system, but they have lost the very ability to form and pursue a political agenda. Those who predict an imminent coup — a coup by oligarchs as independent actors who can form a coalition to pursue their economic interests — are far off the mark. Imagine, rather, a large number of spiders all living in a single web. As the economy takes a dive, they are compelled simply to hold on for dear life. As the web begins to shrink, they can kick off it some of their weaker comrades — as has already happened with two major Russian entrepreneurs, Vladimir Yevtushenkov and Maxim Nogotkov, whose companies were taken away from them by men richer and more powerful than they. Meanwhile, Mr. Putin, who still sits in the middle of the intricate system he has woven over the course of 15 years, faces no such risk.
Russia's economic troubles probably mean that the moneyed elite will suffer, with more of its members going into exile or even to jail while their assets are redistributed. As for the rest of the Russian population, more than 140 million people, bad economic news is just bad economic news: It spells out-of-control inflation and real daily hardship. But neither the self-cannibalizing rich nor the newly poor are likely to pose a challenge to Mr. Putin's power.
Looks like the combination of sanctions and massive oil price decline will really fuck up the Russian economy. They are losing reserves fast and their currency becomes worthless in international trading.
QuoteRussia's fast track to ruin
Here are the numbers that explain why the Russian economy is imploding in the face of a tumbling oil price and Western sanctions.
Oil and gas energy represents two thirds of exports of around $530bn (£339bn). Without them, Russia would have a massive deficit on its trade and financial dealings with the rest of the world - which is why Russia's central bank expects a capital outflow of well over $100bn this year and next.
And public expenditure is almost completely supported by energy-related revenues. In their absence, the government would be increasing its indebtedness by more than 10% a year, according to IMF data.
So the massive and unsustainable non-oil deficits in the public sector and trade explain why investors don't want to touch the rouble with even the longest barge pole.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30491170
QuoteRussia makes drastic rate rise to 17% to stem rouble decline
Russia's central bank made a drastic interest rate move overnight, raising its key rate from 10.5% to 17%.
The bank said the move was to try to ease the rouble's recent fall in value.
The rouble has lost almost 50% against the US dollar this year as falling oil prices and Western sanctions continue to weigh on the country's economy.
Before the move, the dollar bought 67 roubles. The rate rise moved it up to 58 against the dollar, although it has since slipped back to 62.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30490082
QuoteSome economists are concerned that Russia is now stuck in the quagmire of stagflation, or high inflation and low growth. The government expects inflation of 10 percent or more by the end of this year and for the country to fall into a recession next year.
[...]
Earlier Monday, the Russian central bank said it expected the country's economy to contract 4.5 percent in 2015 if oil prices averaged $60 a barrel. Oil is now hovering around that level.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/business/international/russia-central-bank-abruptly-raises-key-interest-rate.html?_r=0
Well, maybe Moscow won't be so fucking expensive when I visit it again.
:yeah:
Quote from: Zanza on December 16, 2014, 07:03:55 AM
The rouble has lost almost 50% against the US dollar this year as falling oil prices and Western sanctions continue to weigh on the country's economy.
Before the move, the dollar bought 67 roubles. The rate rise moved it up to 58 against the dollar, although it has since slipped back to 62.
Crossed the line of 76 one hour ago. :D
:yeah:
Apparently, this is the lowest rouble has ever been since Russia introduce free currency exchange in 1993.
Incidentally, the 10% to 17% overnight central bank interest rate increase - that must be painful to anyone with bank financing.
"Christmas present - one rouble for a cent"? :hmm:
Wow.
Is this a reflection on the actual power of economic sanctions, or was the Russian economy totally fucked up absent sanctions anyway?
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2014, 08:56:55 AM
Wow.
Is this a reflection on the actual power of economic sanctions, or was the Russian economy totally fucked up absent sanctions anyway?
AFAIK it was the plumetting oil price that did them in.
Quote from: Tamas on December 16, 2014, 08:58:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2014, 08:56:55 AM
Wow.
Is this a reflection on the actual power of economic sanctions, or was the Russian economy totally fucked up absent sanctions anyway?
AFAIK it was the plumetting oil price that did them in.
Yes, although sanctions helped push them off the cliff, imo. Russia could have withstood plumetting oil prices alone (and, absent Russia's situation, I don't think the US would have helped in bringing the prices down the way they did over the last year). However, the plumetting oil prices, coupled with the sanctions and the deteriorating investor confidence and flight of capital put them in a free fall situation.
I think France should now announce that it will deliver those warships after all. I mean, I expect the price is agreed in Euros. :P
Gazprom just announced 15%-25% redundancies. :yeah:
Quote from: Tamas on December 16, 2014, 08:58:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2014, 08:56:55 AM
Wow.
Is this a reflection on the actual power of economic sanctions, or was the Russian economy totally fucked up absent sanctions anyway?
AFAIK it was the plumetting oil price that did them in.
Just like the 1980s. It is just fucking amazing that after low oil prices destroyed their empire the Russians saw no reason to stop depending entirely on oil and gas. I mean how fucking stupid can you be? They had decades to use the high oil prices to retool their economy and instead they just used it for corruption and power shit.
Russian central bank says it expects to use $85B to shore up the ruble in 2015, so it'll only be partially shitty than it is now.
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 08:36:51 AM
Quote from: Zanza on December 16, 2014, 07:03:55 AM
The rouble has lost almost 50% against the US dollar this year as falling oil prices and Western sanctions continue to weigh on the country's economy.
Before the move, the dollar bought 67 roubles. The rate rise moved it up to 58 against the dollar, although it has since slipped back to 62.
Crossed the line of 76 one hour ago. :D
Damn, those are not trading losses anymore, that's a collapse. :cry:
Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2014, 09:46:10 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 16, 2014, 08:58:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2014, 08:56:55 AM
Wow.
Is this a reflection on the actual power of economic sanctions, or was the Russian economy totally fucked up absent sanctions anyway?
AFAIK it was the plumetting oil price that did them in.
Just like the 1980s. It is just fucking amazing that after low oil prices destroyed their empire the Russians saw no reason to stop depending entirely on oil and gas. I mean how fucking stupid can you be? They had decades to use the high oil prices to retool their economy and instead they just used it for corruption and power shit.
It's not just the Russians who did so... :(
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2014, 08:56:55 AM
Wow.
Is this a reflection on the actual power of economic sanctions, or was the Russian economy totally fucked up absent sanctions anyway?
The answer is probably an interdependent combination of both and more. The oil price delivered the strongest blow, but the sanctions made many Russians with significant wealth to realize that keeping that wealth in Russia would be idiotic. Both these events together reinforced the loss of confidence of the strength that is not imaginable to Americans. These two things together then lead to the next, IMO, significant factor: Putin losing the plot on economics, and sidelining and/or maligning the professional economists in favor of the KGB faction.
Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2014, 10:03:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2014, 09:46:10 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 16, 2014, 08:58:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2014, 08:56:55 AM
Wow.
Is this a reflection on the actual power of economic sanctions, or was the Russian economy totally fucked up absent sanctions anyway?
AFAIK it was the plumetting oil price that did them in.
Just like the 1980s. It is just fucking amazing that after low oil prices destroyed their empire the Russians saw no reason to stop depending entirely on oil and gas. I mean how fucking stupid can you be? They had decades to use the high oil prices to retool their economy and instead they just used it for corruption and power shit.
It's not just the Russians who did so... :(
Yeah the power shit is a Languish fixture.
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 09:10:48 AM
Gazprom just announced 15%-25% redundancies. :yeah:
Is Schröder fired?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2014, 09:47:26 AM
Russian central bank says it expects to use $85B to shore up the ruble in 2015, so it'll only be partially shitty than it is now.
They spent 90B this year. This crisis seems worse then then the one in 1998.
Quote from: Tamas on December 16, 2014, 08:58:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2014, 08:56:55 AM
Wow.
Is this a reflection on the actual power of economic sanctions, or was the Russian economy totally fucked up absent sanctions anyway?
AFAIK it was the plumetting oil price that did them in.
From what I read the damage is about 5:2 oil:sanctions - so while oil is the prime driver, the sanctions are piling it on.
Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 10:47:51 AM
From what I read the damage is about 5:2 oil:sanctions - so while oil is the prime driver, the sanctions are piling it on.
With the added bonus that, while oil could bounce back, the damage from the sanctions will steadily increase over time.
Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 10:47:51 AM
From what I read the damage is about 5:2 oil:sanctions - so while oil is the prime driver, the sanctions are piling it on.
My personal feeling is it's more weighted towards oil than that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2014, 01:27:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 10:47:51 AM
From what I read the damage is about 5:2 oil:sanctions - so while oil is the prime driver, the sanctions are piling it on.
My personal feeling is it's more weighted towards oil than that.
I think I mentioned it in this thread earlier - the Russian Finance or Foreign minister (can't recall which) was saying that they estimated the cost to the Russian economy from the drop in oil prices was at about $100B, while the sanctions came in at $40B.
That was maybe about a month ago, and an official Russian statement, so take it for what it's worth.
Do you think the damage from the oil drop is higher than that, or do you think the sanction damages are overstated?
Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 02:37:33 PM
I think I mentioned it in this thread earlier - the Russian Finance or Foreign minister (can't recall which) was saying that they estimated the cost to the Russian economy from the drop in oil prices was at about $100B, while the sanctions came in at $40B.
That was maybe about a month ago, and an official Russian statement, so take it for what it's worth.
Do you think the damage from the oil drop is higher than that, or do you think the sanction damages are overstated?
The price has declined a lot since then, and that overlooks the fact that oil revenue generates a great deal of the Russian government budget.
I suspect that the damage from sanctions isn't really additive, but rather multiplicative. IE, absent the oil drop, sanctions would not be nearly as painful, and absent sanctions, the ability to handle the oil drop might be more robust.
I am just speculating of course. But I suspect the sanction restrictions make maneuvering to deal with the oil drop impacts much more difficult.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2014, 02:40:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 02:37:33 PM
I think I mentioned it in this thread earlier - the Russian Finance or Foreign minister (can't recall which) was saying that they estimated the cost to the Russian economy from the drop in oil prices was at about $100B, while the sanctions came in at $40B.
That was maybe about a month ago, and an official Russian statement, so take it for what it's worth.
Do you think the damage from the oil drop is higher than that, or do you think the sanction damages are overstated?
The price has declined a lot since then, and that overlooks the fact that oil revenue generates a great deal of the Russian government budget.
Fair enough.
I'm still feeling pretty smug about the sanctions right now, though.
Putin is set to give a major televised press-conference on Thursday, midday Moscow time. The Russian TV is... hyping it up. They made a trailer. :P http://russia.tv/brand/show/brand_id/35906
It will be interesting to hear how he blames the West for the increase in the bank rate and the start of spiraling inflation.
Not sure that there is an alternative to some sanctions, and they seem to be having at least some effect. But not sure this won't long term play into Putin's hands. It gives him a case that the economic weakness is a result of the west trying to undermine Russia, rather than the reality that it is mostly due to being over reliant on fossil fuels and widespread corruption.
Also, does he want economic progress leading to the integration of Russia into the world economy? The young professionals taking jobs in multinationals tend to hate Putin. Those are the sectors the sanctions are disproportionately hurting. The "old economy" of agriculture, natural resource extraction, and industry is politically more reliable.
Of course the current situation also has lots of dangers for him.
My guess is Putin will try and continue and destabilise various parts of the neighbourhood as much as he can, in the hope that oil prices will go up as a result. He'll probably ramp up rhetoric, plus some actual measures such as pointing nuclear weapons at the west. If he's really desperate he could pull some sort of Cuban Missile crises stunt.
I think he has already made noise about basing nukes in Crimea. I don't see how that will make any difference.
Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 02:49:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2014, 02:40:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 02:37:33 PM
I think I mentioned it in this thread earlier - the Russian Finance or Foreign minister (can't recall which) was saying that they estimated the cost to the Russian economy from the drop in oil prices was at about $100B, while the sanctions came in at $40B.
That was maybe about a month ago, and an official Russian statement, so take it for what it's worth.
Do you think the damage from the oil drop is higher than that, or do you think the sanction damages are overstated?
The price has declined a lot since then, and that overlooks the fact that oil revenue generates a great deal of the Russian government budget.
Fair enough.
I'm still feeling pretty smug about the sanctions right now, though.
Me too. The oil prices are, of course, a large factor, but sanctions prove to be the case of diplomatic judo.
Oh, and Lavrov has already said that Russia believes Donetsk should be part of Ukraine (that was after Ukraine stopped any financial support for the region). Soon winter will come and Putin will have Crimea on his hands, this being the poorest region even by Russian standards, with no land connection to the mainland, difficult sea transport (due to frequent storms) and airlifts being the only reliable supply route. :moon:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2014, 02:40:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 02:37:33 PM
I think I mentioned it in this thread earlier - the Russian Finance or Foreign minister (can't recall which) was saying that they estimated the cost to the Russian economy from the drop in oil prices was at about $100B, while the sanctions came in at $40B.
That was maybe about a month ago, and an official Russian statement, so take it for what it's worth.
Do you think the damage from the oil drop is higher than that, or do you think the sanction damages are overstated?
The price has declined a lot since then, and that overlooks the fact that oil revenue generates a great deal of the Russian government budget.
The thing is that what we're seeing now doesn't necessarily have a price tag. Or at least it's not easily priced. What we're seeing now is the catastrophic loss of confidence. Oil prices alone would never lead to that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2014, 03:28:47 PM
It will be interesting to hear how he blames the West for the increase in the bank rate and the start of spiraling inflation.
The sanctions are going to continue to snowball the problem into a much larger one; they can't borrow money from European banks as it is, and there are still sanctions that haven't even gone into effect yet.
And there are more coming on the horizon:
QuoteObama to sign new Russia sanctions bill by end of week
By Patricia Zengerle
WASHINGTON Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:56pm EST
(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will sign legislation authorizing new sanctions on Russia over its activities in Ukraine and providing weapons to the Kiev government by the end of the week, the White House said on Tuesday.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House had continuing concerns about the legislation, because it "includes some sanctions language that does not reflect the consultations that are ongoing."
"That said, because it does preserve the president's flexibility to carry out the strategy, he does intend to sign the bill," Earnest said at a daily news briefing.
In London, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Russia had made constructive moves toward possibly reducing tensions in Ukraine, and said the United States and Europe were ready to ease sanctions if Putin took more steps in that direction.
Congress passed the bill on Saturday, piling more pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin by authorizing new sanctions on weapons companies and investors in its high-tech oil projects, and to boost the Kiev government with both lethal and non-lethal military aid.
At the White House's request, the "Ukraine Freedom Support Act" does not make sanctions mandatory, giving Obama leeway over what would actually be in force.
But it passed both the Senate and House of Representatives unanimously, a rare sign of bipartisanship in the bitterly divided legislature and a clear indication of Congress' strong support for tougher action against Moscow.
Both Republicans and Democrats called on Obama to sign the bill quickly.
Concern about sanctions, along with other factors including plummeting oil prices, have taken their toll on the troubled Russian economy.
The Russian rouble plunged more than 11 percent against the dollar on Tuesday in its steepest intraday fall since 1998. Analysts have said the country is on the brink of a full-blown currency crisis.
Earnest said the direction of the Russian economy is in Putin's hands.
"The international community has said, once you demonstrate a willingness to start living up to these commitments and respecting basic international norms, we can start to relax our sanctions regime in a way that will relieve the pressure on your economy," he said.
The decrease in oil prices, also allays Euro fears of the sanctions themselves.
I hope those Russians live well with a 16-17 % rate.
This is what happens when your primary exports are "soldiers on leave", "tanks passing by", oil, gas and mail order brides.
I saw a Russian TV news report about how public transport ticket prices were slashed in half, from about $1 to about $0.50. :XD:
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 04:04:49 PM
Oh, and Lavrov has already said that Russia believes Donetsk should be part of Ukraine (that was after Ukraine stopped any financial support for the region). Soon winter will come and Putin will have Crimea on his hands, this being the poorest region even by Russian standards, with no land connection to the mainland, difficult sea transport (due to frequent storms) and airlifts being the only reliable supply route. :moon:
Well, at least oil will be cheap for the transport requirements.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/12/16/in-2015-vladimir-putin-may-witness-his-empires-death-knell/?utm_source=Facebook
QuoteIn 2015, Vladimir Putin may witness his empire's death knell
The year ahead could see the outbreak of the third Chechen war, which, in turn, could be the death knell of the Russian Federation in its current borders.
If, as is imaginable, Russia dismembers itself later this century — the way the Soviet Union did in 1991 — it will largely be a consequence of President Vladimir Putin's policies.
Putin came to power in the 1990s, when civil war broke out in Chechnya, a constituent republic of Russia in the North Caucasus. The first Chechen war, between 1994 and 1996, was ignited by Muslim rebels demanding independence from Moscow. A second war started in 1999, when Putin was moving rapidly toward Kremlin leadership, first as President Boris Yeltsin's national security adviser, then as prime minister. With Yeltsin's health and grip on power failing, Putin emerged as the driving force behind a scorched-earth policy — with massive collateral damage to the population as a whole. That conflict lasted a decade.
For the past five years, the situation has been more or less quiescent, though neighboring republics have been rocked by violence. The lull in Chechnya, however, ended in early December with a series of bloody incidents in the Chechen capital of Grozny.
The group behind the resurgence of unrest is advocating a "Caucasus Caliphate," with ties to al Qaeda and, more recently, Islamic State. There is at least an indirect tie between outside support for Islamic radicalism in the Caucasus and Putin's sponsorship of Russian secessionism in eastern Ukraine.
By proclaiming ethnicity and religion as the basis for Russian statehood and aggression against its neighbors, Putin is inadvertently stoking the forces of secessionism in those parts of Russia that are historically and culturally Islamic.
QuoteWhite House spokesman Josh Earnest
That's a great name for a political spokesman :D
My primary concern is whether this is the beginning of the next round of global financial crisis.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2014, 07:16:23 PM
The decrease in oil prices, also allays Euro fears of the sanctions themselves.
Yes. It's a virtuous cycle, really. :lol:
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2014, 01:31:17 AM
My primary concern is whether this is the beginning of the next round of global financial crisis.
Yes, we know what your primary concerns are. <_<
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freakingnews.com%2Fpictures%2F117500%2FLet-s-Move--117780.jpg&hash=37f4fc65e4ff2e6634c86956d4bce2f2a4c2933a)
Looks like you'll be seeing a paycut next year.
Quote from: Syt on December 17, 2014, 01:16:57 AM
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/12/16/in-2015-vladimir-putin-may-witness-his-empires-death-knell/?utm_source=Facebook
I think the Russians would be more likely to commit genocide than let that happen.
QuoteApple Stops Online Sales in Russia Over Ruble Fluctuations
By Tim Higgins - Dec 16, 2014
Apple Inc. (AAPL) halted online sales of its products in Russia due to "extreme" ruble fluctuations, showing how the currency's swings are rippling out to international businesses.
The iPhone and iPad maker stopped sales from its Web store as Russia's currency lost as much as 19 percent today, with a surprise interest-rate increase failing to stem a run on the currency. The ruble briefly sank beyond 80 per dollar, and bonds and stocks also tumbled.
"Our online store in Russia is currently unavailable while we review pricing," Alan Hely, a spokesman for the Cupertino, California-based company, wrote in an e-mail today. "We apologize to customers for any inconvenience."
The selloff in Moscow is spreading across the globe, prompting nervous investors to pull money from other developing nations amid concern that Russia's financial struggles and the tumble in oil signal a global economic slowdown.
No middle class deserves to go through this. :weep:
Lucky Russians! :(
According to some journalist, apparently the capitalisation of Google is at the moment greater than the aggregate capitalisation of all companies listed on the Moscow Stock Exchange.
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 08:56:57 AM
Wait, oil is $67 a barrel now? Holy shit. Wasn't it already at an all time low at $80-something a barrel few months ago, or was that a different kind? :blink:
Saudi Arabia has been turning on the tap trying to make shale oil and tar sand oil economically unviable, hoping to provoke the people behind those projects to abandon them.
Quote from: Viking on December 17, 2014, 11:11:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 08:56:57 AM
Wait, oil is $67 a barrel now? Holy shit. Wasn't it already at an all time low at $80-something a barrel few months ago, or was that a different kind? :blink:
Saudi Arabia has been turning on the tap trying to make shale oil and tar sand oil economically unviable, hoping to provoke the people behind those projects to abandon them.
I'm no expert, bit surely the saudis can't keep that indefinitely. And the moment they turn off the tap, the moment fracking becomes viable again and projects move forward.
Quote from: celedhring on December 17, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 17, 2014, 11:11:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 08:56:57 AM
Wait, oil is $67 a barrel now? Holy shit. Wasn't it already at an all time low at $80-something a barrel few months ago, or was that a different kind? :blink:
Saudi Arabia has been turning on the tap trying to make shale oil and tar sand oil economically unviable, hoping to provoke the people behind those projects to abandon them.
I'm no expert, bit surely the saudis can't keep that indefinitely. And the moment they turn off the tap, the moment fracking becomes viable again and projects move forward.
Oil and gas projects can have a long lead time though. If companies shutter production, or go out of business, it will take years for that production to get re-started.
I read in the Economist recently that this is true for traditional, especially off shore drilling, but not for shale.
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2014, 11:24:21 AM
Quote from: celedhring on December 17, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 17, 2014, 11:11:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 08:56:57 AM
Wait, oil is $67 a barrel now? Holy shit. Wasn't it already at an all time low at $80-something a barrel few months ago, or was that a different kind? :blink:
Saudi Arabia has been turning on the tap trying to make shale oil and tar sand oil economically unviable, hoping to provoke the people behind those projects to abandon them.
I'm no expert, bit surely the saudis can't keep that indefinitely. And the moment they turn off the tap, the moment fracking becomes viable again and projects move forward.
Oil and gas projects can have a long lead time though. If companies shutter production, or go out of business, it will take years for that production to get re-started.
Well, then the current prices shouldn't matter much if it's understood that it's just a temporary, and artificial, blip.
The break-even price for US shale production is between $40-$115/barrel supposedly, so some of them will definitely survive this. Canadian tar sands are at $100/barrel though, so those are no longer viable at this price point. Countries like Venezuela, Iran or Russia are just caught in a perfect storm despite not even being the target of the price war between the Saudis and the Americans...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fim.ft-static.com%2Fcontent%2Fimages%2F242e1ebc-669a-11e4-91ab-00144feabdc0.img&hash=c9dd176c0f7a03e5beb31663af7e2d77929659b2)
Quote from: celedhring on December 17, 2014, 11:33:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2014, 11:24:21 AM
Quote from: celedhring on December 17, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 17, 2014, 11:11:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 08:56:57 AM
Wait, oil is $67 a barrel now? Holy shit. Wasn't it already at an all time low at $80-something a barrel few months ago, or was that a different kind? :blink:
Saudi Arabia has been turning on the tap trying to make shale oil and tar sand oil economically unviable, hoping to provoke the people behind those projects to abandon them.
I'm no expert, bit surely the saudis can't keep that indefinitely. And the moment they turn off the tap, the moment fracking becomes viable again and projects move forward.
Oil and gas projects can have a long lead time though. If companies shutter production, or go out of business, it will take years for that production to get re-started.
Well, then the current prices shouldn't matter much if it's understood that it's just a temporary, and artificial, blip.
It becomes a question of cash flow and stock prices though. Some companies don't have the resources to sustain a few years of losses, or even if they do their shareholders don't have the patience for them either.
Quote from: Zanza on December 17, 2014, 11:45:01 AM
The break-even price for US shale production is between $40-$115/barrel supposedly, so some of them will definitely survive this. Canadian tar sands are at $100/barrel though, so those are no longer viable at this price point. Countries like Venezuela, Iran or Russia are just caught in a perfect storm despite not even being the target of the price war between the Saudis and the Americans...
I heard that our existing tar sands projects need 72$ a barrel to break even.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 17, 2014, 11:54:35 AM
Quote from: Zanza on December 17, 2014, 11:45:01 AM
The break-even price for US shale production is between $40-$115/barrel supposedly, so some of them will definitely survive this. Canadian tar sands are at $100/barrel though, so those are no longer viable at this price point. Countries like Venezuela, Iran or Russia are just caught in a perfect storm despite not even being the target of the price war between the Saudis and the Americans...
I heard that our existing tar sands projects need 72$ a barrel to break even.
Depends on the project. Remember they've been developing the oil sands since the 1970s when oil prices were substantially less than $70 bbl.
Now obviously with each newer project they tend to have higher and higher prices to break even, so sustained low prices could stall some newer projects or drive some of the newer operating projects out of business, but it's not like the entire town of Ft McMurray is going to disappear because of this.
I was just going by the Financial Times graphic I posted above. I am sure there are different figures out there on where exactly the break-even is.
Worth noting the SNP's plans for Scotland as well as apparently wildly overestimating the reserves were based on long-term oil prices of around $110.
I did like the reference that Venezuals needed $160 bbl oil to break even. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2014, 12:05:54 PM
I did like the reference that Venezuals needed $160 bbl oil to break even. :lol:
Yep, and even at that point they'd still be a huge mess with even worse inflation and absolute scarcity of imported goods.
Quote from: Zanza on December 17, 2014, 11:45:01 AM
Countries like Venezuela, Iran or Russia are just caught in a perfect storm despite not even being the target of the price war between the Saudis and the Americans...
Yes and no. I mean, would the US do exactly what they did so far in the price war if the primary victims weren't, by accident, such a nasty bunch? I wonder...
Apparently, there is a rouble and Russian stock exchange rally after the government announced new rules for banks (which waive a number of bank reserve policies). I'm not an accountant but it seems to me the new rules effectively amount to breaking the termometer when you cannot get rid of fever. :hmm:
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian President is visiting Poland today. He just gave a speech in front of the joint assembly of both chambers of the Polish Parliament, where he asked Poles to forgive past crimes of Ukrainians, extended an offer of a closer alliance and expressed the Ukraine's desire to eventually join the EU and the NATO, and end with the policy of neutrality.
:unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2014, 12:05:54 PM
I did like the reference that Venezuals needed $160 bbl oil to break even. :lol:
It is almost certain that Venezuela will suffer a state default in March 2015 when they have to refinance major loans.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2014, 12:43:08 PM
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian President is visiting Poland today. He just gave a speech in front of the joint assembly of both chambers of the Polish Parliament, where he asked Poles to forgive past crimes of Ukrainians, extended an offer of a closer alliance and expressed the Ukraine's desire to eventually join the EU and the NATO, and end with the policy of neutrality.
:unsure:
... so... Ukraine is saying "fuck you Russia, we want to be friends with Europe, not you." Wonder how that's going to play out?
What's the state of Polish-Ukrainian relations? Does it have the usual Slavic mutual recriminations and feuding and claiming the other is an unjust oppressor??
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2014, 12:43:08 PM
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian President is visiting Poland today. He just gave a speech in front of the joint assembly of both chambers of the Polish Parliament, where he asked Poles to forgive past crimes of Ukrainians, extended an offer of a closer alliance and expressed the Ukraine's desire to eventually join the EU and the NATO, and end with the policy of neutrality.
:unsure:
And when is POland going to apologize for the past crimes of Poles against Ukrainians?
:unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2014, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2014, 12:43:08 PM
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian President is visiting Poland today. He just gave a speech in front of the joint assembly of both chambers of the Polish Parliament, where he asked Poles to forgive past crimes of Ukrainians, extended an offer of a closer alliance and expressed the Ukraine's desire to eventually join the EU and the NATO, and end with the policy of neutrality.
:unsure:
And when is POland going to apologize for the past crimes of Poles against Ukrainians?
:unsure:
When pro-Byelorussian secessionists rise up and occupy huge chunks of it.
Quote from: celedhring on December 17, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 17, 2014, 11:11:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2014, 08:56:57 AM
Wait, oil is $67 a barrel now? Holy shit. Wasn't it already at an all time low at $80-something a barrel few months ago, or was that a different kind? :blink:
Saudi Arabia has been turning on the tap trying to make shale oil and tar sand oil economically unviable, hoping to provoke the people behind those projects to abandon them.
I'm no expert, bit surely the saudis can't keep that indefinitely. And the moment they turn off the tap, the moment fracking becomes viable again and projects move forward.
Yes, they can't continue indefinitely. I think the objective is to keep the prices low for long enough to get the tar sands and shale oil projects to decommission themselves.
I would think that even if some of the shale and oil sands projects are halted that oil prices won't remain this low very long and many of those operations will start back up. As it is, I think that many of the shale drilling projects can continue, especially the ones run by larger companies.
Also though, IMO it's almost too bad that the US can't now be self sufficient with US, Canadian and Mexican oil, given that the oil market is so fungible that this isn't really possible. I'd probably rather pay a bit more to reduce dependency on the unstable regions of the world, in order for the US and/or N. America be self sufficient and keep the jobs and money here.
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2014, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2014, 12:43:08 PM
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian President is visiting Poland today. He just gave a speech in front of the joint assembly of both chambers of the Polish Parliament, where he asked Poles to forgive past crimes of Ukrainians, extended an offer of a closer alliance and expressed the Ukraine's desire to eventually join the EU and the NATO, and end with the policy of neutrality.
:unsure:
And when is POland going to apologize for the past crimes of Poles against Ukrainians?
:unsure:
We have already done so few years ago. Polish Presidents have done a lot to mend the mutual relations.
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
What's the state of Polish-Ukrainian relations? Does it have the usual Slavic mutual recriminations and feuding and claiming the other is an unjust oppressor??
Yes, but at the same time there is a lot of mutual sympathy I think.
It is quite complicated and interesting really, as these divisions do not necessary run along political lines at least in Poland. For example, I have a friend who comes from Wroclaw - she is very liberal, open minded etc. but she hates Ukrainians with passion to the point of racism (to understand why, you need to understand that after WWII, Wroclaw and North-Western Poland was settled by Polish refugees from Lviv). On the other hand, people in other parts of Poland are much more relaxed and friendly.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2014, 01:42:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2014, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2014, 12:43:08 PM
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian President is visiting Poland today. He just gave a speech in front of the joint assembly of both chambers of the Polish Parliament, where he asked Poles to forgive past crimes of Ukrainians, extended an offer of a closer alliance and expressed the Ukraine's desire to eventually join the EU and the NATO, and end with the policy of neutrality.
:unsure:
And when is POland going to apologize for the past crimes of Poles against Ukrainians?
:unsure:
We have already did few years ago. Polish Presidents have done a lot to mend the mutual relations.
Okay, cool. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2014, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2014, 01:42:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2014, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2014, 12:43:08 PM
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian President is visiting Poland today. He just gave a speech in front of the joint assembly of both chambers of the Polish Parliament, where he asked Poles to forgive past crimes of Ukrainians, extended an offer of a closer alliance and expressed the Ukraine's desire to eventually join the EU and the NATO, and end with the policy of neutrality.
:unsure:
And when is POland going to apologize for the past crimes of Poles against Ukrainians?
:unsure:
We have already did few years ago. Polish Presidents have done a lot to mend the mutual relations.
Okay, cool. :cool:
In fact, it is one of the few things Kaczynski has done right (and, it is probably one of the very few things that each of Kwasniewski - a post-communist social-democrat; Kaczynski - a right wing populist; and Komorowski - a conservative pro-Europe President we have now - had in common). And they have all been criticised for doing so by hard line nationalists. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2014, 01:45:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
What's the state of Polish-Ukrainian relations? Does it have the usual Slavic mutual recriminations and feuding and claiming the other is an unjust oppressor??
Yes, but at the same time there is a lot of mutual sympathy I think.
It is quite complicated and interesting really, as these divisions do not necessary run along political lines at least in Poland. For example, I have a friend who comes from Wroclaw - she is very liberal, open minded etc. but she hates Ukrainians with passion to the point of racism (to understand why, you need to understand that after WWII, Wroclaw and North-Western Poland was settled by Polish refugees from Lviv). On the other hand, people in other parts of Poland are much more relaxed and friendly.
Back when I was in college, I chatted with a girl that immigrated from Poland. When I said that I was from Lviv, she went "Oh, the city you stole from us? :mad: :mad: :mad:" I didn't ask her whether she was from Wroclaw, though.
Territorial sentiments like this always puzzled me. Especially in Poland where we got rid of the really shitty part.
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2014, 03:08:23 PM
Territorial sentiments like this always puzzled me. Especially in Poland where we got rid of the really shitty part.
Yeah, same for Germany. :P
Reading the BBC roundup on Russian media's reaction to the tRouble, this was kind of funny in a bitter way:
Celebrity journalist Kseniya Sobchak is heavy with sarcasm on Instagram: "Everyone is panicking, but nothing horrible is going to happen. We'll just become a kind of snowy Cuba."
Zeit says that in public the crisis is downplayed (I read an article on TASS or RT that a Russian region banned the word "crisis" from public statements and that it supposedly increased investments), and that the planned New Years celebrations will be the most expensive ones yet.
Russia's problems are overstated, they made a $50b investment in Sochi about a year ago that will probably start paying off its dividends real soon.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 17, 2014, 04:38:46 PM
Russia's problems are overstated, they made a $50b investment in Sochi about a year ago that will probably start paying off its dividends real soon.
Yeah, that's looking better and better in retrospect, isn't it?
Also, the Formula 1 race track in ... where is it again? Oh, Sochi. Naturally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYD9xu92zSg
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 17, 2014, 04:38:46 PM
Russia's problems are overstated, they made a $50b investment in Sochi about a year ago that will probably start paying off its dividends real soon.
Yeah, that's looking better and better in retrospect, isn't it?
The most glorious of all events could be a 2018 World Cup in a collapsed/collapsing Russia with people furious their leaders spent billions for stadiums when the country is bankrupt. Against all odds, I'm hoping that is better than 2022 in Qatar.
If FIFA had real balls and were truly interested in world peace and the spirit of international norms, they'd pull out of Russia now before it's really too late.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 17, 2014, 04:44:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 17, 2014, 04:38:46 PM
Russia's problems are overstated, they made a $50b investment in Sochi about a year ago that will probably start paying off its dividends real soon.
Yeah, that's looking better and better in retrospect, isn't it?
The most glorious of all events could be a 2018 World Cup in a collapsed/collapsing Russia with people furious their leaders spent billions for stadiums when the country is bankrupt. Against all odds, I'm hoping that is better than 2022 in Qatar.
Didn't affect things in Brazil too much.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2014, 04:46:44 PM
If FIFA had real balls and were truly interested in world peace and the spirit of international norms, they'd pull out of Russia now before it's really too late.
Fat chance.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fmartin_rowson%2F2011%2F5%2F31%2F1306876004501%2F1.06.11-Martin-Rowson-on--001.jpg&hash=8485915ee378957e42a9190e976707435fbc656d)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdanielplummer.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F06%2Ffifa-corrupt-image.jpg&hash=76e4383aaf589041775056867f53be4765c6ca00)
Quote from: Syt on December 17, 2014, 04:48:07 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 17, 2014, 04:44:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 17, 2014, 04:38:46 PM
Russia's problems are overstated, they made a $50b investment in Sochi about a year ago that will probably start paying off its dividends real soon.
Yeah, that's looking better and better in retrospect, isn't it?
The most glorious of all events could be a 2018 World Cup in a collapsed/collapsing Russia with people furious their leaders spent billions for stadiums when the country is bankrupt. Against all odds, I'm hoping that is better than 2022 in Qatar.
Didn't affect things in Brazil too much.
I don't think Brazil is analogous to Russia. It is corrupt and developing of course, but it isn't collapsing, is democratic, generally respects human rights, and isn't taking land from its neighbors.
Quote from: Syt on December 17, 2014, 04:48:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2014, 04:46:44 PM
If FIFA had real balls and were truly interested in world peace and the spirit of international norms, they'd pull out of Russia now before it's really too late.
Fat chance.
Even Tour de France bicyclists shake their heads in disappointment at FIFA. :lol:
Quote from: Zanza on December 17, 2014, 03:15:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2014, 03:08:23 PM
Territorial sentiments like this always puzzled me. Especially in Poland where we got rid of the really shitty part.
Yeah, same for Germany. :P
:XD:
Quote from: Syt on December 17, 2014, 04:48:54 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fmartin_rowson%2F2011%2F5%2F31%2F1306876004501%2F1.06.11-Martin-Rowson-on--001.jpg&hash=8485915ee378957e42a9190e976707435fbc656d)
The IMF?? WTF? That's loony tunes even by Guardian standards.
How about Goldman-Sachs?
:bleeding:
I missed that. What a bunch of goofballs.
Just needs some Jews now.....
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2014, 06:43:45 PM
Quote from: Syt on December 17, 2014, 04:48:54 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fmartin_rowson%2F2011%2F5%2F31%2F1306876004501%2F1.06.11-Martin-Rowson-on--001.jpg&hash=8485915ee378957e42a9190e976707435fbc656d)
The IMF?? WTF? That's loony tunes even by Guardian standards.
It's cut off. It's actually 'TIME', as in Time Magazine. The way they choose their person of the year in criminal. I mean 'You'? Fuck off.
Another journalist who might want to carry a geiger counter in future ...
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-wants-reuters-reporter-fired-over-darfur/513552.html
QuoteRussia Wants Reuters Reporter Fired Over Darfur
Russia's United Nations mission has cracked down on the leading news agency Reuters, demanding that it fire a reporter who accused Russia of withholding information about Darfur.
Louis Charbonneau's report was a piece of "dirty journalism," the mission said in a statement carried by Russian news agency RIA Novosti.
A story with Charbonneau's byline claimed that a Russian representative on the joint UN-African Union Mission was withholding information from the UN headquarters and the Security Council on the bloodshed in Sudan's Darfur region.
The story, out Monday, cited unnamed UN diplomats as saying Russian diplomat Karen Tchalian's effort distorted the facts about war-torn Darfur, creating the impression that things there were improving.
The story had comments from Tchalian and Russia's UN mission, both saying they were not aware about any complaints concerning the alleged fact-rigging.
The mission took offense of Charbonneau's claim that the U.S., France and Britain had all sought Tchalian's removal, saying the claim was misreporting that should result in the firing of the reporter and his editor.
Reuters had not commented as of Wednesday evening.
According to UN estimates, about 300,000 people have died since 2003 in Darfur, where ethnic Arab militias backed by the Sudanese government have conducted ethnic cleansing of non-Arab inhabitants of the arid region.
Russia was accused by Amnesty International of supplying arms to the Sudanese government in violation of a UN arms embargo, a claim Moscow denied.
The International Criminal Court said last week it was shelving the probe against Sudanese authorities because it was unable to advance the investigation.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2014, 12:13:37 PM
That being said, the Balts took to Holocaust much more gleefully than the other nations under nazi rule. I remember reading an account that would be grotesque if it wasn't so gruesome of a professional Lithuanian football team that played a match with a German team (composed of SS or Wehrmacht - not sure). The Lithuanians won and, as a prize, were taken on a trip a local ghetto so they can shoot themselves some Jews.
Whether this is because, say, Poles hindered Holocaust more to spite the nazis or out of sympathy for the Jews is another story, of course.
The entire region is pretty fucked up.
One book of mine has some grainy photos of an event that took place quite early in the Nazi occupation of Vilnius. Convicts were brought from the criminal prison to beat Jews to death with pipes and bats, in a public square. The audience was large; people lifted their children onto their shoulders so they could get a look.
That said, I don't know enough to make a wholesale accusation against the Balts. I also read a contradictory letter from around the same time by a German officer in Lithuania complaining that it was a huge pain in the ass to get the local population sufficiently riled up against the Jews.
As soon as the Dual Monarchy's authority waned following the panicky retreat from Italy in 1918, the first recorded incident was Slovenians pogroming local Jews. It is the thing you do when you are European and there is no police to stop you.
Holy shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xai7ttzbx5M&app=desktop
What a teaser for the press conference.
Normalisation is unavoidable!
Quote from: Tamas on December 18, 2014, 04:08:08 AM
As soon as the Dual Monarchy's authority waned following the panicky retreat from Italy in 1918, the first recorded incident was Slovenians pogroming local Jews. It is the thing you do when you are Eastern-European and there is no police to stop you.
FYPFY
"I don't think you can call the current situation a crisis"
Quote from: Liep on December 18, 2014, 04:10:59 AM
Holy shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xai7ttzbx5M&app=desktop
What a teaser for the press conference.
I don't understand a single word about the video. What is it? Putin is going to hold a press conference on what to do with the crisis, and this is a...teaser for his press conference? :unsure:
Quote from: Monoriu on December 18, 2014, 04:49:01 AM
Quote from: Liep on December 18, 2014, 04:10:59 AM
Holy shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xai7ttzbx5M&app=desktop
What a teaser for the press conference.
I don't understand a single word about the video. What is it? Putin is going to hold a press conference on what to do with the crisis, and this is a...teaser for his press conference? :unsure:
It's a yearly conference, so not specifically about the crisis, but that is the teaser run on tv for it.
Rossiya Fuck Yeah.
So... the teaser is trying to say: "the world is going to shit, terrorists everywhere, disaster, war, social unrest - but Russia had some cool olympics and has some badass looking military toys and here are some pictures of some space stuff. Russia got this shit under control!"
Something like that?
Quote from: Jacob on December 18, 2014, 12:02:12 PM
So... the teaser is trying to say: "the world is going to shit, terrorists everywhere, disaster, war, social unrest - but Russia had some cool olympics and has some badass looking military toys and here are some pictures of some space stuff. Russia got this shit under control!"
Something like that?
Pretty much. I guess they played too much Civ: Beyond Earth.
By the way - does anyone know if this teaser is made by some tv station or it is official Russian government thing? Because the former, while over the top, would not be too far out of the Western media shit - now, the latter...
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2014, 04:24:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 18, 2014, 04:08:08 AM
As soon as the Dual Monarchy's authority waned following the panicky retreat from Italy in 1918, the first recorded incident was Slovenians pogroming local Jews. It is the thing you do when you are Eastern-European and there is no police to stop you.
FYPFY
I don't think Slovenia counts as Eastern Europe, at least not in 1918. It's far from the ass end of the dual monarchy.
http://rt.com/news/215523-crisis-payment-bear-chain/
QuoteWestern nations want to chain 'the Russian bear' - Putin
Western nations want to chain "the Russian bear," pull out its teeth and ultimately have it stuffed, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned. He said anti-Russian sanctions are the cost of being an independent nation.
Putin used the vivid metaphor of a "chained bear" during his annual Q&A session with the media in Moscow in response to a question about whether he believed that the troubles of the Russian economy were payback for the reunification with Crimea.
"It's not payback for Crimea. It's the cost of our natural desire to preserve Russia as a nation, a civilization and a state," Putin said.
The president said that even if "the Russian bear" started "sitting tight... and eating berries and honey," this would not stop pressure being applied against the country.
"They won't leave us alone. They will always seek to chain us. And once we are chain, they'll rip out our teeth and claws. Our nuclear deterrence, speaking in present-day terms," Putin said.
"As soon as this [chaining the bear] happens, nobody will need it anymore. They'll stuff it. And start to put their hands on his Taiga [Siberian forest belt] after it. We've heard statements from Western officials that Russia's owning Siberia was not fair," he exclaimed.
"Stealing Texas from Mexico – was that fair? And us having control over our own land is not fair. We should hand it out!"
The West had an anti-Russian stance long before the current crisis started, Putin said. The evidence is there, he said, ranging from"direct support of terrorism in the North Caucasus," to the expansion of NATO and the creation of its anti-ballistic missile system in Eastern Europe, and the way the western media covered the Olympic Games in Sochi, Putin said.
Quote"As soon as this [chaining the bear] happens, nobody will need it anymore. They'll stuff it.
Bear rape?
It would be an unbearable situation for Russia.
Russia is like this retarded kid at school who keeps starting fights. You alternate between annoyance and pity with them.
Chain the Russkies - is it because Putin and his crowd are too barbearic??
All well in Russia!
http://rt.com/business/215507-putin-qa-economy-recovery/
QuotePutin: Russian economy will inevitably bounce back, 2 years in worst case scenario
The Russian economy is to start growing again in 2 years in the worst case scenario, President Vladimir Putin said at his annual press conference. Russia, which is facing recession, is ready to fight the impending crisis, as it did in 2008, he said.
"The economy will grow. And our economy will get out of the current situation,"Putin said, adding that he expected the economy to grow by 0.6 percent in 2014. He said the government will handle the crisis similarly to 2008.
In 2008, Russia along with the much of the rest of the world fell into recession, losing 7.8 percent of GDP in 2009. The Russian economy fared the crisis rather well, and the economy was back on track with 4.5 percent growth in 2010.
Russia's 2014 budget will have a 1.9 percent surplus relative to GDP, despite the turbulent economic situation, the Russian president said
The ruble has been tumbling along with the price of oil, but Western sanctions account for 25-30 percent of the Russian economic crisis, Putin said. US President Barack Obama plans to sign off on a new round of Russia sanctions by the end of this week.
"The situation in the Russian economy is provoked by external factors and the lack of diversification first and foremost."
"The economic situation will force us to diversify our economy," he said, adding that economic adaptation to low oil prices is inevitable.
The president said he hoped the ruble's recovery will persist.
"I hope yesterday and today's exchange rates will be maintained. Is that possible? Whether oil prices will continue to fall, that is possible too."
Putin supports the actions the Central Bank of Russia (CBR) has so far taken to stem the ruble crisis, but criticized the bank for not acting quickly enough.
"I believe the CBR and government are taking adequate measures on the situation. There are questions on the time frame of the measures. On the whole, the direction is right, " he stressed.
On Monday night the CBR sharply increased its key interest rate to 17 percent to try and cap the ruble free fall, and on Wednesday it published a package of measures that are expected to stop the turmoil in the financial markets.
EMERGENCY
EVERYBODY TO GET FROM CURRENCY
I wonder if Putin will still be there in two years.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2014, 03:46:26 AM
I wonder if Putin will still be there in two years.
He will come back stronger than we have ever imagined. :ph34r:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ftct85oY.jpg&hash=d42867f5b734ca241dc6f23dbc76d186d467d15e)
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2014, 03:46:26 AM
I wonder if Putin will still be there in two years.
Don't think for a moment, should the oligarchs even think of challenging him like the one article a couple pages back suggested as a possibility, that Putin wouldn't go Michael Corleone on everybody if he felt he had to in order to survive politically.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 19, 2014, 03:46:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2014, 03:46:26 AM
I wonder if Putin will still be there in two years.
Don't think for a moment, should the oligarchs even think of challenging him like the one article a couple pages back suggested as a possibility, that Putin wouldn't go Michael Corleone on everybody if he felt he had to in order to survive politically.
Oh, I don't. The loyalty of the army is another question though. I imagine that the commanders in the Moscow and St. Petersberg military districts have been chosen for loyalty, but I wonder if it'll be enough. It wasn't enough back in 1991.
Their current MoD is probably one of the most effective, stand-up guys you'd be able to find in Russian circles of power these days.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 19, 2014, 04:11:24 PM
Their current MoD is probably one of the most effective, stand-up guys you'd be able to find in Russian circles of power these days.
That's my impression of Shoigu as well. I wonder how much of it is fact, though, and how much of it is a product of propaganda. Russian TV has been building him up for 15 years. In fact, they started building him up right around the same time they started building up Putin.
True.
And if there is anybody who would be a plausible Putin-successor in the future, Shoigu would be the front-runner. Though he is not much younger.
I don't worry about Putin.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2014, 04:06:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 19, 2014, 03:46:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2014, 03:46:26 AM
I wonder if Putin will still be there in two years.
Don't think for a moment, should the oligarchs even think of challenging him like the one article a couple pages back suggested as a possibility, that Putin wouldn't go Michael Corleone on everybody if he felt he had to in order to survive politically.
Oh, I don't. The loyalty of the army is another question though. I imagine that the commanders in the Moscow and St. Petersberg military districts have been chosen for loyalty, but I wonder if it'll be enough. It wasn't enough back in 1991.
Nobody was able to shovel the kind of money Putin has been in 1991.
All the money in the world won't do you any good if the soldiers protecting you make common cause with street protestors demanding you leave office. Cash protects him from people trying to supplant him within the power structure. What he needs is keep firm control over all media. That's probably why the Russians have really clamped down on bloggers and the like. Putin's power right now relies on his propaganda machine. It passed the test back 2008. It will face a much bigger test next year.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2014, 08:47:02 PM
It passed the test back 2008. It will face a much bigger test next year.
Oh, bullshit.
And no Timmay-dramatism allowed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 19, 2014, 10:33:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2014, 08:47:02 PM
It passed the test back 2008. It will face a much bigger test next year.
Oh, bullshit.
And no Timmay-dramatism allowed.
They faced an economic slowdown back in 2008. This one will be more severe. I don't think Putin is as secure as he wants us to believe.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2014, 08:47:02 PM
All the money in the world won't do you any good if the soldiers protecting you make common cause with street protestors demanding you leave office.
I just don't see where those will be coming from. His popularity remains extremely high, he controls Russian media with an iron grip, and he can easily pin down any duress to Russian-hating West.
I'd be very surprised if Putin wasn't still around in 2020, unless he resigns himself. The sort of economic pressure the sanctions and low oil prices puts on the economy takes years to filter through for people to really start feeling the pressure and blaming it on the regime.
Who will rid me of this meddlesome fag?
Quote from: PJL on December 20, 2014, 05:01:00 AM
I'd be very surprised if Putin wasn't still around in 2020, unless he resigns himself. The sort of economic pressure the sanctions and low oil prices puts on the economy takes years to filter through for people to really start feeling the pressure and blaming it on the regime.
He can also die.
Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2014, 05:14:31 AM
Quote from: PJL on December 20, 2014, 05:01:00 AM
I'd be very surprised if Putin wasn't still around in 2020, unless he resigns himself. The sort of economic pressure the sanctions and low oil prices puts on the economy takes years to filter through for people to really start feeling the pressure and blaming it on the regime.
He can also die.
Something something something Dark Side. Something something something complete.
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2014, 05:51:24 AM
Something something something Dark Side. Something something something complete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Bl_VQ2inM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Bl_VQ2inM)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 20, 2014, 06:03:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2014, 05:51:24 AM
Something something something Dark Side. Something something something complete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Bl_VQ2inM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Bl_VQ2inM)
I'm ready to let my love flow now. :wub:
QuotePutin's Groundhog Day: The Russian people keep paying the price for their leaders' incompetence
Wonkblog
Washington Post
In the bad old days, Russia's facsimile of an economy would crash every time the price of oil did. The government would go broke, the currency would collapse, and ordinary people would see their standard of living evaporate. Now if all this sounds familiar, that's because the bad old days never went away under Vladimir Putin. He just got lucky until now.
So now, like they have for generations, the Russian people are paying the price for their government's economic illiteracy. And it's a miserable price to pay for the nation's 140 million people.
The Soviets knew this story well. The oil shocks of the 1970s filled the USSR's coffers with enough cash to not only mask the massive inefficiencies of its centrally-planned economy, but also launch its own imperial quagmire in Afghanistan. It was enough to make Americans think they were losing the Cold War.
But then, like that, the USSR was gone. All it took was Saudi Arabia deciding to let oil prices fall, and the Soviet empire did too. The whole Marxist-Leninist thing didn't help either. Supermarkets went empty. People went hungry. And then nobody would lend them any more money. That's how the Cold War ended: Not with a bang, but a bailout. The West loaned the bankrupt Soviets $100 billion, and, in return, the USSR let its satellite states go.
The end of communism, though, didn't bring prosperity. The opposite, actually.
Russia didn't (and still doesn't) so much have an economy as an oil exporting business that subsidized everything else. And with oil prices averaging just $17.50-a-barrel in the 1990s, that business was in bad shape. Russian companies that were used to getting handouts from the oil-rich government had to get loans from the central bank instead. This created so much new money that inflation, which had already built up due to just-ended price controls, exploded to over 800 percent. The government was able to bring this down to merely painful levels of 10 to 20 percent, but only at the cost of a protracted slump. Unemployment climbed into the double digits, all while the cost of basic goods rose out of reach for even people who managed to keep their jobs. The result, as you can see below, was a lost decade for Russia.
Gross domestic product per capita, adjusted for local prices, actually fell in the eight years after the USSR did.
Russia was still basically bankrupt, but without the benefit of bankruptcy. It simply owed the West more money than it could reasonably pay back. That, as Jeff Sachs points out, was different from how the U.S. treated other post-communist states. Sachs, you might remember, was the economist who advised the former Iron Curtain countries on the, as he called it, "shock therapy" they needed to save their failing economies as they transitioned to capitalism. The U.S., he explains, helped ease Poland's inevitable pain by giving them $1 billion to stabilize their currency and forgiving much of their debt.
But the U.S. wasn't so magnanimous with Russia. It wasn't magnanimous at all. Russia was required to pay back everything it owed. And in the meantime, even more debt was piled onto its rotting husk of an economy in the form of emergency IMF loans. Because a nuclear-armed country would never be allowed to default, right?
Well, no. It's hard to say whether Russia was the victim of bad leadership and worse luck or bad luck and worse leadership. The government's incompetence, you see, was only matched by its corruption. Economic reforms were always a day away. And behind closed doors, state-owned monopolies turned into privately-owned monopolies thanks to sweetheart deals that made government officials rich and the new oligarchs regally so. Russia, in other words, traded one gangster state for another. And its economy, so far as it had one, was still entirely based on extracting natural resources. That's why, when oil prices tumbled from their already-low levels in 1998, Russia found itself back where it'd been a decade before: bankrupt. Under pressure from markets, it devalued the ruble and defaulted on its debt.
Then a miracle happened: oil prices started rising. Okay, it was more China's miracle than Russia's, but, after two decades of decline and fall and even more declining, that was more than good enough for Putin. He'd become president in 1999, when oil prices averaged just under $18-a-barrel, and watched as China's insatiable demand for raw materials helped push the price up into the triple digits over the next decade. That gave Russia so much money that even after the oligarchs—Putin's real political base—took their cut, there was still enough left over for ordinary people's living standards to improve.
But despite this, Russia's economy didn't really improve. Putin didn't diversify it at all, not if you don't include braggadocio. It's still all about digging things up out of the ground and selling them. That, of course, was all Putin needed to do what Russia's rulers have always done—invade a neighboring country or two—when they're feeling flush with petrodollars. But it left Russia vulnerable to the same kind of crisis that's always hit it when oil prices have unexpectedly fallen.
This time, at least, the government has built up a war chest of dollars to keep the ruble from falling too much. But Russia's companies became the epicenters of economic doom instead. They borrowed a lot of dollars, in part, as Paul Krugman points out, because the ruble's rise the years before had made these debts look smaller than they actually were. It didn't help that Western sanctions over Putin's incursion into Ukraine kept Russian companies from rolling over what they owed by shutting them out of international credit markets. So now that the ruble is plummeting, those dollar debts are harder to pay back, and it's sucking the economy into a death spiral.
This is Russia's version of Groundhog Day. Oil crashes, so does the ruble, and then unemployment balloons. Sometimes the government goes broke. Other times companies do. In any case, it's the ordinary people who suffer. They get hit by the double whammy of unemployment and inflation. So even if they're lucky enough to keep their jobs, their budgets still get squeezed by the rising cost of everyday essentials. It's even worse for imports, which make up a big chunk of the manufactured goods they buy, and have suddenly become twice as expensive now that the ruble has fallen by almost half. That's why shoppers are stampeding to buy whatever foreign products they can get their hands on—luxury cars, Apple products, or even Ikea furniture—before the ruble loses any more value.
Russia's winter of discontent, though, is about to get even more bleak. Its central bank just jacked up interest rates to 17 percent to try to prop up the ruble, which is so high that nobody will want to borrow. But even if they did, nobody will be able to get a loan on anything less than punitive terms when banks are so scared that they won't even lend to each other. This credit crunch will turn Russia's already-nasty recession—GDP is projected to shrink 4.7 percent if oil stays at $60-a-barrel—into a full-on depression. In a worst-case scenario, the economy could contract as much as 10 percent next year, even as inflation flirts with double digit territory.
It shouldn't be this way. The one thing Russia doesn't have a shortage of, after all, are brilliant scientists, programmers, and mathematicians. By all rights, it should have a booming high-tech economy. A Silicon Valley-on-the-steppes. But that would require giving people the freedom to challenge authority, which is far too much for Putin when he thinks that any opposition amounts to a "fifth column." It's safer just to dole out the old Soviet monopolies to his cronies, and let the plebes shop in the meantime. Putinism, in other words, is communism minus the pretense that all animals are equal.
Every happy economy might be alike, but in Russia, at least, the unhappy ones are too.
Link to the article with all the links in the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/21/putins-groundhog-day-the-russian-people-keep-paying-the-price-for-their-leaders-incompetence/?tid=pm_business_pop
As the article mentions, Russia has the means to at least produce their own high tech consumer products. But it doesn't happen. Rather, it's a country where taking a photo or writing a blog post makes people wary of being on balconies or near windows. (By the way, I think Near Windows would be the bug-filled Russian OS of choice, if they did try to make one - no photo sharing or word processor included).
All propaganda!
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/768289
QuotePutin says no-one will succeed in Russia's intimidation, isolation
MOSCOW, December 20. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin is confident that no-one will succeed in intimidating and isolating Russia.
"The world situation is far from stable," Putin said in State Kremlin Palace at a gala night marking Day of Security Service Officers.
"A number of threats and risks are growing, the norms of international law are ignored and no stone is left unturned: blackmail, provocations, economic and informational pressure, stakes on radical elements and nationalist groups, as well as attempts to destabilize the internal situation and thus take under control the whole countries."
The head of state pointed out one could hear oftener more explicit statements that Russia "must pay a high cost for its independent policy, for its support of compatriots, for Crimea and for Sevastopol and it sometimes seems that even for the fact that we exist."
"Evidently, no-one will succeed in Russia's intimidation and isolation. It hasn't been done before and it's never going to happen," Putin said recalling that attempts like those had been repeatedly made for centuries and not once in the 20th century.
"Nothing has come out of it and nothing will," the Russian president said. "Along with this, we must be ready to go through certain difficulties and to give an adequate answer to any threats to our sovereignty, stability and unity of our society.".
"A number of threats and risks are growing, the norms of international law are ignored and no stone is left unturned: blackmail, provocations, economic and informational pressure, stakes on radical elements and nationalist groups, as well as attempts to destabilize the internal situation and thus take under control the whole countries." => Never expected Putin to speak so openly about the MO of his foreign policy.
Rather hard to be completely isolated when you're bordering half of the planet, but allright.
Quote from: Norgy on December 21, 2014, 05:23:42 PM
As the article mentions, Russia has the means to at least produce their own high tech consumer products. But it doesn't happen. Rather, it's a country where taking a photo or writing a blog post makes people wary of being on balconies or near windows. (By the way, I think Near Windows would be the bug-filled Russian OS of choice, if they did try to make one - no photo sharing or word processor included).
Well they also suffer from acute dutch disease.
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-minister-talks-ruble-104459436--finance.html
QuoteRussia bails out bank following ruble slide
Russia has bailed out a mid-sized bank for about $500 million to save it from bankruptcy— a clear sign that the slide in the value of the ruble in the wake of sliding oil prices is straining the banking system.
The Central Bank said Monday it will give Trust Bank 30 billion rubles that will allow it to continue operating as normal.
It will also place Trust Bank under its own supervision until it finds an investor. Major Russian banks said they had no interest in acquiring Trust, a top 30 Russian bank with about $5 billion in assets.
The problems afflicting Trust Bank follow a tumultuous period for the ruble, which is one of the worst-performing currencies this year, along with the Ukrainian hryvnia. A respected former Russian finance minister warned that the country is headed for "a full-blown economic crisis."
It has fallen by a half this year as oil prices have fallen. Last week, its descent gathered pace, sparking a consumer boom as worried Russians flocked to shops to buy cars and durable goods before prices rose further.
Still, deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov said Monday he expects the ruble to rally following some signs of stability over the past few trading sessions. Following moderate gains at the end of last week, the ruble surged 8 percent in early evening trading on Monday, at 54 against the U.S. dollar.
He also said the government is not planning to introduce currency controls on Russian companies. The ruble's collapse has stirred rumors that Russia could introduce capital and currency controls to keep the rate high.
The Russian currency has been battered by low oil prices, now around $60 a barrel, down from a June high of $107, as well as the sanctions that the West imposed on Russia for its involvement in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea.
The fall in oil prices is one of the major reasons why Russia is expected to fall into recession next year.
Alexei Kudrin, a well-respected former Russian finance minister, said oil prices weren't the main reason why the ruble has suffered this year. In comments to reporters, he said low oil prices account for as little as a quarter of the ruble decline whereas the sanctions imposed on the country could be contributing up to 40 percent of the collapse.
Kudrin warned that Russia will enter recession even if oil prices are as high as $80.
"We are entering or have already entered a full-blown economic crisis, and we're going to feel it to the full next year," Kudrin said. "This is a serious challenge to the economy."
President Vladimir Putin has overseen a full decade of economic growth boosted by high oil prices and the expanding consumer market, but the collapse of the ruble and the rise of inflation could pose a threat to consumer expectations next year.
For the first time since 2000, according to Kudrin, disposable income in Russia is going to drop signifycantly, by about 4 percent.
372.5 billion in reserves left and counting. :)
http://rt.com/news/216563-china-russia-economic-hardships/
QuoteChina pledges to help Russia overcome economic hardships
China's foreign minister has pledged support to Russia as it faces an economic downturn due to sanctions and a drop in oil prices. Boosting trade in yuan is a solution proposed by Beijing's commerce minister.
"Russia has the capability and the wisdom to overcome the existing hardship in the economic situation," Foreign Minister Wang Yi told journalists, China Daily reported Monday. "If the Russian side needs it, we will provide necessary assistance within our capacity."
The offer of help comes as Russians are still recovering from the shock of the ruble's worst crash in years last Tuesday, when it lost over 20 percent against the US dollar and the euro. The Russian currency bounced back the next day, but it still has lost almost half of its value since March.
At his annual end-of-year press conference on Thursday, Vladimir Putin acknowledged the ruble has been tumbling along with the price of oil, and estimated that Western sanctions account for 25-30 percent of the Russian economic crisis. However, the president's economic forecast is that the slump will not be a lasting one.
READ MORE: Putin: Russian economy will inevitably bounce back, 2 years in worst case scenario
Chinese Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng proposed on Saturday to expand the use of the yuan in trade with Russia.
He said the use of the Chinese currency has been increasing for several years but western sanctions on Russia had made the trend more prominent, Reuters cited Hong Kong's Phoenix TV as saying.
Gao said this year's trade between China and Russia could reach $100 billion, approximately 10 percent growth compared to last year.
READ MORE: Russia-China trading settlements in yuan increases 800%
The minister said he did not expect cooperation on energy and manufacturing projects with Russia to be greatly affected by the current crisis.
"Many Chinese people still view Russia as the big brother, and the two countries are strategically important to each other," Jin Canrong, Associate Dean of the School of International Studies at Renmin University in Beijing, told Bloomberg. "For the sake of national interests, China should deepen cooperation with Russia when such cooperation is in need."
China has been increasingly seeking deals in its own currency to challenge the US dollar's dominance on the international market.
READ MORE: Argentina to get $1bn in currency swap with China before end of 2014
And Beijing is not alone in attempts to counter the influence of Western-based lending institutions and the US currency.
BRICS, the group of emerging economies that comprises Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, accounting for one-fifth of global economic output, has been pursuing the same goal. The five nations agreed in July to increase mutual trade in local currencies, and also to create a BRICS Development Bank with investment equivalent to $100 billion as an alternative to the Western-controlled World Bank.
Translation: China is going to suck Russia dry and make it sound like solidarity.
I knew that China would be the woman in the relationship.
The recent "big deal" in Russian "mainstream" news, is that they have a witness (alleged member of Ukrainian air force ground crew) who says that one of their Su-25's came back having expended the air-to-air missiles it was carrying, and most likely shot the Malaysian airliner down.
I recently learned the US has started supplying arms to Ukraine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2014, 08:13:28 PM
I recently learned the US has started supplying arms to Ukraine.
It was in the CR.
The Ukrainian parliament has voted in favor of moving towards NATO membership. Russia has replied by calling this "an unfriendly act."
http://rt.com/politics/216967-medvedev-ukraine-russia-usa/
QuoteRussia-US relations 'poisoned' for decades to come – Medvedev
Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev thinks the recent unfriendly moves by Presidents Poroshenko and Obama effectively turn Ukraine into Russia's potential enemy. It will also "poison" relations with the US for decades to come.
On Facebook, Medvedev commented on the Ukraine Freedom Act 2014 signed by Barack Obama last week, and on the Ukrainian parliament's intention to cancel a national law forbidding them to join military blocs.
"As in the case with the Jackson-Vanik amendment, our relations with America will be poisoned for decades to come," he added.
Medvedev also underlined that if Ukraine changed its out-of-bloc status, it would in essence be an application to join NATO, rendering Ukraine Russia's potential enemy.
"Both these decisions would have extremely negative consequences," the Russian Prime Minister wrote, adding that Russia would have to react to such hostile steps.
Last week, Prime Minister Medvedev published an article, in which he warned Ukraine that EU economic policy is pushing them into a full scale crisis.
"The EU needs Ukraine primarily as a source of raw materials and definitely as a new market for European companies," he wrote. "No one is hurrying to invite Ukraine to the common European table as an equal partner. They aren't even offering a side chair; they are deliberately putting this country in a position of a girl who goes on dates that never end in marriage," the Russian PM said.
In the same article, Medvedev reviewed the history of Russian-Ukrainian relations and described his view on the future relations between nations that, in the PM's words, "don't have and never will have real borders between them."
http://rt.com/news/217047-ukraine-nato-membership-russia/
Quote'Counterproductive': Ukraine seeking NATO membership 'a false solution', says Russia
Kiev's latest move to become a NATO ally is counterproductive and gives rise to false hope for resolving its political crisis, Moscow said. The Ukrainian parliament voted to repeal a law that upheld the country's non-participation in military blocks.
The move on Tuesday is a step towards becoming a member of the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization, a goal the post-coup authorities in Kiev have made a key point of their foreign policies. Kiev says that Russia is the cause of the civil war that led to eastern parts of the country rebelling against the central government and hopes that NATO's military might will help resolve the situation.
"This is counterproductive. It only escalates the confrontation and creates the illusion that the internal national crisis in Ukraine can be solved through adoption of laws like that," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on the new legislation.
"A much more productive and sensible way would be to finally start a dialogue with the part of the Ukrainian people that were ignored when the coup was staged," he added. Lavrov called on Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to initiate a constitutional reform, which Kiev had pledged to do in April.
READ MORE: Pentagon confirms military buildup along Russian borders for 'peace and stability'
The law revoking Ukraine's military non-alignment stance was adopted by 303 votes against nine, with 2 MPs abstaining and 56 not voting. Now the law states that establishing closer ties with NATO and eventual membership in the military bloc is a priority for the Ukrainian government.
The alliance noted Ukraine's move and said it "respected" the parliament's decision. Earlier some major members of NATO like Germany voiced doubt that Ukraine could join the organization anytime soon.
There are numerous obstacles, including Ukraine's political and economic problems, a territorial dispute with Russia, and Moscow's critical attitude towards Ukraine becoming part of NATO. Arguably the most strongly-worded comment was voiced by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev as the voting was about to start in Kiev.
With his move President Poroshenko "has made a de facto application to join NATO and turned Ukraine into a potential enemy of Russia," Medvedev said.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 23, 2014, 07:56:45 PM
The recent "big deal" in Russian "mainstream" news, is that they have a witness (alleged member of Ukrainian air force ground crew) who says that one of their Su-25's came back having expended the air-to-air missiles it was carrying, and most likely shot the Malaysian airliner down.
Someone ought to tell them that ship already sailed.
Sochi olympics: $50 billion
Invading Crimea: $200 billion
Sanctions and dropping oil prices: $150 billion
Pushing the people of a neighboring country into toppling a crony friendly to you and choosing the other side: priceless
Considering that the North Korean regime is still around I don't think Putin has to worry about the economy. A lot of oppression goes a long way.
Quote from: The Brain on December 24, 2014, 02:13:07 AM
Considering that the North Korean regime is still around I don't think Putin has to worry about the economy. A lot of oppression goes a long way.
Everything about Russia and North Korea is so incomparable I am not sure if you are trolling or being serious. :huh:
Quote from: The Brain on December 24, 2014, 02:13:07 AM
Considering that the North Korean regime is still around I don't think Putin has to worry about the economy. A lot of oppression goes a long way.
That would require Putin to shut down the internet, shut down all news except state run (he may be close to that), restrict access to food, put millions of people back into Gulags and work camps if he wants to model mutha Russia on the success of the Stalinist worker's paradise of North Korea.
Of course, that would be a bonus to Putin, so don't give him any ideas! ;)
Well, Putin has the support of the exiled nobles ... :huh: :hmm:
http://rt.com/politics/217551-russia-emigrants-letter-history/
Quote'Stop blaming everything on Russia': Heirs to 1917 revolutionary-era emigrants appeal to EU
Over 100 descendants of the Russian nobility residing outside the country have addressed European nations with a call to stop irrationally alienating Russia and give an unbiased appraisal to the current Ukrainian crisis.
The open letter written by Prince Dmitry Shakhovskoy and his wife, Princess Tamara, and signed by over 100 people representing the diaspora of the so-called first-wave emigration, was published by Rossiiskaya Gazeta on Thursday.
"The aggressive hostility that Russia is facing right now is lacking any rationality and the double standard policy is simply exceeding any limits," claim the authors of the message. "Russia is being accused of all crimes, it is pronounced guilty a priori and without any evidence, while other countries are shown surprising leniency, in particular when Human Rights are concerned," they letter reads.
"We cannot put up with daily slander targeting modern Russia, its leaders and its president, who are slapped with sanctions and smeared with dirt, in contradiction to basic reason."
The descendants of the Russian nobility also said that they were outraged by fact that European officials and mass media had been consistently silencing the facts of the cruel shelling of civilians in eastern Ukraine conducted by the Ukrainian military with support of paramilitary groups brandishing Nazi symbols. Another disturbing fact was a full blockade of the Donbass region by the Kiev regime, which seeks to completely destroy the region that it still declares a part of Ukrainian territory.
The pro-Kiev forces also allow numerous attacks on Russian Orthodox Churches, acts of violence and even murders of priests, destroy temples and launch repressions against believers, the message reads.
"We cannot remain indifferent and silent in the face of planned elimination of the Donbass population, open Russophobia and hypocritical approaches that contradict the interests of European nations themselves. We hope that the countries that in their time had shown hospitality to our families will again set on the path of reason and impartiality," claim the descendants of the Tsarist White Guard officers and soldiers.
Earlier, the Russian parliament suggested that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe launch an international panel to investigate crimes against humanity in Europe, such as the tragedy in Odessa or mass executions of civilians near Ukraine's Donetsk. The proposal mirrors an address to international organizations, and national parliaments and governments, calling to investigate crimes against civilians in southeastern Ukraine, passed by the State Duma in October this year.
:bleeding:
I somewhat agree, in that the way Ukraine is going about the separatist fight seemed kinda stupid and done in a very blunt, Soviet-style way. In that kind of fight, wide-spread and non-precision shelling is both stupid and likely ineffective...not to mention going to make the locals hate you even more.
But on the other hand, if the Russian didn't throw in tanks/volunteers/armored vehicles, etc...the Ukrainian military and police should have just been able to roll in and restore some order without even considering the need for heavy-handed tactics.
Well if we are going to start making up titles, I'll be Marquis of of the Missouri Midlands and Minister Plenipotentiary of Mopery.
Quote from: Syt on December 25, 2014, 12:19:21 PM
Well, Putin has the support of the exiled nobles ... :huh: :hmm:
http://rt.com/politics/217551-russia-emigrants-letter-history/
Ah. Pity the Soviets did not get them all.
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2014, 04:29:19 PM
Quote from: Syt on December 25, 2014, 12:19:21 PM
Well, Putin has the support of the exiled nobles ... :huh: :hmm:
http://rt.com/politics/217551-russia-emigrants-letter-history/ (http://rt.com/politics/217551-russia-emigrants-letter-history/)
Ah. Pity the Soviets did not get them all.
I used think the same thing about you. :hug:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2014, 03:14:34 PM
Well if we are going to start making up titles, I'll be Marquis of of the Missouri Midlands and Minister Plenipotentiary of Mopery.
I demand you swear fealty to me or suffer the consequences.
I didn't say king, boss. Just Marquess. The Marquee de la Razee.
Thy lands are forfeit!
WAR!
I don't think you really want central Missouri. Not unless soybeans make you hard.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
I don't think you really want central Missouri. Not unless soybeans make you hard.
He lives in Ohio, can't big too big a step down.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
I don't think you really want central Missouri. Not unless soybeans make you hard.
Good demand for soybeans. $$$$
Quote from: sbr on December 25, 2014, 08:44:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
I don't think you really want central Missouri. Not unless soybeans make you hard.
He lives in Ohio, can't big too big a step down.
Prepared to be surprised.
Too many blacks.
All I know is that I will invade where Sulla says I should invade. Then I will dine on pheasant livers.
I was at a great peasant shoot last year.
State Duma chief suggests trying US for WWII nuke attacks (http://rt.com/politics/217787-naryshkin-russia-hiroshima-trial/)
I've come to feel more and more Putin is just stupid, he's tactically crafty but he's so dumb on what makes countries prosperous and powerful in the real 2014 that his actions can only be explained via stupidity. He can push for closer ties with China or Iran all he wants, if you do things that make Russia "closed for business" with the West you can't just drop China in as a replacement. China has already shown that when it steps into this role for Russia it expects a discount--as well they should, because Russia has lost potential customers the remaining customer will always have bargaining power. China is a much more pragmatic country, while they're going to be fine bending Putin over a barrel by extracting cheaper and cheaper natural resource purchasing agreements, China is not in anyway going to join any kind of broader anti-American political movement.
Putin is really just running the Chavez/Maduro game plan but with a much bigger/more powerful country.
Quote from: Syt on December 25, 2014, 12:19:21 PM
Well, Putin has the support of the exiled nobles ... :huh: :hmm:
Well, he
is the Czar.
Putin is a strongman, not an economist. I think that explains his strategy (or seeming lack of it). High oil prices made his lack of economic acumen less of an issue, and it gave his economically capable advisers more room to maneuver. Now that the margin calls are coming in, and you can only satisfy cronies or capitalists, but not both, his weakness is exposed front and center.
Yeah, I knew Russia was in for some pain when Putin started talking about trying to replace as much trade as possible with domestic production/consumption of goods. When you start hearing nonsense like that from people in power (and there's a long history of it), economic disaster often follows.
I find it shocking the Russian people, notoriously cynical, are so easily whipped into a patriotic frenzy over some chest thumping and conspiracy theory babble from Putin, though. The Chinese don't even pretend to have a free society but their people seem a lot less trusting of the nonsense Beijing spouts off about from time to time.
In a lot of ways I do think it hard to deny China's approach to essentially ending communism has worked out a lot better than Russia's. China wasn't built on a lot of vassalized States, though, so of course its path was always going to be easier.
One great advantage China had is they are genetically programmed to make money. Russia is a nation of dull-eyed serfs, patiently waiting in line for their bowl of gruel, and occaisonally rising up to decapitate their masters and rape his wife.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 26, 2014, 01:57:25 PM
I find it shocking the Russian people, notoriously cynical, are so easily whipped into a patriotic frenzy over some chest thumping and conspiracy theory babble from Putin, though.
Russian cynicism is really more of a sort of fatalistic resignation, surpassed only by their blinkered ethno-nationalism and goofy ass appetites for all types of conspiracy (read: Western) theories. A werry silly pipples.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 26, 2014, 01:57:25 PM
I find it shocking the Russian people, notoriously cynical, are so easily whipped into a patriotic frenzy over some chest thumping and conspiracy theory babble from Putin, though.
I can think of a couple of explanations. First of all, Russians are indiscriminate when it comes to cynicism. They're just as likely to be cynical about US as they are about their own government. Secondly, Russians are extremely patriotic, for reasons that obviously cannot be explained by logic. That makes them especially vulnerable to propaganda that taps into "us vs. them" mentality.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2014, 02:01:32 PM
One great advantage China had is they are genetically programmed to make money. Russia is a nation of dull-eyed serfs, patiently waiting in line for their bowl of gruel, and occaisonally rising up to decapitate their masters and rape his wife.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frevolutionarymovie.com%2Fimages%2FA11.jpg&hash=f1a99d787e06c56941e2c1967bd864ff6ace4958)
There is arguably as long a history of active participation in the market in Russia as in China. Siberia was colonized largely by hardasses who were so desperate for money and to get away from the encroachment of serfdom that they were willing to live in Siberia. You can imagine an alternative Russian history where the relative liberalism of Siberia and the Steppe serves as as kind of the placenta of Russian capitalism in the same way the Chinese diaspora in SE Asia and Hong Kong did for the Chinese Mainland. Just didn't happen that way, sadly.
Not sure what crushing point you think that poster delivers Squeelus.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 27, 2014, 07:29:31 PM
There is arguably as long a history of active participation in the market in Russia as in China. Siberia was colonized largely by hardasses who were so desperate for money and to get away from the encroachment of serfdom that they were willing to live in Siberia. You can imagine an alternative Russian history where the relative liberalism of Siberia and the Steppe serves as as kind of the placenta of Russian capitalism in the same way the Chinese diaspora in SE Asia and Hong Kong did for the Chinese Mainland. Just didn't happen that way, sadly.
I think that would have required the Russian territories in the West to have been subjugated, and perhaps cleansed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 27, 2014, 07:55:27 PM
Not sure what crushing point you think that poster delivers Squeelus.
When China shifted toward market socialism there was a ready supply of Chinese exiles that could come back to the country to help set it up. People who had fled China when it went Red but also Chinese communities living in other countries like Singapore and Indonesia. When the Soviet Union fell apart there was no similar community to draw upon. Those that fled Russia when when commie weren't around anymore, and if they were they were to old. There just weren't many Russians who knew how a free market actually worked. It isn't just China. A lot of Poles were able to leave Poland in the 1970's and 80's and came to the US. Many of them went back when the country was freed and helped set up businesses. As a result Poland's economy recovered quite nicely.
I think that his point is you can't just shift from planned economics to market economics without the people who actually know market economics work.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 27, 2014, 07:29:31 PM
the placenta of Russian capitalism
That's downright Ide-worthy.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2014, 09:52:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 27, 2014, 07:55:27 PM
Not sure what crushing point you think that poster delivers Squeelus.
When China shifted toward market socialism there was a ready supply of Chinese exiles that could come back to the country to help set it up. People who had fled China when it went Red but also Chinese communities living in other countries like Singapore and Indonesia. When the Soviet Union fell apart there was no similar community to draw upon. Those that fled Russia when when commie weren't around anymore, and if they were they were to old. There just weren't many Russians who knew how a free market actually worked. It isn't just China. A lot of Poles were able to leave Poland in the 1970's and 80's and came to the US. Many of them went back when the country was freed and helped set up businesses. As a result Poland's economy recovered quite nicely.
I think that his point is you can't just shift from planned economics to market economics without the people who actually know market economics work.
Well. That, and that only 40 years ago China was synonymous with Collectivist insanity and 100 years ago Weber talked about how industrialization was impossibl in China because of its culture. And Weber was a genius.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2014, 02:01:32 PM
One great advantage China had is they are genetically programmed to make money. Russia is a nation of dull-eyed serfs, patiently waiting in line for their bowl of gruel, and occaisonally rising up to decapitate their masters and rape his wife.
What a bunch of racist bullshit
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 28, 2014, 05:39:27 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2014, 02:01:32 PM
One great advantage China had is they are genetically programmed to make money. Russia is a nation of dull-eyed serfs, patiently waiting in line for their bowl of gruel, and occaisonally rising up to decapitate their masters and rape his wife.
What a bunch of racist bullshit
What do you expect from a Korean? :sleep:
Quote from: Queequeg on December 28, 2014, 04:11:44 AM
Well. That, and that only 40 years ago China was synonymous with Collectivist insanity and 100 years ago Weber talked about how industrialization was impossibl in China because of its culture. And Weber was a genius.
Except that industrialization is not synonymous with the profit motive (see Dugashvilli, Joseph) and China has industrialized.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 28, 2014, 05:39:27 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2014, 02:01:32 PM
One great advantage China had is they are genetically programmed to make money. Russia is a nation of dull-eyed serfs, patiently waiting in line for their bowl of gruel, and occaisonally rising up to decapitate their masters and rape his wife.
What a bunch of racist bullshit
He is right, though. Also, wasn't aware that Russians were a "race".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2014, 09:38:52 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 28, 2014, 04:11:44 AM
Well. That, and that only 40 years ago China was synonymous with Collectivist insanity and 100 years ago Weber talked about how industrialization was impossibl in China because of its culture. And Weber was a genius.
Except that industrialization is not synonymous with the profit motive (see Dugashvilli, Joseph) and China has industrialized.
Weber's entire argument was that Confucianism gave no respect to the profit motive.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 28, 2014, 12:00:00 PM
Weber's entire argument was that Confucianism gave no respect to the profit motive.
How has that worked out for him?
Argies are sending beef and other AG products to Russia for 12 SU-24 Fencers.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 28, 2014, 12:36:05 PM
Argies are sending beef and other AG products to Russia for 12 SU-24 Fencers.
I'd take that trade for Argentinian beef- one of the few things they do right over there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2014, 12:24:29 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 28, 2014, 12:00:00 PM
Weber's entire argument was that Confucianism gave no respect to the profit motive.
How has that worked out for him?
Weber was accurately descibing the last 500 years of Chinese history.
So am I.
Little. Yellow. Different.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 28, 2014, 12:36:05 PM
Argies are sending beef and other AG products to Russia for 12 SU-24 Fencers.
I guess it was a matter of time before both countries regressed to a barter economy.
We have old planes, yes? You want to bomb British pigs? yes?
Finest Planes. RT says they are better than F-15E. yes?
Quote from: Queequeg on December 28, 2014, 12:51:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2014, 12:24:29 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 28, 2014, 12:00:00 PM
Weber's entire argument was that Confucianism gave no respect to the profit motive.
How has that worked out for him?
Weber was accurately descibing the last 500 years of Chinese history.
Ehhhhh. You really need to stop with this academic hero worship.
Russia never had capitalism before the Soviets - it went straight from feudalism to communism. You can argue some similarities with China there, but on top of that the Chinese had a history of functioning bureaucracy and administration - the only good period Russia had by contrast was when it tried to Westernise under Peter the Great.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2014, 04:56:03 PM
Russia never had capitalism before the Soviets - it went straight from feudalism to communism. You can argue some similarities with China there, but on top of that the Chinese had a history of functioning bureaucracy and administration - the only good period Russia had by contrast was when it tried to Westernise under Peter the Great.
China had functioning proto-capitalism, if not capitalism, for centuries and centuries.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2014, 09:52:27 PM
When China shifted toward market socialism there was a ready supply of Chinese exiles that could come back to the country to help set it up.
I don't think (though not 100% sure) that this is accurate. It is not my impression that the Chinese diaspora returned to the PRC after the shit to market socialism.
Your larger point, I expect, is accurate - that the diaspora helped the transition. I just don't think it was through any kind of movement of people back to China but rather as an export and expertise network, as well as a source of capital. If someone in China could figure out a way to make widgets (possibly drawing on a connection that had experience with widget making) at a good price, he had a community overseas ready to buy them off his hands.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2014, 02:01:32 PM
One great advantage China had is they are genetically programmed to make money.
I agree wholeheartedly :yes:
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2014, 04:56:03 PM
Russia never had capitalism before the Soviets - it went straight from feudalism to communism. You can argue some similarities with China there, but on top of that the Chinese had a history of functioning bureaucracy and administration - the only good period Russia had by contrast was when it tried to Westernise under Peter the Great.
Russia didn't really have Feudalism. That's a Marxist myth. I don't think Feudalism really works as a model east of the Danube. The Ottomans and Russians based their economic and political structures on Byzantium and the Mongol Empire, both of which were profoundly autocratic and centralized in a way totally foreign to Medieval and Early Modern Western Europe.
I also think you are overstating the case. Russia's government between Peter the Great and Catherine was generally pretty good. Beating Napoleon was as much the triumph of the Russian military and governance as the winter. Problem is, as with all strict authoritarian regimes with particularly vicious extractive institutions, it pretty quickly devolved in to nepotism and incoherence. Even then, though, in 1914-1917 there was a real civil society that managed to put up a pretty good effort through most of WWI even while the house was catching fire.
I think China has a history of respect for authority and meritocracy that Russia never totally did. There's a village-y equalizing tenancy and post-Soviet/late Empire cynicism that make Putin's brand of honest nepotism acceptable and not seem not that much different from the West. That's probably as important as anything. It took Mao, the Japanese and the Warlords to kill off the ineffectual Chinese noble-bureaucrat with massively long fingernails who believed competent governance was knowing all of the Confucian canon but after that class died off the respect for authority and principle of merit survived.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2014, 03:55:52 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 28, 2014, 12:51:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2014, 12:24:29 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 28, 2014, 12:00:00 PM
Weber's entire argument was that Confucianism gave no respect to the profit motive.
How has that worked out for him?
Weber was accurately descibing the last 500 years of Chinese history.
Ehhhhh. You really need to stop with this academic hero worship.
Weber is Weber.
Quote from: Jacob on December 28, 2014, 11:56:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2014, 09:52:27 PM
When China shifted toward market socialism there was a ready supply of Chinese exiles that could come back to the country to help set it up.
I don't think (though not 100% sure) that this is accurate. It is not my impression that the Chinese diaspora returned to the PRC after the shit to market socialism.
Purely anecdotal of course, but my best friend through high school and college was Chinese, his father fought with the Nationalists in WW2, fled to Taiwan, then emigrated to the US.
His father and himself both returned to China, once it was allowed/safe. His father in business making clothes, and he started a university that coordinates with the University of Arizona to do exchange programs. So in that case, there was most certainly a return of emigres back to China.
I don't know or claim that it is representative of a trend though.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B18dz7qCYAA0hEn.jpg)
Quote from: Berkut on December 29, 2014, 08:13:10 AM
Purely anecdotal of course, but my best friend through high school and college was Chinese, his father fought with the Nationalists in WW2, fled to Taiwan, then emigrated to the US.
His father and himself both returned to China, once it was allowed/safe. His father in business making clothes, and he started a university that coordinates with the University of Arizona to do exchange programs. So in that case, there was most certainly a return of emigres back to China.
I don't know or claim that it is representative of a trend though.
That's pretty cool. Maybe it's more common than I thought, I'm no expert.
You should go visit him some time :)
Quote from: Queequeg on December 29, 2014, 02:15:10 AM
Russia didn't really have Feudalism. That's a Marxist myth. I don't think Feudalism really works as a model east of the Danube. The Ottomans and Russians based their economic and political structures on Byzantium and the Mongol Empire, both of which were profoundly autocratic and centralized in a way totally foreign to Medieval and Early Modern Western Europe.
Uhm, depends on exactly what one means by feudalism. AFAIK, Russia never really had the vassal/overlord relationships that characterized feudalism in, say, Germany, but to a lot of people, having serfdom equals feudalism. Of course, that's not really an accurate definition of feudalism, but I'm not sure what else you'd call the economic structure of Imperial Russia. It certainly wasn't market capitalism, and mercantilism doesn't fit either. As I understand it, it was basically a barter economy.
Quote from: dps on December 29, 2014, 01:38:53 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 29, 2014, 02:15:10 AM
Russia didn't really have Feudalism. That's a Marxist myth. I don't think Feudalism really works as a model east of the Danube. The Ottomans and Russians based their economic and political structures on Byzantium and the Mongol Empire, both of which were profoundly autocratic and centralized in a way totally foreign to Medieval and Early Modern Western Europe.
Uhm, depends on exactly what one means by feudalism. AFAIK, Russia never really had the vassal/overlord relationships that characterized feudalism in, say, Germany, but to a lot of people, having serfdom equals feudalism. Of course, that's not really an accurate definition of feudalism, but I'm not sure what else you'd call the economic structure of Imperial Russia. It certainly wasn't market capitalism, and mercantilism doesn't fit either. As I understand it, it was basically a barter economy.
Uh, probably closest to something like the economies of the ancient world. Pretty close to a Palace economy, or maybe the Byzantine economy without Constantinople. The Tsar had waaaaay too much power and authority to make a decent comparison with Medieval Europe. There also wouldn't really be Manorialism of the type we'd recognize from Europe until it was introduced artificially by Peter. Even then it was awkward.
The Nobel family made millions in Russia. AFAIK they didn't use barter.
How is Russia seen around the world: http://www.rferl.org/contentinfographics/inforgraphic-views-of-russia/25459393.html
They really should arrange that list by ratio of favorable to unfavorable.
And really, 60% of Pakistanis were like "Russia? Who the fuck are they?" :lmfao:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2014, 10:23:30 AM
And really, 60% of Pakistanis were like "Russia? Who the fuck are they?" :lmfao:
I liked that :lol:
Also surprised by India.
Greece is interesting.
Quote from: Zanza on December 30, 2014, 09:32:53 AM
How is Russia seen around the world: http://www.rferl.org/contentinfographics/inforgraphic-views-of-russia/25459393.html
lol @ Poland :showoff:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 10:29:18 AM
Greece is interesting.
Yes, the only traitors within the EU. They should be kicked out - and I don't think anyone would miss them.
The fuck, Vietnam? Is this still First Blood: Part II?
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 10:29:18 AM
Greece is interesting.
Yes, the only traitors within the EU. They should be kicked out - and I don't think anyone would miss them.
You know they're the reason Europe is Europe right?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2014, 11:33:44 AM
The fuck, Vietnam? Is this still First Blood: Part II?
Countries that see China as the primary threat are naturally going to have a higher opinion of Russia.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 30, 2014, 11:34:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 10:29:18 AM
Greece is interesting.
Yes, the only traitors within the EU. They should be kicked out - and I don't think anyone would miss them.
You know they're the reason Europe is Europe right?
Not really. They have even less in common with ancient Greeks than Italians have with Romans. It's a nation of genetically inferior Turks who cling to the inferior form of Christianity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2014, 11:33:44 AM
The fuck, Vietnam? Is this still First Blood: Part II?
Countries that see China as the primary threat are naturally going to have a higher opinion of Russia.
So, does it mean China sees China as the primary threat? :hmm:
Quote from: Queequeg on December 30, 2014, 11:34:42 AM
You know they're the reason Europe is Europe right?
Sure, and Mubarek built the pyramids.
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:39:01 AM
So, does it mean China sees China as the primary threat? :hmm:
Someone slept through logic class.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 11:43:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:39:01 AM
So, does it mean China sees China as the primary threat? :hmm:
Someone slept through logic class.
I guess my point was that Russia and China are pretty much buddies now so I don't see how fearing China = liking Russia. And a lot of countries on the list who are not fond of China scored low on Russia too. So I think there is no correlation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2014, 10:26:50 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2014, 10:23:30 AM
And really, 60% of Pakistanis were like "Russia? Who the fuck are they?" :lmfao:
I liked that :lol:
Also surprised by India.
For the positive opinion, arms deals including prestigious joint projects (such as for India's fifth generation Jet fighter.) Plus, as has been said, not being China (which blots its copybook by having connections to Pakistan.)
For the large "no answer", wouldn't that be normally taken in other polls as neutral? Surprisingly high, yes, but if taken as neutral it simply means that Russia isn't very high in the concerns of the general populace. Which is unsurprising, really - they've got plenty of lunatics closer to home to worry about.
There's a pretty big protest in the center of Moscow against the sentencing of Navalny that was declared today. Live here: http://openrussia.org/post/view/1839/
Quote from: Agelastus on December 30, 2014, 12:31:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2014, 10:26:50 AM
Also surprised by India.
For the positive opinion, arms deals including prestigious joint projects (such as for India's fifth generation Jet fighter.) Plus, as has been said, not being China (which blots its copybook by having connections to Pakistan.)
Also the residuals of decades of watching the US sidle up to Pakistani strongmen as a response to India's "Third Way" and Non-Alignment politics.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2014, 11:33:44 AM
The fuck, Vietnam? Is this still First Blood: Part II?
Countries that see China as the primary threat are naturally going to have a higher opinion of Russia.
Why would they have a high opinion of a country that's a de facto ally of China?
I'm a bit surprised by the German viewpoint. This summer we kept getting articles on why Germans felt they had to be understanding of the naked aggression by the Russian state.
A lot of Russian sailors spent a shitload of shore leave in Cam Ranh back in the day. Largest Soviet Navy port facility of the cold war outside of the WP during the 1980s. I bet there was more than one little Ivan Nguyen running around down there.
I'm most disappointed by the Philippines.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 01:02:18 PM
I'm a bit surprised by the German viewpoint. This summer we kept getting articles on why Germans felt they had to be understanding of the naked aggression by the Russian state.
In order to better integrate them into the rest of the West, the Germans have been wimpified. They might be scared into thinking that they have to be "understanding" of Russia if the alternative is standing up to Russia, but that doesn't mean they actually
like Russia or Russians.
And Pakistanis apparently really don't give a shit, do they?
Well, I don't know how many of them can read.
Quote from: Agelastus on December 30, 2014, 12:31:10 PMFor the large "no answer", wouldn't that be normally taken in other polls as neutral? Surprisingly high, yes, but if taken as neutral it simply means that Russia isn't very high in the concerns of the general populace. Which is unsurprising, really - they've got plenty of lunatics closer to home to worry about.
I think surprisingly indifferent. India should be far more pro-Russian given their history.
QuoteI'm a bit surprised by the German viewpoint. This summer we kept getting articles on why Germans felt they had to be understanding of the naked aggression by the Russian state.
I think the downing the of the plane changed a lot of people's opinions, or hardened them at least. I imagine that's especially true for the Dutch and the Germans.
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2014, 12:55:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2014, 11:33:44 AM
The fuck, Vietnam? Is this still First Blood: Part II?
Countries that see China as the primary threat are naturally going to have a higher opinion of Russia.
Why would they have a high opinion of a country that's a de facto ally of China?
The USSR backed them up in the Vietnam war and sort of/theoretically had their back against China.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2014, 07:34:29 PM
The USSR backed them up in the Vietnam war and sort of/theoretically had their back against China.
I see that, but I was responding to Yi's point about today's concerns about China. If you're an Asian country worried about China, Russia is about the last country you would have a positive opinion of, other than China itself.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2014, 01:04:36 PM
A lot of Russian sailors spent a shitload of shore leave in Cam Ranh back in the day. Largest Soviet Navy port facility of the cold war outside of the WP during the 1980s. I bet there was more than one little Ivan Nguyen running around down there.
There was a Vietnamese population in the USSR for a time. Students, some economic migrants.
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:37:34 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 30, 2014, 11:34:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 10:29:18 AM
Greece is interesting.
Yes, the only traitors within the EU. They should be kicked out - and I don't think anyone would miss them.
You know they're the reason Europe is Europe right?
Not really. They have even less in common with ancient Greeks than Italians have with Romans. It's a nation of genetically inferior Turks who cling to the inferior form of Christianity.
Oh, silly me, I'd temporarily forgotten you were something other than a hilariously pretentious troll.
QuoteThe United States plans by the end of next year to station around 150 tanks and armored vehicles in Europe for use by U.S. forces training there, according to a U.S. military commander.
Its not 3 Division POMCUS sets, but its something. I guess. Also: Wacky.
http://mashable.com/2014/12/30/oliver-stone-ukraine-viktor-yanukovych/
On the other side of things...Ukraine becoming Old Afghanistan?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rise-of-warlords-threatens-ukraines-recovery/2014/12/30/a23b2d36-8f7b-11e4-a412-4b735edc7175_story.html
QuoteWarlords and armed groups threaten Ukraine's rebuilding
By Adrian Karatnycky December 30
Adrian Karatnycky is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where he co-directs the "Ukraine in Europe" initiative.
Kiev is abuzz with creative reforms in governance, major anti-corruption initiatives and budgetary clawbacks against rent-seeking oligarchs. Civic activism is on the upsurge, and a new government team — populated with many foreign-born and Western-educated ministers — is largely free from the control of the country's super-rich, who dictated policy in the past.
In recent months, Ukraine's defenses have strengthened since the Russian takeover of Crimea and the eastern industrial Donbas region. Ukraine's security service, formerly riddled with corruption and Russian infiltration, has rebuilt its leadership. Combat readiness has improved and weapons production is on the rise, as are the refurbishment and modernization of tanks, artillery and armored personnel carriers. With winter in full swing, the danger of a major Russian offensive has faded.
In many ways, Ukraine is intelligently addressing its key challenges: restructuring the national budget to avoid default and meeting the military threat posed by Russia. Despite such important progress, however, a new threat is emerging: independently operating warlords and armed groups.
After the collapse of the Yanukovych regime in February and subsequent Russian aggression, Ukraine's new government was saddled with an ill-prepared military and required the help of thousands of volunteers. These volunteer fighters were motivated by a patriotic desire to protect their homeland. Many were veterans of the Maidan civic protests. The fighters were mainly supported by grass-roots financing from civic initiatives and small and mid-size businesses.
A minority of the fighters were ideologically motivated members of far-right movements. These included the ultra-conservative Right Sector and the notorious Azov brigade, whose members had been shunned during the Maidan protests because of their white-supremacist, anti-democratic views. Other volunteer brigades, such as the Dnepr-1, were recruited by business oligarchs, who financed them and commanded their loyalty.
During the spring and summer, many of these volunteer forces exhibited remarkable courage and helped stem the Russian-backed offensive. In the months that followed, most were integrated into the interior or defense ministries as special-status units.
But now several of these units, especially those linked to oligarchs or the far right, are revealing a dark side. In recent months, they have threatened and kidnapped government officials, boasted that they will take power if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko fails to defeat Russia, and they served as armed muscle in illegal attempts to take over businesses or seize local governments.
In August, members of the Dnepr-1 battalion kidnapped the head of Ukraine's state land fund to prevent him replacing an official deemed inimical to business interests. On Dec. 15, these volunteer units interdicted a humanitarian convoy destined for the Russia-controlled Donbas, where a major emergency is emerging.
On Dec. 23, the Azov brigade announced that it was taking control of order in the eastern port city of Mariupol, without official approval from local or national officials.
Government prosecutors have opened 38 criminal cases against members of the Aidar battalion alone.
A pattern of blatant disregard for the chain of command, lawlessness and racketeering is posing a growing threat to Ukraine's stability at a critical juncture. Concern about volunteer groupings is widely shared in the Poroshenko administration, which reportedly raised the question of dealing with these dangers at a meeting in November of his National Security and Defense Council.
Most alarming, however, is the role of Ukraine's interior minister, Arsen Avakov. Instead of reining in these fighters, conducting background checks on their records and reassigning those who pass muster, he instead has offered them new heavy weapons, including tanks and armored personnel carriers, and given them enhanced brigade status. Amazingly, in September he even named a leader of the neo-Nazi Azov brigade to head the police in the Kiev region.
Equally worrying is the activity of Ihor Kolomoyskyy, the governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast. Kolomoyskyy, who played a crucial and widely respected role in stabilizing his East Ukrainian region, is now flouting central authority by interdicting aid convoys headed to the Donbas and permitting brigades he finances to engage in activities that contravene the law.
What can be done? Poroshenko clearly wants this problem resolved but has been reluctant or unable to act. For him to succeed will likely require coordination with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who has also been slow to address the threat, possibly because Avakov is one of his key political allies.
Western donors, however, must make countering incipient warlordism a top priority and press Ukraine's leaders to reassign qualified members of the volunteer brigades into regular militia and military units.
Ukraine's elected leaders can no longer sweep this emerging threat under the rug for fear of stoking resistance or stirring up negative international headlines. Ukraine faces many challenges, but it is heading in the right direction. Nipping the problem of warlordism in the bud can only add to the country's strength and resilience.
It could be getting very messy in Ukraine then, if the warlords are getting so much power. I wonder if it gets weird enough that Putin will take it as a strong reason to go in again and take more of the country? Though Russia's economy is hurting badly, its currency has severely dropped, so I don't know if Putin will have the ability for too much more adventuring for a while.
At least the guys running the separatist regions also seem to be warlord/thugs. Unfortunately, they have an expert thug on their side.
Yeah, but some are also part of the Ukrainian nation and carving out their own power bases. Good news would seem to be how the Ukrainian government is making some good strides to rebuild the military, reorganize themselves and make other improvements.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 01:02:18 PM
I'm a bit surprised by the German viewpoint. This summer we kept getting articles on why Germans felt they had to be understanding of the naked aggression by the Russian state.
Germany's reliably the most negative on any issue/religion/country (including Germany) in these kind of polls. :lol: But that France, Italy, and Spain all meet or exceed our Americans in their dislike is a little surprising to me.
I don't think it's really fair to be "disappointed" in the Filipinos for not being more negative towards Russia; of course they have strong US ties, but the Phillipines isn't really being called upon by the international community to take decisive action on the Donbass crisis. Existing so far away in space and relevance for daily life in a very poor Pacific country, how "real" can Russia seem to the average Filipino? Same thing essentially for the Pakistanis having pretty much no opinion on Russia.
EDIT: South Korea's pretty favorable towards Russia, too, which is more interesting IMO.
South Korea does a lot of business with Russia. Russians show up, buy truck loads of cheap shit and take it back up north. There are stores in Itaewon (which used to be the GI entertainment district next to 8th Army HQ) with Russian language signs. I've been told there are Russian broads working in Korea as bar hostesses/prostitutes.
Same in Spain, hell a lot of upscale-ish stores in Barcelona carry price tags in rubles, and we still seem to hate their guts.
Quote from: celedhring on January 01, 2015, 05:18:50 PM
Same in Spain, hell a lot of upscale-ish stores in Barcelona carry price tags in rubles, and we still seem to hate their guts.
That's because their tackiness and rudeness bother you. Koreans don't care about any of that shit. :D
Just read in the economist that though Putin's popularity remains sky high, support for Russian troops in Ukraine has fallen from 73% to 26%.
Thanks Obama!
What Russian troops?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2015, 06:49:41 PM
Just read in the economist that though Putin's popularity remains sky high, support for Russian troops in Ukraine has fallen from 73% to 26%.
Thanks Obama!
Yeah, his popularity remains high, people like him for throwing Russia's weight around and also for standing up to the big, bad West. But Russia's economy is sinking badly, and that certainly can't bode well overall as time catches up. And this anger at Russian troop presence can't be a good sign either for going forward, but I think Putin already has most of what he needs in Ukraine.
How do you poll if Putin is popular in Russia? It's not like there is a free press.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2015, 08:57:05 PM
How do you poll if Putin is popular in Russia? It's not like there is a free press.
Yeah, if I was Russian and somebody called in claiming to be a pollster and asked what I thought about Putin I'd say I want him to sire my children, to be frank.
Quote from: celedhring on January 02, 2015, 03:59:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2015, 08:57:05 PM
How do you poll if Putin is popular in Russia? It's not like there is a free press.
Yeah, if I was Russian and somebody called in claiming to be a pollster and asked what I thought about Putin I'd say I want him to sire my children, to be frank.
:unsure: You know coming out publicly gay can be a dangerous thing is Russia, don't you?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 02, 2015, 05:29:14 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 02, 2015, 03:59:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2015, 08:57:05 PM
How do you poll if Putin is popular in Russia? It's not like there is a free press.
Yeah, if I was Russian and somebody called in claiming to be a pollster and asked what I thought about Putin I'd say I want him to sire my children, to be frank.
:unsure: You know coming out publicly gay can be a dangerous thing is Russia, don't you?
Not as dangerous as publicly disliking Putin.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2015, 08:57:05 PM
How do you poll if Putin is popular in Russia? It's not like there is a free press.
Good point. This is probably quite true. How do they really know his popularity, given the decrepit state of the media with the government controlling things.
Quote from: celedhring on January 01, 2015, 05:18:50 PM
Same in Spain, hell a lot of upscale-ish stores in Barcelona carry price tags in rubles...
They must be incurring a lot of overtime costs with the constant price increases as Ruble tumbles.
You don't need a free press to conduct a legit survey.
Obviously Putin could shut down legit polling companies if he wanted to, but my guess he finds it useful to accurately gauge public sentiment. Plus he gets a boner from the approval rating. A bare-chested boner.
Public opinion surveys continue to be conducted in a number of authoritarian countries and I've never heard anyone question their legitimacy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2015, 02:49:33 PM
Public opinion surveys continue to be conducted in a number of authoritarian countries and I've never heard anyone question their legitimacy.
The companies who conduct such surveys have not interest in telling their customers that the surveys are not worth much. In a State where surveillance of the citizenry is common why would anyone who wants to play it safe say anything critical to a perfect stranger on the other side of a phone call/online inquiry?
Quote from: KRonn on January 02, 2015, 02:41:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2015, 08:57:05 PM
How do you poll if Putin is popular in Russia? It's not like there is a free press.
Good point. This is probably quite true. How do they really know his popularity, given the decrepit state of the media with the government controlling things.
In the same way election results are accidentally released ahead of time. :D
The Eurasian Economic Union was founded 1st January with Russia, Khazakstan, Belarus and Armenia. However, Putin's short-sighted policies might already have condemned it to fail before it ever really got started...
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142745/nate-schenkkan/eurasian-disunion
QuoteEurasian Disunion
Why the Union Might Not Survive 2015
It has been a transformative year for Eurasian integration and its flagship project, the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). What started off as a relatively simple customs union in early 2014 has been transformed by treaty into a single economic space that includes Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia and will soon include Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. In some ways, the last year was a triumph. But expansion has come at the cost of the union's coherence, and as Russia's economy spirals into crisis, the prognosis for 2015 is dire. More and more, the peripheral economies realize that they are bound to a drowning Russia.
BEND THE RULES
The EEU's predecessor, the Eurasian Customs Union, had been distinctive in the former Soviet Union because, unlike so many other multilateral bodies there, it was following its written rules and developing as an institution. New customs controls and tariff limits shared among Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia were being enforced. Hundreds of young civil servants had been hired. And progress had been made toward creating a shared regulatory framework for everything from financial services to telecommunications to agriculture. Capital, labor, and goods would soon flow freely, and even more ambitious goals seemed achievable, thanks to the political commitment of the powerful leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia.
That political commitment vanished in the aftermath of the Ukraine crisis. The proximate cause of the Ukrainian revolution was then President Viktor Yanukovych's rejection of a trade deal with the EU and announcement that Ukraine would join the Customs Union instead. The ensuing protests and ouster of Yanukovych crushed any hope that Ukraine would offer its substantial economic potential to the Customs Union. Russia's subsequent annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine terrified Belarus and Kazakhstan, each with its own large Russian minority.
Instead of trying to resolve the contradictions created by the Ukrainian crisis, Russia lashed out without consideration for its union partners. It responded to Western sanctions with its own countersanctions on food imports—sanctions that Belarus and Kazakhstan refused to enforce. In recent weeks, Belarus and Russia have traded tit-for-tat measures as Russia sought to clamp down on the reexport from Belarus to Russia of banned European goods and Belarus retaliated by slowing Russian imports to a halt. In addition, Russia dramatically sped up the accession process for Armenia and Kyrgyzstan, two marginal economies with little to offer the union besides a photo opportunity. Armenia does not even share a land border with the union.
Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev—the most sincere believer in the original project—rebelled against the expansion because of fears that inclusion of two Russian client states would dilute Kazakhstan's influence. This spring and summer, Kazakhstan tried to delay Armenia's inclusion on the grounds that Armenia could join only without the unrecognized republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is legally still a part of Azerbaijan. Nazarbayev believed that Armenia would never agree to impose customs controls on its border with Nagorno-Karabakh, but during the negotiations, Armenia agreed to exclude the territory from the union. Yet just days after Armenia's EEU signing, an Armenian official said publicly that Armenia's border with Nagorno-Karabakh would remain open. In other words, from almost the moment of signing, Armenia indicated that one of the treaty's core principles—the enforcement of borders—had no value. Yet Armenia's patrons in Moscow gave no rebuke.
Kyrgyzstan, meanwhile, is a notoriously weak state that has profited from its position as a member of the World Trade Organization that shares a border with China. It is an open secret that goods flowing into Kyrgyzstan from China have tariffs assessed by weight at a single rate (essentially, an importer pays the same tariff for one ton of computers as for one ton of cauliflower), in violation of the country's WTO agreement. Fully complying with the union would require Kyrgyzstan to impose much higher tariffs on Chinese imports, and the government has neither the capacity nor the will to do so. A recent statement from the Kyrgyzstani customs service indicates that any imposition of new tariffs on Chinese imports will be delayed until well after accession.
Kyrgyzstan also lacks the capacity to ensure that its meat and dairy products meet union standards. Although Russia has offered hundreds of millions of dollars in transition support (and presumably might be willing to cut its junior partner some slack on standards), Kazakhstan controls Kyrgyzstan's land borders with the union and can easily use stringent interpretations of the rules to keep Kyrgyzstan from shipping to Russia. Kazakhstan's own domestic producers have been feuding with Russia over import restrictions this year, and so it is unlikely that they will welcome additional competition from Kyrgyzstan in the south.
PHOTO OP
In short, with the addition of Armenia and Kyrgyzstan to the union, Russia won the photo opportunity it wanted. But the breakneck expansion undermined the union's integrity, and what was once a shared effort among three countries has become a vanity project for Moscow.
If the long-term picture for the EEU is one of increasing dysfunction, the short-term regional economic picture is frightening. In 2015, Russia's economy is expected to fall into full recession and possibly outright financial crisis. The shocks will reverberate throughout the region. For economic as well as psychological reasons, the values of regional currencies are tied to the cratering ruble. Already in 2014, Kyrgyzstan's National Bank has sold $464 million in dollars (the equivalent of about 6.5 percent of GDP) defending the Kyrgyz som, which has still lost more than 17 percent of its value against the dollar. The National Bank is now threatening to close foreign currency exchange points in order to stem speculation. Someone in Kazakhstan other than the Central Bank has been spending billions to protect the Kazakh tenge since it was devalued by 19 percent overnight in February, but many analysts in Kazakhstan and abroad say another devaluation is inevitable anyway. This week, the government announced measures to decrease dollar usage and increase the role of the tenge, including restrictions on foreign currency exchange and incentives for putting savings into tenge. Belarus has imposed a 30 percent surcharge on all currency exchange transactions to try to stem a flood of dollar purchases amid ruble panic, and on December 27, President Aleksander Lukashenko removed the prime minister and head of the Central Bank.
The weakening ruble means that millions of Central Asian and Caucasian migrants in Russia are sending home fewer and fewer dollars each week, and exporters in the periphery are finding it more and more expensive to sell to Russia. Even the promise of Russia's food market, opened up after its countersanctions on Europe this summer, is drying up, since a weak ruble means that peripheral producers will be either uncompetitive or unable to turn a profit. Although it is fashionable among Central Asia watchers to stress China's growing influence in the post-Soviet periphery, non–oil and gas exports from Central Asia still flow north and remittances still come from Russia. If Russia's economy hits bottom in 2015, as many are predicting, Central Asia and the Caucasus will hit bottom along with it.
For Western policymakers, the good news is that sanctions are working. Russia's economy has proved far more fragile than Russian President Vladimir Putin thought. The Eurasian Economic Union is dead in all but name. It will survive as another hollow post-Soviet multilateral institution celebrated with presidential summits but producing no progress toward its stated goals. The EEU's crumbling is proof that Russia's capacity for influence is weakening. Russia has been able to assure control over small fragile states such as Armenia and Kyrgyzstan, but its ability to project power past its traditional area of influence has shrunk. If the point of sanctions was to draw a harsh line against seizing territory in Europe through war, that message has been communicated.
But the bad news is also that sanctions are working. A genuine economic and fiscal crisis starting in Russia and spreading across the former Soviet Union will amplify existing nationalism, separatism, and military adventurism, not only in Russia and on its borders but across the whole post-Soviet periphery. Once that process gains momentum, neither the West nor China will be willing or able to stop it. There is an urgent need to prepare for a post-Soviet financial and economic crisis in 2015. Western policy needs to think past punishment for Ukraine and anticipate the consequences of the crash of the Eurasian economy.
Interesting read Zanza. Particularly cool to see Belarus parting ways to some extent from the boss.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2015, 03:11:52 PM
Interesting read Zanza. Particularly cool to see Belarus parting ways to some extent from the boss.
Belarus has always been hot and cold with Russia. Pan-Russian solidarity plays well in Minsk, but Lukashenko won't do anything that decreases his own power at home.
Quote from: Barrister on January 02, 2015, 03:16:43 PM
Belarus has always been hot and cold with Russia. Pan-Russian solidarity plays well in Minsk, but Lukashenko won't do anything that decreases his own power at home.
First I've heard of a chink in the armor, but then again you're probably more dialed into Slavic events than I am.
:face:
Lukashenko has very much been playing between Russia and the West for the past year, hoping to pick up the best bits thrown to him. He clearly came out in favour of Ukrainian territorial integrity (including Crimea), for instance.
This is true but I wonder how much of his attempt to reconcile with the West is genuine. I am not saying he has suddenly became a supporter of Western values but that Russia has become more and more dangerous to its client states - but he can't rebel openly or will be destroyed politically and economically.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2015, 03:23:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 02, 2015, 03:16:43 PM
Belarus has always been hot and cold with Russia. Pan-Russian solidarity plays well in Minsk, but Lukashenko won't do anything that decreases his own power at home.
First I've heard of a chink in the armor, but then again you're probably more dialed into Slavic events than I am.
From what I've read it's closeness to a point. Russia's talked about a union a fair few times, but Lukashenko's only interested if he's in charge :lol:
On the topic of weird law initiatives in the duma:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/why-do-they-do-it-a-glimpse-into-the-russian-lawmaker-psyche/513345.html
QuoteWhy Do They Do It? A Glimpse Into the Russian Lawmaker Psyche
If the State Duma's legislative initiatives may occasionally cause bewilderment or even outright laughter, lawmakers insist that they are in on the joke — with some adding that Russia's parliament is not a place to make laws anyway, according to recent interviews.
There has been no shortage of colorful legal initiatives in recent months, from proposed bans on high heels and ballet flats to a ban on the use of foreign words in public speech.
State Duma deputy Yaroslav Nilov from the Liberal Democratic Party — whose fellow party member took issue with the "pornographic" Apollo on the 100-ruble note — said that lawmakers have little real legislative work to do, and have to resort to outlandish bills to remind the nation of their high parliamentary ranks, Lenta.ru reported earlier this month.
"Unfortunately, a system has been created today in the State Duma that means that without the support of the ruling party, no bill can pass. Regardless of whether it's good or bad," Nilov was quoted as saying. "So to ensure their presence ... deputies have nothing else to do but to introduce these peculiar bills and initiatives that generate an interest in media and society."
Compared with the peculiar bills, Nilov saw a bigger problem in deputies' "idleness, participation in various scandals and near-criminal schemes," which he said damaged their "image," Lenta.ru reported.
Ruling United Russia party's lawmaker Yevgeny Fyodorov — who has recently accused Google of possibly spying for Ukraine in another unorthodox legislative revelation — said that even his ruling party served a mostly rubber-stamping function.
"Serious bills, even if they are signed by lawmakers, are not prepared inside the State Duma's walls," Fyodorov was quoted as saying by Lenta.ru. "The State Duma only passes the bills that arrive there from other places."
"Lawmaker's own initiatives are something else. It's a show," he was quoted as saying. "I wouldn't say that those initiatives discredit our Duma. A theater isn't discredited, if instead of tsars, its stage features jesters. It's that kind of theater, that kind of Duma."
A deputy from the A Just Russia faction, Oleg Nilov, said that some of the State Duma's initiatives fell "beyond the limits of normal lawmaking," but were sometimes necessary to get the government's attention, Lenta.ru reported.
"Stupid legislative initiatives are not an exclusively Russian problem," he added, Lenta.ru reported.
In St. Petersburg, a local lawmaker from the municipal legislature, Vitaly Milonov — a staunch advocate of restoring Russia's "traditional values" — told Lenta.ru that attention-grabbing initiatives were just the tip of the moral iceberg.
"I think the bright but useless initiatives appear as a result of a crisis in the value system," he was quoted as saying.
State Duma's Communist lawmaker Vadim Solovyov — whose faction has recently proposed a bill to ban cigarette sales to women under 40 — said that "original" initiatives serve a great purpose: They get their authors votes.
"A person reads about a ban on heels or about repainting the Kremlin, laughs, gets some positive [emotions]," Solovyov was quoted as saying. "And then at a polling station, that person sees the name of that lawmaker, and there's already an associative connection with something pleasant."
"Once lawmakers were really drafting bills, carrying out parliamentary investigations, made a no-confidence vote for the president, influenced the appointments of the prime minister, and so on," Solovyov added, according to Lenta.ru
He was apparently referring to a time during former President Boris Yeltsin's rule when the State Duma's Communist faction had proposed no-confidence votes in the president, had attempted — unsuccessfully, though it was a close call — to impeach Yeltsin in 1999, and when the legislature had bickered with the former president over his nominations for prime minister.
"Now the activities of the Duma look like a clown show and the fifth wheel of the executive power," Solovyov was quoted as saying.
:wacko:
Quote"Stupid legislative initiatives are not an exclusively Russian problem,"
Amen.
Poland girds her loins.
Quote
Poland's would-be guerrillas
The Home Army is back
In the unlikely event of a Russian attack, Polish partisans may be waiting
Dec 29th 2014
Economist
MARCIN WASZCZUK (pictured) is ready for action. Dressed in camouflage fatigues with a Polish flag on the shoulder, the heavyset 41-year-old is the head of Strzelec, one of Poland's largest paramilitary organisations, and he wants to be prepared in case of a Russian attack. His office sits in a notable location: the PAST office block, one of Warsaw's few pre-war skyscrapers. During the 1944 Warsaw uprising, fighters from Poland's Home Army, the largest partisan force in Europe, battled for 18 bloody days to seize the building from German troops, and held on until the two-month-long uprising was finally crushed.
Now Mr Waszczuk wants to draw on Poland's history of guerrilla warfare to cope with the challenges of an increasingly unpredictable Russia. "We are the continuation of the Home Army," he says. The goal is to form light infantry units scattered around the country able to continue the fight "if there is an invasion and the Polish military is destroyed".
These ideas are not entirely far-fetched. In early December, Poland's defence ministry approved an upgraded national defence plan that includes an effort to co-ordinate better between the regular military and informal paramilitary outfits. Strzelec counts about 5,000 members; several hundred thousand other Polish civilians, including military re-enactment enthusiasts, are thought to be keen on the programme. The military already aids paramilitary groups with surplus uniforms and training sessions.
The strategy also shifts more of Poland's military assets to its eastern border, in keeping with the so-called Komorowski Doctrine. Bronislaw Komorowski, the president, has pressed the country to focus more on territorial defence and less on far-flung excursions to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. And while reviving the Home Army may seem quixotic, security experts worry that Poland's army, which still relies heavily on outdated Soviet-era weaponry, would be unable to withstand a full-on Russian attack.
"Is the Polish army prepared? No it is not," says Zbigniew Pisarski, president of the Casimir Pulaski :wub: Foundation, a defence and security think-tank which recently completed an assessment of Poland's military. Mr Pisarski admits that a Russian attack is an "extreme scenario", but Russia's actions over the last year in Ukraine have made it seem less improbable. Even before the latest tensions arose, Russia and Belarus had practised a simulated tactical nuclear strike on Warsaw during the 2009 Zapad war games.
Spooked by the revival of its age-old enemy, Warsaw has embarked on a $30 billion decade-long rearmament programme, one of the most ambitious in NATO. By 2022 the country should have modern missile defences as well as helicopters, tanks, armoured personnel carriers, artillery, communications and a larger fleet. Poland spends 1.95% of GDP on defence, one of the higher levels in the Atlantic alliance, and has committed to raise that to 2%.
But until the rearmament programme is completed, Poland is vulnerable. Current plans call for Poland to hold off an attack until Poland's NATO allies can swing into action and come in to help. "One-on-one we have no chance," says Mr Pisarski. Worryingly, that is largely the same doctrine employed by the Polish military in 1939, when the doctrine was to hold off the Germans long enough for France and Britain to attack. That help never came, forcing Poles to go underground with the Home Army to continue the fight."We supposedly had a strong alliance in 1939, and no one came to help us," says Mr Waszczuk. "Now we're hearing that Germany is in no shape to help us and that NATO is unclear about sending troops here. In the end, the best defence is to rely on yourself."
Mart prepares to collaborate.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 06, 2015, 10:27:42 PM
Mart prepares to collaborate.
LODZ, poor bastard gets hauled into the town square and gets his head shaved for sleeping with all those Russian soldiers. BUT I'M IN M&A
Wiktor sold him out
Gotta say that Polish militias make a lot more sense than American ones.
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2015, 10:51:30 PM
Gotta say that Polish militias make a lot more sense than American ones.
MIND YER BIDNESS
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2015, 10:51:30 PM
Gotta say that Polish militias make a lot more sense than American ones.
They serve different functions. A Polish militia would fight off an enemy invader. An American militia exists so that it could one day terrorize and murder other Americans.
Some of them exist so they can terrorize and murder Mexicans.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2015, 10:19:10 PM
Poland girds her loins.
I already commented on the Economist's Facebook page - never heard of this guy or his organisation before. It's just some fringe lunatic.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2015, 11:35:33 PM
Some of them exist so they can terrorize and murder Mexicans.
I think you are overestimating Polish militia's hatred for Mexicans. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 01:37:19 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2015, 11:35:33 PM
Some of them exist so they can terrorize and murder Mexicans.
I think you are overestimating Polish militia's hatred for Mexicans. :hmm:
It's code. "Mexicans" = Jews.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2015, 02:18:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 01:37:19 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2015, 11:35:33 PM
Some of them exist so they can terrorize and murder Mexicans.
I think you are overestimating Polish militia's hatred for Mexicans. :hmm:
It's code. "Mexicans" = Jews.
Nah, wrong stereotype. Ukraine is Poland's Mexico (i.e. a failed corrupt state off our border that we get cleaning ladies from).
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:24:06 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2015, 02:18:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 01:37:19 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2015, 11:35:33 PM
Some of them exist so they can terrorize and murder Mexicans.
I think you are overestimating Polish militia's hatred for Mexicans. :hmm:
It's code. "Mexicans" = Jews.
Nah, wrong stereotype. Ukraine is Poland's Mexico (i.e. a failed corrupt state off our border that we get cleaning ladies from).
So Poles go to western europe to work as cleaning ladies, while Ukrainians go to Poland. :hmm:
It seems Ukraine and Poland are continuing their drift west.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 08:52:09 AM
So Poles go to western europe to work as cleaning ladies, while Ukrainians go to Poland. :hmm:
It seems Ukraine and Poland are continuing their drift west.
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 08:52:09 AM
So Poles go to western europe to work as cleaning ladies, while Ukrainians go to Poland. :hmm:
Poles do this less often these days but yeah. It's pretty natural - the pay disparity is responsible for that.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 10:53:11 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 08:52:09 AM
So Poles go to western europe to work as cleaning ladies, while Ukrainians go to Poland. :hmm:
Poles do this less often these days but yeah. It's pretty natural - the pay disparity is responsible for that.
From what I've read, I get the impression that the Poles basically have their shit together and are firmly headed for first-world-western-nation status, while Ukraine has gone from bad to worse (with a lot of Russian prodding to be sure). From the Polish perspective, is this essentially true?
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 02:27:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 10:53:11 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 08:52:09 AM
So Poles go to western europe to work as cleaning ladies, while Ukrainians go to Poland. :hmm:
Poles do this less often these days but yeah. It's pretty natural - the pay disparity is responsible for that.
From what I've read, I get the impression that the Poles basically have their shit together and are firmly headed for first-world-western-nation status, while Ukraine has gone from bad to worse (with a lot of Russian prodding to be sure). From the Polish perspective, is this essentially true?
Yeah, definitely. Apparently back in 1989, Poland and Ukraine had roughly the same GDP per capita. Now Poland's is 3.5 times that of Ukraine (and Poland's GDP per capita is roughly 1/3 that of Germany - it was 1/9 in 1989).
It does not change the fact that Polish cleaning ladies are not willing to work for the same kind of money that Ukrainian cleaning ladies in Poland do - and they are earning several times more money than they would in Poland by going to Western Europe (a friend of a friend lives in Western Poland and it pays off for her to drive to Berlin 3-4 times a week to clean people's homes for example). So I don't think what alfred russel said was particularly funny or extraordinary.
How to improve Russian road safety? Keep trannies, gamblers and fetishists off them!
QuoteRussia says drivers must not have 'sex disorders'
Russia has listed transsexual and transgender people among those who will no longer qualify for driving licences.
Fetishism, exhibitionism and voyeurism are also included as "mental disorders" now barring people from driving.
The government says it is tightening medical controls for drivers because Russia has too many road accidents.
"Pathological" gambling and compulsive stealing are also on the list. Russian psychiatrists and human rights lawyers have condemned the move.
The announcement follows international complaints about Russian harassment of gay-rights activists.
Quote from: The Larch on January 08, 2015, 06:00:59 PM
How to improve Russian road safety? Keep trannies, gamblers and fetishists off them!
QuoteRussia says drivers must not have 'sex disorders'
Russia has listed transsexual and transgender people among those who will no longer qualify for driving licences.
Fetishism, exhibitionism and voyeurism are also included as "mental disorders" now barring people from driving.
The government says it is tightening medical controls for drivers because Russia has too many road accidents.
"Pathological" gambling and compulsive stealing are also on the list. Russian psychiatrists and human rights lawyers have condemned the move.
The announcement follows international complaints about Russian harassment of gay-rights activists.
They are going to start a database of the one's in bold? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 06:03:56 PMThey are going to start a database of the one's in bold? :unsure:
Why not?
Having that kind of information on hand is useful when you need to knock a few people down. If everyone is compromised, no one is safe, and they have to play along. Sort of the way it works with corruption amongst officials in China too.
Quote from: The Larch on January 08, 2015, 06:00:59 PM
How to improve Russian road safety? Keep trannies, gamblers and fetishists off them!
QuoteRussia says drivers must not have 'sex disorders'
Russia has listed transsexual and transgender people among those who will no longer qualify for driving licences.
Fetishism, exhibitionism and voyeurism are also included as "mental disorders" now barring people from driving.
The government says it is tightening medical controls for drivers because Russia has too many road accidents.
"Pathological" gambling and compulsive stealing are also on the list. Russian psychiatrists and human rights lawyers have condemned the move.
The announcement follows international complaints about Russian harassment of gay-rights activists.
Not just that - also transgendered / transsexual people will be banned.
QuoteRussia has reportedly banned transgender people, as well as those who suffer from "disorders of sexual preference," from obtaining driver's licenses.
The BBC reports that the Russian government has released a legislative document which outlines a revised set of medical controls for drivers in an effort to cut down on the number of car accidents.
Although most of the provisions refer to physical impairments (such as blindness), "gender identity disorders" including "transsexualism" and "dual-role transvestism" are referenced in the document, as well as "sadomasochism" and "exhibitionism," according to BuzzFeed's J. Lester Feder and Susie Armitage.
Among those to decry the new regulations was Shawn Gaylord of Human Rights First, who noted that "banning people from driving based on their gender identity or expression is ridiculous and just another example of the Russian regime's methodical rollback of basic human rights for its citizens."
"Beyond the denial of basic freedoms, this provision may deter transgender people from seeking mental health services for fear of receiving a diagnosis that would strip them of their right to drive, and leaves the door open for increased harassment, persecution, and discrimination of transgender people by Russian authorities," Gaylord added in a statement emailed to The Huffington Post which also appeared on the group's website. "We urge the United States to immediately condemn this provision and to press the Russian government to repeal this decision."
While Russian psychiatric expert Mikhail Strakhov and Valery Evtushenko of the Russian Psychiatric Association were among those to also condemn the regulations, Alexander Kotov of Russia's Professional Drivers Union said be believed "toughening medical requirements for applicants is fully justified," according to the BBC.
Of course, the driving regulations are just one contribution in what appears to be an increasingly volatile environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Russians.
Russia's stance on its LGBT residents came under intense scrutiny last year in the wake of global speculation as to how its controversial "gay propaganda" law would impact foreign athletes participating in the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, as well as attendees.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:37:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 06:03:56 PMThey are going to start a database of the one's in bold? :unsure:
Why not?
Having that kind of information on hand is useful when you need to knock a few people down. If everyone is compromised, no one is safe, and they have to play along. Sort of the way it works with corruption amongst officials in China too.
Yeah, what's so surprising about it. One of the last wide-spread actions of Polish secret policies in the 1980s (when they felt they are already losing ground) was to organise mass arrests of gay men and then compile a database of them and their sexual partners. The fact that after 1989s these men were refused the "victim" status under Polish Gauck-style legislation that was designed to right the wrongs committed by the secret service just adds an insult to the injury.
QuoteThe government says it is tightening medical controls for drivers because Russia has too many road accidents.
That could be because they have too many drivers doing stupid shit and filming it. More likely than trannies, anyway.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:34:02 AM
Quote from: The Larch on January 08, 2015, 06:00:59 PM
How to improve Russian road safety? Keep trannies, gamblers and fetishists off them!
QuoteRussia says drivers must not have 'sex disorders'
Russia has listed transsexual and transgender people among those who will no longer qualify for driving licences.
Fetishism, exhibitionism and voyeurism are also included as "mental disorders" now barring people from driving.
The government says it is tightening medical controls for drivers because Russia has too many road accidents.
"Pathological" gambling and compulsive stealing are also on the list. Russian psychiatrists and human rights lawyers have condemned the move.
The announcement follows international complaints about Russian harassment of gay-rights activists.
Not just that - also transgendered / transsexual people will be banned.
It's the first line of the article I quoted. :P
Oh sorry. :P
The Russian death rate on the roads is between 6 and 10 times the UK rate; there must be a hell of a lot of crossdressers over there if their lawmakers' reasoning is correct :lol:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 09, 2015, 09:50:21 AM
The Russian death rate on the roads is between 6 and 10 times the UK rate; there must be a hell of a lot of crossdressers over there if their lawmakers' reasoning is correct :lol:
Hey, they also want to take licences away from "pathological gamblers".
Ironic, since driving on a Russian road appears to be a "pathological gamble". :P
Quote from: Malthus on January 09, 2015, 09:52:16 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 09, 2015, 09:50:21 AM
The Russian death rate on the roads is between 6 and 10 times the UK rate; there must be a hell of a lot of crossdressers over there if their lawmakers' reasoning is correct :lol:
Hey, they also want to take licences away from "pathological gamblers".
Ironic, since driving on a Russian road appears to be a "pathological gamble". :P
:lol:
Funny and true.
I wonder what they have against fetishists. <_<
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 10:16:08 AM
I wonder what they have against fetishists. <_<
I don't know, what can anyone have against apparent practitioners of one of the traditional African religions. :hmm:
Do non-fetishists actually exist, to begin with?
Quote from: celedhring on January 09, 2015, 10:43:06 AM
Do non-fetishists actually exist, to begin with?
He is a crown prosecutor in Edmonton, apparently.
Given how crazy Russian driving is, this law probably prevents fetishists and transgender people from dying horribly. :P
Quote from: Solmyr on January 09, 2015, 11:05:18 AM
Given how crazy Russian driving is, this law probably prevents fetishists and transgender people from dying horribly. :P
If the alternative is using a bus they'd still be dying horribly, just along side people who hate them.
I just realised that a "Russian gas pedal" is an expression in gay BDSM slang. :ph34r:
http://rt.com/news/226319-putin-nato-russia-ukraine/
QuotePutin: Ukraine army is NATO legion aimed at restraining Russia
The Ukrainian army is essentially a 'NATO legion' which doesn't pursue the national interests of Ukraine, but persists to restrict Russia, President Vladimir Putin says.
"We often say: Ukrainian Army, Ukrainian Army. But who is really fighting there? There are, indeed, partially official units of armed forces, but largely there are the so-called 'volunteer nationalist battalions'," said Putin.
He added that the intention of Ukrainian troops is connected with "achieving the geopolitical goals of restraining Russia." Putin was addressing students in the city of St. Petersburg.
According to Putin, the Ukrainian army "is not an army, but a foreign legion, in this case a foreign NATO legion, which, of course, doesn't pursue the national interests of Ukraine."
Kiev has been reluctant to find political solutions to the crisis in eastern Ukraine and only used the ceasefire to regroup its forces, the president stressed.
"Unfortunately official Kiev authorities refuse to follow the path of a peaceful solution. They don't want to resolve [the crisis] using political tools," Putin said, adding that first Kiev authorities had first used law enforcement, then security services and then the army in the region.
"It is essentially a civil war [in Ukraine]. In my view, many in Ukraine already understand this," Putin added.
Already tense situation in eastern Ukraine gone downhill in past 2 weeks. The escalation of violence came after a controversial incident at a Kiev-controlled checkpoint near the town of Volnovakha, where 12 passengers were killed on January 13
Kiev and the militia blamed each other for the incident.
Following escalation, Kiev ordered "massive fire" on militia-held regions on January 18. The self-proclaimed Donetsk republic's leader accused Kiev of trying to restart the war.
Violent confrontation between Ukrainian army troops and rebels reached its climax last week, when Mariupol in the Donetsk Region was shelled. At least 30 people were killed and over 100 wounded.
Kiev and militia troops traded blame, with rebels insisting they didn't' have weapons close enough to the city to carry out such a deadly attack.
Western countries reiterated accusations of Russia backing the rebel forces, and so being partly responsible for violations of the Minsk agreement. They called for more sanctions against Moscow.
On Monday, US President Barack Obama promised the United States would examine options to "ratchet up the pressure on Russia" on the Ukraine issue.
At the same time, US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said Washington has "more tools" available to increase pressure on Russia.
"I think we have seen that the sanctions work to create real stress in the economy. We have more tools. I am not today going to enumerate what the tools are but we have more tools," Lew told a news conference in Brussels.
Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski also called on the EU to consider imposing tougher sanctions on Moscow, saying: "The response of the Western world should be very firm."
Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier also hinted at further restrictions, adding that "an attack or a broad offensive on Mariupol would be a qualitative change in the situation to which we would have to react."
Vladimir Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov called fresh threats of anti-Russian sanctions "an absolutely destructive and unjustified course that would eventually prove to be shortsighted."
"Instead of stepping up the pressure on those who refuse to start a dialogue and to solve the conflict in a peaceful way, we hear they want to resume this economic blackmail against Russia," Peskov noted in his statement.
Restrict Russia from what? :lol:
From being the world power and beacon of traditional values they deserve to be? :P
http://rt.com/politics/226335-russian-charlie-hebdo-poll/
QuoteThe largest group of responders – 30 percent – said in their view the tragedy must be blamed on the "behavior of the French journalists who insulted Muslim religious values."Twenty-five percent answered that the blame lies with the French government for allowing such insults in the first place. Another 11 percent said the French Government was responsible for the events because it had allowed too many Muslims into the country.
Only 8 percent of Russians think the problem lies in the behavior of the extremists, who answered the cartoons with extreme violence. Another five percent maintained the attack had been launched because all Muslim extremists despise freedom of speech and the secular state.
Six percent of responders think the main blame should be leveled at French special services, who failed to counter the militant Islamist group prior to the attack.
Five percent confessed they "understood and approved of" the terrorists' actions. Thirty-nine percent said they understood the attackers' motives, but could not approve of the murder. The majority of Russians – 48 percent :lol: - neither understand the killers' motives, nor support them.
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/773830
QuoteMembers of the Russian parliament mull drafting a statement to condemn the annexation of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) by the Federative Republic of Germany (FRG) in 1989, a historic event commonly known as the reunification of East and West Germany.
:tinfoil:
Quote from: Solmyr on January 28, 2015, 08:02:08 AM
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/773830
QuoteMembers of the Russian parliament mull drafting a statement to condemn the annexation of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) by the Federative Republic of Germany (FRG) in 1989, a historic event commonly known as the reunification of East and West Germany.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Syt on January 26, 2015, 11:44:19 PM
From being the world power and beacon of traditional values they deserve to be? :P
http://rt.com/politics/226335-russian-charlie-hebdo-poll/
QuoteThe largest group of responders – 30 percent – said in their view the tragedy must be blamed on the "behavior of the French journalists who insulted Muslim religious values."Twenty-five percent answered that the blame lies with the French government for allowing such insults in the first place. Another 11 percent said the French Government was responsible for the events because it had allowed too many Muslims into the country.
Only 8 percent of Russians think the problem lies in the behavior of the extremists, who answered the cartoons with extreme violence. Another five percent maintained the attack had been launched because all Muslim extremists despise freedom of speech and the secular state.
Six percent of responders think the main blame should be leveled at French special services, who failed to counter the militant Islamist group prior to the attack.
Five percent confessed they "understood and approved of" the terrorists' actions. Thirty-nine percent said they understood the attackers' motives, but could not approve of the murder. The majority of Russians – 48 percent :lol: - neither understand the killers' motives, nor support them.
Russia is not a part of Europe. Film at 11.
Last year Russia banned commercials on cable television, which threatened to shut down a number of channels.
The commercial ban is now being amended. It's now only for cable channel who have less than 75% Russian produced programming. To qualify for being "Russian produced," 50% of the production costs must come from Russian sources. Which excludes basically all foreign programs that are translated. Universal has already shut its services because of the new rules.
Well, I'm sure this will make Russian TV much more exciting and entertaining! Probably getting back to a bit more like it was in old Soviet days, and it'll give the younger generation a taste of how it was back then and some nostalga for older folks. Just need to make sure the Russkie government gets more control over things to complete the cycle. Oh happy days!
Funnily, American entertainment is wildly popular in Russia, it's one of the biggest foreign markets for American movies, for example.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 28, 2015, 08:02:08 AM
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/773830
QuoteMembers of the Russian parliament mull drafting a statement to condemn the annexation of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) by the Federative Republic of Germany (FRG) in 1989, a historic event commonly known as the reunification of East and West Germany.
:tinfoil:
It's about time those damned Germans and their expansionist habits are held accountable.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 28, 2015, 08:02:08 AM
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/773830
QuoteMembers of the Russian parliament mull drafting a statement to condemn the annexation of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) by the Federative Republic of Germany (FRG) in 1989, a historic event commonly known as the reunification of East and West Germany.
:tinfoil:
Read an article here or somewhere else a while ago which explained why Russian lawmakers come up with more and more outlandish laws. It's their only way to get any attention at all as all real law-making happens in the Kremlin, not the Duma.
QuoteHe also said that if one should follow the logic of those, who called that historic event the 'annexation', it would be easy enough "for the authors of such logic to say that FRG annexed East Germany."
Eh, yes, West Germany annexed East Germany. No question about that. The four powers and both German states signed the 2+4 treaty to enact that. Which happens to have been ratified by the Supreme Soviet.
Quote from: celedhring on January 28, 2015, 09:06:36 AM
Funnily, American entertainment is wildly popular in Russia, it's one of the biggest foreign markets for American movies, for example.
Yeah, American movies, and I'm sure popular movies of other nations, are well received in Russia. Not that movies are the biggest issue but if those can no longer be shown then it's going to be very noticeable by the average citizen. Meanwhile China has been opening up to allow more western/US movies, while also building up their own home grown film industry.
The Duma passed a law recently that allows the Russian government to unilaterally change release dates for foreign movies (so they can favor local industry). So it's on the crosshairs too.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 28, 2015, 08:02:08 AM
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/773830
QuoteMembers of the Russian parliament mull drafting a statement to condemn the annexation of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) by the Federative Republic of Germany (FRG) in 1989, a historic event commonly known as the reunification of East and West Germany.
:tinfoil:
Here's a little more detail on their squirrelly motives.
I'm sure it will do wonders for relations with Germany. :rolleyes:
http://www.newsweek.com/bid-condemn-annexation-east-germany-russian-parliament-302785
Quote
Bid to Condemn 'Annexation of East Germany' in Russian Parliament
By Damien Sharkov 1/28/15 at 1:54 PM
The speaker of the Russian Parliament, today announced that if Russia 'annexed' Crimea, then the West 'annexed' eastern Germany in 1989. Sergey Naryshkin put forward a motion in front of the parliamentary committee for international affairs which would condemn the German reunification as an annexation.
The proposal originally came from Russian MP Nikolay Ivanov who had taken great offence to comments made by Anne Brasseur, the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, when she referred to Crimea's controversial decision to join Russia as an annexation, earlier this week.
"I suggest the following step - we prepare a statement condemning the 'annexation' of the German Democratic Republic by the German Federation in 1989," Ivanov told Narishkin and other parliamentary colleagues.
According to Ivanov, there is even greater case for eastern Germany to be considered an annexed territory, as opposed to Crimea, because: "Unlike Crimea, there was never a referendum in eastern Germany."
"97% of Crimean citizens voted to join their homeland - Russia," Ivanov added, referring to the unrecognized referendum held last March in the region. Although the results indicated that Crimeans wished to leave Ukraine and join the territory of Russia, neither Kiev nor any Western government has recognized the result.
The speaker of the Russian parliament has decided to pass Ivanov's motion towards the relevant parliamentary committee, which will now decide whether Russian parliament will agree to the term or not.
There is currently no set date for the decision but Narishkin has urged the committee to take Ivanov's motion and "dwell on it specifically". Narishkin himself expressed a similar line of argument on Tuesday, during his visit to the Council of Europe on Tuesday.
In an off the cuff reaction to Brasseur's comment, Narishkin said "originators of this kind of logic can also hold that western Germany annexed eastern Germany."
However Narishkin had given no indication he would support such a motion, prior to today, saying that he simply believed the term should not be used in reference to either Crimea or the German reunification.
I saw a news item where Putin mentioned something about going after Estonia with similarities to what he did in Ukraine or Crimea. Now they're even making noise over East Germany but that's just bluster and distraction to try and make some relationship to Crimea.
Britain summoned the Russian ambassador, because Russian bombers flying over the channel disrupted civil air traffic.
What is Russia's game with this? Is it childish behavior, intimidation, or a play akin to a training exercise right before invasion?
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2015, 12:20:23 AM
What is Russia's game with this? Is it childish behavior, intimidation, or a play akin to a training exercise right before invasion?
It's just history repeating itself. First as tragedy, the second as Farce.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2015, 01:06:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2015, 12:20:23 AM
What is Russia's game with this? Is it childish behavior, intimidation, or a play akin to a training exercise right before invasion?
It's just history repeating itself. First as tragedy, the second as Farce.
I read it as "France" instead of "Farce". Which I suppose is the same thing. :P
Quote from: celedhring on January 28, 2015, 02:06:07 PM
The Duma passed a law recently that allows the Russian government to unilaterally change release dates for foreign movies (so they can favor local industry). So it's on the crosshairs too.
As if Russians actually paid for their movies. :rolleyes:
More details:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31049952
QuoteRussian military planes 'disrupted UK aviation'
Russian military planes flying near UK airspace caused "disruption to civil aviation" on Wednesday, the Foreign Office has said.
It said the two Russian planes did not enter UK airspace, but the manoeuvres were "part of an increasing pattern of out-of-area operations" by Russia.
The planes were "escorted" by RAF jets "throughout the time they were in the UK area of interest", officials added.
Russia's ambassador said the patrols were "routine" and dismissed concerns.
Typhoon fighters were scrambled from RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Coningsby to escort the Russian aircraft, and the RAF said the mission lasted 12 hours.
The Foreign Office refused to give details of the disruption to civil aviation.
BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said the Russian planes - two Tu-95 Bear H bombers - came within 25 miles of the UK.
They travelled from the north, past the west coast of Ireland and to the English Channel before turning and going back the way they had come, he said.
He said the bombers did not file a flight plan, did not have their transponders switched on and "weren't talking to air traffic control".
'Calm and focused'
Russia's ambassador to Britain, Alexander Yakovenko, met with British officials to discuss the incident, the Russian embassy said.
In a statement, the embassy said he "stressed that the concerns of the British side are not understandable given that two Russian military aircraft were on a routine air patrol duty over the high seas of the Atlantic Ocean."
Mr Yakovenko also said they complied with legal norms and "cannot be regarded as threatening, destabilising or disruptive."
This is the latest in a series of similar incidents involving Russian aircraft, and last month Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said the UK was concerned about the "extremely aggressive probing" of its airspace by Russia.
In a statement on the RAF website, one of the controllers involved in the mission said: "Thanks to our integration with air defence systems across Nato, we were able to begin mission planning early and therefore were ready to act in good time."
The controller added: "The operations room was both calm and focussed.
"We constantly train for these scenarios so that we are well rehearsed and ready to maintain the integrity of our airspace."
The RAF said air-to-air refuelling for the Typhoons was provided by RAF Voyager aircraft from RAF Brize Norton.
Going near civilian traffic routes without transponders or communications is an accident waiting to happen.
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2015, 01:35:00 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 28, 2015, 02:06:07 PM
The Duma passed a law recently that allows the Russian government to unilaterally change release dates for foreign movies (so they can favor local industry). So it's on the crosshairs too.
As if Russians actually paid for their movies. :rolleyes:
Contrarily to the cliché, they do. 8th biggest box office market in the world. The ruble crash will probably put a dent in that, mind.
Quote from: Syt on January 30, 2015, 01:43:58 AM
QuoteRussian military planes 'disrupted UK aviation'
Going near civilian traffic routes without transponders or communications is an accident waiting to happen.
It doesn't carry the same importance as it once did, or is as nearly as important as what's going on in the South China Sea as far as international dick-measuring goes, but from a pure throwback perspective I enjoy how Russia thinks it can still wear its big boy pants. We should conduct multiple carrier battle group force projection exercises off the Kola Peninsula for old times sake.
Quote from: celedhring on January 30, 2015, 03:07:44 AM
Contrarily to the cliché, they do. 8th biggest box office market in the world. The ruble crash will probably put a dent in that, mind.
Eighth largest market but about 60% the capita rate of Germany or France or England. I'd say the facts don't support the assertion that Russians "paid for their movies." Russia is more like Mexico than it is like The Netherlands.
Was reading about how the supposed 'NATO revival' shit has slowed down under the typical EURO bullshit of expecting Daddy America to provide the heavy lifting.
fuck Europe. US OUT OF NATO
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 29, 2015, 08:41:16 PM
I'm sure it will do wonders for relations with Germany. :rolleyes:
We don't give a shit.
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2015, 01:34:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2015, 01:06:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2015, 12:20:23 AM
What is Russia's game with this? Is it childish behavior, intimidation, or a play akin to a training exercise right before invasion?
It's just history repeating itself. First as tragedy, the second as Farce.
I read it as "France" instead of "Farce". Which I suppose is the same thing. :P
The tragedy happens to Poland, the farce happens to France. Well at least that holds up for WWII.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/nato-anxious-over-russia-s-nuclear-strategy/515471.html
QuoteNATO Anxious Over Russia's Nuclear Strategy
Concern is growing in NATO over Russia's nuclear strategy and indications that Russian military planners may be lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons in any conflict, alliance diplomats say.
NATO officials have drawn up an analysis of Russian nuclear strategy that will be discussed by alliance defense ministers at a meeting in Brussels on Thursday.
The study comes amid high tension between NATO and Russia over the Ukraine conflict and rising suspicions on both sides that risk plunging Europe back into a Cold War-style confrontation.
Western concerns have also been fueled by increasingly aggressive Russian air and sea patrolling close to NATO's borders, such as two Russian "Bear" nuclear-capable bombers that flew over the English Channel last week.
The threat of nuclear war that once hung over the world has eased since the Cold War amid sharp reductions in warheads but Russia and the United States, NATO's main military power, retain massively destructive nuclear arsenals.
Russia's nuclear strategy appears to point to a lowering of the threshold for using nuclear weapons in any conflict, NATO diplomats say.
"What worries us most in this strategy is the modernization of the Russian nuclear forces, the increase in the level of training of those forces and the possible combination between conventional actions and the use of nuclear forces, including possibly in the framework of a hybrid war," one diplomat said.
Russia's use of hybrid warfare in Ukraine, combining elements such as unmarked soldiers, disinformation and cyber attacks, has led NATO's military planners to review their strategies for dealing with Russia.
All the NATO countries, except France which is not a member, will meet on Thursday as part of NATO's Nuclear Planning Group, which NATO officials describe as a routine meeting focusing on the safety and effectiveness of NATO's nuclear deterrent.
Implications
But all 28 ministers, including U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, will have a broader discussion of Russia's nuclear strategy over lunch. No immediate action is expected from NATO's side.
Ministers are likely to ask officials to look into the implications of Russia's nuclear strategy for the alliance, and only then could there be any consideration of whether any changes were needed to NATO's nuclear posture.
At a time of heightened tension with the West, Russia has not been shy about reasserting its status as a nuclear power.
President Vladimir Putin pointedly noted last August that Russia was a leading nuclear power when he advised potential enemies: "It's best not to mess with us."
A report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service last year said Russia "seems to have increased its reliance on nuclear weapons in its national security concept."
Russia has embarked on a multibillion-dollar military modernization program and Russia's top general, Valery Gerasimov, said last week that support for Russia's strategic nuclear forces combined with improvements in conventional forces would ensure that the United States and NATO did not gain military superiority.
He said the Russian military would receive more than 50 new intercontinental nuclear missiles this year.
In December, Putin signed a new military doctrine, naming NATO expansion as a key risk. Before the new doctrine was agreed, there had been some calls from the military to restore to the doctrine a line about the right to a first nuclear strike.
Doctrine
This was not included in the new doctrine, however, which says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear strike or a conventional attack that endangered the state's existence.
NATO's 2010 "strategic concept" says deterrence, "based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of our overall strategy."
Washington and Moscow have traded accusations that the other has violated a Cold War-era arms control agreement.
The United States accuses Moscow of violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty by testing a ground-launched cruise missile. Russia argues that Washington's use of drones and other intermediate-range arms amounts to a violation of the treaty.
A senior NATO official said Russia's Zapad exercise in 2013 was "supposed to be a counter-terrorism exercise but it involved the [simulated] use of nuclear weapons."
The Arms Control Association (ACA), a Washington-based advocacy group, estimates Russia has about 1,512 strategic, or long-range, nuclear warheads, a further 1,000 non-deployed strategic warheads and about 2,000 tactical nuclear warheads.
Quote
Russia's use of hybrid warfare
:cthulu:
QuoteAt a time of heightened tension with the West, Russia has not been shy about reasserting its status as a nuclear power.
President Vladimir Putin pointedly noted last August that Russia was a leading nuclear power when he advised potential enemies: "It's best not to mess with us."
A report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service last year said Russia "seems to have increased its reliance on nuclear weapons in its national security concept."
That's because that's all they have left. Beating Georgia like an NFC South team and using proxies in the Ukraine just doesn't cut it as geopolitical currency anymore. Their nukes are all they have left in their Big Boy Pants.
QuotePentagon 2008 study claims Putin has Asperger's syndrome
Ray Locker, USA TODAY 11:25 p.m. EST February 4, 2015
WASHINGTON — A study from a Pentagon think tank theorizes that Russian President Vladimir Putin has Asperger's syndrome, "an autistic disorder which affects all of his decisions," according to the 2008 report obtained by USA TODAY.
Putin's "neurological development was significantly interrupted in infancy," wrote Brenda Connors, an expert in movement pattern analysis at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I. Studies of his movement, Connors wrote, reveal "that the Russian President carries a neurological abnormality."
The 2008 study was one of many by Connors and her colleagues, who are contractors for the Office of Net Assessment (ONA), an internal Pentagon think tank that helps devise long-term military strategy. The 2008 report and a 2011 study were provided to USA TODAY as part of a Freedom of Information Act request.
Researchers can't prove their theory about Putin and Asperger's, the report said, because they were not able to perform a brain scan on the Russian president. The report cites work by autism specialists as backing their findings. It is not known whether the research has been acted on by Pentagon or administration officials.
The 2008 report cites Dr. Stephen Porges, who is now a University of North Carolina psychiatry professor, as concluding that "Putin carries a form of autism." However, Porges said Wednesday he had never seen the finished report and "would back off saying he has Asperger's."
Instead, Porges said, his analysis was that U.S. officials needed to find quieter settings in which to deal with Putin, whose behavior and facial expressions reveal someone who is defensive in large social settings. Although these features are observed in Asperger's, they are also observed in individuals who have difficulties staying calm in social settings and have low thresholds to be reactive. "If you need to do things with him, you don't want to be in a big state affair but more of one-on-one situation someplace somewhere quiet," he said.
Putin's actions have been under particular scrutiny since early 2014, when Russian annexed Crimea from neighboring Ukraine. Since then, Russia has backed Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine while the United States and European allies have started a series of economic sanctions that have weakened the Russian economy.
USA TODAY reported in March 2014 about the Office of Net Assessment's support for the research, but the Pentagon did not release the details of its studies. At the time, Pentagon officials said the research did not reach Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel or his predecessors. That is still true, said Lt. Col. Valerie Henderson, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
The Office of Net Assessment provides long-range plans for the Pentagon and helps shape future strategy. It has been particularly active in developing the military's "pivot to Asia," which has emphasized strategies to deal with China.
Connors' team has done several studies on Putin for ONA beyond those from 2008 and 2011, Henderson said.
Connors' program is called Body Leads. Military contract records show the Pentagon has paid at least $365,000 on outside experts to work with her since 2009. The two reports mention other work she and associates have done since Putin's rise to power, including a 2005 study called "An Act of Trust to Move Ahead" and studies in 2004-05 and 2008 by movement pattern analysis pioneer Warren Lamb.
Both reports, the 2008 study of Putin and a 2011 analysis of Putin and then-President Dimitry Medvedev, cite Putin's physical difficulties as shaping his decision making and behavior. "His primary form of compensation is extreme control," which "is reflected in his decision style and how he governs," the report said.
Military analysts first noticed Putin's movement patterns on Jan. 1, 2000, "in the first television footage ever seen of the then, newly appointed president of Russia," wrote Connors, who has been studying movement patterns for the Pentagon since 1996.
"Today, project neurologists confirm this research project's earlier hypothesis that very early in life perhaps, even in utero, Putin suffered a huge hemispheric event to the left temporal lobe of the prefrontal cortex, which involves both central and peripheral nervous systems, gross motor functioning on his right side (head, rib cage, arm and leg) and his micro facial expression, eye gaze, hearing and voice and general affect," the report said.
MPA'S HISTORY
Movement pattern analysis means studying an individual's movements to gain clues about how he or she makes decisions or reacts to events. First developed in Great Britain in the 1940s by Rudolf Laban, a Hungarian movement analyst and dance instructor, the practice was expanded after World War II by Lamb, Laban's protégé and a British management consultant.
Experts believe each individual has a unique "body signature" that tracks how one body movement links to the next. These "posture/gesture mergers" can lead investigators to learn more about a person's thinking processes and relative truthfulness when combined with the person's speaking.
Lamb, who died last year at age 90, believed the patterns were unique as DNA to each person.
Since July 2011, the war college had paid more than $230,000 to Richard Rende, a Brown University psychiatrist and specialist in the field of movement pattern analysis, federal spending records show. Rende received a no-bid contract last year for his work on the Body Leads project.
Timothy Colton, a Harvard University expert on Russia, has been paid $113,915 since 2009 for his research with Connors, military contract records show.
Rende, Connors and Colton published in September 2013 a paper in the academic journal Frontiers in Psychology that detailed the uses of movement pattern analysis to determine leaders' decision-making process. Such analysis, they wrote, "offers a unique window into individual differences in decision-making style."
"The premise of Body Leads," Connors wrote in 2011, "is that meticulous attention to nonverbal signals — to the physical movement of the body and its parts, as distinct from speech — yield insights into the behavior of individuals, including for present purposes political leaders."
TANDEM STYLE
In 2011, Connors finished a study for Net Assessment on the interactions between Putin and Medvedev, who succeeded Putin as president between 2008 and 2012 and who is now Russia's prime minister.
The difficulty in getting accurate, real-time information about Russia and its leaders made the use of movement pattern analysis critical for U.S. officials, Connors wrote. Lamb, she wrote, analyzed Medvedev in the spring and summer of 2008, and they worked together to develop their analysis of the two leaders.
Medvedev, she wrote, is an "Action Man," who "is inclined to size up situations quickly and to do so in black and white terms, shunning subtler shades of gray."
Putin, on the other hand, "has very different predilections," and "methodically cycles back to aspects of the problem facing him, continuing revising data to verify his research and confirm his priorities," the report said.
U.S. officials should present "the information-craving" Putin with "meaty policy research and white papers," Connors recommended. "Putin the private decision maker cannot be expected to enter into public exchanges with others on information interpretation or a final course of action."
Medvedev, she wrote, should be presented with "priorities that both resonate with his values and declared objectives and contain a timeline for commitment, the stage where he is most at home."
Maybe now Seedy will finally see who our real #1 enemy is.
lol, Assburgers.
The guy's a stone cold sociopath.
Putin has been diagnosed with Parkinson's and has accelerated the plans for war.
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2015, 03:24:00 PM
Putin has been diagnosed with Parkinson's and has accelerated the plans for war.
:huh:
Quote from: KRonn on February 05, 2015, 10:52:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2015, 03:24:00 PM
Putin has been diagnosed with Parkinson's and has accelerated the plans for war.
:huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rbnpress.info%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FHitler-Putin.jpg&hash=84c433fc2e7b30f590a90d1560361eaed449a8b1)
Given the diagnosis. I think a Stalin-Putin photo would be more relevant.
QuotePutin could attack Baltic states warns former Nato chief
Vladimir Putin could mastermind a hybrid attack on a Baltic state to test whether Nato would mobilise, warns Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard5:46PM GMT 05 Feb 2015
Vladimir Putin has dangerous ambitions beyond Ukraine and aims to test Western resolve in the Baltic states, the former head of Nato has warned.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former secretary-general of the Atlantic alliance, said the Kremlin's true goal is to shatter Nato solidarity and reassert Russian dominance over Eastern Europe.
"This is not about Ukraine. Putin wants to restore Russia to its former position as a great power," he told The Telegraph.
"There is a high probability that he will intervene in the Baltics to test Nato's Article 5," he said, referring to the solidarity clause that underpins collective security.
"Putin knows that if he crosses the red line and attacks a Nato ally, he will be defeated. Let us be quite clear about that. But he is a specialist in hybrid warfare," he said.
The fear is that the Kremlin will generate a murky conflict in Estonia or Latvia where there are large Russian minorities, using arms-length action or "little green men" without insignia to disguise any intervention. This may tempt weaker Nato members to play down the incident, either to protect commercial ties with Russia or because of pro-Kremlin sympathies as in Hungary or Greece.
Estonia's relations with Russia worsened significantly last September when a squad of Russian security operatives allegedly crossed into Estonian territory and seized Eston Kohver, a veteran officer in the Estonian Security Service.
Mr Kohver was paraded on Russian television as a spy and is currently being held in a high security prison in Moscow. Analysts believe the abduction - which took place two days after a visit to Tallinn by Barack Obama - was designed to demonstrate Russia's muscle in the Baltics.
Nato has already beefed up its forces in the region with squadrons of fighter jets, chiefly as show of force and as a strategic tripwire to reassure allies. Its Baltic Air Policing Mission intercepted 150 incursions into NATO airspace by Russian aircraft last year.
Article 5 states that a military attack on any one Nato country is an attack on all of them, triggering collective mobilization. It has been invoked just once in the 66-year history of the alliance, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York.
Nobody knows what would happen if one of the Baltic states invoked Article 5 protection but was turned down by the Nato Council. Failure to respond would devastate Nato's credibility and undermine the principle of deterrence, though allies could still act as a coalition of the willing outside the treaty structure.
Mr Rasmussen, who had to grapple with the Ukraine crisis until stepping down as Nato chief in September, said Mr Putin's immediate tactic is to create a frozen conflict in the Donbass rather than trying to conquer and hold large parts of the country. "He wants to keep the water boiling," he said.
He called for urgent action by Nato to mount a rapid deployment force of several thousand troops in a permanent state of "high readiness" and able to act within 48-72 hours as a deterrent, but the cost is proving prohibitive. "It is very expensive. Only a few are able to do it," he said.
Mr Rasmussen said the Europeans have slashed military spending so deeply since the financial crisis that they can barely defend themselves without American help. "The situation is critical. We have a lot of soldiers but we can't move them," he said.
"Nato countries have cut defence spending by 20pc in real terms over the last five years – and some by 40pc - while Russia has increased by 80pc. The aggression in Ukraine is a wake-up call," he said.
"We learned in the Libyan crisis that Europe is totally reliant on the Americans for air-refueling, drones, and communications intelligence. We don't have air transport. It is really bad."
Belgium is the most extreme case, famed for its well-armed pension fund while fighting capability fades away. It spends 96pc of defence budget on salaries, retirement, and its Burgundian canteens. The share spent on military kit has been slashed to 4pc. "Military confidence is nearing the point of collapse," said Alexander Mattelear from the Vrije Universtiteit in Brussels.
Mr Rasmussen said there is no truth to Kremlin claims that the West violated pledges at the end of the Cold War that there would be no eastward expansion of the alliance into the territory of former Soviet Union. "No such pledge was ever made, and declassified documents in Washington prove this. It is pure propaganda," he said.
Even given Europe's problems, I highly doubt that Putin's going to be that bold.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2015, 08:33:15 AM
Even given Europe's problems, I highly doubt that Putin's going to be that bold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f8Wd1Uzpek
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2015, 08:33:15 AM
Even given Europe's problems, I highly doubt that Putin's going to be that bold.
OMG traitor to the Alt-Hist. cause. :mad:
Just imagine maps with vivid red showing a reconstituted soviet union marching across Europe, other states taking the opportunity to settle old grievances, remake old empires, Sweden could occupy Norway and half of Denmark. Come on man don't die on us. :(
Quote from: mongers on February 06, 2015, 08:43:00 AM
Common man don't die on us. :(
:(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.tvtome.com%2Fi%2Fu%2F5da818c214a54ba0cbf13683e5452f8a.jpg&hash=38d27ce250606367a729127e536cfe7cf407cbe6)
QuoteHe called for urgent action by Nato to mount a rapid deployment force of several thousand troops in a permanent state of "high readiness" and able to act within 48-72 hours as a deterrent, but the cost is proving prohibitive. "It is very expensive. Only a few are able to do it," he said.
Ouch, the most alarming thing would seem to be the poor state of the military of too many Euro/NATO nations. Then that this small measure is not doable and not affordable with even just a few thousand troops is very surprising. Weren't Euro nations already talking about this a few years ago? I would have figured this force was all up and set by now. Surprising too as these are all wealthy, prosperous nations, especially as compared to most nations of the world.
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2015, 01:34:06 AM
I read it as "France" instead of "Farce". Which I suppose is the same thing. :P
The line is from the 18th Brumaire, so the misreading works too.
I love this photo. I like to think it's the moment that Hollande realises that while Merkel and Putin speak both German and Russian, he speaks neither:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.guim.co.uk%2Fstatic%2Fw-620%2Fh--%2Fq-95%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2015%2F2%2F6%2F1423246217817%2FAngela-Merkel-Vladimir-Pu-008.jpg&hash=a3e69309c2f2ffb3e8734dcdb221ae633acb984b)
Yeah, call me naive but I don't see Putin attacking a NATO state. Unfortunately I think if he wanted to attack one of the newer/smaller ones, he could largely get away with it. I just don't buy into any of the important NATO countries willing to go to war with Russia over Estonia. I think they'll spew the strongest threats ever heard, shut Russia out of the international banking system and it'll be a return of the Cold War, but the little Baltics would fall, simple as that. Poland knows this reality which is why they've gradually increased military spending. Russia would not try this shit with Poland because it simply cannot without massive casualties. To be honest I'm not sure Russia could overrun Poland these days with conventional military forces.
FWIW I also find the threats of American "lethal aid" to Ukraine to be laughable. Shipping anti-tank weapons and various other things any competent military for a country the size of Ukraine would have in tons isn't going to change the war on the ground. That shit takes too long to deploy and get soldiers trained on to have any effect, and at the end of the day there's no way to quickly reverse 15 years of extremely poor management of the military and the country at large.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 06, 2015, 08:46:01 PM
Yeah, call me naive but I don't see Putin attacking a NATO state. Unfortunately I think if he wanted to attack one of the newer/smaller ones, he could largely get away with it. I just don't buy into any of the important NATO countries willing to go to war with Russia over Estonia. I think they'll spew the strongest threats ever heard, shut Russia out of the international banking system and it'll be a return of the Cold War, but the little Baltics would fall, simple as that. Poland knows this reality which is why they've gradually increased military spending. Russia would not try this shit with Poland because it simply cannot without massive casualties. To be honest I'm not sure Russia could overrun Poland these days with conventional military forces.
It's not a matter of whether or not NATO countries "would be willing" to go to war over Estonia; a NATO member is a NATO member, it's a mutual defense treaty organization for fuck's sake, Otto.
Poland isn't Georgia or the Ukraine, so yeah, I think there would be a good chance that Poland would punch in the mouth the handful of first echelon units it would take Russia 3 months to scrape together with bubble gum and bale wire, but I think there are still enough former Soviet officers around to realize that any invasion of a member NATO country would eventually go nuclear.
I don't buy into it, NATO existed for Cold War reasons. Now it largely exists for joint military operations when the UNSC won't act but the West largely decides actions are necessary--which is typical, because China and Russia typically veto any SC resolutions involving action against dictatorships. When the Soviet Union was a massive and powerful empire with the entire rest of the Warsaw Pact as tributary vassals and we had established the doctrine of nuclear war that would result from rolling West in Europe I agree with where you're coming from. But even expansionist Russia under Putin is extremely weak, he's gobbling off tiny little slivers of land here and there and presides over a gutted military and wrecked economy. Even with the infusions into it seen by Putin Russia's conventional forces are nothing compared to what they were in the Soviet days, in terms of training, equipment, and importantly readiness.
Without the NATO guarantee the Soviets literally would have conquered West Germany and likely Austria and the Balkans/Greece I believe. Now Putin could not conquer all of Ukraine if he wanted--his military is simply too weak to occupy a hostile country of that size. Without any meaningful threat to central or Western Europe I think the urgency of Russia is far diminished. For that reason, and because Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania are vastly different strategically versus West Germany during the Cold War I genuinely do not believe we would go to open war with Russia over an invasion of any or all three of them. Certainly we would not launch nuclear weapons over it.
If we're not willing to go to war to defend the Baltic States, we shouldn't have allowed them to join NATO.
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2015, 11:04:43 PM
If we're not willing to go to war to defend the Baltic States, we shouldn't have allowed them to join NATO.
There's a great many things that shouldn't be done, that are.
So, Hollande, Merkel, Poroshenko and Lavrov are now in Munich. Talking about peace in our time. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2015, 07:02:58 AM
So, Hollande, Merkel, Poroshenko and Lavrov are now in Munich. Talking about peace in our time. :hmm:
Hollande/Flanby is not (yet) there. He was in Moscow though (à la Laval pre-Vichy?).
Seems the Turkish FM is not present at this yearly security conference to avoid Israel. :lol: Erdogan's Turkey, once again victim of European racism!
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/60228-150206-turkey-fm-pulls-out-of-munich-conference-to-avoid-israeli-participants (http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/60228-150206-turkey-fm-pulls-out-of-munich-conference-to-avoid-israeli-participants)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 06, 2015, 11:27:23 PM
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2015, 11:04:43 PM
If we're not willing to go to war to defend the Baltic States, we shouldn't have allowed them to join NATO.
There's a great many things that shouldn't be done, that are.
.
True, and I'm not saying that you're wrong when you say that NATO countries (including the US) wouldn't honor their treaty obligations if Russia were to invade one or more of the Baltic States, though I'm not saying you're right, either. I frankly don't know; I have my doubts. I'm just saying that entering into a treaty without any intention of actually honoring it is, uhm, unfortunate.
It's kind of like a national-level version of those National Guard members who tried to get out of being mobilized to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and said stuff like, "When we joined, we didn't think we'd ever actually have to fight". Dumbasses.
If Russia invades some Baltic states it will be by proxy which will give NATO the fig leaf it needs.
Right, Ukraine is an example of this. If Russia were to invade the Baltics (I do not think they would), it will be the same way they've invaded Ukraine.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2015, 10:00:54 AM
Right, Ukraine is an example of this. If Russia were to invade the Baltics (I do not think they would), it will be the same way they've invaded Ukraine.
Yep, and that may give some NATO nations an excuse to deny Article five, not intervene to support a Baltic nation, as they'll have an out and perhaps conveniently claim it's internal issues, not meddling by Russia. But everyone will know otherwise, just as they do in Ukraine. I hope that isn't the route that NATO goes.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2015, 10:00:54 AM
Right, Ukraine is an example of this. If Russia were to invade the Baltics (I do not think they would), it will be the same way they've invaded Ukraine.
That's the fear. I think there is a real chance of getting disenfranchised Russians in Latvia to rise up. If there is a separatist revolt I fear it could paralyzed NATO.
If only Assburgers was a lethal disease...
That would help with Putin, too.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2015, 10:00:54 AM
Right, Ukraine is an example of this. If Russia were to invade the Baltics (I do not think they would), it will be the same way they've invaded Ukraine.
That would mean the end of NATO.
Incidentally, that would also mean the end of EU/Eurozone. All of Baltics have Euro as their currency. If the entire region was invaded (with no military response from NATO/EU), that would make Euro tumble down like a house of cards.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it is just a harebrained idea that the Ukrainian scenario could be successfully repeated by Russia in the Baltics.
Even discounting the geopolitical aspects of it (membership in NATO, EU and Eurozone), Baltics are not like Eastern Ukraine in anything, except for the Russian minority. Baltics are small, urbanised, densely populated. If one of them starts to get internal trouble with "little green men" and even if NATO chooses not to formally respond, it is pretty clear that the remaining Baltic states, Poland (which has population more than 10 times that of Lithuania but only 70% that of Ukraine) and also possibly some of the Scandinavian countries would send peacekeeping troops in, if requested to do so. And given the size of a potential theatre of military operations, this would not even need to be a sizeable force. Russia would then need to escalate this into an open conflict - which would deprive NATO of its fig leaf.
Now, I am not saying that Putin won't try something or that he would not risk an open war with NATO, but the Ukrainian scenario would just not work there.
I don't know what it translates into, but the Scandinavians - at least the Danes, Swedes, and Finns - are pretty attached to the Baltics. I'd expect some willingness to put troops and planes in harm's.
It's also a whole lot closer - according to google maps it's less than a 19 hour drive from Copenhagen to Riga in Latvia - so the logistics of getting involved could be somewhat easier.
I expect Poland would be pretty willing to get involved as well, and it's not like it's far from them either.
If NATO left the Baltics out to dry over Putin trouble, I think it would lose pretty much all credibility in Denmark and probably Poland.
I'd expect a "little green men" scenario would be a little harder to sell too, since the various elections in the Baltics are a whole lot less questionable than the transition in the Ukraine.
Yup. But to me the main point is the size/logistics.
Eastern Ukraine is a huge, undeveloped, empty space. You can easily "hide" an army there and play the game of cat and mouse, at least with the public opinion (if not with the US spy satellites). And it lends itself very well to protracted destabilisation effort.
This is just undoable in the Baltics, which can be policed much more easily.
Perhaps the differences are not as profound, but it is a bit like comparing fighting terrorism in Afghanistan to fighting terrorism in France.
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2015, 02:26:58 AMIf NATO left the Baltics out to dry over Putin trouble, I think it would lose pretty much all credibility in Denmark and probably Poland.
Oh, definitely. Pretty much both main political parties (PO and PiS) (and their supporters) see a potential conflict in Baltics as a litmus test for NATO's usefulness. Of course, Poland would probably not leave NATO over this, just because there would be no point, but would start to see NATO the same way it sees the UN.
Now, it's not like Poland would have a lot of alternatives, but I can see there being at least an attempt to develop some sort of regional pact, either to the South (e.g. with Turkey and possibly some of the Balkans/Hungary, depending on the political climate there) or to the North (e.g. with Sweden). Possibly try to involve (whatever is left of) Ukraine.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 02:36:57 AM
I can see there being at least an attempt to develop some sort of regional pact ... to the North (e.g. with Sweden).
lulz
Actually, Sweden has been taking security in the region quite seriously lately. I'd rather Poland allied with, say, Sweden and Denmark than Germany and France.
Sweden also has no army.
Sweden has no armed forces and is self-destructing as a society. There will be no help from us.
Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2015, 05:36:56 AM
Sweden has no armed forces and is self-destructing as a society. There will be no help from us.
Oh well, I guess time for Poland to stand up to the task and become a regional power. :unsure:
My argument is that if the major NATO powers--America, Britain, France and Germany, wanted to actually protect the new eastern editions we would have troops permanently stationed there. The lack of said troop presence to me, signals to both Putin and the rest of the world that there is not a serious umbrella of protection over those countries. The decision to expand NATO into those countries was one taken too quickly, with little thought to what it meant. I do not see any scenario in which Merkel and Hollande deploy a single soldier in defense of the Baltics. They probably would over Poland, but I don't think Putin would mess with Poland. I do not believe Obama will commit American ground forces against Putin essentially "in any scenario", perhaps a future President would. I think Hillary would, but Obama wouldn't. So if this were to go down before Obama leaves office NATO would not have America to lead the efforts against Putin. I don't have much of a read on David Cameron's foreign policy and military positions so I am unsure how he would respond.
Germany and France naturally like cozying up to terrible regimes for economic reasons and do not like fighting to defend anything, so in a scenario where the American President isn't putting 100% of the weight of his office on the leaders of Germany and France to respond to a military crisis in the East, I cannot see either country acting. Keep in mind that Merkel and Hollande are mostly concerned right now with their trade relationship with Putin, if not for the vague pressures of the NATO community on them I doubt they'd even bother with arguing with Putin over Ukraine. They want to get to a point where they can get all sanctions dropped so they can resume trade with Putin, and they feel like these sham peace meetings allow them to do that without pissing off Obama too much.
That's three out of the four major NATO countries that I believe would be against action, or at least in favor of "dithering" (Angela the Ditherer would be an apt name for her, both in how she has handled the Greek crisis and the Ukrainian crisis.)
Otto, would you say NATO should be disbanded or does it still have a purpose, and if so, what would it be?
There's something perverse about watching the leaders of great powers discuss the dismemberment of an Eastern European country in Munich :bleeding: :x
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2015, 02:08:13 PM
There's something perverse about watching the leaders of great powers discuss the dismemberment of an Eastern European country in Munich :bleeding: :x
Sorry, I'm already fapped out on caning porn.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2015, 02:08:13 PM
There's something perverse about watching the leaders of great powers discuss the dismemberment of an Eastern European country in Munich :bleeding: :x
I have already said that. :P
Soz.
I know most of the EU wouldn't stomach it, but President Tonitrus would have gone full-unilateral trade embargo some time ago. :sleep:
Yeah its creepy, especially as Russia of today is so comparable to Germany of the 1930s.
One of the bad things of being interested in history, is that you know you don't know what is happening behind the scenes. It is easy to think there is no realistic danger of us in fact reliving the end second half of the 1930s now with different actors, but contemporary citizens of those times hadn't much clue about the severity of the situation or the true motives and way of thinking of the major actors until after the fact.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 07:43:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2015, 05:36:56 AM
Sweden has no armed forces and is self-destructing as a society. There will be no help from us.
Oh well, I guess time for Poland to stand up to the task and become a regional power. :unsure:
In such a situation I think the logical thing for Poland to do, would be to develop nuclear weapons, I don't think it would be that hard, or take too long.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 08, 2015, 10:15:48 AM
They probably would over Poland, but I don't think Putin would mess with Poland.
seems to me that poland needs to intervene in the baltics in that case...
I think Poland would almost certainly send troops into Baltics if Russia tried the Ukrainian scenario there and Baltic governments requested it.
Quote from: mongers on February 08, 2015, 02:25:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 07:43:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 08, 2015, 05:36:56 AM
Sweden has no armed forces and is self-destructing as a society. There will be no help from us.
Oh well, I guess time for Poland to stand up to the task and become a regional power. :unsure:
In such a situation I think the logical thing for Poland to do, would be to develop nuclear weapons, I don't think it would be that hard, or take too long.
lol
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 02:27:44 PM
I think Poland would almost certainly send troops into Baltics if Russia tried the Ukrainian scenario there and Baltic governments requested it.
Take Kaliningrad on the way up there.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 08, 2015, 02:30:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 02:27:44 PM
I think Poland would almost certainly send troops into Baltics if Russia tried the Ukrainian scenario there and Baltic governments requested it.
Take Kaliningrad on the way up there.
No point. It is badly contaminated, has highest HIV rates in Europe and people from there shop in Poland (although this dropped down after the roubble plummetted).
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 02:02:28 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2015, 10:00:54 AM
Right, Ukraine is an example of this. If Russia were to invade the Baltics (I do not think they would), it will be the same way they've invaded Ukraine.
That would mean the end of NATO.
Incidentally, that would also mean the end of EU/Eurozone. All of Baltics have Euro as their currency. If the entire region was invaded (with no military response from NATO/EU), that would make Euro tumble down like a house of cards.
And that's the real reason that NATO would act. I don't think the Germans and French would just let the EU collapse like that.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 08, 2015, 02:30:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2015, 02:27:44 PM
I think Poland would almost certainly send troops into Baltics if Russia tried the Ukrainian scenario there and Baltic governments requested it.
Take Königsberg on the way up there.
Fixed! Though Królewiec might be also accepted as a token of good will.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 08, 2015, 02:38:52 PM
And that's the real reason that NATO would act. I don't think the Germans and French would just let the EU collapse like that.
Unless trouble in Greece does the EU in first.
It'll be interesting to see if they let Greece stay in the EU if they leave the currency union, while it may at first seem like "why not, they wouldn't be the only EU members outside the Eurozone" a lot of people are saying it won't be permitted.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/russia-military-agreement-in-cyprus-2015-2
QuoteRussia is reportedly getting military bases in an EU state
Cyprus has offered Russia to have air and navy bases on its territory.
Cypriot president Nicos Anastasiades announced that the country is ready to host Russian aviation and naval bases. The official agreement on military cooperation between the two nations is expected be signed on February 25, 2015, according to Lenta.ru.
"There is an old [defence] agreement, which should be renewed as is. At the same time, some additional services will be provided in the same way as we do with other countries, such as, for example, with France and Germany," Nicos Anastasiades said. "Cyprus and Russia have traditionally had good relations, and this is not subject to change."
Cyprus' announcement comes after Russia expressed interest in having a military base in Cyprus in late January, according to the Global Post and Greek Reporter.
Notably, Cyprus is one of the 28-member states in the EU, which have been imposing sanctions on Russia over the past year in response to the actions in Ukraine.
And just like Greece has recently caused a stir by complicating the process of extending sanctions on Russia, Cyprus, too, just voiced some opposition to the additional sanctions on Russia, adding that many EU members share that opinion.
"We want to avoid further deterioration of relations between Russia and the European Union," the Cypriot president reportedly said.
So military cooperation between Cyprus and Russia is yet another red flag for the EU.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F54d78381eab8ea7f7d546e95-1200%2Fimage.jpg&hash=a95006e87a69d85857281b103e16ed4fbb8dcbc7)
Presumably, the Russian Air Force will use the airbase "Andreas Papandreou," along with the international airport of Paphos in the southwest of the island, approximately 50 kilometers from the air base of the British Royal Air Force "Akrotiri." Additionally, the Russian navy will be able to permanently use the base of Limassol, according to Lenta.Ru.
"The Limassol port borders on the British air base of Akrotiri which serves NATO operations and is also an important hub in the electronic military surveillance system of the alliance," according to the Global Post.
Given Russia and Cyprus' shady economic relationship over the last two decades (ever since the fall of the USSR), perhaps this isn't all that surprising.
Russia Today reports that "Russians have transferred over $US30 billion (around $US1 trillion roubles) to Cyprus over the past twenty years, according to a study published by a group of economists from Russia, Finland and Canada."
In 2013, during the Cypriot financial crisis, analysts estimated that over a third of bank deposits in Cyprus may have had Russian origin, and reportedly, many Russian companies are registered on the island. Some reports even went as far as saying that Cyprus has become "a major money laundering machine for Russian criminals" back in 2013.
Even today, Russia's current economic problems are reportedly further dragging down Cyprus.
"Russia's presence in the economy has been a huge supporting factor. Its footprint is everywhere from tourism to real estate, so it is worth monitoring the impact," said Michael Florentiades, chief economist and head of investment research at XM.com, an online financial services company in Limassol.
Naturally, Russia's heavy-duty financial involvement in a EU state "raised concerns among the island country's Western allies" over the past few years, according to Euractiv.
But the most alarming Russia-Cyprus dalliance came during the height of the Cypriot financial crisis when Cyprus was reportedly negotiating with Russia for a bailout in 2013. The EU was particularly nervous about this because there was speculation that Russia might ask for a naval port and access to the country's gas reserves in return.
Ultimately, however, Cyprus opted for a "€10 billion bailout agreed with the troika, in return for closing the country's second largest bank Laiki, and imposing a one-time levy on all uninsured deposits, including those held by foreign citizens."
On top of all of that, it's notable that Russia made some major moves in the Mediterranean recently.
In mid-January, Russia announced that it will shift all its natural gas flows to Europe via Turkey, instead of Ukraine.
"Our European partners have been informed of this and now their task is to create the necessary gas transport infrastructure from the Greek and Turkish border," the head of Gazprom Alexei Miller said in a statement.
Additionally, Russia and Greece's new government have taken initiatives to explore their military and economic relationship (for example, here, here, and here).
In fact, the new Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras even stated in early February: "Greece and Cyprus can become a bridge of peace and cooperation between the EU and Russia."
So this part of the world could soon become very interesting — and a huge pain for Europe.
It seems with, broadly speaking, four current events metathreads (Russia, European Left, Charlie Hebdo, ISIL) we still have enough cross-overs to warrant a further merger. :ph34r:
I for one would welcome kicking Greece and Cyprus out of the EU.
All kidding aside, EU will have to figure out a way to deal with Benedict Arnold countries. You can't have EU's #1 enemy sow discord by buying the cheapest of the 28 potential liberum vetos.
Quote from: DGuller on February 09, 2015, 01:19:37 AM
All kidding aside, EU will have to figure out a way to deal with Benedict Arnold countries. You can't have EU's #1 enemy sow discord by buying the cheapest of the 28 potential liberum vetos.
Yeah. It's a good point. The veto mechanics has been seriously restricted lately but it still applies to a number of areas.
WTF Cyprus?
Yeah, if true they would out-Orban Orban...
Putin must have made them a deal "they couldn't refuse". Someone's getting very well paid off.
Quote from: KRonn on February 09, 2015, 08:42:50 AM
Putin must have made them a deal "they couldn't refuse". Someone's getting very well paid off.
But this is ridicoulous. The EU is busy sanctioning Russia, and then an EU state gives a decisively strategic military base to Russia. I am getting more and more convinced that the EU is stuck in these very unhealthy middle position between a mere trade union and an USA-ist state. Going either way would be an advance from this one.
If Turkey had a better government, the idea of reunification of Cyprus might be more attractive.
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/776341
QuoteNICOSIA, February 9. /TASS/. Moscow and Nicosia are in negotiations on the possibility of using airports and seaports of Cyprus by Russian warplanes and warships in humanitarian operations and emergencies, President of the Republic of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades told TASS in an exclusive interview on Monday ahead of his forthcoming visit to Russia.
Airports and seaports of Cyprus may be available to Russian warplanes and ships in emergency situations and humanitarian operations, Anastasiades told TASS First Deputy Director General Mikhail Gusman. In fact, the two counties are updating their effective bilateral military agreement.
According to some previous media reports, Russia allegedly intended to create military bases on Cyprus.
Quote from: Tamas on February 09, 2015, 08:44:39 AM
Quote from: KRonn on February 09, 2015, 08:42:50 AM
Putin must have made them a deal "they couldn't refuse". Someone's getting very well paid off.
But this is ridicoulous. The EU is busy sanctioning Russia, and then an EU state gives a decisively strategic military base to Russia. I am getting more and more convinced that the EU is stuck in these very unhealthy middle position between a mere trade union and an USA-ist state. Going either way would be an advance from this one.
Yeah, I know it's crazy, but as the article states, Russian tourism and other economic factors of Russia have a large effect on Cyprus. Those same factors also influence other Euro nations, especially energy, of which they rely on Russia for. That's all obvious to everyone so it's going to be tough confronting Putin on what he's doing now or has planned, though the sanctions seem to be having a great effect as Russia's economy and currency are crashing. I also feel that the reports of around 80% support for Putin are way exaggerated by a corrupt/gangster government. Plus, who is going to say they don't support Putin given the possible consequences from the government?
QuoteThe New Cold War
It will take much more than weapons to save Ukraine—and keep Russia at bay.
By Anne Applebaum
In an ordinary year, not all that much happens at the annual Munich security conference. NATO defense ministers murmur earnest platitudes. Experts furrow their brows. But this is not an ordinary year.
This year, the normally staid audience laughed out loud at the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, who seemed, at one point, to question the legality of German unification. Some of the room also applauded loudly when Angela Merkel, the German chancellor—just back from an apparently fruitless peace mission to Moscow—restated her view that "there is no military solution" to the conflict in Ukraine. But when Malcolm Rifkind, the former British foreign secretary, asked her how she would stop Russia without military force, another part of the audience applauded. Even watching online, the conundrum in the room was clear: Everyone agrees that the Russians were lying, and no one believes Russian promises of a cease-fire. But nobody agrees on what to do about it.
Clearly, the real debate about Ukraine and Russia has yet to begin, by which I don't just mean the "should we arm Ukraine?" debate. This is an appealing discussion, not least because it appears to pit the United States (Mars) against Europe (Venus). But fundamentally, it's a red herring. The armaments debate is an argument about short-term tactics, not long-term strategy—and it ignores the real nature of the Russian game.
Before last year, eastern Ukraine had no history of ethnic conflict. Well-armed "separatists" emerged on the scene only when Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered them there. The "civil war" that ensued is an artificial conflict, run by Russian security and enhanced by a sophisticated pan-European disinformation campaign. It will last as long as the Russians want it to last. Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, has told the Wall Street Journal that the Russians have deployed their most modern air defense and electronic warfare systems, weapons "way above and beyond" anything a rebel army could deploy.
The point of the war is not to achieve a victory. The point is to prevent the emergence of anything resembling a prosperous, European Ukraine, because such a state would pose an ideological threat to Putinism. Following this logic, even a German-brokered cease-fire will not bring "peace," but rather a so-called frozen conflict, following an old KGB design: Transnistria in Moldova, South Ossetia in Georgia, now Novorossiya in Ukraine. Once it is up and running, Russia can set up a new secret police service in Novorossiya, create new bases for the Russian army, perhaps train terrorist squads there. Mysterious bombs have already exploded in Kiev and Kharkiv. In December, six bombs went off in Odessa alone.
This can all happen very quickly, within days or weeks, which is why the argument about "arming Ukraine" is almost beside the point. Yes, over time, the Ukrainian army could be reinforced: That might keep the borders of the new Russian puppet state from expanding further. But even the United States can't deliver weapons fast enough to push the most sophisticated Russian weaponry out of Ukraine anytime soon. Short of sending the 82nd Airborne division into Donetsk, it's hard to see how even the most high-tech U.S. aid can prevent the establishment of Novorossiya, since in practice it already exists.
What the West needs now is not merely a military policy but a comprehensive, long-term strategy designed to reinforce Ukrainian statehood and integrate Ukraine into Europe over many years. We could begin training not only the Ukrainian military but also the security services, which were devastated by the previous Ukrainian president. We could push far more forcefully for economic reform and support it with real financial commitments. We could treat this as a very long-term project, as Merkel suggested on Saturday, build a Berlin Wall around Donetsk in the form of a demilitarized zone and treat the rest of Ukraine like West Germany.
We could recognize the real danger Russia poses to Europe, not only as a source of violence but also as a source of political and economic corruption. We could impose much harsher, much deeper sanctions. We could cut Russia out of the international payments system. We could enforce our own laws and stop turning a blind eye to Russian money laundering, most of which takes place in European capitals. The city of London and the gnomes of Zurich might pay a price for the loss of Russian clients. But that price will still be far lower than the potential costs of doing nothing.
For what is the alternative? Ukraine collapses, and Putin is emboldened, as he was after his invasion of Georgia in 2008. He begins planning the next "frozen conflict." If he does so in a NATO state, perhaps Lithuania or Estonia, a much wider and even more damaging European conflict would follow. We don't want a new Cold War—but even that would be preferable to a new World War. And if we don't come up with a serious strategy to prevent one, that's what we'll get.
Quote from: Tamas on February 09, 2015, 06:01:21 AM
WTF Cyprus?
Broke. And with Russian capital shoring up the banks that once gave Cyprus some relevance.
Judging from personal experience, I'd say the fucking Russians have already invaded the Med with their small swimming trunks and daytime vodka binging. Worst. Tourists. Ever.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 09, 2015, 09:55:08 AM
The New Cold War
It will take much more than weapons to save Ukraine—and keep Russia at bay.
By Anne Applebaum
Hard to take seriously any op-ed that actually used the term "gnomes of Zurich".
Cyprus now denies leasing bases to Russia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31293330 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31293330)
Reading the original argument it looks like it was perhaps an over-interpretation by the BBC. 'Presumably...'
Quote from: Norgy on February 09, 2015, 09:59:18 AM
Worst. Tourists. Ever.
Looks like we need to up our game, then :(
Lol, good luck with that! :lol:
http://www.newsweek.com/russian-parliament-set-request-eu4-trillion-wwii-reparations-germany-304163
Quote
Russian Parliament Set to Request €4 Trillion in WWII Reparations From Germany
By Damien Sharkov 2/3/15 at 12:58 PM
Members of the Russian parliament are creating a task force to estimate the damages inflicted on Russia by Germany during WWII, in a bid to demand financial compensation from the German state almost 70 years after the end of the conflict, Russian daily newspaper Izvestia reported on Tuesday.
The initiative is a direct response to trade sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and EU, for its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in March and continuous support of separatist fighters in Eastern Ukraine since, according to Mikhail Degyaterov, an MP from the Liberal Democrat Party of Russia, who has proposed the task force.
"Practically, Germany paid nothing to the USSR for its wave of destruction and savagery during the Second World War," said Degyaterov.
"After the Yalta convention the USSR took back some German assets - largely looted furniture, clothes and industrial equipment, as well as some spoils of war - but largely there was no compensation of the war's economic blow to the USSR," Degyaterov added.
According to Degyaterov, Russian satellite East Germany was not liable for the reparations because it and the Soviet Union had a legally binding agreement not to demand reparations. Such an agreement was never made with West Germany, however, and after the USSR's collapse and the reunification of East and West Germany, the bill for the war should now be footed to their modern successor - the German Federation.
"Worse still, Germany continues to inflict economic damage to Russia, by extending EU-trade sanctions," Degyaterov added, referring to the series of trade restrictions the EU has imposed on Russia following the latter's backing of separatist militants in Ukraine which have caused a crisis in the Russian economy and run on the rouble.
Russia is not the only country disputing WWII reparations with Germany. Calls for greater reparations have got louder in Greece in recent years, particularly in the face of German-imposed austerity.
Degyaterov is among those individuals, personally blacklisted by the US and EU for his vocal support for pro-Russian forces in east Ukraine. However, he shrugged off the sanctions in July, arguing he did not have overseas assets and was not greatly affected by them.
"Throughout the duration of the war, 30% of our country's treasures and national heritage, while 1,710 Soviet cities were destroyed, alongside over 70,000 towns and villages, 32,000 industrial sites, while some 100,000 farming sites were ruined," Degyaterov said, referring to figures compiled by Stalin's USSR committee which estimated damages after the war.
According to Degyaterov these material damages amount to $600 billion, while he also estimated that by virtue of the same principle which obliged Germany to pay Israel €60 billion for the Nazi regime's execution of over six million Jews during the Holocaust, Russia is owed more as a result to the loss of life on Soviet soil at the hands of the Nazi army.
"Germany paid compensation for the six million victims of the Holocaust but ignored the 27 million Soviet citizens killed, 16 million of whom were peaceful civilians."
"It appears that, with all that considered, under the current exchange Germany owes reparations of no less than €3-4 trillion, which it must pay to the successor of the Soviet Union - Russia," Degtyarev said.
The Russian MP expressed his hope that other countries will join the ranks of his task force and request reimbursement from Germany, extending an open invite to willing representatives of Belarus, Ukraine and other former Soviet republics.
The chairman of the Russian parliament's defence committee, admiral Vladimir Komoedov has applauded Degtyarev's initiative, lamenting the loss of "human capital" to the Soviet union as a result of the war.
"It is no secret that if there had not been a war, the Russian population would be 300-400 million today and we would be in a completely different economic condition," Komoedov said.
The initiative has also received the support of Russian historian Sergey Fokin, who argued the the task force can put forward a reminder of the Russian contribution to defeating Nazism, particularly to German Chancellor Angela Merkel - one of the main supporters of the current sanctions imposed on Moscow.
"It is unlikely that Germany will end up paying anything because of this but it is necessary to remind ourselves about history," Fokin said.
"It is possible that frau Merkel, who so longs for more sanctions against Russia, would never even have been born if it were not for the kindness of the victors towards the defeated," Fokunin said, referring to social programmes organised by the USSR in East Germany after the war.
Angela Merkel grew up in a small town north of East Berlin, making her the first German Chancellor to have been a citizen of the Soviet occupied half of the country during the Cold war.
In response to the economic sanctions placed on Russia by the Eurozone, led by Merkel, the Russian parliament is also currently discussing changing the historical status of the German state's reunification.
A proposal is currently being discussed by Russian MPs to recognize German reunification as an annexation of Eastern Germany by West German forces, since the two became one state after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989.
The German embassy in London declined to comment.
Quote from: Malicious Intent on February 09, 2015, 11:01:27 AM
Cyprus now denies leasing bases to Russia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31293330 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31293330)
Russian speaking locals, " little green men", have taken the bases. All your bases are belong to us! :menace:
Quote"It is possible that frau Merkel, who so longs for more sanctions against Russia, would never even have been born if it were not for the kindness of the victors towards the defeated," Fokunin said, referring to social programmes organised by the USSR in East Germany after the war.
Yowza.
I'd think that Russia owes Germany and many other nations financial restitution for having had to cope with and blunt the spread of Russian Communist Totalitarianism. So at the least it's a wash as for who owes who money. :bowler:
On the other hand Germany and the rest of Europe (Poland excepted) definitely owe us :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2015, 01:14:28 AM
It seems with, broadly speaking, four current events metathreads (Russia, European Left, Charlie Hebdo, ISIL) we still have enough cross-overs to warrant a further merger. :ph34r:
I for one would welcome kicking Greece and Cyprus out of the EU.
I doubt you're the only one. Greece is doing a wonderful job right now of alienating everybody else in the EU. Demanding war reparations way, way late after the fact, from the country housing and operating the EU central bank... how could that
possibly be a recipe for disaster?
Quote from: KRonn on February 09, 2015, 12:42:52 PM
I'd think that Russia owes Germany and many other nations financial restitution for having had to cope with and blunt the spread of Russian Communist Totalitarianism. So at the least it's a wash as for who owes who money. :bowler:
Germany files a counter suit for lost earnings for those assets under the DDR.
Most German reparations should go to Ukraine and Belarus anyway, since those areas were mostly the ones invaded. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2015, 10:08:31 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 09, 2015, 09:55:08 AM
The New Cold War
It will take much more than weapons to save Ukraine—and keep Russia at bay.
By Anne Applebaum
Hard to take seriously any op-ed that actually used the term "gnomes of Zurich".
Applebaum is an idiot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2015, 12:47:05 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 09, 2015, 12:42:52 PM
I'd think that Russia owes Germany and many other nations financial restitution for having had to cope with and blunt the spread of Russian Communist Totalitarianism. So at the least it's a wash as for who owes who money. :bowler:
Germany files a counter suit for lost earnings for those assets under the DDR.
Heh, yes, that too!
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2015, 01:01:06 PM
Applebaum is an idiot.
On more than one occasion I've been reading an article and thought "wow, this is really stupid. Wait a minute..." and checked the byline "yep, Applebaum".
Quote from: derspiess on February 09, 2015, 12:10:44 PM
Quote"It is possible that frau Merkel, who so longs for more sanctions against Russia, would never even have been born if it were not for the kindness of the victors towards the defeated," Fokunin said, referring to social programmes organised by the USSR in East Germany after the war.
Yowza.
When France demands German reparations they get charged with creating Hitler, but when Russia does it they get charged with creating Merkel. I see how it is.
They should demand Mongolia pay back the tribute given to the Mongol/Tartar yoke as well.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2015, 01:46:41 PM
They should demand Mongolia pay back the tribute given to the Mongol/Tartar yoke as well.
Reparations from Poland for supporting the False Dimitry.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2015, 12:47:05 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 09, 2015, 12:42:52 PM
I'd think that Russia owes Germany and many other nations financial restitution for having had to cope with and blunt the spread of Russian Communist Totalitarianism. So at the least it's a wash as for who owes who money. :bowler:
Germany files a counter suit for lost earnings for those assets under the DDR.
Last time I checked you can't sue for lost war. :P
Quote from: derspiess on February 09, 2015, 12:10:44 PM
Quote"It is possible that frau Merkel, who so longs for more sanctions against Russia, would never even have been born if it were not for the kindness of the victors towards the defeated," Fokunin said, referring to social programmes organised by the USSR in East Germany after the war.
Yowza.
Merkel was born in the "British sector" of Western Germany anyway. Her parents only moved to Eastern Germany afterwards.
Quote from: Zanza on February 09, 2015, 02:08:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 09, 2015, 12:10:44 PM
Quote"It is possible that frau Merkel, who so longs for more sanctions against Russia, would never even have been born if it were not for the kindness of the victors towards the defeated," Fokunin said, referring to social programmes organised by the USSR in East Germany after the war.
Yowza.
Merkel was born in the "British sector" of Western Germany anyway. Her parents only moved to Eastern Germany afterwards.
Moving from West to East? Cold War propaganda assured us in the decadent West that such a thing is impossible.
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2015, 02:04:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2015, 12:47:05 PM
Germany files a counter suit for lost earnings for those assets under the DDR.
Last time I checked you can't sue for lost war. :P
:hmm: Not sure how it looks over there, but I'm pretty sure the conventional wisdom is that Germany was on the winning side of the Cold War.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2015, 02:17:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2015, 02:04:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2015, 12:47:05 PM
Germany files a counter suit for lost earnings for those assets under the DDR.
Last time I checked you can't sue for lost war. :P
:hmm: Not sure how it looks over there, but I'm pretty sure the conventional wisdom is that Germany was on the winning side of the Cold War.
And the losing side!
Honecker definitely lost. Poor fella. He may have even slightly changed facial expressions when the DDR fell.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2015, 10:08:31 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 09, 2015, 09:55:08 AM
The New Cold War
It will take much more than weapons to save Ukraine—and keep Russia at bay.
By Anne Applebaum
Hard to take seriously any op-ed that actually used the term "gnomes of Zurich".
iirc; i've seen it used on The Economist too.
"http://www.economist.com/news/international/21642185-it-still-time-america-move-gnomes-zurich-mission"
Yeah. It's a common phrase in the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8534936.stm
Harold Wilson used it first, didn't he?
Quote from: Norgy on February 10, 2015, 05:07:46 AM
Harold Wilson used it first, didn't he?
I think so. Protecting Sterling from the gnomes of Zurich. Tapping into the native distrust of the British people for the Swiss.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2015, 05:10:16 AM
Quote from: Norgy on February 10, 2015, 05:07:46 AM
Harold Wilson used it first, didn't he?
I think so. Protecting Sterling from the gnomes of Zurich. Tapping into the native distrust of the British people for the Swiss.
not racist AT ALL
:P
Yeah, it's offensive to gnomes.
Judging from what I have seen, the gnomes have had their revenge by invading British gardens.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2015, 05:10:16 AM
Quote from: Norgy on February 10, 2015, 05:07:46 AM
Harold Wilson used it first, didn't he?
I think so. Protecting Sterling from the gnomes of Zurich. Tapping into the native distrust of the British people for everybody in continental Europe.
FYP. :P
We love the Dutch :P
Having gone to war over Belgium not once, but twice, you'd half expect the British to at least feel somewhat cordial towards those scrotes.
Belgium's a very strange place.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2015, 07:01:04 AM
We love the Dutch :P
Because they conquered you peacefully back in the day? :P
Quote from: derspiess on February 09, 2015, 03:01:49 PM
Honecker definitely lost. Poor fella. He may have even slightly changed facial expressions when the DDR fell.
Poor Honecker widow is still upset, she only has 1500 euros per month as a pension .
Poor thing this Stasi widow... :console:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17595526 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17595526)
QuoteShe also expressed irritation about her pension of 1,500 euros (£1,249; $2,000) a month from today's unified German state, calling it "outrageously small".
Another one
http://www.thelocal.de/20081203/15875 (http://www.thelocal.de/20081203/15875)
QuoteA Berlin court on Wednesday rejected a case of a widow of former officer for the Stasi, the dreaded secret police of communist East Germany, who wanted better pension benefits.
I wonder if any other country in the world pays its ousted dictators a pension.
Quote from: Zanza on February 10, 2015, 12:40:25 PM
I wonder if any other country in the world pays its ousted dictators a pension.
Most of the time the dictator already looted everything so it is unnecessary.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 12:42:05 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 10, 2015, 12:40:25 PM
I wonder if any other country in the world pays its ousted dictators a pension.
Most of the time the dictator already looted everything so it is unnecessary.
but in this case the Russians were quicker...
Quote from: Zanza on February 10, 2015, 12:40:25 PM
I wonder if any other country in the world pays its ousted dictators a pension.
I believe the Soviet Union did. Khrushchev got a pension.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2015, 02:24:46 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 10, 2015, 12:40:25 PM
I wonder if any other country in the world pays its ousted dictators a pension.
I believe the Soviet Union did. Khrushchev got a pension.
Man you are a master at obscure trivia. Strikes me as different though.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 10, 2015, 07:43:05 AM
Poor Honecker widow is still upset she only has 1500 euros per month as a pension
Poor thing this Stasi widow :console:
Better than what her friend Elena got.
Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2015, 02:39:15 PM
Better than what her friend Elena got.
No shit, right? Talk about getting Direct Deposit...OF LEAD
http://rt.com/politics/231991-russia-military-armor-report/
QuoteDefense Ministry offers body armor to winners of whistleblowers' contest
The Russian military has announced a nationwide campaign, promising a set of Special Forces body armor to those who report serious violations in the forces or at defense enterprises.
The initiative was presented as a competition, as prizes would be awarded only to the authors of the most significant reports, the announcement by the Military Information Agency said Friday. The event starts on February 23 – the Russian holiday honoring "Defenders of the Fatherland" – and lasts for one month.
Participants of the competition are invited to submit information about the violation of federal laws or any norms and instructions of the lowest levels, the rights of military personnel and civilian workers and any other similar cases in the Defense Ministry, as well as in defense industry enterprises.
The organizers of the event claim that it will boost the prestige of military service and improve the nation's defense capabilities. The event would also demonstrate that any citizen can make a positive input into the development of the military forces by reporting violations and seeing that the authorities tackle them.
The participants are promised complete anonymity, but reports containing state secrets or any classified information will be removed from the competition.
The authors of the most important reports will receive a set of a military-grade body armor, ballistic eyeglasses and Kevlar gloves. All equipment is produced by Russian companies and is currently being used by Special Forces (Spetsnaz) units.
The detailed conditions of the competition will be published on the Military Information Agency's website on the day it starts, the organizers promised in their message.
"Here's your prize. You'll need it!" :lol:
Seen this posted in EUOT. It's well, quite priceless. Dunno where it actually comes from or what they are actually discussing besides Russia taking over the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SemPHeiamBo
Quote from: celedhring on February 14, 2015, 10:45:51 AM
Seen this posted in EUOT. It's well, quite priceless. Dunno where it actually comes from or what they are actually discussing besides Russia taking over the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SemPHeiamBo
I had to do a little research on that. :lol:
Found the original, complete news broadcast (kind of an, end-of-week news summary really), from one of the Russian tv channels. It's actually one I use a lot for practice.
The video is them making fun of an apparent statement by the Polish Foreign Minister that the WWII 9 May Victory Parade (which is a very big deal in Russia, of course) should not take place in Moscow, but maybe in other Allied capitals. So they make a joke of the Russian military going on tour carrying on their victory parade in other European/World capitals.
After what is shown there, they got on bashing the Polish FM while showing a very bad cartoon caricature, and the text "Rottweiler of Foreign Affairs" (in Russian, a Foreign Minister is always "Minister of Foreign Affairs", that's just how they form the term) underneath.
Thanks, I thought it was too outrageous even for them.
I think that the only man in history (when adjusted for inflation) richer than that would be J.D. Rockefeller :hmm:
http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-former-largest-foreign-investor-putin-is-worth-200-billion-2015-2#ixzz3RxK64N7F
Quote
Finance More: Russia
Russia's former largest foreign investor: Putin is worth $200 billion
You can get a good hint at the relationship between Putin and Hungarian PM Orban:
Putin is visiting Budapest today. Pro-government press has been polishing Putin's dick for months now anyway but the most servilient ones are REALLY dripping saliva now.
And on the other side: Putin will lay wreaths for rememberence at two monuments. One of them, is a freshly renovated monument in the Soviet military cemetary, with bright golden letters reading:
"Eternal gratitude and honor to the Soviet heroes who gave their life fighting the counter-revolution in 1956 for the freedom of the Hungarian people".
The sacred nature of our 1956 revolution is the cornerstone of post-1989 Hungary. It is basically the only modern historical event of the country which all political sides have the same opinion on, namely that it was a moment of unprecedented national unity, as we tried to turn the tide of history and fight off the Soviet shackles.
So, in my opinion, Putin choosing that monument instead of the gazillion other ones from WW2 (where rememberance is much more valid and prudent) is basically spitting us in the face.
And showing that Orban is his little bitch.
Only Russian press will be allowed at that particular happening, by the way.
Well, hate to be a dick, Tamas, but the fact that you have not torn down a monument like this over the last 25 years means you are in fact little bitches.
We had a monument to the Soviet Army "liberating" Poland in 1945 (which is, shall we say, a much more ambiguous and shades-of-grey thing than the one you have) in one of Warsaw's squares but it is not returning to its spot after being sent to cleaners last year - the authorities said they will find a "more suitable spot for it". :P
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2015, 05:13:40 AM
One of them, is a freshly renovated monument in the Soviet military cemetary, with bright golden letters reading:
"Eternal gratitude and honor to the Soviet heroes who gave their life fighting the counter-revolution in 1956 for the freedom of the Hungarian people".
WTF?? :lol:
It was left to rot away slowly until a year or two ago when this Russian billionaire financed its renovation. So we are not little bitches, we are whores. :(
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2015, 05:20:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2015, 05:13:40 AM
One of them, is a freshly renovated monument in the Soviet military cemetary, with bright golden letters reading:
"Eternal gratitude and honor to the Soviet heroes who gave their life fighting the counter-revolution in 1956 for the freedom of the Hungarian people".
WTF?? :lol:
Hungarian culture is what you get after centuries of rape by Turks, Germans and Russians, it seems. :P
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2015, 05:20:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2015, 05:13:40 AM
One of them, is a freshly renovated monument in the Soviet military cemetary, with bright golden letters reading:
"Eternal gratitude and honor to the Soviet heroes who gave their life fighting the counter-revolution in 1956 for the freedom of the Hungarian people".
WTF?? :lol:
Yeah I know. I mean the text is from the late 50s of course, but the whol disgrace of a monument was rotting away as I just wrote, until this billionaire, following Putin's call of saving Soviet monuments abroad, bribed his way into restoring it to all its glory.
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2015, 05:21:19 AM
It was left to rot away slowly until a year or two ago when this Russian billionaire financed its renovation. So we are not little bitches, we are whores. :(
By the way, Polish press is mainly reporting protests against Orban/Putin in Budapest right now. Are these widespread or relatively minor?
The Soviet Russian perspective:
http://tass.ru/en/economy/777999
Quote]...]
Upon arrival in Budapest, Putin will lay a wreath at the Unknown Soldier's Tomb by the Millennium Monument. He will then take part in the ceremony of reopening a Soviet war memorial at Budapest's central cemetery. The monument has undergone large-scale restoration.
"Quite naturally, this event has been timed for the 70th anniversary since the liberation of Budapest," Ushakov said.
Putin will lay a wreath to the memorial to Soviet soldiers. Ushakov said in this connection more than 5,000 Soviet Army servicemen are buried in the territory of the complex. Of that number, twenty-one servicemen had the title of Heroes of the Soviet Union.
[...]
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 05:21:40 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2015, 05:20:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2015, 05:13:40 AM
One of them, is a freshly renovated monument in the Soviet military cemetary, with bright golden letters reading:
"Eternal gratitude and honor to the Soviet heroes who gave their life fighting the counter-revolution in 1956 for the freedom of the Hungarian people".
WTF?? :lol:
Hungarian culture is what you get after centuries of rape by Turks, Germans and Russians, it seems. :P
I wanted to point out particularities of Polish history but I lack the spirit: this is highly embarassing and I am ashamed even to have leaders who allow this.
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 05:22:46 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2015, 05:21:19 AM
It was left to rot away slowly until a year or two ago when this Russian billionaire financed its renovation. So we are not little bitches, we are whores. :(
By the way, Polish press is mainly reporting protests against Orban/Putin in Budapest right now. Are these widespread or relatively minor?
About 1500 people attended it last night. No such thing is allowed today, although there will be a pro-Putin demonstration.
One thing to note about last night protest is the trouble with most protests these days there: the far left attempts to overtake every one of them. eg. they tried to make it about the planned Russian expansion of our nuclear power plant, in an anti-nuclear power stance, which triggered opposition from other demonstrators, as they have trouble with Russian influence and general Hungarian corruption, not nuclear power in general.
According to ITAR-TASS, Russia has also been the biggest trading partner of Hungary for the last year (though trade is down between the two countries).
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2015, 05:34:26 AM
About 1500 people attended it last night. No such thing is allowed today, although there will be a pro-Putin demonstration.
Wow, Hungary is really going off the deep end.
It's funny if you consider that all Polish right wingers (especially those from PiS) were Orban fanboys a couple of years ago.
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2015, 05:20:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2015, 05:13:40 AM
One of them, is a freshly renovated monument in the Soviet military cemetary, with bright golden letters reading:
"Eternal gratitude and honor to the Soviet heroes who gave their life fighting the counter-revolution in 1956 for the freedom of the Hungarian people".
WTF?? :lol:
So incredibly romantic :wub:
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2015, 05:13:40 AM
And on the other side: Putin will lay wreaths for rememberence at two monuments. One of them, is a freshly renovated monument in the Soviet military cemetary, with bright golden letters reading:
"Eternal gratitude and honor to the Soviet heroes who gave their life fighting the counter-revolution in 1956 for the freedom of the Hungarian people".
The other one says "Eternal gratitude and honor to the Russian heroes who gave their life fighting the rebels in 1849 for the freedom of the Hungarian people"
Well he ended up laying the wreath on the central piece of the larger installation which contains the 1956 memorial. Still iffy.
Meanwhile, to add further flavour to his visit, it has been revealed that one of the Ukrainian military units besieged in that town still being shelled and attacked despite the ceasefire, is from the Hungarian-dwelled border region of Ukraine, so odds are, plenty of poor (ethnic) Hungarians are about to be massacred by Russians, while the Russian President is being pampered and bowed to in Budapest.
Like Orban gives a shit about the Hungarians.
How does the average Hungarian view '56 Tamas?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 11:46:15 AM
How does the average Hungarian view '56 Tamas?
He wasn't born yet.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 11:46:15 AM
How does the average Hungarian view '56 Tamas?
Like I described, as a desperate heroic attempt to wrestle back control of our own fate.
The radicals of both ends like to apply a contemporary twist to it by blaming America for not coming to our aid (nuclear war surely was the better alternative for us, apparently). Opinion in the details are mixed if course, no wonder since it saw ex-nazis fight alongside modern liberals, but nobody with a public voice have a negative take on it.
Oh and that pro-Russia demonstration today only had like 50 idiots attending, luckily
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 05:19:42 AM
Well, hate to be a dick, Tamas, but the fact that you have not torn down a monument like this over the last 25 years means you are in fact little bitches.
We had a monument to the Soviet Army "liberating" Poland in 1945 (which is, shall we say, a much more ambiguous and shades-of-grey thing than the one you have) in one of Warsaw's squares but it is not returning to its spot after being sent to cleaners last year - the authorities said they will find a "more suitable spot for it". :P
There is a Soviet Memorial next to the Brandenburg Gate and the Reichstag and no one would even consider moving it.
Quote from: Zanza on February 17, 2015, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 05:19:42 AM
Well, hate to be a dick, Tamas, but the fact that you have not torn down a monument like this over the last 25 years means you are in fact little bitches.
We had a monument to the Soviet Army "liberating" Poland in 1945 (which is, shall we say, a much more ambiguous and shades-of-grey thing than the one you have) in one of Warsaw's squares but it is not returning to its spot after being sent to cleaners last year - the authorities said they will find a "more suitable spot for it". :P
There is a Soviet Memorial next to the Brandenburg Gate and the Reichstag and no one would even consider moving it.
Does it celebrate the Soviet soldiers crushing the June 17th 1953 uprising?
Kapow!
Quote from: Zanza on February 17, 2015, 02:29:33 PM
There is a Soviet Memorial next to the Brandenburg Gate and the Reichstag and no one would even consider moving it.
Well lets just say the circumstances in Germany and Poland are not entirely comparable.
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2015, 02:30:26 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 17, 2015, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 05:19:42 AM
Well, hate to be a dick, Tamas, but the fact that you have not torn down a monument like this over the last 25 years means you are in fact little bitches.
We had a monument to the Soviet Army "liberating" Poland in 1945 (which is, shall we say, a much more ambiguous and shades-of-grey thing than the one you have) in one of Warsaw's squares but it is not returning to its spot after being sent to cleaners last year - the authorities said they will find a "more suitable spot for it". :P
There is a Soviet Memorial next to the Brandenburg Gate and the Reichstag and no one would even consider moving it.
Does it celebrate the Soviet soldiers crushing the June 17th 1953 uprising?
Well, you know it doesn't. But Marty referred to a 1945 memorial in Warsaw. That said, the Soviet Memorial is actually on the road called "Street of the 17th June", which could be considered a bit of a FU to the Soviets.
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2015, 11:51:49 AM
The radicals of both ends like to apply a contemporary twist to it by blaming America for not coming to our aid (nuclear war surely was the better alternative for us, apparently).
See the Poles have a much more realistic whine about the Yalta conference, but even they understand the difference between an ally not entirely willing to sacrifice millions of men for you and an actual oppressor.
It would make more sense to blame the French and the Brits for invading Egypt.
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2015, 02:37:55 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2015, 11:51:49 AM
The radicals of both ends like to apply a contemporary twist to it by blaming America for not coming to our aid (nuclear war surely was the better alternative for us, apparently).
See the Poles have a much more realistic whine about the Yalta conference, but even they understand the difference between an ally not entirely willing to sacrifice millions of men for you and an actual oppressor.
That being said, Washington, Wilson, Reagan and even Hoover have a square/street/plaza in Warsaw. Roosevelt gets none. :P
I'm shocked that Warsaw doesn't want to commemorate a person who ruled a great power from early 1933 until his death in April 1945, killing civilians in the hundreds of thousands and sending his own citizens to concentration camps.
Incidentally, Tbilisi has landmarks dedicated to both George W. Bush and Lech Kaczynski. I guess their thing is taking other nations' discarded presidents. :P
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2015, 03:04:07 PM
I'm shocked that Warsaw doesn't want to commemorate a person who ruled a great power from early 1933 until his death in April 1945, killing civilians in the hundreds of thousands and sending his own citizens to concentration camps.
:lol:
Never thought about that.
Quote from: Zanza on February 17, 2015, 03:07:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2015, 03:04:07 PM
I'm shocked that Warsaw doesn't want to commemorate a person who ruled a great power from early 1933 until his death in April 1945, killing civilians in the hundreds of thousands and sending his own citizens to concentration camps.
:lol:
Never thought about that.
Does Berlin have landmarks dedicated to Roosevelt? :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 03:07:59 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 17, 2015, 03:07:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2015, 03:04:07 PM
I'm shocked that Warsaw doesn't want to commemorate a person who ruled a great power from early 1933 until his death in April 1945, killing civilians in the hundreds of thousands and sending his own citizens to concentration camps.
:lol:
Never thought about that.
Does Berlin have landmarks dedicated to Roosevelt? :P
No, but then it also doesn't have landmarks named for the other person that fits that description. ;)
We *used* to have Hitlerstrasse in Warsaw. :P
And a city named after Stalin.
I recall there being an FDR hospital in Bratislava.
Just googled a bit and I can't find anything in Germany named for Roosevelt.
There is a town called "Pattonville" near where I live though.
Lots of places named after Kennedy in Germany.
Not sure that we Americans can be too snarky about some of this stuff. After all, we name things like warships and schools after people who rebelled against us, and battles in which they beat us.
Quote from: Zanza on February 17, 2015, 03:29:52 PM
Just googled a bit and I can't find anything in Germany named for Roosevelt.
There is a town called "Pattonville" near where I live though.
Lots of places named after Kennedy in Germany.
FDR is much bigger in Central and South America; practically every capital has--or at least, used to have--a Roosevelt Boulevard.
Any US streets named for furriners other than Lafayette?
Dumb question, takes backs.
De Soto, Ponce de Leon, etc.
There was a street named after Walesa in SF but they renamed it once he made a homophobic comment last year. :nelson:
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 03:04:13 PM
Incidentally, Tbilisi has landmarks dedicated to both George W. Bush and Lech Kaczynski. I guess their thing is taking other nations' discarded presidents. :P
Pro western georgians are basically cheap hookers desperate to get away from their abusive pimp (Russia). Anything else is good enough.
Unfortunately for them, absolutely no one else in the world wants anything they can offer. :(
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 05:19:42 AM
Well, hate to be a dick, Tamas, but the fact that you have not torn down a monument like this over the last 25 years means you are in fact little bitches.
I don't mind that so much. But yeah Orban letting Putin go is quite something. It's like Putin just wants to show off his new satrapy.
QuoteJust googled a bit and I can't find anything in Germany named for Roosevelt.
Yeah I don't think there's any Roosevelt streets or anything like that in the UK. We do have statues of FDR, Ike, Washington, Kennedy, Reagan and Lincoln (at least) though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2015, 03:48:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 05:19:42 AM
Well, hate to be a dick, Tamas, but the fact that you have not torn down a monument like this over the last 25 years means you are in fact little bitches.
I don't mind that so much. But yeah Orban letting Putin go is quite something. It's like Putin just wants to show off his new satrapy.
QuoteJust googled a bit and I can't find anything in Germany named for Roosevelt.
Yeah I don't think there's any Roosevelt streets or anything like that in the UK. We do have statues of FDR, Ike, Washington, Kennedy, Reagan and Lincoln (at least) though.
I think you're broadly right, though I do recall driving along one perhaps ?
edit:
well whilst there does appear to be half a dozen possibles, I clearly can't have driven along any of them. :hmm:
http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?q=r+d+roosevelt+uk&mkt=en&FORM=HDRSC4#Y3A9NTIuMDEwMzAwfi0wLjc0OTUwMCZsdmw9NyZzdHk9ciZlbz0w (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?q=r+d+roosevelt+uk&mkt=en&FORM=HDRSC4#Y3A9NTIuMDEwMzAwfi0wLjc0OTUwMCZsdmw9NyZzdHk9ciZlbz0w)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 03:43:55 PM
Any US streets named for furriners other than Lafayette?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 03:44:36 PM
Dumb question, takes backs.
De Soto, Ponce de Leon, etc.
Nobody gives a shit anymore, as Americans are fucking ignorant as balls when it comes to their own history that can't fit in a Tweet, but Casimir Pulaski gets a lot of love around the country, re: highways, parks, etc.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2015, 03:48:40 PM
Washington
You built a statue of him yet you didn't think he was worthy of a regular army commission? :angry:
QuoteJust googled a bit and I can't find anything in Germany named for Roosevelt.
Well there was a street named after him in Berlin for a little while:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Filiketowastemytime.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fhistorical-photos-pt3-us-soldier-ww2-hitler-str.jpg&hash=beaf7ac467f067e4583ad3607e6eee3c3f3d92c1)
There was a subway station named after him in Paris at least.
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2015, 03:59:44 PM
There was a subway station named after him in Paris at least.
Still is, no?
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 04:12:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2015, 03:59:44 PM
There was a subway station named after him in Paris at least.
Still is, no?
Well there was in 2000 I have not been back to confirm :P
But yes I presume it still is there.
I can confirm that I saw it in 2013 and wiki says it is still there. :D
Quote from: Zanza on February 17, 2015, 03:29:52 PM
Just googled a bit and I can't find anything in Germany named for Roosevelt.
I found a Franklin-Roosevelt-Straße in Wiesbaden, Germany.
Not Germany but there is apparently a Franklin-D-Rossevelt-Straße in Austria.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2015, 03:48:40 PM
Yeah I don't think there's any Roosevelt streets or anything like that in the UK. We do have statues of FDR, Ike, Washington, Kennedy, Reagan and Lincoln (at least) though.
FDR is the Roosevelt in question. Teddy didn't have much influence on Europe.
I found a Truman-ku in Hiroshima, Japan.
OK, I didn't.
Cursory check reveals for Vienna streets/squares named after Kennedy, Darwin, Billy Wilder, Roosevelt, Jenny Lind.
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 03:45:31 PM
There was a street named after Walesa in SF but they renamed it once he made a homophobic comment last year. :nelson:
I saw that street when I visited SF, it was a dump, albeit a very centrally located one.
Quote from: Zanza on February 17, 2015, 04:18:42 PM
FDR is the Roosevelt in question. Teddy didn't have much influence on Europe.
But...but...he gave the Spanish a decisive whipping at San Juan Hill :(
Oh and ended the Russo-Japanese War single handedly.
Quote from: Zanza on February 17, 2015, 04:18:42 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2015, 03:48:40 PM
Yeah I don't think there's any Roosevelt streets or anything like that in the UK. We do have statues of FDR, Ike, Washington, Kennedy, Reagan and Lincoln (at least) though.
FDR is the Roosevelt in question. Teddy didn't have much influence on Europe.
Just didn't want to repeat 'Roosevelt' too much :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2015, 04:23:39 PM
Oh and ended the Russo-Japanese War single handedly.
Shot a grizzly with his bare hands while doing it, too!
However, the Imperial Japanese Navy courteously disagrees.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2015, 04:25:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2015, 04:23:39 PM
Oh and ended the Russo-Japanese War single handedly.
Shot a grizzly with his bare hands while doing it, too!
:thumbsup:
QuoteHowever, the Imperial Japanese Navy courteously disagrees.
Quiet you!
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2015, 04:24:14 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 17, 2015, 04:18:42 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2015, 03:48:40 PM
Yeah I don't think there's any Roosevelt streets or anything like that in the UK. We do have statues of FDR, Ike, Washington, Kennedy, Reagan and Lincoln (at least) though.
FDR is the Roosevelt in question. Teddy didn't have much influence on Europe.
Just didn't want to repeat 'Roosevelt' too much :blush:
Ah! Is this like saying Bloody Mary?
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2015, 04:21:07 PM
Cursory check reveals for Vienna streets/squares named after Kennedy, Darwin, Billy Wilder, Roosevelt, Jenny Lind.
Warsaw has street named thematically in districts. An area near me has Moliere, Balzac, Zola etc.
There is even a Whinnie the Pooh street.
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2015, 04:13:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 04:12:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2015, 03:59:44 PM
There was a subway station named after him in Paris at least.
Still is, no?
Well there was in 2000 I have not been back to confirm :P
But yes I presume it still is there.
You presume correctly. :) This métro station serves the the Franklin Delano Roosevelt avenue, which intersects the Champs-Élysées.
I'm looking at possible the most notable Roosevelt named street in the UK, most of the others are tiny cul-de-sac, this ones in Chatham and it's a main road of a housing development; other names include; Eden Avenue, Tedder Avenue, Mountbatten Avenue, Bader Crescent, Frost Crescent, Ironside Close, Cunningham Crescent, Montgomery Avenue, Malta Avenue, Tobruk Way, Dunkirk Drive, Burma Way, Arnhem Drive, Alamein Avenue, Cherbourg Crescent, Packer Place.
All this sandwiched between Churchill Avenue in the South and the aforementioned Roosevelt Avenue in the North. The two linked directly by Stalin Avenue; I wonder if the developer had some understanding of wartime leadership? :cool:
With Montgomery Avenue and Cunningham Crescent. I do wonder if it maybe an idea to rename Stalin Avenue :mellow:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Stalin+Ave,+Chatham,+Medway+ME5/@51.3619284,0.5344106,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d8cd3eae654ee7:0xa79add37a7fdac31
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2015, 04:54:13 PM
With Montgomery Avenue and Cunningham Crescent. I do wonder if it maybe an idea to rename Stalin Avenue :mellow:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Stalin+Ave,+Chatham,+Medway+ME5/@51.3619284,0.5344106,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d8cd3eae654ee7:0xa79add37a7fdac31
It is odd that Stalin links the other two leaders; I'm have tempted to visit the housing estate if I ever make it to the dockyards there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 03:44:36 PM
Dumb question, takes backs.
De Soto, Ponce de Leon, etc.
Not to mention that a lot of stuff is named for British guys. They count as foreigners, too, you know.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 03:43:55 PM
Any US streets named for furriners other than Lafayette?
Over here we have streets for Kosciusko and Pulaski.
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2015, 08:07:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 03:43:55 PM
Any US streets named for furriners other than Lafayette?
Over here we have streets for Kosciusko and Pulaski.
I can never pronounce that fucking bridge. Also, I like how it always has digital signs noting delays. It always has delays! :angry:
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 08:15:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2015, 08:07:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 03:43:55 PM
Any US streets named for furriners other than Lafayette?
Over here we have streets for Kosciusko and Pulaski.
I can never pronounce that fucking bridge. Also, I like how it always has digital signs noting delays. It always has delays! :angry:
In Russian he's pronounced Koh-STEW-shko.
As if it wasn't obvious enough already that Putin basically had himself invited to parade around an EU and NATO member country as if he isn't becoming a pariah, two things made that clearer:
-The Hungarian side claimed pre-meeting that this personal visit was necessary to sign the extension of the long term gas contract ("OMG TEH FAMILIES WILL BE WITHOUT HEATING OTHERWISE") Then what they signed was a minor agreement they have already made a year ago concerning the consumption of the gas we already payed for IIRC.
-On the press conference, Putin really didnt give a damn about Hungary or common affairs, he was busy telling the defenders of that besieged town to surrender if they know what is good for them.
You better face it guys: you have a Trojan Horse in NATO and EU.
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2015, 04:38:08 AM
You better face it guys: you have a Trojan Horse in NATO and EU.
Danger: Hazardous Metaphors
Authorized Personnel Only
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2015, 04:38:08 AM
As if it wasn't obvious enough already that Putin basically had himself invited to parade around an EU and NATO member country as if he isn't becoming a pariah, two things made that clearer:
-The Hungarian side claimed pre-meeting that this personal visit was necessary to sign the extension of the long term gas contract ("OMG TEH FAMILIES WILL BE WITHOUT HEATING OTHERWISE") Then what they signed was a minor agreement they have already made a year ago concerning the consumption of the gas we already payed for IIRC.
-On the press conference, Putin really didnt give a damn about Hungary or common affairs, he was busy telling the defenders of that besieged town to surrender if they know what is good for them.
You better face it guys: you have a Trojan Horse in NATO and EU.
More a rickety 3-legged stool than a huge wooden craven symbol.
I'd entirely forgotten Hungary was in NATO and no doubt when it leaves, it'll be on page 3/4 for a day or two.
Honestly, at least Greece being pro-Russian I can understand, given their shared religion and the fact Russia hasn't invaded them. But Hungarians doing that seems unforgivable to me given their history. Hell, I'd understand them more if they were neo-Nazi sympathisers instead.
Quote from: PJL on February 18, 2015, 08:10:58 AM
Honestly, at least Greece being pro-Russian I can understand, given their shared religion and the fact Russia hasn't invaded them. But Hungarians doing that seems unforgivable to me given their history. Hell, I'd understand them more if they were neo-Nazi sympathisers instead.
Yes, but the current government works like an organised crime gang, and Russia is much more compatible with them than the EU.
Quote from: mongers on February 18, 2015, 07:49:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2015, 04:38:08 AM
As if it wasn't obvious enough already that Putin basically had himself invited to parade around an EU and NATO member country as if he isn't becoming a pariah, two things made that clearer:
-The Hungarian side claimed pre-meeting that this personal visit was necessary to sign the extension of the long term gas contract ("OMG TEH FAMILIES WILL BE WITHOUT HEATING OTHERWISE") Then what they signed was a minor agreement they have already made a year ago concerning the consumption of the gas we already payed for IIRC.
-On the press conference, Putin really didnt give a damn about Hungary or common affairs, he was busy telling the defenders of that besieged town to surrender if they know what is good for them.
You better face it guys: you have a Trojan Horse in NATO and EU.
More a rickety 3-legged stool than a huge wooden craven symbol.
I'd entirely forgotten Hungary was in NATO and no doubt when it leaves, it'll be on page 3/4 for a day or two.
Worthless military or not, they do have access to NATO intelligence and whatnot, and as a result Russia does too, I am fairly certain.
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2015, 08:17:19 AM
Worthless military or not, they do have access to NATO intelligence and whatnot, and as a result Russia does too, I am fairly certain.
I would think that Hungary had enough of Russia when it was the Soviet Union, and given that Putin's government and the resultant kleptocracy there would ensure that Hungary does as little as possible to have anything to do with it, aside from getting energy contracts signed. Russia needs to sell the energy, especially now with their crumbling economy, as much as Hungary needs to buy the energy.
As for a poor military, from what some Euro posters have been posting, it would seem that most Euro military forces are in a sorry condition.
Quote from: KRonn on February 18, 2015, 11:08:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2015, 08:17:19 AM
Worthless military or not, they do have access to NATO intelligence and whatnot, and as a result Russia does too, I am fairly certain.
I would think that Hungary had enough of Russia when it was the Soviet Union
You would think so wouldn't you. But stuffing the "we like Russia, mucho gusto" party line down the throats of government supporters was relatively easy, even if decidedly with losses and support. And cleptocracy is the business our government is in as well.
Plus, there are shady guys with extremely close ties to Russia in basically all major parties.
Yeah, Hungary was in the Soviet Bloc for so long, I guess it should be no surprise that there are still many who want things to be more like the bad "good old days". Still communists and totalitarians at heart.
Quote from: KRonn on February 18, 2015, 11:16:56 AM
Yeah, Hungary was in the Soviet Bloc for so long, I guess it should be no surprise that there are still many who want things to be more like the bad "good old days". Still communists and totalitarians at heart.
But Orban was one of the guys that helped bring it all down. It's like George Washington turning the country over to the British in his second term as President.
Well according to the Republicans he pretty much did.
(And by Republicans I mean the 1790s Republicans)
This story is two years old but CdM should get a kick out of it. :lol:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/man-who-hijacked-banks-fine-print-to-flee-russia/484348.html
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2015, 08:17:19 AM
Quote from: mongers on February 18, 2015, 07:49:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2015, 04:38:08 AM
As if it wasn't obvious enough already that Putin basically had himself invited to parade around an EU and NATO member country as if he isn't becoming a pariah, two things made that clearer:
-The Hungarian side claimed pre-meeting that this personal visit was necessary to sign the extension of the long term gas contract ("OMG TEH FAMILIES WILL BE WITHOUT HEATING OTHERWISE") Then what they signed was a minor agreement they have already made a year ago concerning the consumption of the gas we already payed for IIRC.
-On the press conference, Putin really didnt give a damn about Hungary or common affairs, he was busy telling the defenders of that besieged town to surrender if they know what is good for them.
You better face it guys: you have a Trojan Horse in NATO and EU.
More a rickety 3-legged stool than a huge wooden craven symbol.
I'd entirely forgotten Hungary was in NATO and no doubt when it leaves, it'll be on page 3/4 for a day or two.
Worthless military or not, they do have access to NATO intelligence and whatnot, and as a result Russia does too, I am fairly certain.
A certain naval intelligence sailor once told me that the US certainly does not share all it's intelligence with its NATO allies.
They'll see the big board!
I can't help but feel that it's no coincidence that Putin says that he knows the Americans are supplying weapons to Ukraine ("according to Russian intelligence") while visiting Hungary and after talking to Orban behind closed doors for several hours longer than scheduled. Even if it's a bluff the timing is well calculated.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 18, 2015, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 18, 2015, 11:16:56 AM
Yeah, Hungary was in the Soviet Bloc for so long, I guess it should be no surprise that there are still many who want things to be more like the bad "good old days". Still communists and totalitarians at heart.
But Orban was one of the guys that helped bring it all down. It's like George Washington turning the country over to the British in his second term as President.
That is pretty damn tragic. And I assume he's getting "paid" well by the Russkies in some manner for his turncoat ways.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2015, 01:38:19 PM
A certain naval intelligence sailor once told me that the US certainly does not share all it's intelligence with its NATO allies.
Correct. The Brits see pretty much everything, but I don't know if any non-US-non-Brit has ever had the highest level TK clearance. I seem to remember being told that it wasn't possible.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 03:02:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2015, 01:38:19 PM
A certain naval intelligence sailor once told me that the US certainly does not share all it's intelligence with its NATO allies.
Correct. The Brits see pretty much everything, but I don't know if any non-US-non-Brit has ever had the highest level TK clearance. I seem to remember being told that it wasn't possible.
I subsequently learned that Canada, Australia and New Zealand though were also partnered with the US/UK in the "Five Eyes" alliance (which obviously doesn't include Hungary), so do you happen to know why the UK is elevated to such a "special relationship" above all others?
Quote from: PJL on February 18, 2015, 08:10:58 AM
Honestly, at least Greece being pro-Russian I can understand, given their shared religion and the fact Russia hasn't invaded them. But Hungarians doing that seems unforgivable to me given their history. Hell, I'd understand them more if they were neo-Nazi sympathisers instead.
Yeah. Greece, Bulgaria and Cyprus I get. I'm baffled that Hungary (!) would end up a client state :blink:
Quote from: PJL on February 18, 2015, 08:10:58 AM
Honestly, at least Greece being pro-Russian I can understand, given their shared religion and the fact Russia hasn't invaded them. But Hungarians doing that seems unforgivable to me given their history. Hell, I'd understand them more if they were neo-Nazi sympathisers instead.
Well, Putin's Russia is closer to nazi Germany than pretty much any other (powerful) state when it comes to ideology.
They must not be all retired yet.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/world/a-10-jets-to-europe/index.html
Warthogs!
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2015, 03:58:02 PM
I subsequently learned that Canada, Australia and New Zealand though were also partnered with the US/UK in the "Five Eyes" alliance (which obviously doesn't include Hungary), so do you happen to know why the UK is elevated to such a "special relationship" above all others?
I'm guessing they got the special partnership back when they were a serious heavy-weight and with world-spanning interests, so it was more of a "partnership of equals" which has, I assume, stuck around even as the differences in class have become more pronounced.
Canada, NZ, and Australia have always been junior partners, with more limited ability and interests as well.
I dunno... but that would be my guess. They weren't elevated, they were already up there even if their current position doesn't seem to justify it any longer.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2015, 03:58:02 PM
I subsequently learned that Canada, Australia and New Zealand though were also partnered with the US/UK in the "Five Eyes" alliance (which obviously doesn't include Hungary), so do you happen to know why the UK is elevated to such a "special relationship" above all others?
The UK was in a position to provide the US with information that it couldn't get from anywhere else, and to assist in technical data collection (remember that the Brits were for a very long time, and may still be, considered the best in the world at crypto-breaking, and they had access globally to a lot of secure sites for downlinks, radio transceivers, and the like. In a lot of areas (but not all; humint for instance), neither the UK nor the US have an intelligence collection network; they just have access to the joint US/UK one.
The Five Eyes is intel-sharing on a more traditional basis. There may be a closer relationship between the US and/or Canada, Oz, and NZ than I was ever aware of, though.
Personally, I blame the Soviets.
I assume that a NATO country has to call for aid if it gets attacked for NATO to be formally required to help out?
Quote from: The Brain on February 20, 2015, 06:45:52 AM
I assume that a NATO country has to call for aid if it gets attacked for NATO to be formally required to help out?
I guess so.
And then you will have NATO countries like Hungary who will say that NATO need not intervene as it is just an internal policing issue against political upheaving.
So, Russia's sovereign debt now has junk rating from two agencies. :yeah:
Quote from: Tamas on February 20, 2015, 06:47:00 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 20, 2015, 06:45:52 AM
I assume that a NATO country has to call for aid if it gets attacked for NATO to be formally required to help out?
I guess so.
And then you will have NATO countries like Hungary who will say that NATO need not intervene as it is just an internal policing issue against political upheaving.
I think this is a real possibility - that Putin continues this strategy of destabilization in vulnerable countries where he can create a token fig leaf of deniability, which would allow NATO members to refuse to fight over countries they almost certainly never thought they would ever have to fight over when they were allowed into NATO to begin with...
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2015, 03:07:43 PM
So, Russia's sovereign debt now has junk rating from two agencies. :yeah:
Hard to fight a war with no money.
I just don't see this scenario where Russia rolls into Estonia and gets away with it. A single American brigade would annihilate anything those clowns have. Wouldn't deploying said brigade be better than watching our entire foreign policy in Europe be destroyed?
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 10:04:50 AM
Hard to fight a war with no money.
I just don't see this scenario where Russia rolls into Estonia and gets away with it. A single American brigade would annihilate anything those clowns have.
"Its better to be on-hand with ten men than absent with ten thousand". :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 10:04:50 AM
I just don't see this scenario where Russia rolls into Estonia and gets away with it. A single American brigade would annihilate anything those clowns have. Wouldn't deploying said brigade be better than watching our entire foreign policy in Europe be destroyed?
It would all eventually go nuclear anyway, so why not.
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 10:04:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2015, 03:07:43 PM
So, Russia's sovereign debt now has junk rating from two agencies. :yeah:
Hard to fight a war with no money.
I just don't see this scenario where Russia rolls into Estonia and gets away with it. A single American brigade would annihilate anything those clowns have. Wouldn't deploying said brigade be better than watching our entire foreign policy in Europe be destroyed?
What has Putin done in the last two decades that would make you think he would dumb enough to just outright invade in such a manner?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2015, 10:14:39 AM
It would all eventually go nuclear anyway, so why not.
Russia would nuke us over Estonia? :yeahright:
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2015, 10:15:05 AMWhat has Putin done in the last two decades that would make you think he would dumb enough to just outright invade in such a manner?
I think the chances are about 0.00001% but I keep hearing how Russia is going to invade the Baltics and NATO is going to let them. Which seems insane.
If anything, Russia will stir up shit with the Russian minorities in those countries and destabilize them that way.
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 10:15:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2015, 10:14:39 AM
It would all eventually go nuclear anyway, so why not.
Russia would nuke us over Estonia? :yeahright:
Does Putin seem like the type of man to you that would get his ass handed to him by NATO right on his doorstep, chalk it up as a "whoopsie" and just call it a day? :yeahright: yourself.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2015, 10:21:53 AM
Does Putin seem like the type of man to you that would get his ass handed to him by NATO right on his doorstep, chalk it up as a "whoopsie" and just call it a day? :yeahright: yourself.
LOL ok whatever crazy man. There are plenty of face-saving maneuvers Putin could do short of having Russia be blown to ashes.
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 10:16:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2015, 10:15:05 AMWhat has Putin done in the last two decades that would make you think he would dumb enough to just outright invade in such a manner?
I think the chances are about 0.00001% but I keep hearing how Russia is going to invade the Baltics and NATO is going to let them. Which seems insane.
The concern is that Russia does the same thing they've done several times now - forment instability with Russian minorities in target countries, send in troops under the guise of "volunteers" or "local militia", and just create hell and then attempt to "negotiate a settlement".
The idea here is trying to take advantage of presumed NATO reluctance to actually go to war over countries like Estonia or Latvia, so he just has to create enough ambiguity to avoid an obvious invocation of Article 5.
This is pretty standard great game politics - Russia would be trying to test the NATO alliance, and see if they are serious about their guarantees to countries that frankly were allowed into the alliance at a time that everyone thought the military need for that protection was moot.
As people have said before, it seems like Putin is playing chess while the west is playing checkers. We are certainly hurting them with the sanctions, no doubt, but it doesn't seem to be dissuading them at all, and it wouldn't if we have fundamentally misunderstood the reasons for why Putin and Russia are acting in the manner that they are acting.
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 10:23:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2015, 10:21:53 AM
Does Putin seem like the type of man to you that would get his ass handed to him by NATO right on his doorstep, chalk it up as a "whoopsie" and just call it a day? :yeahright: yourself.
LOL ok whatever crazy man. There are plenty of face-saving maneuvers Putin could do short of having Russia be blown to ashes.
There are plenty of things Putin could have done already to avoid the Russian economy being blown to ashes, but he hasn't done them.
I am not very keen on relying on Putin's sense of restraint and rationality as a check on nuclear war.
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 10:23:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2015, 10:21:53 AM
Does Putin seem like the type of man to you that would get his ass handed to him by NATO right on his doorstep, chalk it up as a "whoopsie" and just call it a day? :yeahright: yourself.
LOL ok whatever crazy man. There are plenty of face-saving maneuvers Putin could do short of having Russia be blown to ashes.
What demonstrable changes have you witnessed in Russian strategic thought that has led you to believe that Russian nuclear weapons policy versus NATO has changed since 1991?
P.S. You fucking mutt.
The Soviet memorial in Vienna has been defaced with black paint. Last year part of the memorial plaque was painted in Ukrainian colors.
The Russian embassy has filed a protest and urges the Austrian government to take steps to make sure it never happens again.
The memorial:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftravel.prwave.ro%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2Fsoviet6.jpg&hash=b7a122ea4f6249ec27d57ad2eef197a4a0db7711)
I wonder if the Soviet part of the main cemetery still looks like crap (but apparently the embassy doesn't care about it when it's out of the way of the common Vienna visitor).
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2015, 10:24:02 AMThis is pretty standard great game politics - Russia would be trying to test the NATO alliance, and see if they are serious about their guarantees to countries that frankly were allowed into the alliance at a time that everyone thought the military need for that protection was moot.
I'm guessing the Baltic countries didn't think it was moot at the time, though the membership of NATO at the time probably did as you suggest.
QuoteAs people have said before, it seems like Putin is playing chess while the west is playing checkers. We are certainly hurting them with the sanctions, no doubt, but it doesn't seem to be dissuading them at all, and it wouldn't if we have fundamentally misunderstood the reasons for why Putin and Russia are acting in the manner that they are acting.
Yeah pretty much.
That said, I don't think people are misunderstanding as much as hoping.
Let's not exaggerate what is going on. The Russians have extended full de facto control over what they already had partial de facto control (Crimea). And they have their proxies in control of 2 out of Ukraine's remaining 23 provinces. We can't know for certain what the cost is of all this but it is high. Crimea is an utter economic basket case now, and alone will probably cost around $5 billion/year in subsidies. Sustaining Donetsk/Lugansk will be far more costly than that, and that is not taking into account the very substantial costs for the military operations there. And then there are Russian soldier casualties likely in the hundreds, and growing. All in the context of a very gloomy economic context for Russia - Chinese primary commodity demand sharply down, weak demand from the EU, plummeting oil prices, sanctions, continuing demographic deterioration and brain drain.
Putin may be playing chess but if so he is trying clever mid-game tactics after a poor opening. Russia is far worse off than pre-Maidan; it has exchanged a position of strong influence over all Ukraine to de facto control over a couple rump provinces and the implacable hatred and suspicion of much of the rest.
Putin is not a Hitler, or even a Napoleon; he is not plotting world conquest. Everything he has done makes sense if one assumes the perspective that the West has been engaged in a steady and coherent policy of eroding Russian power and extending the boundaries of its alliance system to the Russian border, and if one assumes that Russian policy is designed to be purely reactive to this as a spoiler. I am not saying that perspective represents a reality (there is no such coherent policy), only that it is perfectly reasonable to infer that Putin truly believes that and is acting accordingly.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 23, 2015, 12:54:17 PM
Let's not exaggerate what is going on. The Russians have extended full de facto control over what they already had partial de facto control (Crimea). And they have their proxies in control of 2 out of Ukraine's remaining 23 provinces. We can't know for certain what the cost is of all this but it is high. Crimea is an utter economic basket case now, and alone will probably cost around $5 billion/year in subsidies. Sustaining Donetsk/Lugansk will be far more costly than that, and that is not taking into account the very substantial costs for the military operations there. And then there are Russian soldier casualties likely in the hundreds, and growing. All in the context of a very gloomy economic context for Russia - Chinese primary commodity demand sharply down, weak demand from the EU, plummeting oil prices, sanctions, continuing demographic deterioration and brain drain.
Putin may be playing chess but if so he is trying clever mid-game tactics after a poor opening. Russia is far worse off than pre-Maidan; it has exchanged a position of strong influence over all Ukraine to de facto control over a couple rump provinces and the implacable hatred and suspicion of much of the rest.
Putin is not a Hitler, or even a Napoleon; he is not plotting world conquest. Everything he has done makes sense if one assumes the perspective that the West has been engaged in a steady and coherent policy of eroding Russian power and extending the boundaries of its alliance system to the Russian border, and if one assumes that Russian policy is designed to be purely reactive to this as a spoiler. I am not saying that perspective represents a reality (there is no such coherent policy), only that it is perfectly reasonable to infer that Putin truly believes that and is acting accordingly.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.static-economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fprint-edition%2F20140322_WWD000_0.jpg&hash=7abf545f0b715c8395a18de88f577fb19504cb83)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 23, 2015, 12:54:17 PM
Let's not exaggerate what is going on. The Russians have extended full de facto control over what they already had partial de facto control (Crimea). And they have their proxies in control of 2 out of Ukraine's remaining 23 provinces. We can't know for certain what the cost is of all this but it is high. Crimea is an utter economic basket case now, and alone will probably cost around $5 billion/year in subsidies. Sustaining Donetsk/Lugansk will be far more costly than that, and that is not taking into account the very substantial costs for the military operations there. And then there are Russian soldier casualties likely in the hundreds, and growing. All in the context of a very gloomy economic context for Russia - Chinese primary commodity demand sharply down, weak demand from the EU, plummeting oil prices, sanctions, continuing demographic deterioration and brain drain.
Putin may be playing chess but if so he is trying clever mid-game tactics after a poor opening. Russia is far worse off than pre-Maidan; it has exchanged a position of strong influence over all Ukraine to de facto control over a couple rump provinces and the implacable hatred and suspicion of much of the rest.
Putin is not a Hitler, or even a Napoleon; he is not plotting world conquest. Everything he has done makes sense if one assumes the perspective that the West has been engaged in a steady and coherent policy of eroding Russian power and extending the boundaries of its alliance system to the Russian border, and if one assumes that Russian policy is designed to be purely reactive to this as a spoiler. I am not saying that perspective represents a reality (there is no such coherent policy), only that it is perfectly reasonable to infer that Putin truly believes that and is acting accordingly.
Putin isn't Hitler. If one wanted an analogy, the better one would be
Mussolini, pre-WW2.
Like Mussolini, Putin has been making easy conquests of basket-case provinces purely to boost national pride - while spending a fortune in doing it; like Mussolini, the West's feeble response is leading some to conclude he's some sort of political/strategic genius in getting away with such aggression; like Mussolini, he has plenty of admirers.
There are of course differences, like the fact he's armed with nukes ...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 23, 2015, 12:54:17 PM
Let's not exaggerate what is going on. The Russians have extended full de facto control over what they already had partial de facto control (Crimea). And they have their proxies in control of 2 out of Ukraine's remaining 23 provinces. We can't know for certain what the cost is of all this but it is high. Crimea is an utter economic basket case now, and alone will probably cost around $5 billion/year in subsidies. Sustaining Donetsk/Lugansk will be far more costly than that, and that is not taking into account the very substantial costs for the military operations there. And then there are Russian soldier casualties likely in the hundreds, and growing. All in the context of a very gloomy economic context for Russia - Chinese primary commodity demand sharply down, weak demand from the EU, plummeting oil prices, sanctions, continuing demographic deterioration and brain drain.
Putin may be playing chess but if so he is trying clever mid-game tactics after a poor opening. Russia is far worse off than pre-Maidan; it has exchanged a position of strong influence over all Ukraine to de facto control over a couple rump provinces and the implacable hatred and suspicion of much of the rest.
Putin is not a Hitler, or even a Napoleon; he is not plotting world conquest. Everything he has done makes sense if one assumes the perspective that the West has been engaged in a steady and coherent policy of eroding Russian power and extending the boundaries of its alliance system to the Russian border, and if one assumes that Russian policy is designed to be purely reactive to this as a spoiler. I am not saying that perspective represents a reality (there is no such coherent policy), only that it is perfectly reasonable to infer that Putin truly believes that and is acting accordingly.
I hope you are right, but I think you are misreading Putin. I think Putin has been gearing up for a power play for quite a while now, and Maidan was the event that finally forced him to make his move. I personally don't think he's done making his moves yet. I watched Russian news for the last 1.5 years; you don't whip up such an overheated propaganda for a quick military adventure. You do it for the long campaign.
If Yanukovych stuck around, I tend to think Putin would have been content that his plant/puppet was there. He probably had his eye on Crimea, and was content to let it be with his "proxy" state, but I agree, I think the Maidan event somewhat forced his hand to go for the land grab. Maybe earlier than he wanted...but they were definitely ready for the contingency.
Hell, I even believe that it is likely that most of the people in Crimea and the rebel-held areas probably would support going with Russia if they held a fair vote (assuming it were appropriate to hold one). But this whole thing has been botched to hell by all sides involved.
Russia's in too deep to hold back now...Ukraine has to hold on to all that it can, and the U.S. can only "pew pew" economically from the sidelines. And the EU probably isn't willing to go balls-to-the-wall on the economic front.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 23, 2015, 02:53:35 PM
If Yanukovych stuck around, I tend to think Putin would have been content that his plant/puppet was there. He probably had his eye on Crimea, and was content to let it be with his "proxy" state, but I agree, I think the Maidan event somewhat forced his hand to go for the land grab. Maybe earlier than he wanted...but they were definitely ready for the contingency.
Hell, I even believe that it is likely that most of the people in Crimea and the rebel-held areas probably would support going with Russia if they held a fair vote (assuming it were appropriate to hold one). But this whole thing has been botched to hell by all sides involved.
Russia's in too deep to hold back now...Ukraine has to hold on to all that it can, and the U.S. can only "pew pew" economically from the sidelines. And the EU probably isn't willing to go balls-to-the-wall on the economic front.
You make it sounds like Putin has always had Crimea/Donetsk as plan B (or even a long term plan). I disagree.
I think he was caught completely off guard by the Maidan (and even more so by the fact that Yanukovych failed to deal with it properly), and Crimea was a complete spur of a moment thing for him (of course, like any major country, I bet Russia had a number of various tactical scenarios ready and one of them included "capture Crimea" but it was not something that was seriously considered until Maidan happened). He did it to save face and to throw a monkey wrench into what seemed like a complete disaster for him, i.e. losing Ukraine to the EU and eventually the NATO.
I agree with JR that Putin does not want to conquer the world - but he wants to rebuild the Russian empire. This is impossible without controlling Ukraine, so he is trying to get as much of it as possible before it slips away from him (and failing that, he will be content if he leaves it smoldering, like a failed state that noone wants).
As JR said, you are giving Putin too much credit - it is quite common to ascribe foresight retroactively to someone's actions.
I also think that Putin is genuinely convinced that it was the Western machinations that caused Maidan to happen and Ukraine to slip his grasp. He is a KGB man. He has been having his agents infiltrating and controlling Ukraine. That it chose to side with the West surely must be then the effect of the fact that Western agents were better than his.
To be fair, certainly some of the groups behind the Maidan events were helped by funding from Western agencies, so there is some truth to what Putin thinks happened in Ukraine.
Quote from: PJL on February 24, 2015, 04:12:04 AM
To be fair, certainly some of the groups behind the Maidan events were helped by funding from Western agencies, so there is some truth to what Putin thinks happened in Ukraine.
Not really, or at least he shows he doesn't understand how democratic societies work. Like, few years ago when he was furious for Denmark not stopping a Chechen conference in Copenhagen - undoubtedly, the organisation of that may have received some indirect funding from the state but that does not mean the state can influence them the way Russia wants to do.
Similarly, Western funding for an organisation that supports democracy or human rights - and later lends its support to an anti-government protest is not the same as West funding agents instigating protests.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2015, 04:15:41 AM
Quote from: PJL on February 24, 2015, 04:12:04 AM
To be fair, certainly some of the groups behind the Maidan events were helped by funding from Western agencies, so there is some truth to what Putin thinks happened in Ukraine.
Similarly, Western funding for an organisation that supports democracy or human rights - and later lends its support to an anti-government protest is not the same as West funding agents instigating protests.
Well the former is more reactive while the latter is more proactive. Still Putin doesn't really know (or want to know) the difference between the two.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2015, 01:36:54 AM
You make it sounds like Putin has always had Crimea/Donetsk as plan B (or even a long term plan). I disagree.
Actually, there are now reports being published (in Novaya Gazeta for example) that Russia had a plan to annex Crimea and Eastern Ukraine ready before Yanukovich even resigned.
For the Russian speakers, here for example: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/67389.html
Quote from: PJL on February 24, 2015, 04:12:04 AM
To be fair, certainly some of the groups behind the Maidan events were helped by funding from Western agencies, so there is some truth to what Putin thinks happened in Ukraine.
He is not the only one. The Americans who always oppose our foreign policy adventures believe this as well. As always I would like to know how exactly this funding went down and how it influenced the scenario.
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2015, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: PJL on February 24, 2015, 04:12:04 AM
To be fair, certainly some of the groups behind the Maidan events were helped by funding from Western agencies, so there is some truth to what Putin thinks happened in Ukraine.
He is not the only one. The Americans who always oppose our foreign policy adventures believe this as well. As always I would like to know how exactly this funding went down and how it influenced the scenario.
They'd better have been helping the Maidan protestors. I mean, that's what I would want the US to be doing - helping pro-democracy activists around the world.
Quote from: Barrister on February 24, 2015, 11:52:34 AM
They'd better have been helping the Maidan protestors. I mean, that's what I would want the US to be doing - helping pro-democracy activists around the world.
Well the opponents here would say this was reckless and that stirring conflict with Russia is dangerous due to their nuclear weapon arsenal.
But again I would like to know the specifics about how we helped them and if we influenced their activities in some way.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2015, 01:36:54 AM
I agree with JR that Putin does not want to conquer the world - but he wants to rebuild the Russian empire.
It's seems to me that it's pretty clear that Putin (and to be fair, other Russians as well) sees the other former Soviet republics as rightfully belonging to Russia, either as
de jure parts of Russian territory or as
de facto Russian satellites. I have doubts that Russia would be satisfied with that if they manage to achieve it, but I don't think they have any specific plans beyond that (or even necessarily specific plans on how to accomplish it in the first place).
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2015, 12:19:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2015, 01:36:54 AM
I agree with JR that Putin does not want to conquer the world - but he wants to rebuild the Russian empire.
It's seems to me that it's pretty clear that Putin (and to be fair, other Russians as well) sees the other former Soviet republics as rightfully belonging to Russia, either as de jure parts of Russian territory or as de facto Russian satellites. I have doubts that Russia would be satisfied with that if they manage to achieve it, but I don't think they have any specific plans beyond that (or even necessarily specific plans on how to accomplish it in the first place).
I think much of what has happened and is happeing isn't really about Russia trying to create an empire per se, but rather about Russia trying to convince the world that they are still a great power.
The West certainly stepped on their toes in that we expanded NATO, which, let's be honest, is a historically anti-Soviet/Russian alliance right up to their borders. We did this because we didn't think they could really do much about it, or we expected them to not care because NATO has largely morphed from being an anti-Soviet alliance to being more of a generic Western alliance without being specifically targetted at Russia, and gee, isn't that as obvious to them as it is to us?
Of course it isn't obvious to those paranoid nutcases. So they are reacting however they can to what they see as a violation of Russia's sphere of influence.
For those posters who have forgotten the fact that nuclear weapons still exist, are still part of the US--NATO-Russian strategic dynamic and were just mentioned in that one episode of VH1's
"I Love the 80's", the one with Donkey Kong.
QuoteAsh Carter warns Russia on nukes
"U.S. responses must make clear to Russia that if it does not return to compliance, our responses will make them less secure than they are today."
POLITICO
By Philip Ewing
2/23/15 6:25 PM EST
Updated 2/23/15 9:43 PM EST
Ash Carter has quietly thrown down the gauntlet in a lingering dispute with Russia: If President Vladimir Putin continues to violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the U.S. could respond in kind.
"The range of options we should look at from the Defense Department could include active defenses to counter intermediate-range ground-launched cruise missiles; counter-force capabilities to prevent intermediate-range ground-launched cruise missile attacks; and countervailing strike capabilities to enhance U.S. or allied forces," Carter told senators in little-noticed written answers to follow-up questions from his confirmation hearing.
The defense secretary's bottom line: "U.S. responses must make clear to Russia that if it does not return to compliance, our responses will make them less secure than they are today."
Obama administration officials believe Russia began testing what they call its illegal cruise missile as long ago as 2008, predating the current crisis in Europe over Moscow's military incursion into Ukraine. And they have accused Russia of violating the 1987 INF treaty under which the U.S. and then-Soviet Union agreed to pull back land-based missiles deployed around Europe that many feared could escalate a crisis too quickly for either side to control.
Now, with Putin still pressing into Ukraine, some members of Congress are even more eager to push back on what they see as Russia's violations of the INF treaty. And Carter's endorsement of new "counter-force capabilities," following his cautious support for arming Ukraine's government against the Russian invaders, puts him on the hawkish side of the spectrum as President Barack Obama and his advisers weigh how to resolve the standoff.
The Russian president may have secretly been developing a new intermediate missile even as diplomats were negotiating the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that the Senate approved in 2010, a breach of faith that hawks say deserves a serious answer. Carter would appear to agree. In his written answers to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), he said Putin had imperiled a cornerstone of global stability since the Cold War.
"Russia's continued disregard for its international obligations and lack of meaningful engagement on this particular issue require the United States to take actions to protect its interests and security, as well as those of its allies and partners," Carter said. "U.S. efforts should continue to remind Russia why the United States and Russia signed this treaty in the first place and be designed to bring Russia back into verified compliance with its obligations."
Critics in Congress, meanwhile, call the violation of the INF agreement just another broken Russian promise.
"Within the last year, Mr. Putin has flagrantly and deliberately violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Budapest Memorandum, and the Minsk Protocol," said Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), long a top congressional delegate to NATO. "In order to change Putin's calculus, President Obama must stop stalling and listen to his own secretary of defense, members of Congress in his own party and dozens of military and civilian leaders who have all recommended actions to empower the Ukrainian army so they can successfully confront the growing Russian threat."
Another Republican, Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers, said during an Armed Services Committee hearing earlier this month that there's no reason for Washington to continue to honor the deal.
"If we're the only team that's sticking to the treaty," he complained, "then I don't know why we're sticking with the treaty, since they are flagrantly violating it."
Russian leaders, however, may already feel the U.S. and Europe have violated the treaty, said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. Moscow points to the U.S.-backed Aegis Ashore system, which the Obama administration is fielding in Romania this year in place of former President George W. Bush's previously planned ballistic missile defense system.
Weapons don't need to be nuclear to violate the INF agreement. Between Aegis Ashore and Lockheed Martin's Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, which Poland is buying, Russia most likely feels it has both cause and cover to field a new intermediate-range missile, Kristensen said. Plus, the U.S. plans to field an extended-range JASSM, a new anti-ship missile and new ways to use weapons that exist in its stockpile.
For example, the Navy and Air Force have demonstrated their ability to launch a Raytheon-built Tomahawk cruise missile and then retarget it in flight. The pilot of an Air Force F-22 Raptor redirected one missile launched from a Navy submarine, and last month, the crew of a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet directed a Tomahawk launched from a destroyer onto a target vessel at sea.
"This is potentially a game-changing capability for not a lot of cost," Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said at a trade show in San Diego this month.
In view of these developments, Russian commanders most likely believe their work is entirely appropriate. They're believed to want a weapon that could defeat NATO's formidable air defenses and enable them to hit targets the way the U.S. uses its precision strike missiles and bombs, Kristensen said.
And as long as Russia's new missile is not deployed or in production, it technically has not violated the INF.
"This is a political show," Kristensen said. "One side does something, so other side has to do it too."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 12:35:21 PM
For those posters who have forgotten the fact that nuclear weapons still exist, are still part of the US--NATO-Russian strategic dynamic and were just mentioned in that one episode of VH1's "I Love the 80's", the one with Donkey Kong.
So would you say you are not a proponent of "strategic patience"?
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2015, 01:02:11 PM
So would you say you are not a proponent of "strategic patience"?
I am a proponent of "giving Valmy shit about nukes."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 01:07:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2015, 01:02:11 PM
So would you say you are not a proponent of "strategic patience"?
I am a proponent of "giving Valmy shit about nukes."
I was discussing a very specific scenario!
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2015, 01:38:22 PM
I was discussing a very specific scenario!
Yes, and that scenario would most likely lead to an escalation of nuclear weapon deployment, particularly considering the Russian doctrinal acceptance since 2000 of the use of tactical nuclear weapons in sphere-of-influence conflicts--never mind the the fact that any NATO defense of Estonia, or any other frontier member of NATO would necessitate expanding the conflict to sovereign Russian soil proper, and there's your ball game.
Quote from: Berkut on February 24, 2015, 12:26:51 PM
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2015, 12:19:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2015, 01:36:54 AM
I agree with JR that Putin does not want to conquer the world - but he wants to rebuild the Russian empire.
It's seems to me that it's pretty clear that Putin (and to be fair, other Russians as well) sees the other former Soviet republics as rightfully belonging to Russia, either as de jure parts of Russian territory or as de facto Russian satellites. I have doubts that Russia would be satisfied with that if they manage to achieve it, but I don't think they have any specific plans beyond that (or even necessarily specific plans on how to accomplish it in the first place).
I think much of what has happened and is happeing isn't really about Russia trying to create an empire per se, but rather about Russia trying to convince the world that they are still a great power.
The West certainly stepped on their toes in that we expanded NATO, which, let's be honest, is a historically anti-Soviet/Russian alliance right up to their borders. We did this because we didn't think they could really do much about it, or we expected them to not care because NATO has largely morphed from being an anti-Soviet alliance to being more of a generic Western alliance without being specifically targetted at Russia, and gee, isn't that as obvious to them as it is to us?
Of course it isn't obvious to those paranoid nutcases. So they are reacting however they can to what they see as a violation of Russia's sphere of influence.
Looked at objectively, though, one wonders at the success of this strategy.
I know we here in the West like to portray Putin as a ruthless and successful puppet-master, taking what he wants and thumbing his nose at the West's hapless attempts to stop him, but what are his real achievements - compared with the collapse of the Soviet Empire?
His attempts to re-establish it by sneaky use of force are, in truth, pretty pathetic - he has no realistic hope of even taking back Ukraine, which is as far as I can tell a complete economic, political and military basket-case. Yet fighting for a couple of lousy East Ukrainian oblasts and Crimea is economically ruining his country, which is in the shit already because of oil prices. In the process he's made a permanent enemy of the rest of Ukraine, not to mention alarming everyone else in Eastern Europe - particularly the Poles who are on their way to becomming a first-world power.
I can't see this working out well for him, long-term. One wonders what his end-game is supposed to be.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 01:52:28 PM
Yes, and that scenario would most likely lead to an escalation of nuclear weapon deployment, particularly considering the Russian doctrinal acceptance since 2000 of the use of tactical nuclear weapons in sphere-of-influence conflicts--never mind the the fact that any NATO defense of Estonia, or any other frontier member of NATO would necessitate expanding the conflict to sovereign Russian soil proper, and there's your ball game.
Well I disagree. A force that can defend the Baltics would likely not be large enough to invade Russian soil.
But, in any case, we probably should have thought of this when we expanded NATO in the first place. Kind of too late now, we have to defend them.
Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2015, 01:53:49 PM
I can't see this working out well for him, long-term. One wonders what his end-game is supposed to be.
His game was already a failure before he started playing. Russia going into Great Power politics is delusional. They could maybe get away with being China's little brother if they were going to reject a pro-western stance.
Quote from: Solmyr on February 24, 2015, 11:24:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2015, 01:36:54 AM
You make it sounds like Putin has always had Crimea/Donetsk as plan B (or even a long term plan). I disagree.
Actually, there are now reports being published (in Novaya Gazeta for example) that Russia had a plan to annex Crimea and Eastern Ukraine ready before Yanukovich even resigned.
I wouldn't be surprised that was included in Russian contingency planning. But a contingency plan is just that.
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2015, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2015, 01:53:49 PM
I can't see this working out well for him, long-term. One wonders what his end-game is supposed to be.
His game was already a failure before he started playing. Russia going into Great Power politics is delusional. They could maybe get away with being China's little brother if they were going to reject a pro-western stance.
I think the Russians would chafe very much at being anyone's little brother, especially the Chinese.
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2015, 01:02:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 12:35:21 PM
For those posters who have forgotten the fact that nuclear weapons still exist, are still part of the US--NATO-Russian strategic dynamic and were just mentioned in that one episode of VH1's "I Love the 80's", the one with Donkey Kong.
So would you say you are not a proponent of "strategic patience"?
His substantive point would suggest otherwise, unless one is a fan of nuclear brinksmanship.
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2015, 01:54:33 PM
A force that can defend the Baltics would likely not be large enough to invade Russian soil.
The problem is, you can't just stand on the defensive indefinitely. At the very least, you'd have to interdict the enemy's supply lines, which in a Baltic invasion scenario means hitting targets inside Russia.
Granted, it's certainly possible that our so-called political "leaders" in the West might impose restriction on our military operations that would include a ban on any intrusions into Russia proper, but that would just hang any troops we send to the Baltics out to dry in the long run.
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2015, 01:54:33 PM
Well I disagree. A force that can defend the Baltics would likely not be large enough to invade Russian soil.
Not talking invasion of Russia. Cruise missile and air strikes against air bases, munitions depots and other conflict staging areas are not invasions. But we're not going to defend the Baltic States without conducting those kinds of escalatory actions.
QuoteBut, in any case, we probably should have thought of this when we expanded NATO in the first place. Kind of too late now, we have to defend them.
We did, and for good reason. But Putin, for all his cult of personality nonsense, is not going to attack a NATO member nation in order to get the band back together, regardless of how badly he wants to live in 1979.
It's all rhetoric anyway; Russian conventional forces are a complete wreck, all bubble gum and bale wire bullshit, and nobody knows that more than Moscow. Chechnya was a mess, Georgia was a mess, the Ukraine is a mess. They can't handle themselves against opponents in the Carolina bus leagues, imagine if they had to play in Yankee Stadium.
And it's probably a given that, in any kind of NATO Baltic defense scenario, Kaliningrad has to go.
And Belarus would probably throw in with Russia because, what the hell?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 01:07:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2015, 01:02:11 PM
So would you say you are not a proponent of "strategic patience"?
I am a proponent of "giving Valmy shit about nukes."
As you should be. He's a noted nuke denier. Or something.
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2015, 02:54:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 01:07:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2015, 01:02:11 PM
So would you say you are not a proponent of "strategic patience"?
I am a proponent of "giving Valmy shit about nukes."
As you should be. He's a noted nuke denier. Or something.
'
His arch-enemy:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2Foriginal%2F14%2F147820%2F2836178-comic_book_movie_douchebags_20110322044654563.jpg&hash=1f141040b80920be6116c1abf100ad08e279cca0)
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2015, 02:54:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 01:07:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2015, 01:02:11 PM
So would you say you are not a proponent of "strategic patience"?
I am a proponent of "giving Valmy shit about nukes."
As you should be. He's a noted nuke denier. Or something.
Nuke destrier. :wub:
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2015, 02:54:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 01:07:22 PM
I am a proponent of "giving Valmy shit about nukes."
As you should be. He's a noted nuke denier. Or something.
Most fossil fuel whores are. WHAT OZONE
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 03:02:45 PM
Most fossil fuel whores are. WHAT OZONE
Once we get our battery farms armed and operational we shall cover the world with our wind farms. Or at least the important Texas parts of it.
And no birds will survive to fly over Texas. :(
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 24, 2015, 03:19:56 PM
And no birds will survive to fly over Texas. :(
Good news for the rodent and reptile populations. :)
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 24, 2015, 03:19:56 PM
And no birds will survive to fly over Texas. :(
Texas would tell those birds to 'adapt and evolve or die!' but we have too many creationists for that. Instead we will just pray for them.
No, Texas would simply use legislation to block their access to affordable health and reproductive services. And then pray for them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 03:33:37 PM
No, Texas would simply use legislation to block their access to affordable health and reproductive services. And then pray for them.
Communism is not for the birds.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 03:33:37 PM
No, Texas would simply use legislation to block their access to affordable health and reproductive services. And then pray for them.
Before that they will require ultrasounds before all bird abortions take place.
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2015, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 03:33:37 PM
No, Texas would simply use legislation to block their access to affordable health and reproductive services. And then pray for them.
Before that they will require ultrasounds before all bird abortions take place.
Going to show pictures of the egg to the mommy bird before the mommy bird sits on it? :P
Strong words by Cameron being reported today by Polish media. Any insights, Brits?
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2015, 05:35:26 PM
Strong words by Cameron being reported today by Polish media. Any insights, Brits?
He slammed his toe into something? Spilled hot coffee?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 24, 2015, 01:57:06 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 24, 2015, 11:24:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2015, 01:36:54 AM
You make it sounds like Putin has always had Crimea/Donetsk as plan B (or even a long term plan). I disagree.
Actually, there are now reports being published (in Novaya Gazeta for example) that Russia had a plan to annex Crimea and Eastern Ukraine ready before Yanukovich even resigned.
I wouldn't be surprised that was included in Russian contingency planning. But a contingency plan is just that.
Which is also what I said. I bet Russia also has plans to nuke a number of NATO capitals. That doesn't make annexation of Crimea any less of a consolation prize for losing Ukraine.
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2015, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 03:33:37 PM
No, Texas would simply use legislation to block their access to affordable health and reproductive services. And then pray for them.
Communism is not for the birds.
Jesus disagreed. He said birds are scrounging.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2015, 05:35:26 PM
Strong words by Cameron being reported today by Polish media. Any insights, Brits?
Up coming election grandstanding, there's too much Russian money at influence in Westminster or say via the City, for the UK to take a lead over Ukraine.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/amnesty-international-slams-russia-s-rights-record/516464.html
QuoteAmnesty International Slams Russia's Rights Record
In its freshly released annual report, Amnesty International blasted Russia for a broad range of policy issues, from the heavy-handed use of its United Nations veto power, to controversial legislation serving to stifle civil society.
UN Security Council Reform
Russia wasn't the only country that fell afoul of the London-based human rights organization's standards in 2014. The global community as a whole responded to the many conflicts and rights abuses that emerged during the course of the year in a manner that was "shameful and ineffective," the report said.
Citing the general futility of recent peace efforts, Amnesty International called for reforms to the Security Council, the United Nations organ charged with maintaining international peace and security. The council has five permanent members — Russia, United Kingdom, the United States, France and China — and each enjoys veto power over council decisions. At any given time, the council also has 10 non-permanent members, comprised of UN member states serving two-year terms on a rotating basis. The non-permanent members do not enjoy veto power.
To avoid the stalemates that use of the veto power tends to foster, Amnesty International argued that the Security Council's permanent members should be made to surrender their veto rights in cases involving genocide and other mass atrocities.
Russia's right to veto has prevented the Security Council from taking truly effective action with regard to the Ukraine crisis, the report said. Since April, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has already claimed the lives of more than 5,600 people and has led to the displacement of more than one million civilians.
"We believe that permanent members of the UN Security Council should conduct themselves in a responsible way, refraining from blocking initiatives that could change or end a [conflict] situation," Anna Neistat, senior director for research at Amnesty International, told journalists on Tuesday in Moscow, indicating that Russian obstructionism had compromised international conflict resolution initiatives.
Russia has used its veto power more than any of the other permanent members of the council, having blocked 101 resolutions since the UN's establishment in 1945. By way of comparison, the United States blocked 79 resolutions during the same period.
Last March, on the eve of a Crimean referendum to secede from Ukraine, paving the way to Russia's annexation of the peninsula, Russia was the lone Security Council member to veto a resolution criticizing the vote.
In May, Russia and China blocked a draft UN resolution calling for the Syrian crisis to be referred to the International Criminal Court, thus preventing the prosecution of those responsible for crimes against humanity in a country that has been ravaged by a bloody civil war since 2011. This resolution was the fourth Russia vetoed with regard to the crisis in Syria.
Russia has already expressed its reluctance to part with its veto rights, which have faced criticism in the past for making some countries more equal than others at the United Nations. Russia's envoy to the UN, the pugnacious Vitaly Churkin, publicly opposed limitations of Russia's veto rights during the UN General Assembly in September.
Amnesty International noted in its report that it was far from optimistic about the prospect of successfully stripping world powers of their ability to obstruct UN initiatives.
"It would be very difficult to impose this [the removal of veto rights] in the UN's current framework and structure," Neistat said. "We are not talking about a complete rejection of veto rights, which can still be used in a broad array of situation. We are talking about the renouncement of veto rights in situations in which thousands of peoples' lives are being threatened."
Tensions With the West
Amnesty International's annual report lists as Russia's key human rights issues: restrictions on the fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly and association, state pressure on civil society and political activists, torture allegations and the volatile situation in the North Caucasus.
"The list of sad issues [with regard to Russia's human rights record] is quite long," said Sergei Nikitin, director of Amnesty International's Moscow office, adding that the country's human rights issues greatly outweighed positive developments in the field.
Russia's current economic woes and the deterioration of its relations with the West following the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis will likely take a toll on its human rights record, according to the organization.
The current tensions could prompt the Kremlin — which Amnesty International has accused of "muzzling the media, toxically branding NGOs as 'foreign agents' and unfairly imprisoning activists" — to grow increasingly nervous and further stifle domestic dissent, the report warned.
Amnesty International's Moscow press conference Tuesday, attended by Russian state-run, independent and foreign media outlets alike, was interspersed with awkward silences and unspoken questions surrounding Russia's alleged role in fueling strife in Ukraine and the state media's lopsided coverage of the crisis.
"What do you think of [U.S. President Barack] Obama's latest political actions toward Ukraine?" a journalist from the state-controlled NTV channel asked, echoing a narrative espoused by Russian officials about the West's responsibility for the bloodshed in Ukraine.
Neistat and Nikitin glanced at each other in apparent disbelief over the question. Journalists' reactions were mixed, with some smiling or chuckling, while others waited with bated breath for Amnesty International's take on the U.S. commander in chief. The answer wouldn't come. The organization's experts declined to comment on a question they said was political, and ill-fitted for a human rights organization to speculate on.
Later during the press conference, the Amnesty International experts deplored the global proliferation of non-state militant groups, which they said had committed human rights abuses in at least 35 countries during the course of 2014. While Neistat cited the Islamic State, Boko Haram and Al Shabab as non-governmental armed groups, one unuttered question loomed large in the cramped press room.
Finally one journalist verbalized it: Does Amnesty International also consider the pro-Russian rebels of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) and the Luhansk People's Republic (LNR) to be among their number?
"Yes" was the organization's short answer.
"Like other armed groups, the self-proclaimed DNR and LNR are faced with the absence of determined structures of command and responsibility, and the absence of [overarching] structures to pressure them, given that they are non-governmental entities," Neistat said.
"Sad" Legislation
"The situation of independent social organizations has greatly deteriorated," Nikitin said. "This is no secret to anyone because the sad 'foreign agents' law is gaining strength. There is no sign of this stopping."
In 2012, Russia tightened control over NGOs, adopting legislation that requires nongovernmental organizations to register with the Justice Ministry under the politically charged label "foreign agent" if they receive funding from abroad and conduct loosely defined "political" activity. The legislation was amended in June 2014 to allow the ministry to tag any NGO with the "foreign agent" label without its consent.
There are currently 41 nongovernmental organizations listed on the Justice Ministry's register of "foreign agents," including prominent election monitoring organization Golos and the Memorial human rights group.
Amnesty International has had its own share of run-ins with the Russian authorities. In March 2013, three representatives from the Prosecutor General's Office and tax police raided its Moscow office in a quest for documents Nikitin said could have easily been obtained from the Justice Ministry.
A few months later, Nikitin was summoned by authorities to review a technical formality in the organization's activities, a move he interpreted as an attempt by the authorities to frighten him and to remind members of Russian civil society who's really in charge.
"None of these [accused] organizations are 'foreign agents'," Nikitin said. "They are the best kind of patriots — the people who work for the benefit of their country."
Too bad Amnesty International is full of morons.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2015, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2015, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2015, 03:33:37 PM
No, Texas would simply use legislation to block their access to affordable health and reproductive services. And then pray for them.
Communism is not for the birds.
Jesus disagreed. He said birds are scrounging.
I'm worrying about what you have got against birds.
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2015, 05:19:33 AM
Too bad Amnesty International is full of morons.
Not really, they aren't. Just as any other goal-oriented NGO, such as PETA, ACLU or Greenpeace, they comment on reality strictly from the perspective of their specific agenda. I think a lot of misunderstanding of their actions comes from the fact that people expect them to act like an impartial arbiter or a policy maker, that would be supposed to balance different principles - that's not their purpose. Their purpose is to offer a point of view so that it is taken into account by policy makers - not to offer solutions.
Organisations like this are akin to prosecutors or defense attorneys in a court trial - they are to present one side of the case to the judge.
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2015, 05:19:33 AM
Too bad Amnesty International is full of morons.
Do you have any particular examples in mind?
No one takes Amnesty International seriously. They think throwing people in gaol for refusing to do military service is a bad thing FFS.
Quote from: The Brain on February 25, 2015, 11:01:40 AM
No one takes Amnesty International seriously. They think throwing people in gaol for refusing to do military service is a bad thing FFS.
:yes:
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2015, 07:12:22 AM
Organisations like this are akin to prosecutors or defense attorneys in a court trial - they are to present one side of the case to the judge.
Well presumably prosecutors/defense attorneys aim to do so without insulting the intelligence of the judge.
Not sure if you two are trolling.
PETA, ACLU and Greenpeace pretty much define retardism. You yourself threw in Amnesty with them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 23, 2015, 12:54:17 PM
Let's not exaggerate what is going on. The Russians have extended full de facto control over what they already had partial de facto control (Crimea). And they have their proxies in control of 2 out of Ukraine's remaining 23 provinces. We can't know for certain what the cost is of all this but it is high. Crimea is an utter economic basket case now, and alone will probably cost around $5 billion/year in subsidies. Sustaining Donetsk/Lugansk will be far more costly than that, and that is not taking into account the very substantial costs for the military operations there. And then there are Russian soldier casualties likely in the hundreds, and growing. All in the context of a very gloomy economic context for Russia - Chinese primary commodity demand sharply down, weak demand from the EU, plummeting oil prices, sanctions, continuing demographic deterioration and brain drain.
Putin may be playing chess but if so he is trying clever mid-game tactics after a poor opening. Russia is far worse off than pre-Maidan; it has exchanged a position of strong influence over all Ukraine to de facto control over a couple rump provinces and the implacable hatred and suspicion of much of the rest.
Putin is not a Hitler, or even a Napoleon; he is not plotting world conquest. Everything he has done makes sense if one assumes the perspective that the West has been engaged in a steady and coherent policy of eroding Russian power and extending the boundaries of its alliance system to the Russian border, and if one assumes that Russian policy is designed to be purely reactive to this as a spoiler. I am not saying that perspective represents a reality (there is no such coherent policy), only that it is perfectly reasonable to infer that Putin truly believes that and is acting accordingly.
I also think that while Putin has obvious talents in some areas he is economically ignorant. His almost neo-mercantilist type comments and his blase attitude about the economic problems in his country makes me think that his ultimate feeling is the economy isn't super important. It'll all sort itself out eventually. I don't think he acknowledges or understands the long term economic problems Russia is facing, especially since his power base is largely based on people that are super wealthy from stealing money, so to that inner circle minor things like rampant inflation and such just doesn't matter.
Aside--I find it interesting the "Axis of We Hate America", countries like Iran, Russia and Venezuela seem to think China is going to be their big check against America. The issue with that is China genuinely isn't interested in a global proxy war against the United States (war of words or any other kind.) China isn't the Soviet Union during the Cold War that bankrolled essentially failed Communist States around the world. China has bailed out Venezuela, but when they came with their hat out again the Chinese were like "okay, what are you doing to make your economy better? When can you pay this back? What is our return on investment?" Venezuelans got sent home with empty hands the second time. China is trying to create an alternative to traditional development banks and the IMF (not out of opposition but largely because America has ironclad veto control of the existing institutions and China dislikes that), but they really aren't going to be in the business of coming out on the short end of a deal with say, Venezuela, just because Venezuela's leader bashes America. The Chinese see us as rivals in some areas and important partners in others, and they certainly aren't going to just sign on the prop up Venezeula's unmaintainable economic regime.
Russia likely would never want to see itself as a "junior" to China, but there is an expectation I think that any sanctions from the West can easily be ameliorated with trade with China. The issue is, the Chinese don't care about "helping" Russia in its conflict with the West. If Russia wants to do more business, China is happy to do it--and also happy to demand price concessions because they know that Russia really has nowhere else to go so China can and has made them take a haircut.
QuoteU.S., NATO troops parade near Russian border in Estonia
TALLINN, Estonia — Troops and vehicles from U.S. and NATO regiments have taken part in a military parade during Estonia's Independence Day near the Russian border, in the first known official appearance of the forces so close to the former Cold War enemy.
Some 1,400 Estonian and multinational troops participated in the Tuesday parade in the eastern border town of Narva, separated from Russia by a narrow river. The annual independence parade is rotated between various Estonian towns.
It was the first time that American soldiers — based in the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — have paraded so close to the Russian border.
Estonia's military said Wednesday the usual flyovers by NATO fighters during such parades were not held because international regulations forbid military flights near international borders.
Michael Roos we are here!
RT: AMERICAN SHOCK TROOPS PLAN TO INVADE RUSSIA
It's RT, it's bullshit. :(
So it's being reported that Russia was planning to annex Crimea before Yanukovich fell: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/world/europe/russia-ukraine-crimea-annexation.html?_r=0
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2015, 07:12:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2015, 05:19:33 AM
Too bad Amnesty International is full of morons.
Not really, they aren't. Just as any other goal-oriented NGO, such as PETA, ACLU or Greenpeace, they comment on reality strictly from the perspective of their specific agenda. I think a lot of misunderstanding of their actions comes from the fact that people expect them to act like an impartial arbiter or a policy maker, that would be supposed to balance different principles - that's not their purpose. Their purpose is to offer a point of view so that it is taken into account by policy makers - not to offer solutions.
Organisations like this are akin to prosecutors or defense attorneys in a court trial - they are to present one side of the case to the judge.
I'll have you know that my job is to present all relevant evidence to the judge - good and bad. By doing so that gives me much more credibility with the judge than if I was a narrow partisan in the courtroom.
Quote from: Barrister on February 25, 2015, 04:58:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2015, 07:12:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2015, 05:19:33 AM
Too bad Amnesty International is full of morons.
Not really, they aren't. Just as any other goal-oriented NGO, such as PETA, ACLU or Greenpeace, they comment on reality strictly from the perspective of their specific agenda. I think a lot of misunderstanding of their actions comes from the fact that people expect them to act like an impartial arbiter or a policy maker, that would be supposed to balance different principles - that's not their purpose. Their purpose is to offer a point of view so that it is taken into account by policy makers - not to offer solutions.
Organisations like this are akin to prosecutors or defense attorneys in a court trial - they are to present one side of the case to the judge.
I'll have you know that my job is to present all relevant evidence to the judge - good and bad. By doing so that gives me much more credibility with the judge than if I was a narrow partisan in the courtroom.
Same for Amnesty International.
Even if the media sometimes portray things differently.
Since I didn't read their report, I can't say for sure, but I'm very dubious that Amnesty laid out all the fantastic benefits of increased surveillance, reduced civil liberties, etc.
Quote from: DGuller on February 25, 2015, 04:15:07 PM
It's RT, it's bullshit. :(
Of course it's bullshit. In 2010 US Soldiers paraded in Red Square as part of the Victory Day celebrations. You can't get any closer then that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2015, 06:49:26 PM
Since I didn't read their report, I can't say for sure, but I'm very dubious that Amnesty laid out all the fantastic benefits of increased surveillance, reduced civil liberties, etc.
Seems to me that Amnesty International generally lays out the facts, but is nonetheless frequently mischaracterized in the media.
To save you the trouble to go looking, here's what it says about surveillance:
QuoteSurveillance
In July, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act entered into force, extending the reach of the authorities' interception powers by providing potentially wide-ranging extraterritorial effects to UK interception warrants. Sufficient safeguards were not in place to ensure that such surveillance was authorized and carried out in conformity with the rights to privacy and freedom of expression.
In December, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) made public its open judgment in the first part of a complaint brought by Amnesty International and other NGOs about the UK authorities' communications surveillance practices. The IPT found that the authorities' surveillance practices were in accordance with the law. Significant portions of the proceedings were held in secret
Seems pretty even handed to me.
I have never regarded privacy as a fundamental right. The right is not explicitly laid out it in the constitution and everyone seemed real proud when I showed an interest in telescopes.
Jacob: I was using evidence in a different sense than you are. I was using it in the sense of pros and cons, costs and benefits, arguments for and arguments against.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2015, 07:03:42 PM
I have never regarded privacy as a fundamental right. The right is not explicitly laid out it in the constitution...
Putting aside whether fundamental rights need to be in the US constitution, the constitution does prevent unreasonable search and seizure. If the government can't search your stuff (without a reason), that seems to mean you have a right to keep in private.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2015, 07:09:22 PM
Jacob: I was using evidence in a different sense than you are. I was using it in the sense of pros and cons, costs and benefits, arguments for and arguments against.
I think you guys are talking past one another. You argue that AI doesn't present both sides of the argument, and Jake argues that they lay out the whole thing - which is to say that they lay out the only side that exists. I don't think that you are going to get him to see what you see.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 25, 2015, 07:17:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2015, 07:03:42 PM
I have never regarded privacy as a fundamental right. The right is not explicitly laid out it in the constitution...
Putting aside whether fundamental rights need to be in the US constitution...
No need to put it aside, the Ninth Amendment specifically states that they do not. The Constitution is a descriptor and limit on government power, not on the rights of the people.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2015, 07:03:42 PM
I have never regarded privacy as a fundamental right. The right is not explicitly laid out it in the constitution and everyone seemed real proud when I showed an interest in telescopes.
:lol: Mrs. Simmons has moved on to lace this season!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 25, 2015, 07:29:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2015, 07:03:42 PM
I have never regarded privacy as a fundamental right. The right is not explicitly laid out it in the constitution and everyone seemed real proud when I showed an interest in telescopes.
:lol: Mrs. Simmons has moved on to lace this season!
Finally, someone realizes that the post was not an argument but a joke.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2015, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 25, 2015, 04:15:07 PM
It's RT, it's bullshit. :(
Of course it's bullshit. In 2010 US Soldiers paraded in Red Square as part of the Victory Day celebrations. You can't get any closer then that.
Obama dropped the ball. THANKS OBAMA
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2015, 07:09:22 PM
Jacob: I was using evidence in a different sense than you are. I was using it in the sense of pros and cons, costs and benefits, arguments for and arguments against.
Fair enough.
I don't think that's Amnesty International's job, nor that it should be. Their purpose is centred around human rights. Insofar as they talk about surveillance issues, it has to do with how it impacts human rights; economic or security benefits are entirely orthogonal to their mission. In the same way, if a country is using torture or other violations of human rights to combat political opponents or crime, they are not going to spend time talking about whether the intel is actionable or whether it actually serves to keep opponents in check.
What I meant is that if there are no or fewer issues in an area of concern, or if there is progress in an area, they will mention that as well.
But yeah, they don't look at stuff peripheral or incidental to human rights concerns; they identify human rights violations and concerns globally, and track progress and regress on those issues. Which, IMO, is as it should be.
http://rt.com/politics/236007-russia-opposition-attitude-poll/
Quote'Opposition is necessary...but we wouldn't vote for them,' most Russians hold
Over half of all Russians agree that an opposition is a necessary part of the political system, but very few agreed with the current demands of opposition politicians or said that they would like to see those people in power one day.
According to the latest research by independent pollster Levada Center, the proportion of Russians who agreed with the statement that an opposition is a necessary part of the political system was 58 percent. At the same time, only 19 percent of respondents said an opposition was necessary to ensure the timely replacement of state authorities.
Some 22 percent of respondents opposed the very existence of opposition movements in the country, saying it only atomizes the community by causing unnecessary conflicts. In addition, most who hold that view see all such efforts as futile - only 15 percent said they thought that opposition activities were obstructing the authorities' work aimed at solving the problems that stand before the society.
Politicians that are considered 'non-system opposition' claimed even fewer supporters – only 3 percent of those polled said they sympathized with persons from the Solidarity Coalition and a further 12 percent said they sympathized with some parts of the Solidarity agenda. It should be noted, that the term 'non-system' was used more due to inertia of public perception as most of the personalities behind the coalition – such as Boris Nemtsov or Aleksey Navalny – already have registered political parties and participate in elections.
Levada Deputy Head Aleksey Grazhdankin said in comments to Kommersant that the current state of public mood could be explained by the absence of genuine opposition in the country and the great effort of the authorities to discredit any dissent in the eyes of the broader public. However, he did not delve into defining a 'real' opposition and pointing out its differences from projects that currently bear this name in Russian politics.
In the same poll, Levada asked the public about their attitude to the slogans proposed for the forthcoming major opposition event – the 'Spring March' scheduled for March 1. The most popular ideas were "passing laws against illegal enrichment of civil servants" with 32 percent of supporters and "ensuring the fairness of elections" with 30 percent. The 'Stopping the war in Ukraine' slogan claimed 18 percent of supporters.
Other demands garnered almost negligible support. The call to cancel the alleged censorship in mass media was shared by only 5 percent of Russian citizens, and "decentralization of power" and "release of all political prisoners" claimed 2 percent of supporters each.
However, one of the organizers of the rally, Leonid Volkov, explained the lack of support by the fact that the slogans had been developed on the basis of requests of those who regularly attend protest rallies rather than the broad public.
http://www.rferl.org/content/nemtsov-death/26873635.html
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
Quote from: Queequeg on February 27, 2015, 05:02:25 PM
http://www.rferl.org/content/nemtsov-death/26873635.html
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
is this in any way surprising, Spellus?
Being a "fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin" while actually in Russia seems like a poor choice as far as longevity goes. :hmm:
Apparently he was shot near Kremlin.
Nemtsov's fellow Kremlin critic Ilya Yashin said on Twitter that Nemtsov was shot and is "dead."
Give this writer a Pulitzer.
I remember seeing him on Anthony Bourdain's show in Russia talking to him about politics in Russia. I remember thinking, if things were so bad, would he really be going on international TV and getting away with saying the things he is saying? I guess, as it turns out...
Holy shit! I guess Putin fears absolutely nothing now.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 27, 2015, 05:23:27 PM
I remember seeing him on Anthony Bourdain's show in Russia talking to him about politics in Russia. I remember thinking, if things were so bad, would he really be going on international TV and getting away with saying the things he is saying? I guess, as it turns out...
I saw that too and thought the same thing.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2015, 05:35:26 PM
Strong words by Cameron being reported today by Polish media. Any insights, Brits?
Really? Didn't really make the news here.
But Cameron's words are always strong. It's one of his failings - like the way he often lectures about the need for NATO to spend more on defence while slashing spending at home, in fact the Tories are apparently scrapping their target for defence spending :bleeding:
We are sending advisers to Ukraine though.
What's the advice?
Yesterday was SpecOps day in Russia.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putin-establishes-new-polite-people-day-in-russia-/516675.html
QuotePutin Establishes New 'Polite People' Day in Russia
February 27 will from now on be marked in Russia as Special Operations Forces Day, according to a decree signed Thursday by President Vladimir Putin and published on the official legislative website.
The Special Operations Forces, a branch of Russian defense apparatus operating both inside the country and abroad, was formed in March 2013. The Chief of the General Staff said at the time of its creation that the new branch was inspired by the experience of "the world's leading nations," Russian media reported.
Answering its own question of why Feb. 27 was chosen as the day, an article in government newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta said: "Remember what happened and where a year ago. And how it all ended."
One year ago, mysterious troops bearing no insignia appeared in Crimea, which was shortly afterward annexed from Ukraine by Russia. The troops, who said little and declined to reveal their identity but ensured order during the annexation and subsequent referendum on joining Russia, quickly became known as "little green men" in the international media and "polite people" in Russia.
Putin initially denied that Russian troops had been dispatched to Crimea, but later admitted it.
In September 2014 State Duma deputy Igor Zotov called for the celebration of Polite People Day on October 7 — Putin's birthday.
Love that the crime site has been washed by street cleaners within hours from the shooting. :lol:
An opposition leader to Putin has been murdered! Who could have figured. What were the odds of that happening!? :ph34r:
To me, there are two truly plausible versions. The first version is that Nemtsov was killed for his investigation into Ukraine war. It's hard to imagine that any such investigations were a serious threat to Putin, but then again, plenty of people died for investigating the apartment building bombings or Chechen death squads. Maybe Putin is just so good at killing meddlesome investigators at the right time that we don't realize how dangerous they really were.
Another plausible version is that this is a Kirov moment, a double provocation. KGB kills Nemtsov to blame Putin's other targets for a provocation killing. I imagine that Putin is at least entertaining the option of cleaning the house Stalin style, while his popularity is still high on the back of war propaganda.
The opposition has canceled the big demonstration scheduled for tomorrow, which was scheduled to be one of the biggest in a while (and was already pushed out of the center by authorities into the Southern part of the city).
Quote from: Syt on February 28, 2015, 01:59:15 PM
The opposition has canceled the big demonstration scheduled for tomorrow, which was scheduled to be one of the biggest in a while (and was already pushed out of the center by authorities into the Southern part of the city).
They are going to march in memory of Nemtsov instead, going right past the Kremlin to the place of the murder.
Quote from: DGuller on February 27, 2015, 10:17:39 PM
Holy shit! I guess Putin fears absolutely nothing now.
A man who does not fear does not kill his enemies.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 27, 2015, 10:17:39 PM
Holy shit! I guess Putin fears absolutely nothing now.
A man who does not fear does not kill his enemies.
The fuck he doesn't. He kills because he can.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 27, 2015, 10:17:39 PM
Holy shit! I guess Putin fears absolutely nothing now.
A man who does not fear does not kill his enemies.
He does if it brings him joy.
Stalin killed because he feared so we can finally get beyond that comparison.
Quote from: Liep on February 28, 2015, 04:38:46 PM
Stalin killed because he feared so we can finally get beyond that comparison.
Wow! You are
just now finally getting past that comparison? :lol: Welcome to the post-1955 world!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2015, 04:35:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 27, 2015, 10:17:39 PM
Holy shit! I guess Putin fears absolutely nothing now.
A man who does not fear does not kill his enemies.
The fuck he doesn't. He kills because he can.
He's not a serial killer or a movie villain. We don't even know if he ordered it. It's possible he only indirectly responsible, labeling this guy and enemy so that fanatical Russians would kill him or one his henchmen knocked him off to curry favor with the boss. If Putin is killing high profile targets, it's because he knows the next year will be tough and he needs to clear the board of potential problems.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 05:14:10 PM
He's not a serial killer or a movie villain. We don't even know if he ordered it. It's possible he only indirectly responsible, labeling this guy and enemy so that fanatical Russians would kill him or one his henchmen knocked him off to curry favor with the boss. If Putin is killing high profile targets, it's because he knows the next year will be tough and he needs to clear the board of potential problems.
I think your theory that bloody dictators only kill people that are a potential danger to them has been shown to be false throughout history. Some kill to set an example, some kill out of spite, and some really do enjoy it.
Quote from: grumbler on February 28, 2015, 05:07:27 PM
Quote from: Liep on February 28, 2015, 04:38:46 PM
Stalin killed because he feared so we can finally get beyond that comparison.
Wow! You are just now finally getting past that comparison? :lol: Welcome to the post-1955 world!
Putin wasn't that big in 1955.
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2015, 05:25:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 05:14:10 PM
He's not a serial killer or a movie villain. We don't even know if he ordered it. It's possible he only indirectly responsible, labeling this guy and enemy so that fanatical Russians would kill him or one his henchmen knocked him off to curry favor with the boss. If Putin is killing high profile targets, it's because he knows the next year will be tough and he needs to clear the board of potential problems.
I think your theory that bloody dictators only kill people that are a potential danger to them has been shown to be false throughout history. Some kill to set an example, some kill out of spite, and some really do enjoy it.
Use history to demonstrate.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 06:57:06 PM
Use history to demonstrate.
Stalin killed plenty of enemies that have been political corpses for years, and were just trying to live their lives hoping he would forget about them. He also killed plenty of their family members, including apolitical wives. I imagine those weren't much threat to him either.
Perhaps sometimes you just gotta kill someone to keep all the other pretenders from getting ideas.
Shades of Thomas a Becket?
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 28, 2015, 07:19:46 PM
Perhaps sometimes you just gotta kill someone to keep all the other pretenders from getting ideas.
And sometimes what happens is just a simple thuggish reaction, without any political calculation. Maybe one day Putin was shown the video of Nemtsov mocking his height or cursing him out, and he just said "okay, that's enough, have that piss-ant killed". When you have absolute power, you can get away with temper tantrums like that.
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2015, 06:59:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 06:57:06 PM
Use history to demonstrate.
Stalin killed plenty of enemies that have been political corpses for years, and were just trying to live their lives hoping he would forget about them. He also killed plenty of their family members, including apolitical wives. I imagine those weren't much threat to him either.
The man was paranoid, he killed people who he
thought were dangerous.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 07:45:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2015, 06:59:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 06:57:06 PM
Use history to demonstrate.
Stalin killed plenty of enemies that have been political corpses for years, and were just trying to live their lives hoping he would forget about them. He also killed plenty of their family members, including apolitical wives. I imagine those weren't much threat to him either.
The man was paranoid, he killed people who he thought were dangerous.
Saddam Hussein sure enjoyed killing people for sport and murder boner.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 27, 2015, 10:17:39 PM
Holy shit! I guess Putin fears absolutely nothing now.
A man who does not fear does not kill his enemies.
No man in history was more scared than Genghis Khan. :(
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2015, 07:24:21 PM
And sometimes what happens is just a simple thuggish reaction, without any political calculation.
Especially when a country, like Putin's Russia, becomes the ideal of what a country looks like when it's run by the Mob. Nazi Germany was run by street thugs, but today's Russia? It's Goodfellas in track suits.
Newly released footage of the shooter and getaway vechicle:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F702%2F078%2Ff0b.gif&hash=f7ed2ad024a75c9dde06a7d2c63c2db9244b27eb)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2015, 08:08:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2015, 07:24:21 PM
And sometimes what happens is just a simple thuggish reaction, without any political calculation.
Especially when a country, like Putin's Russia, becomes the ideal of what a country looks like when it's run by the Mob. Nazi Germany was run by street thugs, but today's Russia? It's Goodfellas in track suits.
:yes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2015, 08:08:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2015, 07:24:21 PM
And sometimes what happens is just a simple thuggish reaction, without any political calculation.
Especially when a country, like Putin's Russia, becomes the ideal of what a country looks like when it's run by the Mob. Nazi Germany was run by street thugs, but today's Russia? It's Goodfellas in track suits.
Probably. One of my instructors once went on quite a bit about how Putin's mannerisms and way of speaking were in line with Russian "mobster" mannerisms.
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2015, 07:24:21 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 28, 2015, 07:19:46 PM
Perhaps sometimes you just gotta kill someone to keep all the other pretenders from getting ideas.
And sometimes what happens is just a simple thuggish reaction, without any political calculation. Maybe one day Putin was shown the video of Nemtsov mocking his height or cursing him out, and he just said "okay, that's enough, have that piss-ant killed". When you have absolute power, you can get away with temper tantrums like that.
But he doesn't have absolute power. He's not a totalitarian. He's not a Hitler or a Stalin. He's strongman with nukes. He's a Caudillo. He's not even a Mussolini. He's a Noriega. A Somoza. A Milosovic. While I'm sure he'd like us to think he's unassailable in his power, he's not. His victory in Crimea did a lot of bolster his power, but he must remain popular. He must either deliver the goods, distract people with nationalism, or actually turn Russia into a totalitarian dictatorship to remain in power. So far he has managed to deliver the goods. The economy has been strong, he beat Georgia and took Crimea. The war in Ukraine is uncertain and economy looks to weaken so we nationalism being played up more. He might be able to turn it into a totalitarian state, but that takes an enormous amount of energy.
You have to also remember that Russia is a federation, which in this particular case means it is built along pseudo-feudal/mob-like lines. Local governors will slip away from Moscow's grasp the first opportunity they get - not necessarily going into an open rebellion, but keeping more and more of their lands' riches for themselves, thus starving Moscow of cash even more.
And if Putin no longer has cash, they will simply start pursuing their own politics - e.g. by getting closer with Japan and China (in the Far East, for example).
So I can imagine Russia becoming eventually a semi-totalitarian state (like today's Belarus) but with its de facto authority reduced to Muscovy.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 08:17:17 PM
Newly released footage of the shooter and getaway vechicle:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F702%2F078%2Ff0b.gif&hash=f7ed2ad024a75c9dde06a7d2c63c2db9244b27eb)
:lol:
Quote from: Liep on February 28, 2015, 06:54:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 28, 2015, 05:07:27 PM
Quote from: Liep on February 28, 2015, 04:38:46 PM
Stalin killed because he feared so we can finally get beyond that comparison.
Wow! You are just now finally getting past that comparison? :lol: Welcome to the post-1955 world!
Putin wasn't that big in 1955.
And Stalin wasn't that alive.
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2015, 01:33:59 PM
And Stalin wasn't that alive.
Once again I think we're talking about two different things, or at least I hope we are.
Quote from: Liep on March 01, 2015, 03:54:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2015, 01:33:59 PM
And Stalin wasn't that alive.
Once again I think we're talking about two different things, or at least I hope we are.
The only proper noun you have used so far in your argument is "Stalin," so that is what I have to go on. Generally speaking, Stalin hasn't been seen as a good guy since maybe 1955 - in 1956, the Secret Speech kinda made that impossible.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2015, 12:54:06 AM
But he doesn't have absolute power. He's not a totalitarian. He's not a Hitler or a Stalin. He's strongman with nukes. He's a Caudillo. He's not even a Mussolini. He's a Noriega. A Somoza. A Milosovic. While I'm sure he'd like us to think he's unassailable in his power, he's not. His victory in Crimea did a lot of bolster his power, but he must remain popular. He must either deliver the goods, distract people with nationalism, or actually turn Russia into a totalitarian dictatorship to remain in power. So far he has managed to deliver the goods. The economy has been strong, he beat Georgia and took Crimea. The war in Ukraine is uncertain and economy looks to weaken so we nationalism being played up more. He might be able to turn it into a totalitarian state, but that takes an enormous amount of energy.
He is also a post soviet politician. A number of those states have developed into one party states that are ostensibly democracies with similarities to Putin's Russia. We think of democracy as tending toward competitive elections with turnover in government, and apply those expectations to Russia and expect Putin to be subject to the same forces. And he might be--see Milosovic for a post communist ruler that was. But it seems in a lot of post Soviet countries that isn't materializing.
Most of the post Soviet Republics never really were democracies in the Western sense. Russia never was. As far as I know the only former Soviet Republics that turned in to liberal democracies are the Baltic states.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2015, 08:40:59 PM
Most of the post Soviet Republics never really were democracies in the Western sense. Russia never was. As far as I know the only former Soviet Republics that turned in to liberal democracies are the Baltic states.
Ukraine and Georgia have also had competitive elections resulting in governments turning over, though in both cases epic levels of failure have been reached.
Azerbaijan and Armenia may be more informative. Both are deeply fucked up. Armenia is dreadfully poor, and while Azerbaijan is better off they are still amazingly uncompetitive considering the oil they are sitting on. Russia looks great compared to both of them. In both countries there are actually developed protest movements--especially in Armenia. The elections they have aren't necessarily fair--but then I don't think anyone believes the cheating is altering the outcome of elections. The opposition just doesn't have the popularity.
I really can't speak to what is going on in the mindset of the public, but I'm not sure they have the same mentality as us regarding their leadership. Russia is a country where Stalin ruled in living memory and a decent chunk of the population remembers those times as the good old days.
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2015, 07:08:11 PM
Quote from: Liep on March 01, 2015, 03:54:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2015, 01:33:59 PM
And Stalin wasn't that alive.
Once again I think we're talking about two different things, or at least I hope we are.
The only proper noun you have used so far in your argument is "Stalin," so that is what I have to go on. Generally speaking, Stalin hasn't been seen as a good guy since maybe 1955 - in 1956, the Secret Speech kinda made that impossible.
I know, but I was referring to the previous post about Putin having no fear. Should I have quoted it? Perhaps, but usually a comparison requires two nouns so I figured people would know. Anyhoo, it wasn't really a serious post.
Quote from: Liep on March 02, 2015, 03:27:25 AM
I know, but I was referring to the previous post about Putin having no fear. Should I have quoted it? Perhaps, but usually a comparison requires two nouns so I figured people would know. Anyhoo, it wasn't really a serious post.
Ah. I didn't get that it wasn't serious. If your argument was "please don't compare Putin to Stalin," I'd agree. That's a bad comparison by any intellectual standards.
On RT.com, Nemtsov has already disappeared from the front page, except for Op-Edge: "'Nemtsov killing godsend for anybody against a strong Russia'", "Western media reaction to Nemtsov's murder is 'absolutely outrageous'".
And there's a picture of the memorial march, but the only caption reads: "Photo of the Day: Police say at least 21,000 people attended the event. Opposition member Sergey Davidis said nearly 50,000 people participated in the march."
Putin has said he's going to do all he can to find the killer. So he should be meeting with OJ Simpson for advice.
WEll, on the plus side Putin is almost certainly uniquely capable of finding the killer quickly...
Quote from: KRonn on March 02, 2015, 02:18:58 PM
Putin has said he's going to do all he can to find the killer. So he should be meeting with OJ Simpson for advice.
He'll do all to find the killer to congratulate him.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2015, 12:54:06 AM
He might be able to turn it into a totalitarian state, but that takes an enormous amount of energy.
Is an old school totalitarian state possible in this day and age? I mean besides North Korea which had the advantage of being set up before the Internet.
Maybe in the future once governments get a firmer grip on electronic communications.
Seems to me Putin, and his imitators, are just doing the best they can under the circumstances.
http://tass.ru/en/russia/780676
QuoteRussian lawmaker says pro-American opposition in Russia is weak
The chairman of the Russian State Duma foreign policy committee claims existence of Russian Maidan scenario
MOSCOW, March 3. /TASS/. Scarcely any mass movement in Russia is ready to turn into a mouthpiece of the US, believes Alexey Pushkov, the chairman of the Russian State Duma foreign policy committee.
He said in an interview published by the Izvestia daily Tuesday that several scenarios of an 'orange revolution' in Russia had been drafted. Among them he named a scenario of the Russian Maidan, with Moscow's Bolotnaya square regarded as a stand-in for Kiev's Independence Square.
"Participants in the Bolotnaya square protests (organized by Russia's off-parliament political opposition - TASS) were viewed as a promising movement that needed informational and political support," Dr. Pushkov said.
"Today the US maintains close contacts with the radical pro-American opposition personified by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Garri Kasparov, Mikhail Kasyanov and others," he said. "Their political prospects in Russia are dismal but the US simply doesn't have a better choice."
"Not a single mass movement in Russia is prepared to take on the role of a US mouthpiece," Dr. Pushkov said with confidence.
He said the situation looked bizarre when Khodorkovsky de facto announced the start of his presidential race at the headquarters of Freedom House, which is 90% financed by the US Department of State.
"This means he positions himself from the very beginning as a political stuntman of the US and this surely won't boost his popularity in Russia," Dr. Pushkov said. "These people are simply used to careen the political situation here in this country."
Last but not least, Washington has been probing into a possibility of economic destabilization in Russia, which might bring to existence mass protest movements and call President Vladimir Putin's authority and influence into question, he said.
"It's true that such scenarios do exist but the big question is to what degree they are implementable," Dr. Pushkov said.
This is bizarre. There's people in Russian pockets in most Western countries (FN, some lunatic fringe in Germany, etc.), but it would seem bizarre if not insane for a parliament speaker in those countries in this day and age to go and determine that while Russia is angling for deposing the current governments and desperately seeking allies for this, there's nothing to fear, because the brave French/Germans will not fall for the puppets of the Kremlin. This hysterical paranoia mindset just seems so alien in 2015.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 09:19:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2015, 12:54:06 AM
He might be able to turn it into a totalitarian state, but that takes an enormous amount of energy.
Is an old school totalitarian state possible in this day and age? I mean besides North Korea which had the advantage of being set up before the Internet.
Maybe in the future once governments get a firmer grip on electronic communications.
Seems to me Putin, and his imitators, are just doing the best they can under the circumstances.
You're assuming that access to Internet necessarily counters propaganda. I think that's a delusion. The goal of the propaganda is not to fool people directly, but to make them unwilling to seek or accept the truth, and Putin shows how that can work spectacularly well. There are plenty of Russian brain-washed zombies roaming the Internet. They just think that everyone not consuming Putin's propaganda is the brainwashed one.
Quote from: DGuller on March 03, 2015, 09:48:34 AM
You're assuming that access to Internet necessarily counters propaganda. I think that's a delusion. The goal of the propaganda is not to fool people directly, but to make them unwilling to seek or accept the truth, and Putin shows how that can work spectacularly well. There are plenty of Russian brain-washed zombies roaming the Internet. They just think that everyone not consuming Putin's propaganda is the brainwashed one.
True but the spell would break as they get screwed by a policy or bureaucratic bungle. Then people would want an alternative narrative and it would be out there. If Putin can keep everybody happy then, sure. But no state has ever managed that despite its best efforts. Well ok maybe Monaco or someplace where the rulers know every citizen personally.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 09:51:11 AM
True but the spell would break as they get screwed by a policy or bureaucratic bungle.
I don't think so. There are always ways to believe that whatever your suffering is, it was caused by the opponents of the person actually bringing about the suffering, or their rogue subordinates. Russians already know full well that their government is full of sociopath crooks, and yet that doesn't prevent 86% of them from supporting the head sociopath crook.
Meanwhile, the propaganda aimed at foreign consumption (RT leading the field) doesn't seem so much to tout the Gospel According to Vladimir, but rather obfuscates and blurs what's truth and what's spin with the aim of creating a climate of distrust of all media - and paid cohorts and useful idiots in the comments sections of news sites are fostering the climate of not believing anything the media say on certain topics, or that all media have a dark agenda and shouldn't be trusted (unless you're a self proclaimed harbinger of truth with a YouTube channel of badly edited videos that unmask the TRUE TRUTH).
Quote from: DGuller on March 03, 2015, 09:55:04 AMThere are always ways to believe that whatever your suffering is, it was caused by the opponents of the person actually bringing about the suffering, or their rogue subordinates.
A popular saying in the Third Reich was, "Wenn das der Führer wüsste ..." (If the Führer knew about this ...).
Quote from: Syt on March 03, 2015, 09:57:18 AM
A popular saying in the Third Reich was, "Wenn das der Führer wüsste ..." (If the Führer knew about this ...).
Hitler's management strategy actually included this, I believe. He made sure it was hard to trace any policy directly back to him in case it proved a failure or unpopular.
Quote from: DGuller on March 03, 2015, 09:48:34 AM
The goal of the propaganda is not to fool people directly, but to make them unwilling to seek or accept the truth, and Putin shows how that can work spectacularly well. There are plenty of Russian brain-washed zombies roaming the Internet. They just think that everyone not consuming Putin's propaganda is the brainwashed one.
You've had Republicans stand up and claim there's been everything from Communists to the Muslim Brotherhood in Congress since Obama's been in the White House, and they only control both houses of Congress now.
Quote from: Syt on March 03, 2015, 09:56:08 AM
Meanwhile, the propaganda aimed at foreign consumption (RT leading the field) doesn't seem so much to tout the Gospel According to Vladimir, but rather obfuscates and blurs what's truth and what's spin with the aim of creating a climate of distrust of all media - and paid cohorts and useful idiots in the comments sections of news sites are fostering the climate of not believing anything the media say on certain topics, or that all media have a dark agenda and shouldn't be trusted (unless you're a self proclaimed harbinger of truth with a YouTube channel of badly edited videos that unmask the TRUE TRUTH).
A very internet age propaganda strategy. Plenty of western parties use it well.
Quote from: Syt on March 03, 2015, 09:56:08 AM
Meanwhile, the propaganda aimed at foreign consumption (RT leading the field) doesn't seem so much to tout the Gospel According to Vladimir, but rather obfuscates and blurs what's truth and what's spin with the aim of creating a climate of distrust of all media - and paid cohorts and useful idiots in the comments sections of news sites are fostering the climate of not believing anything the media say on certain topics, or that all media have a dark agenda and shouldn't be trusted (unless you're a self proclaimed harbinger of truth with a YouTube channel of badly edited videos that unmask the TRUE TRUTH).
Plays also into the notion that if there are "two sides", the savvy person ought to seek the truth somewhere inbetween them - very prevelent these days. There is a positive allergy to stating that one side is more or less the good guys and the other more or less the bad guys no matter what the situation. That way the propogandist can shift the goalposts simply by persistantly making outrageous claims - sure, they are extreme, but the assumption becomes that their opponents are equally extreme and the truth lies in the middle.
Though ISIS and Putin are, between them, putting some strain on that ...
Should we murder 12 million? :hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on March 03, 2015, 11:33:46 AM
Should we murder 12 million? :hmm:
That is just fucking crazy, can't you be reasonable and compromise on just murdering say 4 million? Maybe 6 at the outside?
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2015, 12:06:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 03, 2015, 11:33:46 AM
Should we murder 12 million? :hmm:
That is just fucking crazy, can't you be reasonable and compromise on just murdering say 4 million? Maybe 6 at the outside?
6 million and we'll kick in some ball bearings.
Well, authorities are investigating in all directions:
http://tass.ru/en/russia/780841
Quote[...]
"Versions are still the same: this was probably a provocation aimed at destabilizing the political situation in the country," Markin said. "A version linked to an Islamic-extremist trace is also being worked on."
"The possible relation to the Ukrainian events is considered among others. There are radical persons not obeying any authorities among both conflicting sides. But investigators do not rule out versions connected with Nemtsov's financial activity, personal enmity and a number of other common motives either," he said.
[...]
Not to be outdone by the American wars on nouns (terror, drugs, poverty ...), Russia declares war on colors:
http://rt.com/politics/237581-russia-revolution-experts-strategy/
QuoteSecurity experts shape Russian strategy to counter color revolutions - report
The research body with Russia's Security Council will soon present a detailed plan of action aimed at preventing forced regime changes through mass unrest, known as the "color revolutions," a popular daily reported.
The research center is headed by the Security Council's secretary Nikolai Patrushev, who was the director of Russia's Federal Security Service, the FSB, between 1999 and 2008 – during Vladimir Putin's first two presidential terms.
According to Kommersant daily, the center is in charge of evaluation and forecasting various external and internal threats that could affect the country's socio-economic development and national security.
The newspaper quoted an unnamed source close to the top law enforcement command, saying that Russian officials are taking the threat of a "color revolution" in the country more seriously, and the issue will likely be on the agenda of the nearest session of the Security Council dedicated to international relations.
The Security Council prepared a list of proposed measures that could negate the possible threat.
The daily quoted one of the experts, former security officer and now a professor at Moscow State University, Andrey Manoilo, who said the council supports a complex approach to the problem that would include measures against "network protest activities" and propaganda work against "romantic revolutionary stereotype," which attracts a lot of people in the protest movements.
"Any color revolution presents itself as a natural manifestation of the people's will, while in reality it is a chain of actions pre-planned from abroad on a very precise pattern. We can fight it only by breaking the technology chain," Manoilo told reporters.
President Vladimir Putin again addressed the dangers of color revolutions at Wednesday's session of the Interior Ministry's committee. "The extremists' actions become more complicated. We are facing attempts to use the so called 'color technologies' in organizing illegal street protests to open propaganda of hatred and strife on social networks," he said.
In November last year, Putin named color revolutions as a main tool used by forces that seek to reshape the world.
"In the modern world extremism is used as a geopolitical tool for redistribution of spheres of interest. We can see the tragic consequences of the wave of the so-called color revolutions, the shock experienced by people in the countries that went through the irresponsible experiments of hidden, or sometimes brute and direct interference with their lives," the Russian leader said.
Putin also noted in his speech that everyone advocating the freedom of assembly and expression must remember the responsibility that comes together with these rights.
However, Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that the fight against extremism must not turn into a campaign against dissidents. "All people have the right to suggest solutions for and approaches to current problems, and they have the right to form parties and groups, to participate in elections and fight for power," Putin told the Security Council members in November. "The most important thing is to ensure that the process of realizing citizens' political preferences is civilized and strictly within the framework of the law," he said.
And a fun little nugget from an interview with the director of NGO "Russian European Community" (Belgium), Sergei Petrosov
http://english.pravda.ru/news/society/stories/04-03-2015/129962-life_europe_russia-0/
Quote"What is it that Europe has and Russia does not have?"
"I do not see anything like this. It's all the same in shops and in the streets. Services are the same. Freedoms are the same. In the past, people wanted to move to Europe, because they could not find some beautiful things in Russia, and they could not find freedom in the first place.
Now, Russia is a lot freer than the majority of European countries. This applies to expressing one's views on various issues, expressing opinions about the government and so on."
(The gist of the interview is moving abroad as Russian is hard, the mentality, language and culture is too different, and basically people should stay in Russia. And the economy in the West is in bad shape, so there's no jobs. Also, if people go abroad, they should have to register with Russian consulates.)
Quote from: Syt on March 04, 2015, 01:31:29 PM
Quote
Now, Russia is a lot freer than the majority of European countries. This applies to expressing one's views on various issues, expressing opinions about the government and so on."
Okay, now *that* is funny. :D
I also liked this:
QuoteThey have big problems when it comes to employment and education, they may have conflicts with neighbors, ...
Evidently, the Russian nation echoes the issues faced by the Russian people ... ;)
I like pravda.ru, because it's one of the few outlets that gives you an impression of the Russian domestic propaganda without having to learn Russian. Sputnik, RT, ITAR-TASS are much more aimed at outside consumption and is heavily toned down from what I understand.
Quote"What is it that Europe has and Russia does not have?"
It is more about what Russia does have: Russian winters.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 01:56:10 PM
Quote"What is it that Europe has and Russia does not have?"
It is more about what Russia does have: Russian winters.
But no springs, clearly.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 04, 2015, 03:04:48 PM
But no springs, clearly.
:lol:
Nope. None at all :(
Quote from: Solmyr on March 04, 2015, 03:04:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 01:56:10 PM
Quote"What is it that Europe has and Russia does not have?"
It is more about what Russia does have: Russian winters.
But no springs, clearly.
:lol:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-magazine-features-putin-being-licked-by-bear-for-women-s-day/517039.html
QuoteA magazine in central Russia has published a celebratory issue in honor of upcoming International Women's Day featuring a cover picture of President Vladimir Putin being licked by a bear.
The cover of the Most magazine, Russian for "Bridge," — which is published in Saratov and available as a PDF version online — has been released ahead of the March 8 holiday and shows a drawing of a brown-colored bear sticking out its tongue to lick a smiling Putin on his cheek.
It is accompanied by a caption that reads: "Happy March 8, girls!"
While the magazine offers no explanation on what Putin or the bear have to do with International Women's Day, Russian media have suggested that a flower depicted in the general proximity of the bear's ear shows the animal is female.
The magazine, billed as a publication "for young people in Saratov," also lists a selection of the issue's highlights on its cover, with headlines such as: " The ideal young woman — our survey," and "Saratov's best brides."
The magazine was launched recently by the youth faction of the ruling United Russia party, and is expected to be distributed free of charge around the city, local Versia news portal has reported.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themoscowtimes.com%2Fupload%2Fiblock%2F934%2FPutin-bear-magazine.jpg&hash=5b1415f102dd005b4e16a071906c5f74d0b0f112)
Just be glad it only depicts the bear licking Putin's face.
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2015, 10:06:01 AM
Just be glad it only depicts the bear licking Putin's face.
In Putin's Russia, the Bear finds you....
Quote from: KRonn on March 05, 2015, 01:34:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2015, 10:06:01 AM
Just be glad it only depicts the bear licking Putin's face.
In Putin's Russia, the Bear finds you....
... bear finds you DELICIOUS!!!
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2015, 01:55:29 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 05, 2015, 01:34:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 05, 2015, 10:06:01 AM
Just be glad it only depicts the bear licking Putin's face.
In Putin's Russia, the Bear finds you....
... bear finds you DELICIOUS!!!
Yeah but they generally don't actually eat you. More like suck you dry and then want to eat some lunch with you. :unsure:
http://rt.com/politics/238325-nato-seeks-maidan-russia/
QuoteNATO seeks regime change in Russia - envoy
The latest statements by the deputy head of NATO testify to the fact that the leaders of the bloc want to intervene in Russia's internal politics, and are "dreaming of Russian Maidan." This is the view of Russia's permanent envoy to NATO.
"The speech in Riga demonstrates the concern about Russia's democracy and internal policy. At last, now we know that NATO has a dream, and this dream is a Maidan in Russia," Aleksandr Grushko said in comment that was tweeted through the Russian representation office in the alliance.
Grushko referred to the words of NATO's deputy secretary general, Alexander Vershbow, who had told a conference in the Latvian capital Riga that President Vladimir Putin's "aim seems to be to turn Ukraine into a failed state and to suppress and discredit alternative voices in Russia, so as to prevent a Russian 'Maidan.'" Both officials used the Ukrainian word 'Maidan' to describe a string of protest actions that eventually turned into mass unrest and the ousting of the legally elected president and parliament.
"By demonizing Russia, NATO creates a virtual reality, disconnecting itself from real threats to security," the Russian envoy said.
Grushko added that NATO itself has used "hybrid warfare" against foreign states and now the alliance is attempting to accuse Russia of starting such a war in Ukraine.
"NATO has a long history of hybrid operations. Any country or organization can take a lesson from it. We have earlier seen these signs of military intimidation, hidden involvement, weapons supplies,economic blackmail, diplomatic duplicity, mass media manipulations and open disinformation," the Russian envoy stated.
"The statement made in Riga is yet another set of arguments seeking only to justify NATO's confrontational attitude to Russia," he said.
"It is not likely that NATO has the right to consider itself the sole source of truth. The alliance has repeatedly discredited itself by spreading false information both about its own behavior and about the actions of others," Grushko said in conclusion. "Not many will follow NATO's advice to return to the times of the Cold War," he forecasted.
In October last year, Grushko urged Western nations to acknowledge their policy faults and improve relations with Russia.
"We and our Western partners, first of all Europe, must recognize that their policies of the past few years are only deepening the dividing lines between Russia and Europe, and this is extremely dangerous," the Russian diplomat said. "The West must eventually acknowledge the fact that the mechanical implementation of its recent policies is leading itself into a dead end."
I love the logic.
"Putin is taking fire prevention measures."
"ZOMG NATO wnats to torch Russia!!!111oneeleven"
The Russian Officials say things that are so insane you just have to shake your head.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 10:11:58 AM
The Russian Officials say things that are so insane you just have to shake your head.
Shake your head twice because that insanity is lapped up by the public who believe the stuff! :huh:
Or probably they choose to believe it because the truth of what's going on will make their heads explode.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 10:11:58 AM
The Russian Officials say things that are so insane you just have to shake your head.
I don't know if Russia is becoming more like your average Russian chick, or if Russian chicks are just like Mother Russia: high maintenance, jealous to the point of paranoia and overall just pretty fucking full of themselves.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 10:11:58 AM
The Russian Officials say things that are so insane you just have to shake your head.
It seems to me that they're following the (now) old playbook of projecting their own tactics on others and denouncing them.
Makes sense... it shifts the narrative, makes objective assessment harder, and if they're ever busted it's in the context of "everyone does it" not "we're doing something uniquely terrible."
Quote from: Jacob on March 06, 2015, 03:36:25 PM
It seems to me that they're following the (now) old playbook of projecting their own tactics on others and denouncing them.
Makes sense... it shifts the narrative, makes objective assessment harder, and if they're ever busted it's in the context of "everyone does it" not "we're doing something uniquely terrible."
I think that is exactly right. :yes: All this blah-blah about false flag attacks does make me wonder again about blown up apartment buildings in 1999.
The system works!
http://rt.com/news/238653-suspects-nemtsov-murder-detained/
Quote2 suspects in Nemtsov murder detained - FSB chief
Two suspects in the high-profile murder of opposition politician Boris Nemtsov have been detained, the Federal Security Service (FSB) reported.
According to FSB chief Aleksandr Bortnikov, the suspects were identified as Anzor Gubashev and Zaur Dadayev.
Bortnikov said both suspects come from Russia's southern region of the North Caucasus, a wretched hive of scum and villainy restive place with insurgency and crime problems.
The investigation into the crime is ongoing, he added, speaking to Russian media.
Nemstov, a former Russian governor and deputy prime minister, who became a prominent opposition figure in the early 2000s, was gunned down in central Moscow on February 27. The assassination triggered worldwide condemnation and calls for swift investigation.
The politician was killed on a bridge over the Moscow River near the Kremlin as he was returning home with a female companion. The shooter hit Nemtsov in the back four times and fled in a getaway car.
The crime is being investigated by a joint task force, which includes the police, the FSB and the Investigative Committee.
The prime witness to the crime, Ukrainian model, Anna Duritskaya, who was accompanying Nemtsov, has since returned to Kiev. She told the media she was unable to identify the killer.
The killing happened two days ahead of an opposition rally Nemtsov helped organize. The rally was replaced with a mourning march in central Moscow, which drew tens of thousands of people.
And now Yakov Rubinsky will step in and close the case for Putin. How convenient.
Some North Caucasians?
Maybe the Kremlin will spin this into a "he was involved with terrorists, but things went bad Doc Emmet Brown style and they went after him on a hit". Discrediting the martyr/opposition is always a good propaganda play.
(https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11050709_10155273771750483_6790378205693223018_n.jpg?oh=3ee196a3b2b7f05f0c076a5f306c9561&oe=557DB999)
What are we looking at now?
There's unconventional, then kinky, then perverted, then downright nasty. Finally, Russia at the far end of the scale.
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2015, 09:10:16 PM
What are we looking at now?
Sometimes those little flag toons Spellus posts are decipherable, and then sometimes they're like--
http://youtu.be/Ubckx7X2Nd4
I generally like Polandball comics, but that one is weird.
Call off the search; one of the arrested Chechens has confessed to the murder. Shame on all you who thought Putin was behind this. Shame.
"...and they drag out a badly beaten bear, who is screaming, 'OK, I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!'"
Quote6th suspect in Boris Nemtsov's killing dies in suicide, report says
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/07/europe/russia-nemtsov-murder-arrest/index.html
Beslan Shavanov, 30, was holed up in a building in Grozny when police arrived to arrest him Saturday afternoon, Russia 24 reported. Police surrounded the building and Shavano tried to escape, throwing a grenade at police officers before blowing himself up, the station said.
Quote from: Liep on March 08, 2015, 08:33:33 AM
Call off the search; one of the arrested Chechens has confessed to the murder. Shame on all you who thought Putin was behind this. Shame.
I doubt the Chechens could have pulled this off single handedly. I expect evidence to soon turn up of assistance from homosexual activists, ukrainians, and the syrian opposition. They all have the motive to discredit Putin, and it would take such a coalition to pull off such a daring attack.
It goes without saying that such a coalition could only be put together by the CIA.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 03, 2015, 09:56:08 AM
Meanwhile, the propaganda aimed at foreign consumption (RT leading the field) doesn't seem so much to tout the Gospel According to Vladimir, but rather obfuscates and blurs what's truth and what's spin with the aim of creating a climate of distrust of all media - and paid cohorts and useful idiots in the comments sections of news sites are fostering the climate of not believing anything the media say on certain topics, or that all media have a dark agenda and shouldn't be trusted (unless you're a self proclaimed harbinger of truth with a YouTube channel of badly edited videos that unmask the TRUE TRUTH).
Plays also into the notion that if there are "two sides", the savvy person ought to seek the truth somewhere inbetween them - very prevelent these days. There is a positive allergy to stating that one side is more or less the good guys and the other more or less the bad guys no matter what the situation. That way the propogandist can shift the goalposts simply by persistantly making outrageous claims - sure, they are extreme, but the assumption becomes that their opponents are equally extreme and the truth lies in the middle.
Though ISIS and Putin are, between them, putting some strain on that ...
Yeah, "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" is one of the most harmful and widespread fallacies of the modern world.
24/7 news programmes are one of the reasons - you need to provide content and nothing gives you the content for "free" like getting a proponent of some policy or stance and then putting him in the same room as someone who believes exactly the opposite.
Kadyrov opening his big trap again:
http://tass.ru/en/russia/781728
QuoteChechen leader says he knows Nemtsov murder suspect as "true patriot of Russia"
Ramzan Kadyrov said Zaur Dadayev would have never taken a single step against Russia
MOSCOW, 9 March. /TASS/. Chechnya's head Ramzan Kadyrov has ordered a probe into the past of a former Interior Troops officer, who alongside several other suspects has been charged with the murder of Russian politician Boris Nemtsov. Also, Kadyrov shared his personal impressions of the arrested ex-officer on his page in the social network Instagram.
The man in question, Zaur Dadayev, on Sunday pleaded guilty to complicity in Nemtsov's murder. Moscow's Basmanny Court ordered he, among five suspects in the case, be remanded in custody till April 28.
"I have known Zaur as a true patriot of Russia," Kadyrov wrote down. According to his post, before leaving the military service Dadayev had the rank of a lieutenant and held the position of a battalion's deputy commander in a regiment of the 46th separate operative brigade of Russia's Interior Ministry troops.
"Zaur was one of the bravest men in the regiment," Kadyrov said. "He displayed particular courage in an operation against a large group of terrorists near Benoi. He was awarded the Order of Courage, and medals For Bravery and For Services to the Chechen Republic. I am certain that he was sincerely dedicated to Russia and prepared to give his life for the Motherland. The real reasons and motives behind Dadayev's dismissal from the Russian Interior Ministry troops are unclear to me."
"I have instructed Chechnya's Security Council Secretary Vakhit Usmayev to conduct a thorough investigation of Zaur Dadayev's resignation and to scrutinize his behavior and morale on the eve of leaving the service," Kadyrov said. "In any case, if Dadayev's guilt is established in court, it will have to be admitted that by taking a human life he committed a grave crime. But I must say once again that he would have never taken a single step against Russia, for the sake of which he had risked his own life for many years. Beslan Shavanov, the man killed during an attempt to detain him, was a brave soldier, too. We hope that a thorough investigation will follow to show if Dadayev is really guilty, and if yes, what was the real reason behind his actions.".
I guess Kadyrov will be disposed of very quickly when he's no longer of use to Moscow, but for the time being he keeps the Chechens in line (mostly).
He didn't get the memo.
Quote from: Martinus on March 09, 2015, 01:30:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 03, 2015, 09:56:08 AM
Meanwhile, the propaganda aimed at foreign consumption (RT leading the field) doesn't seem so much to tout the Gospel According to Vladimir, but rather obfuscates and blurs what's truth and what's spin with the aim of creating a climate of distrust of all media - and paid cohorts and useful idiots in the comments sections of news sites are fostering the climate of not believing anything the media say on certain topics, or that all media have a dark agenda and shouldn't be trusted (unless you're a self proclaimed harbinger of truth with a YouTube channel of badly edited videos that unmask the TRUE TRUTH).
Plays also into the notion that if there are "two sides", the savvy person ought to seek the truth somewhere inbetween them - very prevelent these days. There is a positive allergy to stating that one side is more or less the good guys and the other more or less the bad guys no matter what the situation. That way the propogandist can shift the goalposts simply by persistantly making outrageous claims - sure, they are extreme, but the assumption becomes that their opponents are equally extreme and the truth lies in the middle.
Though ISIS and Putin are, between them, putting some strain on that ...
Yeah, "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" is one of the most harmful and widespread fallacies of the modern world.
24/7 news programmes are one of the reasons - you need to provide content and nothing gives you the content for "free" like getting a proponent of some policy or stance and then putting him in the same room as someone who believes exactly the opposite.
Yeah.
Believing your nation's own narrative to events is the only possibly correct have one have averted many a disasters in the 20th century.
So yeah, they're playing the Islamist angle on the Nemtsov assassination:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/one-of-nemtsov-murder-suspects-served-in-chechen-police-unit/517141.html
QuoteSuspect Charged With Nemtsov Murder Was 'Devout Muslim'
Russian authorities on Sunday charged two men over the killing of Kremlin critic Boris Nemtsov and said one of them was a former senior policeman from the mainly Muslim region of Chechnya who had confessed to involvement in the crime.
The two were among five men, all ethnic Chechens, frogmarched into a Moscow courtroom on Sunday, forced by masked security officers gripping their bound arms to walk doubled over, a reporter at the court said.
The men stood in metal cages as television crews were ushered in to film them.
Nemtsov was shot dead on the night of Feb. 27 within sight of the Kremlin walls, in the most high-profile killing of an opposition figure in the 15 years that President Vladimir Putin has been in power.
Judge Natalia Mushnikova ordered that all five men should remain in custody.
Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, a Putin ally, said the former policeman, Zaur Dadayev, was a pious Muslim who had been angered by cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
Nemtsov, a liberal, had defended the cartoons after Islamist gunmen killed 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris in January. Russian investigators said last week they were looking into the possibility that Islamist militants had killed Nemtsov.
"All who know Zaur confirm that he is a deep believer and also that he, like all Muslims, was shocked by the activities of Charlie and comments in support of printing the cartoons," Kadyrov wrote on his Instagram account.
Kadyrov described Dadayev as "a true patriot of Russia" who had received several medals for bravery but had subsequently resigned from his Interior Ministry regiment for reasons the Chechen leader said were unclear.
There have been cases in the past where employees of Russian law enforcement agencies have been prosecuted after moonlighting for organized crime groups.
Confession
"Dadayev's involvement in committing this crime is confirmed by, apart from his own confession, the totality of evidence gathered as part of this criminal case," Mushnikova told Sunday's court hearing.
The other man charged is Anzor Gubashev. The three other suspects are his brother Shagid Gubashev, Ramzan Bakhayev and Tamerlan Eskerkhanov. Previously, investigators said they only had two suspects in custody.
Separately, Russia's Interfax news agency, quoting a Chechen law enforcement source, said a man killed in a standoff with police in the Chechen capital Grozny late on Saturday had also been wanted by police in connection with Nemtsov's killing.
When police arrived at an apartment block, the man threw one grenade at officers and then blew himself up with a second, Interfax said.
Some associates of Nemtsov, a 55-year-old former deputy prime minister who became a Putin critic, say the Kremlin stands to gain from his death. Russian officials deny involvement and Putin has condemned the killing.
The court hearings on Sunday were given extensive coverage on state-controlled media, and presented as proof the authorities were conducting a thorough investigation — not the cover-up some of Nemtsov's friends say they anticipate.
But associates of Nemtsov say they will not be satisfied unless prosecutors track down whoever orchestrated the killing, rather than just the people who pulled the trigger.
There was no word from investigators on who the suspects were alleged to have been working for.
Several other high-profile killings in Russia, including the 2006 shooting of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, have been attributed to gunmen from Chechnya and other parts of the North Caucasus region, while those who ordered the crimes were never firmly identified.
Chechnya has seen violent separatist insurgencies over the past two decades. It is now firmly under the control of Kadyrov, a former rebel who changed sides and pledges loyalty to Putin.
:yeahright:
I wonder if the suspects will turn out to be operating alone, or hired by:
- Islamists/IS
- CIA
- Ukraine
- NATO
- Moldova/Georgia/another small country with a grudge
- Zionist World Government
- Gay Lobby
- Google
Though I'm surprised they have some warm bodies to show to the cameras instead of producing some corpses and pinning it on them. This ought to be a good propaganda show when it comes to trial (unless the suspects commit suicide in jail).
It's been a while since we've had a proper Russian show trial, it's always good fun to see the accused in those glass boxes.
It's probably been on the way for longer, but this seems like a "Hey, thanks for finding some muslims to take the blame."
http://www.rferl.org/content/putin-awards-kadyrov-with-order-of-honor/26889696.html
Kadyrov is always walking a tightrope, and I'm surprised he's still around. His Dad was an Islamist fighting against Russia, but then switching sides and helping Russia "pacify" the place. He was murdered for his troubles.
Kadyrov has to enact the will of Moscow and enforce Russian rule; at the same time he has to style himself as Über-Muslim to keep the Muslim population at bay, hence his grandiose declarations and statements in both directions all the time. It's said that he goes nowhere, not even the Kremlin, without his own handpicked bodyguard.
It's a question not so much if but when he'll slip.
According to Kavkaz Center (Islamist Chechen information website operating in Finland, anti-Putin and anti-Kadyrov), Nemtsov was killed by Adam Delimhanov, Duma deputy and Kadyrov's best friend. They cite word-of-mouth between Chechen clans as their source. Obviously should be taken with a grain of salt considering where this was posted, but considering Kadyrov connections are popping up in this case...
Wow, what are the odds that the Russians would find frame a group of Chechens for killing an outspoken critic of Putin who was about to release some very damaging information?!
http://rt.com/news/238945-nemtsov-murder-motive-islam/
QuotePrime suspect says Nemtsov killed over 'negative comments on Muslims' – report
Zaur Dadaev, who had reportedly confessed involvement in Nemtsov's murder, said he organized the crime in revenge for the opposition leader's "negative comments on Muslims and Islam," according to Rosbalt's source in law enforcement.
Dadaev is one of five suspects arrested in connection with the politician's assassination. The judge Natalia Mushnikova said on Sunday that Dadaev confessed his involvement in the crime to the investigators. The accused didn't comment on this during the court session.
The Rosbalt news agency claims its source in the law enforcement knows exactly what Dadaev said during interrogation.
In January 2015, the suspect allegedly "learnt that Boris Nemtsov more than once allowed himself negative comments on Muslims living in Russia, prophet Mohammed and Islam," according to the news agency.
"As a matter of fact, Dadaev acknowledged having organized this crime," Rosbalt's source said.
It has not been specified which of Nemtsov's words in particular angered his alleged killers.
READ MORE: Putin wants Russia spared from 'brazen' crimes like Nemtsov murder
Following the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, the politician wrote in his blog that the world was witnessing a "medieval Islamic inquisition."
He also said the Chechen leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, "made everyone sick with his threats" and should be "put in jail."
Hundreds of thousands in the Chechen capital of Grozny participated in a rally against the publication of Prophet Mohammed cartoons by the Charlie Hebdo magazine shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris.
The opposition has been skeptical of Islamist motives behind Nemtsov's murder.
Ilya Yashin, the co-leader of Nemtsov's liberal opposition party RPR-Parnas described the theory as "absurd."
"Nemtsov never said a bad word about Islam," Yashin wrote on Facebook. "He was absolutely tolerant in terms of religion. Of course, he criticized terrorists who killed the Charlie Hebdo journalists in Paris. But many public figures were louder and tougher in their criticisms."
The president of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, earlier said he knew Zaur Dadaev "as a patriot of Russia," who used to serve as deputy regiment commander in one of the Chechen Republic's interior ministry units.
"Everyone who knows Zaur says that he is a profoundly religious man and that he, as all Muslims, was shocked by what Charlie did and by comments in support of the cartoons," Kadyrov wrote on Instagram.
Boris Nemtsov, 55, who occupied senior government posts under President Boris Yeltsin and afterwards became an opposition leader, was shot dead on February 27 near the Moscow Kremlin. The assassination, which happened two days ahead of an opposition rally Nemtsov helped organize, triggered a flurry of condemnations and calls for a swift investigation.
Thousands of people across Russia joined marches in commemoration of the slain politician a week ago.
The Russian Investigative Committee earlier said that Nemtsov's stance on the Charlie Hebdo shootings was one of the things they were looking into as part of the investigation.
"There are reports that Nemtsov received threats due to his position over the shooting of Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris," Vladimir Markin, spokesman for the Investigative Committee, said in February.
Other possible reasons for Nemtsov's murder, according to investigators could range from a political provocation to his business activity or personal life.
So, possibly a killing orchestrated by Kadyrov, but without blessing from Moscow?
Quote from: KRonn on March 09, 2015, 09:31:04 AM
Wow, what are the odds that the Russians would find frame a group of Chechens for killing an outspoken critic of Putin who was about to release some very damaging information?!
Languish: And that also is very convenient. Isn't it, Mr. Putin?
Putin: Since I am innocent of this crime, sir, I find it decidedly *inconvenient*
*Putin uncrosses legs*
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2015, 09:17:52 AM
*Putin uncrosses legs*
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fab%2FVladimir_Putin_in_Saint_Petersburg-57.jpg&hash=6639254b6f05e89d4e418db9659fe164ce7c22b8)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4LtmfdCEAEkECE.jpg)
You can tell that the woman next to Putin spreads her legs for him, but from her dejected and sullen gaze you can tell she doesn't want to.
Hollande's confident and cocky posture conveys that he thinks the woman next to him is completely smitten with him, but her disinterested look away indicates that she thinks he is a bore and something of an embarrassing douchebag.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2015, 09:40:41 AM
You can tell that the woman next to Putin spreads her legs for him, but from her dejected and sullen gaze you can tell she doesn't want to.
Hollande's confident and cocky posture conveys that he thinks the woman next to him is completely smitten with him, but her disinterested look away indicates that she thinks he is a bore and something of an embarrassing douchebag.
From the way you're writing I can tell that what you write is bullshit.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2015, 09:40:41 AM
You can tell that the woman next to Putin spreads her legs for him, but from her dejected and sullen gaze you can tell she doesn't want to.
Do you see that look often with the women in your life?
If it wasn't for date rape, he'd never get laid.
I figured Dorsey could just say 'Hey baby I am a adventure mountain climber who is also a successful professional' and be in.
Sounds like Nemtsov's murder was a "mnogohodovka" after all. Is Putin planning to purge Kadyrov, and is doing it by killing an annoying gadfly with a habit of insulting him personally? :hmm:
Quote from: Liep on March 10, 2015, 09:42:09 AM
From the way you're writing I can tell that what you write is bullshit.
That post was not intended seriously. :console:
Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2015, 09:46:40 AM
I figured Dorsey could just say 'Hey baby I am a adventure mountain climber who is also a successful professional' and be in.
First question from her: "Do you have a life insurance policy?" :menace:
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2015, 10:00:33 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 10, 2015, 09:42:09 AM
From the way you're writing I can tell that what you write is bullshit.
That post was not intended seriously. :console:
Is that 'that' directing to my post? If so, that's not bullshit.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2015, 09:47:39 AM
Sounds like Nemtsov's murder was a "mnogohodovka" after all. Is Putin planning to purge Kadyrov, and is doing it by killing an annoying gadfly with a habit of insulting him personally? :hmm:
I've read an opinion by Konstantin Borovoy today that it was actually an independent move by Kadyrov in order to force Putin to grant him more federal-level authority. Sort of "I can do this right under your walls, better take me into account more" message. And well, Kadyrov just got a state award from Putin...
Quote from: Solmyr on March 10, 2015, 10:52:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2015, 09:47:39 AM
Sounds like Nemtsov's murder was a "mnogohodovka" after all. Is Putin planning to purge Kadyrov, and is doing it by killing an annoying gadfly with a habit of insulting him personally? :hmm:
I've read an opinion by Konstantin Borovoy today that it was actually an independent move by Kadyrov in order to force Putin to grant him more federal-level authority. Sort of "I can do this right under your walls, better take me into account more" message. And well, Kadyrov just got a state award from Putin...
That's the thing though... Putin is the strongman. Even if he didn't directly order the killing, it's still on him.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 10, 2015, 10:52:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2015, 09:47:39 AM
Sounds like Nemtsov's murder was a "mnogohodovka" after all. Is Putin planning to purge Kadyrov, and is doing it by killing an annoying gadfly with a habit of insulting him personally? :hmm:
I've read an opinion by Konstantin Borovoy today that it was actually an independent move by Kadyrov in order to force Putin to grant him more federal-level authority. Sort of "I can do this right under your walls, better take me into account more" message. And well, Kadyrov just got a state award from Putin...
I don't know where they get that. :hmm:
http://tass.ru/en/russia/781917
QuoteChechen leader Kadyrov says ready to give his life for Russia, Putin
GROZNY, March 10. /TASS/. The head of the Russian North Caucasus republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, said on his page in a social network that he is ready to give his life for Russia and President Vladimir Putin.
In this way, Kadyrov commented on being decorated with the Order of Honor.
He said all merits for "peace and stability in the Chechen Republic belong to Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin]."
"Only his wise policy, his assistance and support made it possible to achieve solid peace, revive the republic, its economy, culture and spirituality," Kadyrov said.
"Giving life for such a person is the easiest task. I confirm that I will fulfill any order, solve for him a task of any complexity whatever it may cost me! Serving Russia! Serving the people," he wrote.
Putin awarded Kadyrov the Order of Honor on March 9. The decree on decorating a number of Russians with state awards has been published on the official website of legal information.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2015, 09:40:41 AM
Hollande's confident and cocky posture conveys that he thinks the woman next to him is completely smitten with him, but her disinterested look away indicates that she thinks he is a bore and something of an embarrassing douchebag.
and it will still end with her having his cock in her mouth because French.
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2015, 10:56:55 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on March 10, 2015, 10:52:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2015, 09:47:39 AM
Sounds like Nemtsov's murder was a "mnogohodovka" after all. Is Putin planning to purge Kadyrov, and is doing it by killing an annoying gadfly with a habit of insulting him personally? :hmm:
I've read an opinion by Konstantin Borovoy today that it was actually an independent move by Kadyrov in order to force Putin to grant him more federal-level authority. Sort of "I can do this right under your walls, better take me into account more" message. And well, Kadyrov just got a state award from Putin...
That's the thing though... Putin is the strongman. Even if he didn't directly order the killing, it's still on him.
In a way true, but nowadays Putin essentially only controls Kadyrov and Chechnya by paying him tons of money. Putin's grip on the provinces is not as strong as you may think, and it's been increasingly slipping lately.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 10, 2015, 01:33:51 PMIn a way true, but nowadays Putin essentially only controls Kadyrov and Chechnya by paying him tons of money. Putin's grip on the provinces is not as strong as you may think, and it's been increasingly slipping lately.
If he's fucking up his control, the results of losing control is still on him.
Putin just can't win, can he? :(
It's hard out there for a pimp.
I finally understand manspreading.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 10, 2015, 10:52:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2015, 09:47:39 AM
Sounds like Nemtsov's murder was a "mnogohodovka" after all. Is Putin planning to purge Kadyrov, and is doing it by killing an annoying gadfly with a habit of insulting him personally? :hmm:
I've read an opinion by Konstantin Borovoy today that it was actually an independent move by Kadyrov in order to force Putin to grant him more federal-level authority. Sort of "I can do this right under your walls, better take me into account more" message. And well, Kadyrov just got a state award from Putin...
:hmm: Seems a little farfetched to me, like most Russian conspiracy theories.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2015, 03:34:43 PM
I finally understand manspreading.
Maybe Putin also literally has huge balls.
Sometimes, a man just needs to let em have some Lebensraum. If women don't like it, they can get back in the kitchen. Where they belong.
http://rt.com/news/239409-russia-quits-conventional-europe/
QuoteRussia 'completely ending' activities under Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treaty
Moscow has announced it is "completely" ending activities under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). Russia's participation in the treaty was first halted in 2007.
"The Russian Federation has taken the decision to halt its participation in meetings of the [consulting group] from March 11, 2015. Therefore, Russia is ending its actions in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, announced in 2007, completely," a statement from the Foreign Ministry said.
Moscow has asked Belarus to represent Russia's interests in the group starting from Wednesday, the statement said.
According to the Ministry, the move does not mean that Moscow refuses to continue further dialogue on control of conventional armed forces in Europe - "if and when our partners are ready for it," the Ministry official said in the statement, adding that future work on the project should serve the interests of both Russia and other European states.
The original CFE Treaty, signed in 1990 by 16 NATO and six Warsaw Pact, set equal ceilings for each bloc on key categories of conventional armaments, with tanks, combat armored vehicles, artillery, assault helicopters and combat aircraft among them. For instance, under the treaty, each side is supposed to have no more than 16,500 tanks or 27,300 armored combat vehicles in active units.
1999 saw an "adapted" version of the treaty signed. However NATO members refused to ratify it until Russia withdrew troops from Georgia and the breakaway Moldovan region of Transdnestria. Russia slammed the condition as an "artificial linkage."
In December 2007 this led to Moscow imposing a moratorium on the CFE treaty. Moscow also said the treaty was "irrelevant" since NATO planned to increase its military presence in Eastern Europe.
Four years later, the North Atlantic bloc stated exchange of information on conventional weapons and troops with Russia would be stopped. In November 2014, Moscow suspended the implementation of the CFE Treaty. Two months later, the US House of Representatives issued a resolution condemning Russia and, among other points, urging president Obama to review US and NATO armed forces readiness under the CFE.
"For many years the Russian Federation has been doing everything possible to maintain... the treaty, initiated talks on its adaptation and ratified the adaptation agreement," Moscow said Tuesday, adding that all such efforts have been dismissed by NATO in favor of the alliance's expansion.
Meanwhile, Norway has started military exercises in its northernmost province, which borders Russia's Kola Peninsula. Called 'Joint Viking,' the one-week war games involve 5,000 Norwegian troops and 400 vehicles, the largest military training exercise in nearly 50 years in the country, which has been promoting closer military cooperation with NATO member states after escalation of the Ukrainian crisis.
Yeah, it's past time to put that treaty to bed.
http://www.thelocal.at/20150311/fpoe-man-denies-accepting-invitation-to-russian-forum
QuoteFPÖ man denies saying yes to Russian forum
A senior politician from the populist Freedom Party (FPÖ), Johann Gudenus, is claiming that he never planned to join a gathering of far-right parties from across Europe at an International Russian Conservative Forum (IRCF) to be held in St. Petersburg on March 22nd.
However, the Austria Press Agency (APA) reports that it has seen a letter from Gudenus from December, written in English with an official FPÖ letterhead, in which he thanked the IRCF for the invitation, and said he was "looking forward to join the conference".
On Tuesday Gudenus told APA that he had never said he would participate and "never intended to go there."
Analyst and blogger Anton Shekhovtsov speculates that the FPÖ was likely looking to secure some financing from Russia - after the French National Front accepted a €9 million loan from a Russian bank in 2014.
Yuriy Lyubomirsky of Russia's Rodina party told APA that he only received an email from Gudenus on March 9th, cancelling his participation in the conference, and saying that he was too busy with election campaigns in Austria.
Meanwhile, this has surfaced:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foekastatic.orf.at%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Fsite%2Foeka%2F20150311%2Ffaksi3.5339904.jpg&hash=95584e189b7bd04da006d8aa553b22cf352f4e11)
Oops. Gudenus now claims that it must have slipped his mind that he had confirmed his attendance, because he receives so many invitations to so many meetigns, conventions and functions.
Is Putin dead? There's rumors in Russia that he is, or at least that he's very sick.
http://putinumer.com/
:D
Quote from: Liep on March 12, 2015, 03:51:46 AM
Is Putin dead? There's rumors in Russia that he is, or at least that he's very sick.
we can't be that lucky.
All I see is that he postponed a trip due to illness. Nothing about him dying.
Quote from: Tamas on March 12, 2015, 05:25:14 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 12, 2015, 03:51:46 AM
Is Putin dead? There's rumors in Russia that he is, or at least that he's very sick.
we can't be that lucky.
I wouldn't necessarily call whatever follows Putin's death in Russia "lucky". :P
Quote from: Solmyr on March 12, 2015, 06:36:18 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 12, 2015, 05:25:14 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 12, 2015, 03:51:46 AM
Is Putin dead? There's rumors in Russia that he is, or at least that he's very sick.
we can't be that lucky.
I wouldn't necessarily call whatever follows Putin's death in Russia "lucky". :P
There is no heir apparent and chaos there would be a short term gain for the ROTW. A possible long term catastrophe yes, but a short term gain :P
Quote from: Tamas on March 12, 2015, 06:38:23 AM
There is no heir apparent and chaos there would be a short term gain for the ROTW. A possible long term catastrophe yes, but a short term gain :P
Medvedev?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2015, 08:50:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 12, 2015, 06:38:23 AM
There is no heir apparent and chaos there would be a short term gain for the ROTW. A possible long term catastrophe yes, but a short term gain :P
Medvedev?
Puhleaze
Quote from: Solmyr on March 12, 2015, 06:36:18 AM
I wouldn't necessarily call whatever follows Putin's death in Russia "lucky". :P
That's definitely what he wants everyone to think. He may be right too, in a self-fulfilling way.
Quote from: Tamas on March 12, 2015, 08:55:11 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2015, 08:50:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 12, 2015, 06:38:23 AM
There is no heir apparent and chaos there would be a short term gain for the ROTW. A possible long term catastrophe yes, but a short term gain :P
Medvedev?
Puhleaze
He has more credibility than the bus driver that Chavez got to replace him.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2015, 08:50:52 AM
Medvedev?
I think it unlikely that a sock puppet will take charge.
http://rt.com/politics/240025-russia-peskov-putin-health/
Quote"No need to worry, everything is all right. He has working meetings all the time, only not all of these meetings are public," Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday in an interview with Echo of Moscow radio. He added that the president is "absolutely healthy" and that "his handshake is so strong he breaks hands with it."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fizquierdazo.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FPutin-Obama.png&hash=7c49bf51a734603cff3c5715e248bac37d58492a)
"I must break you."
Does anyone in Russia realize how pathetic the quote about Putin's iron handshake sounds? They're moving into North Korean territory when it comes to glorifying their dear leader.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it was probably said jokingly.
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2015, 11:08:31 AM
Does anyone in Russia realize how pathetic the quote about Putin's iron handshake sounds?
You know the place better than we do... /shrug
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2015, 11:08:31 AM
Does anyone in Russia realize how pathetic the quote about Putin's iron handshake sounds? They're moving into North Korean territory when it comes to glorifying their dear leader.
At least the Russians are still allowed to joke about it.
— Мне Путин руку пожал.
— О, круто! Наверное, теперь неделю не будешь мыть?
— Две. Пока гипс не снимут.
Quote from: Liep on March 12, 2015, 11:18:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2015, 11:08:31 AM
Does anyone in Russia realize how pathetic the quote about Putin's iron handshake sounds? They're moving into North Korean territory when it comes to glorifying their dear leader.
At least the Russians are still allowed to joke about it.
— Мне Путин руку пожал.
— О, круто! Наверное, теперь неделю не будешь мыть?
— Две. Пока гипс не снимут.
:lmfao: :lmfao:
I think Lolek and Bolek need their own thread.
How does Liep know Russian?
Quote from: Queequeg on March 12, 2015, 11:42:01 AM
How does Liep know Russian?
I've studied Russian at uni since 2013.
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2015, 12:07:43 PM
.. last night.
she said,
"Oh, baby, I feel so down.
Oh it turns me off,
When I feel left out."
?
Quote from: Queequeg on March 12, 2015, 11:42:01 AM
How does Liep know Russian?
Starting a dossier for your Persian buddies?
Quote from: Liep on March 12, 2015, 12:25:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2015, 12:07:43 PM
.. last night.
she said,
"Oh, baby, I feel so down.
Oh it turns me off,
When I feel left out."
?
See, grumbler, he don't understand.
Putin may not be the only one at 'it':
Quote
Yanukovych ally Peklushenko in new Ukraine mystery death
A former regional governor has been found dead in Ukraine, the latest in a series of deaths involving allies of deposed President Viktor Yanukovych.
Oleksandr Peklushenko, former head of Zaporizhzhya, had suffered a gunshot wound to the neck and authorities said initial inquiries pointed to suicide.
A member of Ukraine's Party of the Regions, he was being investigated over the dispersal of protesters last year.
Five other officials also died in mysterious circumstances this year.
All of them supposedly took their own lives in the past six weeks
Stanislav Melnyk, 53, an ex-MP was found shot dead in his bathroom on 9 March
Mykhaylo Chechetov, former party deputy chairman, died after apparently jumping from a window in his 17th-floor flat on 28 February; he had been accused of abuse of office and fraud
Serhiy Valter, a mayor in the south-eastern city of Melitopol, was found hanged on 25 February; he too had been accused of abuse of office
Oleksandr Bordyuh, a former police deputy chief in Melitopol linked to Mr Valter, was found dead at his home on 26 February
Oleksiy Kolesnyk, ex-head of Kharkiv's regional government was found hanged on 29 January
An interior ministry source told Interfax Ukraine news agency Mr Peklushenko, 60, had committed suicide in the village of Sonyachne, near Zaporizhzhya city.
However officials said other theories were being investigated including murder.
.....
:hmm:
Full article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31855700 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31855700)
I wouldn't be surprised if someone here suggests it's the work of the Russians to discredit the Ukrainians.
Wow, these Yanukovich allies are really desperate to make Poroshenko look bad.
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2015, 08:58:45 PM
Wow, these Yanukovich allies are really desperate just dying to make Poroshenko look bad.
FYPFY
So, apparently Putin has not been seen in public for a week.
Although I heard someone saw him at a farmer's market near Warsaw. Perhaps it's time to send him to Kremlin, with Polish troops. :ph34r:
He's a gazillionaire. He's probably holed up in a resort somewhere, up to his ass in ass for Asspalooza '15.
I was referring to a False Putin. :P
:hmm: Well, it's now or never to get Putin removed. I really don't want to get my hopes up, but it would be nice if it were now a week ago.
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 03:33:31 PM
I was referring to a False Putin. :P
Try to get a second False Putin just in case.
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 03:50:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 03:33:31 PM
I was referring to a False Putin. :P
Try to get a second False Putin just in case.
We should get one from Jamaica.
We could call him Ras Putin.
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2015, 03:50:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 13, 2015, 03:33:31 PM
I was referring to a False Putin. :P
Try to get a second False Putin just in case.
Although going with a third would be just crass these days, even for the Poles.
QuoteKremlin Planning Major Announcement, Stage Being Constructed in Red Square
The Pundit Press ^ | 3/13/2015 | Thomas
Posted on 14 Mar 2015 02:16:35 CET by therightliveswithus
In the midst of Vladimir Putin's mysterious absence, it appears that the Kremlin is announcing something big. Pictures of Putin allegedly meeting a leading judge today may be formerly staged photos. Beyond this, a large stage is being built in Red Square– right near Boris Nemstov's murder:
The Kremlin has now announced that there will be a major announcement in the next couple of days. It has advised journalists not to leave Moscow. The exact announcement is still unknown but sparking speculation.
A source in the press service of the President of Russia says he is preparing a major announcement in the near future; and for this reason, heads of relevant media are asked to be ready in the next few days for a possible press conference.
This was indirectly confirmed by the CEO of the Center for Political Information polit-info, Alexei Mukhin.
Looks like Putin has been fooling us all along and secretly working on the Transcendence Victory. :hmm:
They can't be building that stage for the funeral, can they? :(
They can't kill him. He will come back more powerful than you could ever imagine.
Possibilities:
1. Some show act related to Nemtsov's murder. Maybe Putin will break the "assassins'" necks with one hand?
2. Putin declares war on any Western country with a sizable Russian minority "to bring the country home."
3. Putin reveals that he has been an alien lizard man all the time.
My avatar waits with bated breath.
Quote from: Syt on March 14, 2015, 10:40:37 AM
Possibilities:
1. Some show act related to Nemtsov's murder. Maybe Putin will break the "assassins'" necks with one hand?
2. Putin declares war on any Western country with a sizable Russian minority "to bring the country home."
3. Putin reveals that he has been an alien lizard man all the time.
My avatar waits with bated breath.
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2L4344n_48
Probably announcing marriage to the mother of his love child.
http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-happening-with-putin-and-russia-2015-3?IR=T
QuoteRussia is preparing for something at the Kremlin while Putin's absence baffles everyone
Kremlin-controlled TV informed millions of Russians about a meeting between President Vladimir Putin and his Kyrgyz counterpart Almazbek Atambayev. Nothing unusual about that, right?
Wrong.
The meeting between the two leaders of the former Soviet republics isn't due to take place until Monday. But that didn't stop the newsreader on the Rossiya 24 channel reading out the following item – all in the past tense.
"The Kremlin also reports that Vladimir Putin met with Kyrgyzstan President Almazbek Atambayev on Monday. They talked about cooperation in investment and humanitarian spheres, as well as the energy sector. They also discussed the possibility of Kyrgyzstan joining the Eurasian Economic Union."
Before we get to Monday, as most of you are undoubtedly aware, we have to get past the weekend first. A spokesperson for Rossiya 24 quickly announced the news item had been a mistake. And, on a normal day, that would have been that.
But these are not normal times in Russia. Putin hasn't been seen in public for over a week. This prolonged absence has sparked rumors that Russia's long-serving national leader is ill. Or has been deposed in a coup. Or is dead. Or is visiting his alleged lover, the "extremely flexible gymnast," Alina Kabaeva, who reportedly gave birth to a baby Putin in Switzerland today. Take your pick.
Rossiya 24's inadvertent act of fortune-telling has already been labeled "Guests from the Future" on social media, a reference to a well-loved Soviet children's film. But beneath the laughter, there is concern that Russia could be on the edge of another one of the cataclysmic events that seem to swing around these parts every few years.
Was Rossiya 24's report on Putin's meeting prepared in advance, because the Kremlin knew he would not be attending? Was it part of a cover up that was inadvertently aired ahead of time? Either way, it's added to a general atmosphere of confusion and apprehension in Russia right now. "I was dreaming of Putin all night," a friend in Moscow told me. "I dreamed he'd been kidnapped and was being marched off somewhere."
True, the NTV channel aired images Friday of Putin meeting with supreme court president Vyacheslav Lebedev at his Novo-Ogaryovo presidential residence outside Moscow. But as there was no proof the footage was actually filmed Friday, that did little to stop the rumors. After all, the Kremlin has already been caught out once before this week, when it tried to pass off old photographs as new ones as evidence of Putin's activities.
So when a line of mysterious trucks was photographed outside the Kremlin's walls Friday evening, and seating for hundreds of people was laid out on Red Square, the rumor mill went into overdrive again. Someone quickly spliced together footage of Putin saying "and snuffed it," over a grimy hip-hop beat, and uploaded the clip to YouTube.
"Has he really snuffed it?" asked one Facebook user. But the trucks and seating, it turned out, are for a concert to celebrate the first anniversary of the Kremlin's annexation of Crimea. "What are you all on about?" asked another Facebook user. "Putin's fine, don't you know? He's already met the president of Kyrgyzstan on Monday."
Will Putin finally show on Monday? Or will the mystery deepen? All will be revealed after the weekend. That is, of course, if there are no twists in this story before then. Keep watching Russia.
Maybe he's visiting a mistress in Argentina?
QuoteOr is visiting his alleged lover, the "extremely flexible gymnast," Alina Kabaeva,
:wub: No truer words. :licklips:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2015, 01:11:36 PM
QuoteOr is visiting his alleged lover, the "extremely flexible gymnast," Alina Kabaeva,
:wub: No truer words. :licklips:
Indeed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgaleri12.uludagsozluk.com%2F545%2Fputin-in-karisi_703380.jpg&hash=845b365cb7c3815daacfc43b94751409e62fb728)
He failed his dice roll
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic628604_t.jpg)
Speaking of ridiculous personality cult, russian cossacks sponsored a bronze bust of Putin, styled as a roman general.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd1.stern.de%2Fbilder%2Fstern_5%2Fdigital%2F2015%2FKW11%2FSonntag%2Fputin_teaser_fitwidth_489.jpg&hash=f37727c5463f23d17afb955f08df479e60cbbaaa)
I WANT ONE
Surprised they didn't go for the Trajan look.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftraumwerk.stanford.edu%2Farchaeolog%2Fbritdecenial1.jpg&hash=b64df2999eac2bcb0c1bdd5d66dd1d2711fdd4ed)
POWERFUL NIPPLES
On second thought, that'd be better for a horseback statue of Putin.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 14, 2015, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2015, 01:11:36 PM
QuoteOr is visiting his alleged lover, the "extremely flexible gymnast," Alina Kabaeva,
:wub: No truer words. :licklips:
Indeed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgaleri12.uludagsozluk.com%2F545%2Fputin-in-karisi_703380.jpg&hash=845b365cb7c3815daacfc43b94751409e62fb728)
Ah! She's a spider monster!
Russian northern fleet together with around 38k men and 110 aircraft has been put on alert by some high ranking military dude, on Putin's order according to him. Putin is still MIA.
Moscow: fire breaks out at Novodevichy Convent (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/15/russia-fire-breaks-out-at-novodevichy-convent-bell-tower-in-moscow)
Omg teh end times? The Novodevichy Monastery was built in commemoration of the annexation of Smolensk exactly 500 years ago, and yesterday the documentary about the annexation of Crimea was premiered. And in 2004 the Moscow Manege burned down on the day when Putin was elected for his second term. Some Russian posters on Facebook are cracking jokes that God must be unhappy with Putin. :pope:
Quote from: Tamas on March 16, 2015, 04:00:10 AM
Russian northern fleet together with around 38k men and 110 aircraft has been put on alert by some high ranking military dude, on Putin's order according to him. Putin is still MIA.
I read the other day that Russia has had over a dozen "snap checks" in the last two years where they test combat readiness with surprise maneuvers.
NATO supposedly hasn't had one since the end of the Cold War (I didn't check to verify).
He'll be back.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-missing-russian-president-appears-in-public-for-first-time-in-11-days-10110525.html
(https://tshirtbandit.com/products/square/165382.png)
Quote from: Malicious Intent on March 15, 2015, 09:35:56 AM
Speaking of ridiculous personality cult, russian cossacks sponsored a bronze bust of Putin, styled as a roman general.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd1.stern.de%2Fbilder%2Fstern_5%2Fdigital%2F2015%2FKW11%2FSonntag%2Fputin_teaser_fitwidth_489.jpg&hash=f37727c5463f23d17afb955f08df479e60cbbaaa)
Putin looks great as a Roman
emperor general. :)
Polish news site headline: "Putin reappears in public but fails to address rumours of his death". :lol:
I'm reminded of the BBC series "Whoops! Apocalypse" where the Soviet leader keeps dying and is immediately replaced by a lookalike/clone (sometimes during meetings). Then again it also had a British PM who thought he was Superman, and a cowboy US Pres advised by a sinister hyper-evangelist. "If God had wanted us to be responsible, he wouldn't have given us credit cards!"
Quote from: Syt on March 16, 2015, 08:00:23 AM
I'm reminded of the BBC series "Whoops! Apocalypse" where the Soviet leader keeps dying and is immediately replaced by a lookalike/clone (sometimes during meetings).
Probably a lot funnier on TV than real life. Not knowing who was in charge of the Kremlin in the early Reagan years was a bit unnerving at the time.
So I just heard this yesterday:
The reason Putin's been absent from the limelight recently is that he's taken a bit of time off from guiding the fate of mother Russia and the world. He needed a bit of time to unwind as a private citizen and take a vacation. As it happens, he decided to go to neighbouring Kazakhstan.
The Kazakhstanian border agents naturally didn't expect to see Putin there, and so they didn't recognize him even once he handed over his passport. Instead they went through the usual questioning. Putin figured he'd play along, enjoying being a normal citizen for once. The conversation went like this:
Border Agent: Name?
Putin: Vladimir Putin.
Border Agent: Very good. Purpose of visit?
Putin: Vacation.
Border Agent: Occupation?
Putin: No no no! I told you! Vacation!
Nice!
A vacation with 1500 of his buddies. They're going to party like it's 1989.
Quote from: Maximus on March 16, 2015, 10:44:28 AM
A vacation with 1500 of his buddies. They're going to party like it's 1989.
In Soviet Russia, Party throws you!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.tvtropes.org%2Fpmwiki%2Fpub%2Fimages%2Flocke-defenestration.jpg&hash=dc6e499b9ff971906e6836426058a0d065e38035)
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2015, 10:37:46 AM
So I just heard this yesterday:
The reason Putin's been absent from the limelight recently is that he's taken a bit of time off from guiding the fate of mother Russia and the world. He needed a bit of time to unwind as a private citizen and take a vacation. As it happens, he decided to go to neighbouring Kazakhstan.
The Kazakhstanian border agents naturally didn't expect to see Putin there, and so they didn't recognize him even once he handed over his passport. Instead they went through the usual questioning. Putin figured he'd play along, enjoying being a normal citizen for once. The conversation went like this:
Border Agent: Name?
Putin: Vladimir Putin.
Border Agent: Very good. Purpose of visit?
Putin: Vacation.
Border Agent: Occupation?
Putin: No no no! I told you! Vacation!
:D :D
Reminds me of an old joke about Helmut Kohl (in jokes he was often portrayed as a simpleton):
Kohl comes to the border check but he has no passport with him.
The border guard says, "Sorry, can't let you pass without a passport."
Kohl: "But I'm the chancellor! Of the Federal Republic of Germany!"
Guard: "Sorry, can't let you pass."
Kohl: "Is there a way for me to prove who I am?"
Guard: "Well, tell you what. Last month Franz Beckenbauer was here, without passport. Gave him a football, and he showed off a few tricks. Was typical for him, so we let him pass."
Kohl: "Ok?"
Guard: "Then Konsalik was here [very prolific German writer]. No passport. Gave him a pen and paper, and he wrote a short story. Was typical for him and we let him pass."
Kohl: "But I don't know how to do anything!"
Guard: "Well, that's typical, you can pass."
How about some good old-fashioned sabre rattling?
http://tass.ru/en/russia/783204
QuoteThe Iskander tactical ballistic missile systems will be redeployed during a surprise inspection of troops to the Kaliningrad region in Russia's northwest, a source in the Russian Defense Ministry told TASS on Tuesday.
"The redeployment of the fighter and bomber aviation is planned to the Kaliningrad region, and the army grouping in the Baltic region will be reinforced with the Iskander missile systems of the Western Military District that will be moved by the large landing ships of the Baltic Fleet," said the source.
A surprise inspection of the Northern Fleet and separate formations of the Western Military District is being conducted in Russia in the period from March 16 to 21. The snap check involves some 38,000 troops, 3,360 units of military equipment, 41 warships, 15 submarines, 110 warplanes and helicopters.
http://tass.ru/en/russia/783207
QuoteStrategic missile carriers Tupolev TU-22M3 will be transferred to Crimea within the snap check that began on Monday, a source in the Russian Defense Ministry told TASS on Tuesday.
"Strategic missile carriers TU-22MS will be transferred to Crimea in the course of a surprise combat readiness inspection", the source said.
In addition to that, jet fighters and bombers will be relocated to the Kaliningrad region. "Ground troops in the Baltic region will be boosted by the Iskander missile systems of the western military region. They will be delivered by big assault landing ships of the Baltic Fleet," the source added.
To strengthen the borders in the Arctic Region two reinforced regiments and special task units of Russian airborne troops will be transferred there as part of the inspection, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
http://tass.ru/en/russia/783210
QuoteUnits of the Baltic Fleet, Southern Military District and Airborne Forces have been brought to highest state of combat readiness in the framework of large-scale strategic drills, the Russian Defense Ministry's press service said on Tuesday.
"A number of military units and formations of the Baltic Fleet, Southern Military District and Airborne Forces have been moved to the highest state of combat readiness and started entering land and sea ranges," the press service said.
In accordance with the snap check plan for Russia's Northern Fleet and separate formations of the Western Military District the country's Air Force has begun redeployment of aircraft to alternate airfields, the press service said.
"About 50 warplanes and helicopters will be redeployed within the next day at distances from 400 to 4000 km," the statement says. "The forward teams of aviation experts have arrived at the designated aerodromes to examine and prepare airfields for the landing of aircraft equipment."
The MiG-31, Sukhoi Su-27, Su-24 fighters and the military transport aircraft Antonov An-12 and An-26 of the Western Military District, aviation of the Air Force and Air Defense command are engaged in the redeployment of warplanes and helicopters (Su-27, Su-24M, Mi-8AMTSh Mi-24) to alternate airfields.
Three groups of surface ships of the Russian Northern Fleet have been moved from the Kola bay to the Barents Sea within a snap combat readiness check, a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry told reporters on Tuesday.
The Northern Fleet's crews will drill a joint operation with aviation to search for submarines of the simulated enemy, the spokesman said.
"Three surface ship groupings have moved to the Barents Sea to accomplish the tasks they have been assigned," the spokesman said.
The search and strike ship force comprising the Admiral Levchenko large anti-submarine ship, the Brest and Yunga small anti-submarine vessels has started an operation jointly with the Northern Fleet's anti-submarine aircraft to search for nuclear submarines of the simulated enemy in the designated areas of the Barents Sea, the spokesman said.
"The ship crews are performing tactical maneuvering, using hydroacoustic means of searches for submarines. They are drilling the simulated and practical use of anti-submarine weapons and ship self-defense means, including firing from RBU-6000 rocket launchers," the spokesman said.
The Admiral Levchenko destroyer is acting as the flagship command post in the naval drills.
"A grouping of minesweepers and a search and rescue force also continue operating in the Barents Sea," the Defense Ministry's spokesman said.
The Northern Fleet's ships are drilling the search for submarines in the short-range sea area also for ensuring the safety of the Northern Fleet's submarines, which will join the naval exercises, the spokesman said.
In accordance with the decision of the Supreme Commander of the Russian Armed Forces, Vladimir Putin, a surprise inspection of the Northern Fleet and separate formations of the Western Military District is conducted in the period from March 16 to 21. The snap check involves some 38,000 troops, 3,360 units of military equipment, 41 warships, 15 submarines, 110 warplanes and helicopters.
This is not the first large-scale inspection of the Armed Forces' combat readiness. Since the beginning of the year, inspections have been conducted in the Western, Central and Eastern Military District, including with large-scale exercises involving the newest serial military equipment of the forward strike forces. The drills include the mobilization of reservists, checks of operational readiness of the aerospace forces, special task forces, groupings of all service arms, the Air Force, as well as the surface and submarine fleet.
Poland has not yet perished! :bowler:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/europe/poland-steels-for-battle-seeing-echoes-of-cold-war-in-ukraine-crisis.html?hpw&_r=0
QuotePoles Steel for Battle, Fearing Russia Will March on Them Next
By RICK LYMANMARCH 14, 2015
KALISZ, Poland — For evidence of how much President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has jangled nerves and provoked anxiety across Eastern Europe, look no farther than the drill held the other day by the Shooters Association.
The paramilitary group, like more than 100 others in Poland, has experienced a sharp spike in membership since Mr. Putin's forces began meddling in neighboring Ukraine last year.
Thirty students took an oath to defend Poland at all costs, joining nearly 200 other regional members of the association — young men and women, boys and girls — marching in formation around the perimeter of the dusty high school courtyard here. They crossed Polish Army Boulevard and marched into the center of town, sprawling in four long lines along the edge of St. Joseph's Square.
Gen. Boguslaw Pacek, an adviser to the Polish defense minister and the government's chief liaison with these paramilitary groups, marched with them. He has been making the rounds in recent months of such gatherings: student chapters like this one, as well as groups of veterans, even battle re-enactors.
One of those who took the oath in Kalisz was Bartosz Walesiak, 16, who said he had been interested in the military since playing with toy soldiers as a little boy, but had been motivated to join the Shooters Association after Russia moved into Crimea.
"I think that Putin will want more," he said.
"Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia are already getting ready for such a scenario, so Poland must do the same."
As the crisis drags on, what was unthinkable at the end of the Cold War now seems not quite so unlikely to many Poles: that the great Russian behemoth will not be sated with Ukraine and will reach out once again into the West. The thought is darkening the national mood and rippling across the entire region in ways that reflect a visceral fear of an aggressive and unpredictable Russia.
Pointing out that Russia insists it has no such intentions usually elicits little more than a despairing laugh.
"I think the impact on everyday life is starting to be very bad," said Marcin Zaborowski, director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs. "Very often now, people approach me — neighbors, hairdressers — asking whether there will be a war. The other day, my mother called and asked me."
Dinner parties in Warsaw these days frequently drift to the topic. Possibilities that were once shrugged off are now seriously contemplated. Even the jokes are laced with anxiety.
In January, the Polish Ministry of National Defense announced that it would provide military training to any civilian who wished to receive it, with registration beginning March 1. About 1,000 people showed up the first day, said Col. Tomasz Szulejko, spokesman for the Polish Army's general staff. "This number certainly bodes well for the future," he said.
Tomasz Siemoniak, Poland's defense minister, is also contemplating a proposal to establish a Territorial Defense Force, taking the cream of the members of the paramilitary associations and other volunteers to create something akin to the National Guard in the United States.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz changed the law on who can be called up for service in case of "military maneuvers." Previously, the armed forces could summon only current and former reservists, those with actual military training. Now, if necessary, they can call on almost any man in the country.
In neighboring Lithuania, President Dalia Grybauskaite said her government intended to reinstate military conscription because of the "current geopolitical environment."
In January, the government issued a 98-page booklet ("How to Act in Extreme Situations or Instances of War") that offered advice on what citizens should do if foreign soldiers appeared on their doorstep, and how they might offer passive resistance to an occupying power.
"If you are a civilian and you make that clear, it is unlikely someone will rush to kill you," the booklet advised, urging people not to panic. Even hearing shots fired outside your home "is not the end of the world," it said.
"People come up and ask me: 'Should we leave? Should we flee?' " said Karlis Bukovskis, deputy director of the Latvian Institute of International Affairs in Riga. "This is a new development. This is the first time that has happened to me."
Worries are increasing in Poland, but they have not yet reached the level of mass fear, said Tomasz Szlendak, a sociologist at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun who has studied the effects the Ukraine crisis is having in Poland.
At a recent party of fellow academics, he said, one retired military officer announced that he would organize a local militia if the Russians invaded. Another professor declared that he would put his wife and daughter on a plane out of Poland with a bag of money and then sign up with one of the paramilitary groups.
"These kind of comments are, of course, meant as jokes," Mr. Szlendak said. "But they are based on real fear. They are humorless, sad jokes."
The situation has not quite gotten to the point that people are stockpiling food and ammunition in the basement, said Mr. Zaborowski of the Polish Institute of International Affairs, but anxiety is definitely rising.
Pawel Kowal, a former member of Poland's Parliament and a foreign policy expert, said the country was getting parallel messages from its leaders, being told that a newly aggressive Russia poses a genuine threat while also being reassured that membership in NATO and the European Union will provide sufficient protection.
"The sense is that the border between NATO and Russia is like a new Iron Curtain," Mr. Kowal said. "But at least this time, Poland is on the right side of it."
The growing enrollment in the paramilitary groups is just one manifestation of the changed climate. The number of groups, General Pacek said, is clearly rising. Not all of the increase is due to Ukraine — patriotism and uniformed service are becoming more fashionable among younger Poles, and the military does offer a stable career — but Mr. Putin's shadow has certainly accelerated the trend, he said.
A gathering a few days earlier in the city of Szczecin had 500 new cadets taking the oath. General Pacek estimated there were 120 such groups at the moment, with about 80,000 members, but he acknowledged that this was just a guess, as the groups are not required to report their existence or membership rolls.
The Defense Ministry has been trying to entice the groups to join an alliance with the government, offering equipment, uniforms, training and even money in exchange for a clearer idea of who they are — and a chance to assemble a new generation of energized recruits.
"There is no question of them doing any fighting," General Pacek said. "They are to offer assistance to the military. But of course, they have to be prepared to defend."
In St. Joseph's Square, the 30 new members of the Shooting Association waited for the command before taking four purposeful steps forward and raising their right hands.
"I hereby pledge to put the good of the Polish Republic above all else," they repeated. "I will always be ready to defend its independence until my last breath."
After the ceremony, Grzegorz Sapinski, the mayor of Kalisz, watched the cadets march down the cobblestone streets back to the school.
"One cannot help but notice the change in attitudes among young people following what is happening in Ukraine," Mr. Sapinski said. "The conflict is not in some obscure place. It is happening four hours' drive away."
The members of one squad from the Shooters Association were splayed on their bellies on the edge of the school's soccer field, pushing themselves ahead one knee thrust at a time. Each held a prop AK-47, and Capt. Lukasz Kolcz, the chapter's commander, barked at them to keep low and move forward.
The youngest of the cadets, Grzegorz Zurek, 11, was having trouble keeping up, but he was stubbornly determined. As they arrived on the far side of the field, the cadets turned to cheer Grzegorz along.
"I think it is highly probable that Putin will do something against Poland," Grzegorz later said. "I know from history that Russia has always been a totalitarian state. Now it is trying to regain the territory it lost at the end of the Cold War."
He rested his rubber-coated gun on the soft, perfect grass.
"Should it invade Poland," he said, "I would not hesitate a second to fight against them."
Next step on the road of making South Ossetia part of Mother Russia:
http://tass.ru/en/russia/783529
QuoteRussia to ensure defense and security of South Ossetian border — treaty on alliance
Military aggression against one country will be considered an act of aggression directed against the other country as well
MOSCOW, March 18. /TASS/. Russia will ensure defense and security of South Ossetia and protect the country's borders, according to the Treaty on alliance and integration signed on Wednesday between Moscow and Tskhinval.
The treaty envisages forming a common defense and security space between Russia and South Ossetia.
Separate units of South Ossetia's military forces will be integrated into Russia's Armed Forces. Military aggression against one country will be considered an act of aggression directed against the other country as well.
The treaty also envisages free border crossing between Russia and South Ossetia, taking into account restrictions in place for security concerns.
The document stipulates that Moscow and Tskhinval will conduct a coordinated foreign policy. Russia will assist South Ossetia in urging more countries to recognize the republic's independence.
Putin praises alliance treaty
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday praised the alliance and integration treaty with South Ossetia, calling it "a landmark document."
"Today we made another important step towards further consolidation of partnership ties," Putin told reporters after the talks with his South Ossetian counterpart, Leonid Tibilov.
Russia to allocate $16 million to South Ossetia in 2016
Putin said one billion rubles ($16 million) will be allocated from Russia's 2016 budget to the implementation of the Treaty on alliance and integration between Russia and South Ossetia.
"The implementation of the treaty will be supported by considerable financial resources. In 2016, around 1 billion rubles will be allocated to South Ossetia for these purposes," Putin told journalists. "In 2008-2014, the total amount of financial support for the republic stood at 43 billion rubles," the president noted.
"The treaty on alliance and integration between the Russian Federation and South Ossetia is a basic document that envisages further bilateral agreements on specific areas of cooperation. It is planned to allocate 1 billion rubles from Russia's 2016 budget for its implementation," the materials said.
Trade turnover between Russia and South Ossetia stood at $66.9 million in 2014.
The Treaty on alliance and integration between the two countries is a basic document for gradual development of closer cooperation in social, economic and humanitarian spheres, as well as in foreign policy, defense and security while preserving South Ossetia's sovereignty. The treaty is signed for 25 years, it can be extended for 10 years after expiration.
In November 2014, Russia signed a similar agreement with Abkhazia - a Treaty on strategic alliance.
It's good to see that Russia's ability to conquer its neighbors is limited to a few provinces of Georgia and Ukraine when just 30 years ago it wasn't clear whether they could conceivably reach the Atlantic in case of a war. They must be the most powerless they've been in centuries these days.
Quote from: Syt on March 16, 2015, 02:00:42 PM
Reminds me of an old joke about Helmut Kohl (in jokes he was often portrayed as a simpleton):
Kohl comes to the border check but he has no passport with him.
The border guard says, "Sorry, can't let you pass without a passport."
Kohl: "But I'm the chancellor! Of the Federal Republic of Germany!"
Guard: "Sorry, can't let you pass."
Kohl: "Is there a way for me to prove who I am?"
Guard: "Well, tell you what. Last month Franz Beckenbauer was here, without passport. Gave him a football, and he showed off a few tricks. Was typical for him, so we let him pass."
Kohl: "Ok?"
Guard: "Then Konsalik was here [very prolific German writer]. No passport. Gave him a pen and paper, and he wrote a short story. Was typical for him and we let him pass."
Kohl: "But I don't know how to do anything!"
Guard: "Well, that's typical, you can pass."
I've heard this joke but it was about Obama when I heard it. :D
The Republicans cannot seem to decide if Obama is a bad president or a evil mastermind.
Well Bush and Clinton were also both of those things.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2015, 03:37:05 PM
Well Bush and Clinton were also both of those things.
And compared to congress, all three men are both.
Kant touch this!
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/kant-is-an-idiot-spray-painted-on-philosophers-russian-home/517654.html
Quote'Kant Is an Idiot' Spray-Painted on Philosopher's Russian Home
The home of 18th-century German enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, located in what is now the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, is in ruins and has become a hot spot for drinking and debauchery among local youths, news site Novy Kaliningrad reported.
Someone recently spray-painted a Russian phrase translatable as "Kant is an idiot" on the red-brick building's facade. The apparent insult is accompanied by a drawing of a flower and a heart, apparently from the same can of spray paint.
A Novy Kaliningrad reporter who visited the site found a fire burning in the grass nearby, saying it could have spread to the home had it remained unextinguished.
Regional authorities announced last year that they were seeking a caretaker for the home, which has been declared a cultural landmark. Alas, the home's condition remains dismal.
Russians have been known to take very seriously the philosophies of Kant, who is perhaps most famous for his "Critique of Pure Reason."
In 2013, an argument about the philosopher between two men in line at a grocery store in the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don ended when one of the men shot the other with rubber bullets.
:lol:
Objectivists. :mad:
My Critique: it is imperative that such False Subtleties be categorically rejected, as an Illness in the Head. As an Answer to the Question of why, other than Logic, some Practical Reasons include good Morals and Judgment, as should be clear Within the Limits of Reason Alone. Only then, with Enlightenment and Cosmopolitan Purpose can these poor benighted souls, to whom I would wish only Perpetual Peace, can come to Feel the Beautiful and Sublime.
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150321/1019826213.html
QuoteRussian Envoy Warns Denmark Not to Join NATO Missile Shield
The Russian Ambassador to Denmark has warned that Copenhagen will face grave consequences if it joins the NATO missile defense shield.
Danish warships may become targets for Russian nuclear missiles if Denmark decided to join the NATO missile defense shield, Russian Ambassador to Denmark Mikhail Vanin said, according to the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Poste.
"I do not think that the Danes are fully aware of the consequences if Denmark joins the US-led missile defense shield. If that happens, Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles," Vanin said.
He added that Denmark would become "part of the threat to Russia and [its] relations with Russia will be damaged."
Vanin also cautioned that joining NATO's defense shield would be "Denmark's decision", and that the country would "lose both money and security."
Danish Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard reacted angrily to what he described as "unacceptable" remarks.
"Russia knows very well that NATO's missile defense system is defensive. We disagree with Russia on many important things, but it is important that the tone between us remains as positive as possible," Lidegaard said.
NATO has been building up a missile defense system in the Mediterranean Sea and in several European NATO member states since 2002; it is something that is seen as one of the main stumbling blocks in relations between the alliance and Russia.
:wacko:
Yeah, that' sheen the talk of the town for the last few days. One former foreign minister put it like this: "They really shat on their own face this time." I'm not totally sure about that, but the general consensus is that Russia is weird.
Wasn't Denmark (just like the rest of Nato) always a target?
Quote from: Zanza on March 22, 2015, 05:46:51 AM
Wasn't Denmark (just like the rest of Nato) always a target?
Probably, but we haven't really considered Europe to be a target of Russians missiles for a few decades.
That's probably not the kind of thing an ambassador gets to say without having it ok'ed from above.
Meanwhile, a gathering of right-wing parties from all of Europe is being held in St. Petersburg. Oddly, Russian news outlets don't really mention it.
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/65095-150321-russian-conference-on-ukraine-to-be-attended-by-far-right-eu-parties
QuoteRussian conference on Ukraine to be attended by far right EU parties
International conference aims to raise support from EU parties for Moscow's interests in Ukraine
German neo-Nazis will attend Sunday a Russian international conference aimed at raising support from EU far-right parties for Moscow's interests in Ukraine. The Russian Conservative Forum, which will be held in St. Petersburg, will host Udo Voigt, a European MP from the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), alongside representatives from 10 other radical EU parties, including the Greek Golden Dawn and the Italian New Force.
"Some of them openly call themselves followers of Hitler and use the symbol of the swastika", claimed a Russian opposition politician in a last minute attempt to stop the meeting. Boris Vishnevsky of the Yabloko party called yesterday the St. Petersburg prosecutor office to launch an investigation and to cancel the convention. "All the parties, which were invited to this forum, have a reputation of neo-Fascists and neo-Nazis," he explained in an interview with Russian radio Ekho Moskva. "We must take the measures to stop the spread of extremism."
The stated purpose of the Forum, which is organized by Rodina, the Russian National Patriotic Union, is the establishment of a pan-European movement which would lobby for Russia's interests, especially in the face of possible further sanctions against Moscow. The proposed council will allow coordination between conservative and nationalistic forces in Europe and Russia, and would enable Moscow to influence political processes in the European Union.
The organizers are expecting 400 participants from 15 countries. Among them are MPs from the Greek neo-Nazi party Georgios Epitideios and Eleftherios Sinadinos, founder of the Italian Fascist movement Roberto Fiore and other members of far-right parties from the UK, Austria, Sweden, Bulgaria, Belgium, Denmark and Spain. According to the Russian newspaper Kommersant, Marine Le Pen from France's National Front was also invited to the forum but chose to decline, out of fear of damaging her reputation before presidential elections in 2017.
Vishnevsky also noted, when speaking with the newspaper, that a number of prominent military commanders from east Ukraine will attend the gathering, many of whom have strong ties to far-right or neo-Nazi Russian organizations. The Russian politician also commented about NPD's Voigt, saying that "he doesn't conceal his anti-Semitic and xenophobic views and has frequently faced administrative and criminal liability for inciting rebellion and other offenses".
Voigt, a former leader of the NPD who was elected last year to the European parliament, was charged several times with incitement for distributing racially-charged pamphlets, and in 2009 received a seven-month suspended sentence for this offense. He also claimed previously that the number of Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust was exaggerated, and in reality is closer to 340,000.
Quote from: Zanza on March 22, 2015, 05:46:51 AM
Wasn't Denmark (just like the rest of Nato) always a target?
Considering that Soviet plans had 60+ tactical nukes earmarked for Schleswig-Holstein alone I'd say that's likely.
I wonder who is going to that conference representing Spain, we don't really have any far-right parties worth speaking about.
Quote from: The Larch on March 22, 2015, 06:13:11 AM
I wonder who is going to that conference representing Spain, we don't really have any far-right parties worth speaking about.
Plataforma per Catalunya sent an observer to the Crimea referendum. And we still have lots of fringe far-right parties, they just have less followers than my twitter account.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2015, 05:43:04 AM
Poland has not yet perished! :bowler:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/europe/poland-steels-for-battle-seeing-echoes-of-cold-war-in-ukraine-crisis.html?hpw&_r=0
QuotePoles Steel for Battle, Fearing Russia Will March on Them Next[snip]
This looks like a bogus story - never heard of these people. :wacko:
Quote from: Liep on March 22, 2015, 05:44:03 AM
Yeah, that' sheen the talk of the town for the last few days. One former foreign minister put it like this: "They really shat on their own face this time." I'm not totally sure about that, but the general consensus is that Russia is weird.
Yeah that's the kind of attitude in Poland as well. Some media are trying very hard to drum up the Russia's threat (like the silly article Tim posted) but most people simply see it as a beginning of a new cold war and get on with their business while buying cheap gas.
I don't think Russians identify Nazis with anti-antisemitism.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2015, 09:34:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2015, 05:43:04 AM
Poland has not yet perished! :bowler:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/europe/poland-steels-for-battle-seeing-echoes-of-cold-war-in-ukraine-crisis.html?hpw&_r=0
QuotePoles Steel for Battle, Fearing Russia Will March on Them Next[snip]
This looks like a bogus story - never heard of these people. :wacko:
Well, certainly, if you've never heard of them, then the whole story (including photos, quotes, maps, etc) must have been fabricated by the New York Times. I mean, how could the staff of the NYT possibly match the breadth of your knowledge? No one here should entertain for a moment the conviction that you are full of shit on this. :cool:
When Marty pleads ignorance, I tend to believe him. :P
I didn't mean to say this is made up but the implication this reflects a larger trend is. The New York Times took a handful of marginal people and tries to use them to build a story that "Poland is bracing for war". It isn't.
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Should we really argue about this?
Quote from: The Brain on March 22, 2015, 12:24:14 PM
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Should we really argue about this?
I just find it funny that grumbler says I am full of shit when it comes to knowing the situation in Poland better than NYT.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2015, 12:26:44 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 22, 2015, 12:24:14 PM
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Should we really argue about this?
I just find it funny that grumbler says I am full of shit when it comes to knowing the situation in Poland better than NYT.
Dude, you're sitting in your gentrified ivory tower. What do you know about the average Pole?
Quote from: Syt on March 22, 2015, 12:33:15 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2015, 12:26:44 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 22, 2015, 12:24:14 PM
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Should we really argue about this?
I just find it funny that grumbler says I am full of shit when it comes to knowing the situation in Poland better than NYT.
Dude, you're sitting in your gentrified ivory tower. What do you know about the average Pole?
Yeah, and if you reflect on the NYT, if there is one thing it really connects with, it is the common man. That lower middle class American, NASCAR fans, rodeo cowboys...these are the images that come to mind when thinking of the generic NYT reader.
:yes:
Quote from: Syt on March 22, 2015, 12:33:15 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2015, 12:26:44 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 22, 2015, 12:24:14 PM
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Should we really argue about this?
I just find it funny that grumbler says I am full of shit when it comes to knowing the situation in Poland better than NYT.
Dude, you're sitting in your gentrified ivory tower. What do you know about the average Pole?
Besides, it's pretty well established that Grumbler is an expert on about anything, just ask him. I'd say it's even money if he knows more about Polish law then you do.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2015, 12:22:55 PM
I didn't mean to say this is made up but the implication this reflects a larger trend is. The New York Times took a handful of marginal people and tries to use them to build a story that "Poland is bracing for war". It isn't.
I haven't read the article since posting it, but if I recall correctly, they were qouting rather significant numbers aa being involved in these militias. If the numbers are accurate it would seem to imply a trend to me.
EDIT: Checking it, they say they have 80,000 members. I think that's a significant number.
Mart got all uppity when he got the ice maker.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2015, 06:23:28 PM
Mart got all uppity when he got the ice maker.
He allowed no scribes.
He was almost stoned to death by the rest of the village when he had ice in his Appletini.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2015, 05:07:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2015, 12:22:55 PM
I didn't mean to say this is made up but the implication this reflects a larger trend is. The New York Times took a handful of marginal people and tries to use them to build a story that "Poland is bracing for war". It isn't.
I haven't read the article since posting it, but if I recall correctly, they were qouting rather significant numbers aa being involved in these militias. If the numbers are accurate it would seem to imply a trend to me.
EDIT: Checking it, they say they have 80,000 members. I think that's a significant number.
QuoteGeneral Pacek estimated there were 120 such groups at the moment, with about 80,000 members, but he acknowledged that this was just a guess, as the groups are not required to report their existence or membership rolls.
They do not *have* 80,000 members - some guy talking to the NYP about such groups (that hardly anyone has heard of) says he guesses they may have 80,000 members. Nice try though, Tim.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 01:36:17 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2015, 05:07:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2015, 12:22:55 PM
I didn't mean to say this is made up but the implication this reflects a larger trend is. The New York Times took a handful of marginal people and tries to use them to build a story that "Poland is bracing for war". It isn't.
I haven't read the article since posting it, but if I recall correctly, they were qouting rather significant numbers aa being involved in these militias. If the numbers are accurate it would seem to imply a trend to me.
EDIT: Checking it, they say they have 80,000 members. I think that's a significant number.
QuoteGeneral Pacek estimated there were 120 such groups at the moment, with about 80,000 members, but he acknowledged that this was just a guess, as the groups are not required to report their existence or membership rolls.
They do not *have* 80,000 members - some guy talking to the NYP about such groups (that hardly anyone has heard of) says he guesses they may have 80,000 members. Nice try though, Tim.
What you mean to say is you haven't heard of them. You're like that actress who wondered how Nixon won, no one she knew voted for him!
I read Polish newspapers, contrary to what you might think - and if this was a raising phenomenon someone would have written about this. The NYP article is the first time I heard about such groups being more than a bunch of fringe weirdos (and that was also the way Polish media reported on it).
On the subject of laying a wreath at the Soviet War Memorial in London:
http://tass.ru/en/world/784237
QuoteAll our friends from CIS [Commonwealth of Independent State] countries and other countries will be there, along with our British partners, of course
"All our friends. And Britain." :lol:
Though apparently the ambassador didn't feel the need to add, "Our words are backed with nuclear weapons."
Are we talking about the Times or the Post now?
Quote from: Syt on March 23, 2015, 02:17:00 AM
Though apparently the ambassador didn't feel the need to add, "Our words are backed with nuclear weapons."
Someone with Photoshop skillz needs to make a Civ1 meme with Gandhi's face replaced by Putin's. :)
Well I am bummed my dreams of Marty drilling in an anti-Russian militia have not yet come to pass.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 07:26:18 AM
Well I am bummed my dreams of Marty drilling in an anti-Russian militia have not yet come to pass.
The Swishy brigade
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 07:26:18 AM
Well I am bummed my dreams of Marty drilling in an anti-Russian militia have not yet come to pass.
But your dreams of seeing Marti argue that "if I'm not aware of it, it can't be true"
have come to pass, so there's some consolation. :console:
Quote from: Solmyr on March 23, 2015, 06:54:58 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 23, 2015, 02:17:00 AM
Though apparently the ambassador didn't feel the need to add, "Our words are backed with nuclear weapons."
Someone with Photoshop skillz needs to make a Civ1 meme with Gandhi's face replaced by Putin's. :)
:D
So here's the Russian side of the Denmark story:
http://tass.ru/en/world/784466
QuoteDenmark unlikely to join NATO's missile shield — expert
The European Missile Defense System and its further deployment as an integral part of the US ballistic missile defense poses a threat to Russia's strategic nuclear forces
MOSCOW, March 23. /TASS/. Denmark is unlikely to join NATO's missile defense program, otherwise its ships will become a potential target for the Russian Armed Forces, Editor-in-Chief of the National Defense magazine Igor Korotchenko said on Monday.
Earlier, Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics voiced concern over an article by Russian Ambassador to Denmark Mikhail Vanin published by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, in which the diplomat dwells on the possible negative effects of the move.
"I believe the Danish political and military leadership will weigh all potential risks and will eventually not join the programs that have a destabilizing effect on the international strategic stability," Korotchenko told TASS.
The expert noted that, if Denmark deployed the Aegis naval system as a component of the European missile defense shield, "it could be absolutely sure that its ships would become a potential target for the Russian precision weapons."
"Any NATO member country that has joined the European Missile Defense System by deploying on its territory ground infrastructures (command centers, interceptor sites, radar), and also having vessels equipped with the Aegis system should be aware that these facilities will be viewed as potential targets for the Russian Armed Forces," Korotchenko said.
According to him, this is due to the fact that the European Missile Defense System and its further deployment as an integral part of the US ballistic missile defense poses a threat to Russia's strategic nuclear forces.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotocdn1.itar-tass.com%2Fwidth%2F750_7d39028b%2Ftass%2Fm2%2Fen%2Fuploads%2Fi%2F20141208%2F1073992.png&hash=1c0aad58c7d32e8ab9ae13fb90ff0bf01872d7b7)
Oddly, the article doesn't mention that the Russian ambassador threatened Denmark with nuclear weapons.
Seems like a backwards viewpoint. If they're worried about their ships being targeted in a war, isn't it better to have those ships and a defense system that will have some ability to respond in that war?? :hmm:
Thanks Jake. :mad:
We all know this Star Wars shit doesn't work anyways.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2015, 11:03:56 AM
We all know this Star Wars shit doesn't work anyways.
:yes: These technological terrors we have constructed are insignificant next to the power of the Force.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/russian-orthodox-priest-parental-violence-campaigns-are-anti-family/517976.html
QuoteRussian Orthodox Priest: Parental Violence Campaigns Are 'Anti-Family'
A Russian Orthodox archbishop who heads a patriarchal commission for children's and mothers' rights has criticized advocacy campaigns against domestic violence, arguing that they constitute "anti-family propaganda" and pose a threat to society.
Speaking with Russia's children's rights ombudsman, Pavel Astakhov, Archbishop Dmitry Smirnov said that public criticism of domestic violence raised distrust among family members and discredited traditional methods of discipline such as "parental punishment," according to a statement on the Russian Orthodox Church's website.
"Very often, unfortunately, to solve societal grievances we are offered a cure that is worse than the actual disease. This is exactly the case with campaigns against so-called 'domestic (or family) violence,'" Smirnov said, according to the statement.
Smirnov, who has served as a priest for nearly 35 years, added: "Instead of protecting children and women, we are allowing this anti-family propaganda, as a result of which family relationships are no longer seen as desirable, but as a threat."
He reasoned that campaigns warning against domestic violence lead society to perceive family relations not as sacred but as threatening, adding that just as the law protects society from harmful ideas and ideologies such as racism and Nazism, it should also protect the family unit from being undermined by public campaigns.
This is not the first time Smirnov has voiced his opposition to public discussions of domestic violence.
Last month, he cautioned against the signing of a Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating domestic abuse, saying it could run contrary to Russia's "national interests," according to a statement on the Church's website.
While data on domestic violence is scarce in Russia, statistics presented by the State Duma Committee on Public Health in 2012 showed that some 40 percent of all violent crimes in Russia were committed within families.
In his meeting with Astakhov on Friday, Smirnov said the family "in which a husband and wife are joined in marriage was and is the safest and best place for children to be raised."
Quotepatriarchal commission for children's and mothers' rights
Lolz
At least they are honest. That's a bit like the wolves' commission for sheeps' rights :lol:
So, the Russian Orthodox priest has the same views as the National Conference of Polish Bishops of the Catholic Church and about 40% of the Polish MPs.
http://rt.com/politics/243981-russia-america-security-strategy/
Quote'Clearly anti-Russian' – Moscow blasts latest US national security strategy
The recently approved US National Security Strategy for 2015 has a clear anti-Russian orientation, according to analysis released by Russia's Security Council (SC).
"The analysis of the strategy conducted by specialists of the Security Council of the Russian Federation indicates that compared to the previous edition of the 2010 the new one is based on clearly anti-Russian tendencies and forms a negative image of our country," reads the statement released by the top Russian consultative agency on national security.
The strategy is based on the principles of American Exceptionalism and the alleged right for unilateral enforcement of US interests in various parts of the world, the message reads.
The council stated that the changes in the US security concepts could have many negative consequences for relations between the two countries. Moscow foresees that Washington and its allies would apply a lot of effort to attract traditional allies of Russia into the anti-Russian camp and also to diminish Russia's influence on the post-soviet political space.
The newly adopted security strategy also made Russian experts to come to the conclusion that the US administration would put more effort into perfecting the political technologies behind the so called "color revolutions" – the forced change of lawfully elected regimes through street protests. The probability that these technologies could be used in Russia has increased, the Security Council said in the release.
The SC also noted in the review that the United States clearly intended to continue the course on global dominance, backed by own military forces and by the increasing military potential of NATO.
Russia also expected the US to boost its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. "The military force will continue to be the main tool for backing the US national security and interests," the release said.
The White House published the newly adopted National Security Strategy for 2015 on February 6. The document details both the major threats to the US as seen from Washington and the ways and means that would be used for dealing with these threats.
READ MORE: US dusted off old USSR-break-up strategy for use in Ukraine - former FSB chief
In October 2014 the head of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Nikolai Patrushev, openly accused the US of playing a role in the current turmoil in Ukraine and the military conflicts in Georgia and the Caucasus, saying these were direct results of the anti-Russian policy of the US administration.
Patrushev revealed in a press interview that intelligence analysts established that American special services were executing an anti-Russian program that dates back to the 1970s, and is based on Zbigniew Brzezinski's "strategy of weak spots," the policy of turning the opponent's potential problems into full-scale crises.
:tinfoil:
Country searches on Russia's number one search engine, Yandex. I guess Russians don't care about the Americas or Africa. Also, I'm assuming Thailand and Egypt are favourite vacation spots.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBHMZJSUYAAa1ch.png:large)
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2015, 06:32:41 AM
:tinfoil:
Our plans for global domination will be complete once we deal with those pesky Russians! Only they can foil our evil plans. :lol:
How delusional can you get?
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2015, 10:32:08 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2015, 06:32:41 AM
:tinfoil:
Our plans for global domination will be complete once we deal with those pesky Russians! Only they can foil or evil plans. :lol:
How delusional can you get?
Notice how the article says nothing about the contents of the new doctrine. Only that it's Anti-Russian.
Also:
http://rt.com/politics/244269-putin-fsb-stronger-russia/
QuoteTo change the situation for the better we must make Russia stronger – Putin to FSB
President Putin has told senior officers of Russia's domestic security service that despite the constantly increasing foreign pressure, the situation in the country will improve – once it stops giving in to its foes and starts becoming more powerful.
"No one has ever succeeded in intimidating or pressuring our country and no one ever will – we have always had and always will have an adequate answer for all internal and external threats to national security," Vladimir Putin said in an address to the FSB collegium on Thursday.
"The situation cannot always remain as it is, it is going to change and I hope it will change for the better, including the situation around our country," the Russian leader said. "But the changes for the better will not happen if we constantly yield, give in or use baby talk, it will only improve if we become stronger," he emphasized.
"NATO is developing its rapid response forces and is boosting its infrastructure near our borders, we are registering attempts to violate nuclear parity and the creation of the European and Asia-Pacific segments of the missile defense systems is being sped up," Putin said.
Apart from the military standoff with NATO, Russia had to oppose the attempts to undermine its political system, the Russian leader noted. "They are using a whole range of means for the so-called containment of Russia – from attempts at political isolation and economic pressure to a full-scale information war and tools used by special services."
The Russian president demanded that the FSB apply maximum effort to prevent the destabilization of the country.
"Western special services do not give up their attempts to use non-government groups and politicized unions to discredit Russian authorities and destabilize the internal situation in Russia. They are already planning actions for the period of the forthcoming elections in 2016 and 2018," Putin said. In 2016 Russia will hold the federal parliamentary election, and the next presidential poll is scheduled for 2018.
The president stated that the authorities intended to maintain their dialogue with the opposition and Russian civil society in general, as well-founded criticism and partnership have proved to be useful for any nation, including Russia.
"But it makes no sense to argue with those who work on orders from outside, who serve the interests of not their nation but an alien nation or nations," he said.
Putin pledged to continue the recently introduced practice of disclosing the foreign funding of political groups and NGOs, to check if the declared objectives of such groups match their real activities and to cut short any attempts at violations.
The president's statements are in line with the conclusions of Russia's top consultative body on national security, the Security Council, that said Wednesday that the 2015 US National Security Strategy was openly anti-Russian and could have multiple negative consequences on relations between Moscow and Washington. The document, published in early February, was based on the principles of American Exceptionalism and the alleged right of unilateral enforcement of US interests in various parts of the world, the Russian security experts claimed in their conclusion.
I find it pretty interesting (and telling) that Russian government is convinced that if the people rise up (anywhere) they must have been incited by an outside force. I'm not saying that this never happens, or that such movements are never influenced/supported from abroad. But it seems inconceivable to them that people, if they're unhappy with a situation, might gather and seek change through protest or in extreme cases revolution.
I don't think the Russian government believes that, but it is pretty convenient that Russians do.
http://uatoday.tv/politics/lithuanian-mps-unanimously-ratify-creation-of-joint-ukrainian-polish-lithuanian-brigade-417849.html :ph34r:
Quote from: celedhring on March 27, 2015, 11:36:41 AM
I don't think the Russian government believes that, but it is pretty convenient that Russians do.
I think they believe that. And I don't think it is unreasonable, from their point of view, to wish to diminish influence of foreign-sponsored NGOs promoting the "ideology" of liberal democracy. We do the same with NGOs that promote jihadism. Russia is evil so it sees liberal democracy as evil - but it is reasonable.
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2015, 03:50:14 AM
http://uatoday.tv/politics/lithuanian-mps-unanimously-ratify-creation-of-joint-ukrainian-polish-lithuanian-brigade-417849.html :ph34r:
First step for the Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth?
:tinfoil:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=14&v=QDfIhWJ9MAE
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2015, 11:01:09 AM
I find it pretty interesting (and telling) that Russian government is convinced that if the people rise up (anywhere) they must have been incited by an outside force. I'm not saying that this never happens, or that such movements are never influenced/supported from abroad. But it seems inconceivable to them that people, if they're unhappy with a situation, might gather and seek change through protest or in extreme cases revolution.
The Germans were 100% at fault for the Bolshevik revolution by shipping in Lenin so they know it's true from experience! :smarty:
Looks like building a 5th generation fighter is pretty tough.
http://news.yahoo.com/grounded-russias-answer-us-next-gen-fighter-hits-161003932.html
Quote
Grounded? Russia's answer to US next-gen fighter hits the skids.
The Kremlin is cutting its initial production of the Sukhoi T-50 fighter by 75 percent amid cost overruns and rumored technical concerns – the same kind of issues that have plagued US development of the F-35.
Russia's ambitious T-50 fighter plane project was meant to develop a rival to two futuristic US jetfighters, the F-22 Raptor and the planned F-35 Lightning-II.
But now, the T-50 appears to be rivaling the F-35 another way: in development troubles. The Kremlin is slamming the brakes on its "fifth generation" fighter program and cutting its initial rollout to a quarter of those originally planned.
The decision seems a setback for Vladimir Putin's sweeping $800 billion rearmament program, a vital component of the wider effort to restore Russia to its Soviet-era status as a major global superpower. However, the sharp slowdown in plans to procure the sophisticated new jet may represent an outbreak of wisdom on the part of Russian military chiefs, who will remember how the USSR was driven into bankruptcy by engaging in an all-out arms race with the US.
Financial constraints are the key reason cited for cutting the military order from 52 to 12 of the planes over the next few years, according to the Moscow daily Kommersant.
"Given the new economic conditions, the original plans may have to be adjusted," the paper quotes Deputy Defense Minister Yuriy Borisov as saying. The project to build a cutting-edge fighter plane, which is partly financed by India, will not be canceled, but held in abeyance while the Russian Air Force makes the most of its existing "fourth generation" MiG and Sukhoi combat aircraft, he added.
No one knows whether technical problems may also have played a role in the decision to shelve the fighter.
"We may suppose there are problems, but hard information is lacking," says Alexander Golts, an independent military expert. "For instance, the prototypes of this plane have been using an old engine, pending the development of the engine it needs. Has that been developed yet? We have no idea."
The only operational "fifth generation" fighter in the world is the US F-22. Its production was canceled in 2009, after fewer than 200 of the hyper-expensive planes had been built. American military services are now awaiting the arrival of the newer and also hugely overpriced F-35, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, but that program has been dogged with serious delays and technical failures.
The T-50, an advanced stealth plane with many capabilities lacking in previous fighters, has prompted some alarm in the West. The Russians have presented the project as an example of how they are able to leapfrog over the lost years, after Russia's military-industrial complex collapsed along with the Soviet Union, and field 21st century weapons that can rival the best the US has to offer.
Most of the weaponry that's currently in Russia's military inventory are Soviet-era designs that have evolved to incorporate new technology. Only three projects currently in the testing phase have been entirely developed by post-Soviet Russia. They are the T-50, the recently unveiled T-14 Armata tank, and the Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile.
Recent reports suggest that Russian military brass have also decided to slash orders for the new Armata tank, and instead continue using older, Soviet-designed models for a few more years.
There is no word on the fate of other grand projects that Russian military leaders have claimed to have on the drawing boards. These include plans for a super-sized aircraft carrier that would dwarf the US Nimitz class, and an enormous supersonic transport plane that could deliver up to 400 tanks anywhere in the world.
"Despite all these soaring plans, I think we see a bit of reason taking hold in the Russian military establishment," says Mr. Golts. "Even if there were no economic crisis, and no sanctions, this massively expensive rearmament program would not be what Russia needs right now. Scaling it back is a wise move."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2015, 05:43:04 AM
Poland has not yet perished! :bowler:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/europe/poland-steels-for-battle-seeing-echoes-of-cold-war-in-ukraine-crisis.html?hpw&_r=0
QuotePoles Steel for Battle, Fearing Russia Will March on Them Next
By RICK LYMANMARCH 14, 2015
KALISZ, Poland — For evidence of how much President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has jangled nerves and provoked anxiety across Eastern Europe, look no farther than the drill held the other day by the Shooters Association.
The paramilitary group, like more than 100 others in Poland, has experienced a sharp spike in membership since Mr. Putin's forces began meddling in neighboring Ukraine last year.
Saw this, kinda of a supplamental to this story, which caused a minor Languish spat. :P
QuoteOrdinary folk take up military training over Russia threat
Polish and British troops take part in a joint military exercise in Swietoszow, Poland, with more than 1,000 British troops participating. Czarek Sokolowski — The Associated Press file
By Monika Scislowska, The Associated Press
POSTED: 04/06/15, 3:01 PM PDT | 0 COMMENTS
WARSAW, Poland >> NATO aircraft scream across eastern European skies and American armored vehicles rumble near the border with Russia on a mission to reassure citizens that they're safe from Russian aggression.
But these days, ordinary people aren't taking any chances.
In Poland, doctors, shopkeepers, lawmakers and others are heeding a call to receive military training in case of an invasion. Neighboring Lithuania is restoring the draft and teaching citizens what to do in case of war. Nearby Latvia has plans to give university students military training next year.
The drive to teach ordinary people how to use weapons and take cover under fire reflects soaring anxiety among people in a region where memories of Moscow's domination — which ended only in the 1990s — remain raw. People worry that their security and hard-won independence are threatened as saber-rattling intensifies between the West and Russia over the conflict in Ukraine, where more than 6,000 people have died.
In Poland, the oldest generation remembers the Soviet Army's invasion in 1939, at the start of World War II. Younger people remain traumatized by the repression of the communist regime that lasted more than four decades.
It's a danger felt across the EU newcomer states that border Russia.
"There's a real feeling of threat in our society," Latvian defense ministry spokeswoman Aija Jakubovska told The Associated Press. Military training for students is a "way we can increase our own defense capabilities."
Most people are still looking to NATO's military umbrella as their main guarantor of security. Zygmunt Wos waved goodbye to a detachment of U.S. armored vehicles leaving the eastern Polish city of Bialystok with apprehension: "These troops should be staying with us," he said, "not going back to Germany."
Poland has been at the forefront of warnings about the dangers of the Ukraine conflict. Just 17 hours by car from the battle zone, Poland has stepped up efforts to upgrade its weapons arsenal, including a possible purchase of U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles. It will host a total of some 10,000 NATO and other allied troops for exercises this year. Its professional army is 100,000-strong, and 20,000 reservists are slated for test-range training.
It's the grassroots mobilization, however, that best demonstrates the fears: The government has reached out to some 120 paramilitary groups with tens of thousands of members, who are conducting their own drills, in an effort to streamline them with the army exercises.
In an unprecedented appeal, Parliament Speaker Radek Sikorski urged lawmakers to train at a test range in May, while Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak called on men and women aged between 18 and 50, and with no military experience, to sign up for test-range exercise. So far, over 2,000 people have responded.
"The times are dangerous and we must do all we can to raise Poland's ability to defend its territory," President Bronislaw Komorowski said during a recent visit to a military unit.
The Poles believe they have grounds for feeling particularly vulnerable because they have been invaded by Russia repeatedly since the 18th century. Russian leader Vladimir Putin seems to have singled out Poland, a staunch U.S. ally, as a prime enemy in the struggle over Ukraine, accusing it of training "Ukrainian nationalists" and instigating unrest.
Recently Moscow said it will place state-of-the-art Iskander missiles in its Kaliningrad enclave, bordering Poland and Lithuania, for a major exercise.
Last week, over 550 young Polish reservists were summoned on one hour's notice to a military base for a mobilization drill. In their 20s and 30s, in jeans and sneakers, the men and women arrived at a base in Tarnowskie Gory, in southern Poland for days of shooting practice. One of them, 35-year-old former soldier Krystian Studnia, said the call was "absolutely natural."
"Everyone should be willing and ready to fight to defend his country," he said.
In Warsaw, Mateusz Warszczak, 23, glowed with excitement as he signed up at a recruitment center. "I want to be ready to defend my family, my relatives, from danger," he said.
Even older Poles feel obliged to take responsibility for their own safety.
In September, Wojciech Klukowski, a 58-year-old medical doctor, and his friends organized a civic militia group of about 50 men and women of various ages, and called it the National Guard. They practiced skirmishes and shooting, with the aim of becoming citizen-soldiers in their hometown of Szczecin, on the Baltic Sea coast.
"We do not feel fully safe," Klukowski said. "Many people ... want to be trained to defend their homes, their work places, their families."
Rayyan Sabet-Parry in Riga, Latvia and Jari Tanner in Tallinn, Estonia contributed to this report.
2000 people responded? Wow. :lol:
And further 550 people were called to training.
Poland is fully mobilised it seems. :P
At least the names of the government officials involved seem more legit/higher level. :P
Of course, it is little wonder that the government is doing that, since nothing distracts voters in a double election year (we are electing the President in May and the Parliament in autumn) like fears of a military conflict.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 07, 2015, 01:10:23 AM
At least the names of the government officials involved seem more legit/higher level. :P
Nonsense. If Marty didn't inspect and approve this training, it never happened. Just ask him.
QuoteBattle.net Blocked in Crimea
Our roundup starts off with some serious news--Battle.net is now blocked in Crimea.
The Moscow Times has reported that Crimean gamers are locked out of all Battle.net games, with the notice "In accordance with current trade regulations relating to the region of Crimea, we are legally required to suspend access to your Battle.net account."
As PC Gamer notes, many well-known companies have imposed similar restrictions as part of Executive Order 13685, which prohibits "the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, services, or technology to the Crimea region of Ukraine."
:nelson:
WAR CRIME!
I just got an unprompted teaching offer from a Russian ESL company I applied to years ago. The pay offered would have been fine when the Rouble was trading at less than 30 to the dollar, but not when it's over 50. I guess that's why they're spamming everyone who has ever applied. :D
Who exactly is living in a bad imperialist state these days? :hmm:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/russians-cold-war-116736.html?ml=m_b1_1#.VSdqwqocQc8
QuoteThe United States has a short-term and a long-term problem in Russia. The shorter-term and easier problem is the hostile attitude of Vladimir Putin and his Kremlin cronies toward Washington. The longer-term and much tougher challenge is the enmity of the Russian people themselves. It may astonish my friends in the West, but the attitude of Russians today towards the United States and Americans is worse than it was for most of the Cold War, when Americans were viewed as "good guys" living in a bad, imperialist state. Now, many Russians view not only U.S. leaders but U.S. citizens as "bad guys."
And the trend-lines keep going in one direction: down. According to surveys conducted recently by the Levada Center, an independent Russian polling organization, the number of Russian residents who have a positive attitude towards the United States has dropped by almost three quarters in the last year, while the percentage of those with a negative attitude exceeds 80 percent. The share of Russians who describe relations with the U.S. as "hostile" surged from 4 percent in January 2014 to 42 percent in January 2015. Partly this is because as Russian democracy deteriorates, the Russian public seems ready to fall for even the most ridiculous notions floated by state-affiliated media outlets, such as claims that Americans adopt Russian orphans specifically to abuse them and sell their organs.
Yet anti-American propaganda is not alone to blame. It is important to understand that U.S. actions also played a role in escalating anti-Americanism in Russia. The biggest culprit has been NATO expansion, which many in Russia believe targets their country, aiming to surround and isolate it. The bombing of Belgrade also contributed, more because of the overt disregard for Russia's opinion than because of the military action itself. The Iraq War, the intervention in Libya, and many other moves can be added to the same list.
Another reason for the deteriorating attitude towards the United States has been the fact that Russia's cultural and historical identity has been ignored, despite the usual assurances of respect for Russian culture. For more than three centuries–starting with the reign of Peter the Great and particularly after the victory over Napoleon–Russia has seen itself as a great power. The sense of having a special mission has been with Russians even longer. Many in Russia are unwilling to accept a secondary role on the world stage. Neither the substance nor the style of U.S. actions has taken this into account in recent years.
Russia's cultural and historical identity explains the resounding popular support in the country for Putin's decision to annex Crimea. The approval rating for the move has consistently remained around 90 percent. Initially, only 1 percent of the population was categorically opposed and now, a year later, this number is at 2.6 percent. This has nothing to do with the supposed aggressive nature of Russians, nor with a desire to rebuild a lost empire. The annexation of Crimea–conducted without a single shot fired and without any casualties–was carried out under the rallying cries of helping Russians and restoring justice (a rationale that Russian citizens unfortunately believed), and it revived the victorious identity, the national pride, and the belief in Russia's power and moral authority that had been lost with the collapse of the U.S.S.R.
Of course this does not absolve Russia of responsibility for its actions of the past year. Feeling offended in no way excuses aggression. And Russian society is not monolithic. The majority does support Putin's policy on Ukraine, but there is a vocal minority – primarily educated city-dwellers–who speak out sharply against it, seeking peace with Ukraine rather than its subjugation, and cooperation with the United States rather than confrontation. Tens of thousands of people attended anti-war marches in Moscow. It is not correct to equate current-day Russia with its president. However, this is what House Resolution 758, passed by the U.S. Congress on December 4, 2014, does when–in condemning the actions of the Russian Federation—it makes no mention of the people of Russia, who are as interested in ending the war as the people of Ukraine.
The only long-term solution to this problem of rampant anti-Americanism in Russia is for Americans to better understand the broader Russian mindset. This is a nation that feels historically unlucky, subjected to a vengeful West that poured salt in its wounds after the Cold War by further cutting into its great-power status. It is also a nation that, frankly, is not especially fond of democracy. That's the main reason for Putin's enduring popularity.
At the same time there is hardly a monolith of opinion behind Putin and the Kremlin, and the Russian leader's current policy is far from being in the interests of everyone in Russia. Russian businessmen suffer from corruption, scientists and academics—from the country's isolation, members of the high-tech community—and from unraveling connections with the world's most technologically advanced countries. Russian writers and artists suffer from ideological pressure. The annexation of Crimea took a heavy financial toll on the entire population. The war in the Donbass region, if it continues, will bring further human losses, primarily among the less educated and less affluent segments of the population.
Intoxication with the victory in Crimea will pass sooner or later, and then the U.S. government will need to seek a balance of interests not with Putin, but with the large number of groups that make up the Russian public, as well as with a new government of Russia that will represent the interests of the public. Only then can normal, constructive relations between Russia and the United States be restored.
The latest measures taken by the United States with regard to Russia affect (not always in expected ways) not only Putin's policies, but also the sentiments of Russians towards the United States. From this viewpoint, the personal sanctions targeting "Putin's friends" will not undermine and may even improve the image of the United States in the long term. Many of these individuals are perceived as corrupt, and are believed to have amassed their huge fortunes in disreputable ways. Personal sanctions also bring tension to the atmosphere around Putin, which was likely the objective of this policy's authors.
The expansion of sanctions, however, will only further bring down the living standards of millions of Russians. This will not force the Russian government to change its policy on Ukraine, but it will worsen attitudes towards the United States.
Deliveries of U.S. weapons to Ukraine will unquestionably result in at least a temporary increase in anti-American sentiments in Russia. At the same time, these weapons could prevent new offensives by Russia-supported separatists in Ukraine. The one price that the Kremlin is not willing to pay for continuing its course in Ukraine is large-scale casualties affecting the entire country, which could – in combination with the economic crisis – lead to domestic unrest. In fact, human casualties are also the one price that Russian society is unwilling to pay. If it becomes clear that a local parity in armaments makes such casualties inevitable, there might be no more offensives, which would protect the lives of both Ukrainians and Russians. U.S. weapons could serve as the same kind of deterrents that the nuclear arsenals of the superpowers were for several decades. Of course, the most dangerous period will be the time between the announcement of deliveries and the actual arrival of weapons to the frontlines.
Thinking long-term, there are two other initiatives the United States should take. First, it should provide moral support to the people and organizations in Russia that fight for freedom and democracy in their country. Their moral and political resistance prevents, or at least slows, the descent of the country into archaic barbarity. They have been left in a one-on-one confrontation with the government in their country, but they should not feel all alone in the world. Support of Soviet dissidents had a major significance in its time and was duly appreciated by many in the U.S.S.R.
Second, the United States should expand, rather than cut back, exchange and direct assistance programs in science, culture and particularly education, no matter how difficult this is to do when the Russian government is doing all it can to impede or shut down such programs. Young people who learn about life in the U.S. through well-organized educational exchange programs or internships will never fall victim to primitive anti-Western stereotypes. Those who return to Russia to work will try to foster principles of freedom and openness in their own country, principles that are currently alien to much of the Russian population. Russia needs this for effective development, while the United States and the rest of the world need Russia to become an ally and not an enemy.
Russians completely buy the Kremlin propaganda, hook and sinker.
Our firm has an office in Kiev and a lot of Russians from the Donetsk area work there - apparently they are all completely supportive of Putin, so this cannot be blamed on media censorship in Russia; these people simply prefer to believe in their own version of events.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2015, 06:17:49 AM
I just got an unprompted teaching offer from a Russian ESL company I applied to years ago. The pay offered would have been fine when the Rouble was trading at less than 30 to the dollar, but not when it's over 50. I guess that's why they're spamming everyone who has ever applied. :D
This may be your opportunity for professional challenge you said you were missing in your current job. While the pay may not be good in USD, local prices are in rubles.
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2015, 02:37:11 AM
Russians completely buy the Kremlin propaganda, hook and sinker.
Our firm has an office in Kiev and a lot of Russians from the Donetsk area work there - apparently they are all completely supportive of Putin, so this cannot be blamed on media censorship in Russia; these people simply prefer to believe in their own version of events.
In one of my group interviews I met a guy who had worked ten years in Azerbaijan for some Russian oil outfit and he said he had to return to the US because it got so bad. The Russians made no effort to hide their hatred for him all the time and he kept being forced to denounce the US, which of course he did but it made no difference. Charming.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 10, 2015, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2015, 06:17:49 AM
I just got an unprompted teaching offer from a Russian ESL company I applied to years ago. The pay offered would have been fine when the Rouble was trading at less than 30 to the dollar, but not when it's over 50. I guess that's why they're spamming everyone who has ever applied. :D
This may be your opportunity for professional challenge you said you were missing in your current job. While the pay may not be good in USD, local prices are in rubles.
But inflation is also high.
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2015, 09:06:27 AM
But inflation is also high.
Dorsey is just trying to get Tim exiled to Russia or something.
My other professional Russian story is I got messaged by a Russian Engineer saying he got a job offer from a Texas firm but he hears in Russia that Texans shoot all foreigners. So he wanted to know if that was true. I was like :blink:
Did you tell him you only shoot the ones stealing jobs from Texans? :alberta:
Yes
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/13/how-vladimir-putins-skewed-view-of-world-war-two-threatens-his-neighbors-and-the-west/?utm_source=Facebook
QuoteHow Vladimir Putin's skewed view of World War Two threatens his neighbors and the West
Russian President Vladimir Putin stands smiling between George W. Bush and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder as the U.S. president reaches out to shake hands with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. It was a photo-op that couldn't be missed: the military parade in Moscow on May 9, 2005, marking the 60th anniversary of the Nazis' capitulation. Despite widespread outrage over the U.S. invasion of Iraq, everybody could agree that the end of World War Two was worth celebrating together. Even Viktor Yushchenko, the first Ukrainian president who openly defied the Kremlin, came.
This May 9, Putin will be lucky if a couple of European presidents show up for the 70th anniversary. The annexation of Crimea and Russia's support for militants in eastern Ukraine have made Kremlin invitations toxic. Few Western leaders will want to be seen at a Victory Day parade featuring 15,000 soldiers and 200 military vehicles, including the BUK anti-aircraft missile system believed to have shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine last summer.
Just five years ago, U.S. and other Allied troops marched in the Victory Day parade to commemorate the coalition that defeated Nazi Germany. Now Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is blaming "the Americans and the European Union's aggressive core" for sabotaging the Kremlin's party plans. The foreign dignitary likely to attract the most attention this year is North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, who is expected to make his first official trip abroad to attend the Moscow parade.
A string of historic 70th anniversaries began in June of last year, when France remembered the Allies' D-Day landing in Normandy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel ably used the occasion to arrange Putin's first meeting with the freshly inaugurated Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko. But as the Kremlin ramped up its involvement in eastern Ukraine, Putin became an increasingly unwanted guest at international gatherings.
In January, the Red Army's liberation of the Auschwitz death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland was remembered. The Polish government didn't send out formal invitations to the commemoration, thereby letting Putin know he wasn't welcome at a ceremony attended by dozens of world leaders. A couple of weeks later, the 70th anniversary of the Yalta Conference came and went. That summit — hosted by Stalin in the Crimean resort — extended the Kremlin's influence over much of Eastern Europe and helped set the stage for the Cold War. The next big awkward anniversary is April 25, 1945, when advancing Soviet and U.S. troops met on the Elbe River south of Berlin, sealing Adolf Hitler's fate.
World War Two was supposed to be history by now. Germany, once Europe's chief villain, had long atoned for its sins, building a model democracy, making peace with its neighbors, and becoming an anchor of the continent's unity. 2015 was meant to be a year of remembrance and celebration of how far Europeans had come in seven decades. Instead, it has degenerated into a clash that says more about the present than the past, especially in Eastern Europe.
For most countries that emerged from the Soviet empire 25 years ago, independence from Moscow exposed messy, overlooked histories. The small nations of east central Europe had been pushed and pulled by the Nazi and Communist juggernauts surrounding them. From the Baltics to the Balkans, it was a story of collaboration and betrayal, resistance and subjugation. One and the same army could be viewed as liberator, conqueror and occupier. Loyalties were split, quartered and ground to pieces.
Complexity or inconvenient facts had no place in official Soviet historiography, where the Red Army was celebrated as the undisputed victor in the war against fascism. The 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that carved up Poland and ceded the Baltic nations to the Soviet Union was forgotten; the Holocaust downplayed; and the role of the Western Allies diminished. World War Two was remembered as the "Great Patriotic War" and didn't start until the Nazis' genocidal invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. There was no mention that Hitler and Stalin were allies before the attack. The Pacific war was a sideshow that the Soviet Union didn't enter until Japan's defeat was imminent.
When Putin came to power in 2000, Russians were still reeling from a decade of nihilism that had followed the collapse of Communism. For a country that was beginning to pick itself up, the "Great Victory" against the Nazis presented itself as the ideal surrogate for a national idea to pull together Russia. Practically every family had suffered in the war, and the whole country knew the iconography from Soviet television and film. Putin couldn't buy Russia a new identity for all the petrodollars in the world, but he could make Victory Day the de facto national holiday, celebrated with ever more gargantuan military parades.
For Putin, the Soviet version of World War Two is a cornerstone of Russian prestige. In March, Putin called his ministers to a meeting in the Kremlin to check on preparations for this year's holiday.
"Today we unfortunately see not only attempts to misrepresent and distort events of the war, but cynical, open lies and the brazen defamation of a whole generation who gave up everything for the victory," Putin said. "Their goal is clear: to undermine the power and moral authority of modern Russia and deprive it of the status of a victorious nation."
Putin was reacting to ridiculous — and transparently political — statements by Eastern European leaders that hardly warranted a response. In January, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk recalled the "Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany" on German TV, and Polish Foreign Minister Grzegorz Schetyna suggested in an interview that an ethnic Ukrainian unit of the Red Army had actually liberated Auschwitz.
Lavrov denounced his counterpart's comments as "sacrilegious." The word choice is revealing, as Russia's World War Two cult has taken on quasi-religious qualities. Leading up to the 65th anniversary of the war's end, the Kremlin even convened a special commission to combat the "falsification of history," evidently with unsatisfactory results.
The problem isn't an attempt to deny the sacrifice of tens of millions of Soviet civilians and Red Army soldiers. At issue is the dual nature of a liberation that turned into conquest as Stalin steamrolled across and then subjugated Eastern Europe.
In the Kremlin's cartoonish portrayal of history, the people who fought fascists were not Communists or democrats but simply "anti-fascists." In Russia, the term "fascist" has been stripped of ideology and is synonymous with "anybody we don't like." Given Putin's authoritarianism and his appeal among far-right parties in Europe, the Kremlin's concern about fascism is artifice. Putin is an opportunist, not an ideologue.
Yet remembering the Great Victory is more than an instrument to consolidate Russians: it has also become a way to prepare people for war.
The Kremlin cast the Ukraine conflict in Soviet tropes from the start, branding the pro-European interim government as "fascist" and spreading hysteria among Russian speakers about the coming wrath of the Banderovtsy — followers of the World War Two-era Ukrainian nationalist leader, Stepan Bandera. The fear-mongering fell on fertile ground, as Ukraine had witnessed some of the fiercest fighting and worst massacres of the war. Pro-Russian militants in Crimea and eastern Ukraine convinced themselves they were reliving an epic struggle against fascism. Their symbol became the orange-and-black striped St. George's ribbon, a sign of remembrance of the Red Army's victory over Nazism.
For Putin, the main lesson of World War Two is that enemies are tirelessly plotting to encircle and enslave Russia. If 75 years ago it was the Third Reich, today it's the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. At the same time, President Barack Obama's decision to ignore his parade has infuriated Putin. In March the pro-Kremlin tabloid LifeNews started a Twitter campaign, #VictoryDayForObama, "to remind the president of one of the most important days of the 20th century."
Germany has championed good relations with Russia as a way of making up for World War Two and can't be as dismissive as the United States. German leftists proposed inviting Putin to Berlin to mark this year's anniversary. Merkel settled on a more diplomatic solution: skipping the military parade on May 9 yet paying her respects at the Kremlin's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier a day later.
Twenty years ago, Bill Clinton faced a similar dilemma. The U.S. president ended up traveling to Moscow for the 50th anniversary of the war's end, but he stayed away from the main military parade as a way of showing his disapproval of Russia's war in Chechnya.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/04/10/russia-just-made-a-ton-of-internet-memes-illegal/
QuoteRussia just made a ton of Internet memes illegal
In post-Soviet Russia, you don't make memes. Memes make (or unmake?) you.
That is, at least, the only conclusion we can draw from an announcement made this week by Russia's three-year-old media agency/Internet censor Roskomnadzor, which made it illegal to publish any Internet meme that depicts a public figure in a way that has nothing to do with his "personality."
Sad Keanu? Nope.
Sad Putin? Absolutely not.
"These ways of using [celebrities' images] violate the laws governing personal data and harm the honor, dignity and business of public figures," reads the policy announcement from Roskomnadzor.
To be clear, this isn't a new law passed by parliament or anything — it's just a (pretty startling) clarification of existing policy, published to the popular social network Vkontakte. According to Russian media, the announcement came in light of a lawsuit filed by the Russian singer Valeri Syutkin, who sued an irreverent Wikipedia-style culture site over an image macro that paired his picture with some less-than-tasteful lyrics from another artist's song. On Tuesday, a Moscow judge ruled for Syutkin, prompting the Roskomnadzor to publish an update to its "personal data laws."
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2015/04/illegal-meme.jpg)
The meme in question. That test translates to "smack the b—- in the face." (Via Global Voices)
Those laws now ban, per Roskomnadzor's announcement, memes that picture public figures in a way that "has no relation to [their] personality," parody accounts and parody Web sites. If a public figure believes such a site or meme has been made about him, the announcement continues, he can report them to the Roskomnadzor, which — in addition to overseeing Russia's Internet censorship program — can file claims in court. Web sites are essentially given the choice of blocking the offending content in Russia, or seeing their whole sites get blocked across the country.
If that sounds crazy to U.S. readers, it probably should: U.S. law gives a very, very wide berth to Internet speech, even when it depicts private people or children — and especially when it depicts public figures.
Russia, on the other hand, has taken a series of steps to increase government control of the Internet in recent months. Just last August, Russia enacted a law that forced all bloggers with more than 3,000 daily readers to register with the Roskomnadzor, basically outlawing anonymous blogs. Earlier in the year, Russia approved a law that lets Roskomnadzor unilaterally block Web sites without explanation; the sites of prominent Putin critics were among the first to go dark.
It is impossible to know, of course, exactly how much of the Russian Internet will be affected by the change and to what degree this new policy will be pursued or enforced. (It is worth noting that public figures have to take their complaints to the Roskomnadzor, which many presumably will not do.)
Still, if the policy is enforced, the implications for the Russian memeosphere could be huge: According to a recent academic census of English-speaking memes, nearly a third of the Internet's most popular memes depict a specific person. Just think of how many excellent memes depict Vladimir Putin!
Ah, the more Russia changes, the more it remains the same.
My new avatar is inspired by a picture from the Nixon/Brezhnev pool party.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de%2F%7Edenysov%2FJJ%2FEEE%2FBrezhnev%2520Gazing%2520at%2520Jill%2520St.%2520John.jpg&hash=ad702016437c594d8256eee92880a0d56866c4b4)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvefir.pressan.is%2Futlond%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F18%2F2014%2F09%2FBrezhnev2.jpg&hash=ec4d0abcd522eea172d723da29df525714aa0fc4)
http://rt.com/politics/249541-russia-religion-foreign-rules/
QuoteRussia to tighten rules for foreign-funded religious groups
A Russian government commission has recommended to pass the bill that would oblige all religious groups that receive sponsorship from abroad to provide the authorities with detailed information about their work and their leaders.
The Justice Ministry that has drafted the bill, noted in an explanations that its main objective was to timely uncover the religious groups' involvement in terrorist and extremist activities as well as other facts of violation of the Russian law.
The draft orders that religious organizations that get money or other property from foreign and international groups, foreign citizens and persons without citizenship, should file in detailed reports about their activities and personal information about their leaders. Regional branches of the Justice ministry are charged with the task to oversee the process.
The bill will be considered at one of the nearest government sessions and then submitted to the parliament.
READ MORE: MPs suggest restricting activities of 'undesirable foreign groups' in Russia
In late 2012 Russia introduced the so called "Foreign Agents Law" that ordered all NGOs that receive funding from abroad, and that are even partially engaged in political activities, to register as foreign agents or risk substantial fines. Activists and human rights officials criticized the act for allegedly labeling the groups and warned of a possible sharp cut in foreign funding. Russian officials, including President Putin, replied that the law contained no sanctions against foreign-funded organizations and only sought to inform the Russian public better, and especially voters, of the possible motives of various participants in the political process.
In late 2014 the State Duma passed a bill that makes it illegal for Russian political parties to receive sponsorship, or enter any business deals with NGOs with "foreign agent" status.
I think now's a good time for a rebirth of the invasion genre that was so the rage at the beginning of the last century in Britain. :bowler:
http://news.yahoo.com/three-russian-ships-english-channel-000348261.html
QuoteLondon (AFP) - British fighter jets were scrambled on Wednesday in response to the sighting of two Russian military aircraft near UK airspace, hours after three Russian ships were monitored as they entered the English Channel.
"Quick Reaction Alert Typhoon fighter aircraft were launched today after Russian aircraft were identified flying close to UK airspace," said a Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesman.
The planes were launched from the Lossiemouth military airbase in northern Scotland.
Britain's Royal Navy earlier kept track of three Russian ships, including a destroyer, after they entered the English Channel, according to the defence ministry.
It is the latest in a string of similar incidents and comes at a time of tense relations between London and Moscow over the crisis in Ukraine and the inquiry into the death of Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko.
"MoD can confirm 3 Russian ships being monitored by @RoyalNavy HMS Argyll through Channel. No exercises seen," the ministry said on its Twitter feed.
"Russian Udaloy class destroyer Severomorsk returning from Mediterranean with tanker and support ship. Due to leave Channel later."
Russia's defence ministry said the ships were en route to the North Atlantic, where they would be taking part in exercises "on anti-air and anti-submarine defence".
The Channel is used frequently and legitimately as a route by Russian warships but NATO countries are on alert over fears that Moscow could attempt to destabilise countries on Europe's eastern flank that were in its orbit during Soviet times.
James Nixey, head of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at think-tank Chatham House, said Russia's actions around the UK were designed to send a message.
"Russia is trying to show it has got full spectrum capability warfare," he said.
"It is not a prelude to war but it is a reminder that Russia likes to remind us of -- that it is a power to be reckoned with, not a fading power, which might be closer to the reality.
The Severomorsk, an anti-submarine destroyer, was among four ships which passed through the Channel in November.
A Russian warship was also tracked through the Channel in February while the previous month, Britain summoned the Russian ambassador after Tupolev Tu-95 bombers, known as Russian "bears", were found flying close to British airspace.
According to a report in The Daily Telegraph newspaper, Britain was forced to accept a four-day visit by Russian military inspectors to view UK-led naval war games off the coast of Scotland.
The exercises, which began on Monday, are taking place under the terms of a European arms control treaty.
Putin had his annual TV Q&A call in marathon.
http://rt.com/news/250313-putin-live-conference-highlights/
A few quotes:
Quote"Big superpowers which pretend to be exceptional and consider themselves the only center of power in the world do not need allies, they need vassals. I'm talking about the United States. Russia cannot exist in such a system of relations."
:lol:
Quote"After World War II we tried to impose on many Eastern European nations our model of development and we did it through force. We must acknowledge that. There's nothing good in it, it still affects us today... The Americans are doing something like that now, trying to impose their model on virtually the entire world. They will fail too."
Admitting that USSR was bad? :hmm:
Norway complains about unannounced visit by Russian deputy PM on Svalbard:
http://rt.com/politics/251209-russia-rogozin-svalbard-ministry/
Quote'Inexplicable and absurd' – Russia blasts Norway's overreaction on official Svalbard visit
Russia's Foreign Ministry has said the recent visit to Svalbard by deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin was fully within the norms of international law and the spirit of Arctic partnership that Norway has consistently demonstrated so far.
"The use of the [Svalbard] archipelago in the North Pole-2015 expedition was motivated by purely logistical reasons and the air traffic safety demands in high altitudes. These circumstances appear to be natural and we thought we could count on its understanding by the Norwegian side in the spirit of partnership in the Arctic that Norway has always demonstrated," the ministry's spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich announced on Monday.
The comment came soon after Norway summoned the Russian ambassador in Oslo to express frustration over Rogozin's visit to Svalbard. This Arctic archipelago belongs to Norway, but also houses a relatively large community of Russian miners and is not part of the Schengen Zone making visa-free visits possible. Despite this fact, the Norwegian side voiced concern over Rogozin's visit as this Russian official is on a sanctions list introduced by western nations in 2014 over Russia's reunification with the Republic of Crimea.
Norwegian diplomats also complained that they had learned about Rogozin's presence on Svalbard only from press and promised to tighten visa regimes with Russia, possibly with new restrictions concerning Svalbard visits.
Dmitry Rogozin is Russian deputy PM in charge of the defense industry and in this capacity he heads several important government commissions, including the State Commission for Arctic Development. The weekend visit to Svalbard was a part of the launch of the North Pole-2015 - a new scientific drifting station designed to maintain months-long presence of Russian researchers in the Arctic Ocean.
Rogozin made several tweets from the visit, one of which mentioned himself taking a dive into the Arctic Ocean close to the North Pole. He also reacted to Norway's latest actions with several tweet posts. One said: "One should not throw punches after the fight is over" and another suggested, "They are simply jealous because we were swimming on the North Pole."
"The Arctic is Russian Mecca," the official wrote as a caption to a group photo made on the North Pole.
Russia has repeatedly emphasized the priority of the Arctic in its latest economic and defense programs. Major projects include the development of energy resources on the Arctic shelf and works on the Northern Sea Route, which is gradually becoming an alternative to traditional transport corridors between Europe and Asia.
In April 2014, President Vladimir Putin announced Russia was creating a new united fleet of new generation combat ships and submarines permanently deployed to the Arctic.
In late 2013, Russia began extracting oil on the Arctic shelf. The country claims about two-thirds of large oil and gas deposits in the Arctic shelf zone, but plans to claim more territory through the so-called Lomonosov Ridge. Russian authorities have promised to lodge the documents with this claim to the United Nations in 2015.
http://rt.com/politics/251537-russia-independent-policy-poll/
QuoteRussians want their country to follow independent course, poll shows
Over half of Russian citizens want their homeland to pursue its own way of development and only 17 percent think that Russia should take the same path as Western nations, according to the latest research by independent pollster Levada Center.
The share of those who prefer an independent development program for Russia was 55 percent, significantly up from 37 percent two years back. The share of supporters of the European way for Russia on the decreased from 31 percent in 2013 to 17 percent today, Levada's research indicates.
As many as 19 percent of respondents said that Russia should return to the ways of the Soviet Union.
Sociologist Karina Pipiya from the Levada Center said in comments to Izvestia daily that the shift towards support of 'Russia's own path' was a logical consequence of past year's major events – the political crisis in Ukraine, followed by the military conflict, the reunification of Russia and Crimea and the Western policy of anti-Russian sanctions. The combined result was the desire of an average Russian to distance from the West, she noted.
At the same time, Pipiya pointed out that when citizens were asked about their forecast of Russia's future, the answers were much less uniform.
Twenty-four percent of Russians expect that in 50 years their country will be rich and developed and on the same level with Western nations. Some 23 percent said that while science in technology in Russia will be on the same level with the West the life of ordinary people will be different (without specifying if it will be better or worse).
Twelve percent hold that Russia will join "the path of great Eastern nations," like China and India.
READ MORE: Most Russians see their country as great power – poll
Ten percent expect the country to return to socialism and move towards communism. Predictably most respondents in this category were elderly people.
As for the current economic and political situation, 50 percent of Russians maintain that the nation faces only temporary difficulties. Eighteen percent expect a deeper crisis and 8 percent say that the economy will slide into stagnation. Only 4 percent described the current situation as stable development.
In late March this year, the Levada Center released the results of another poll that showed that 68 percent of Russian citizens believe their homeland is a great power that plays a significant role in international politics. The same research demonstrated that the share of Russians who said they supported further expansion of contacts and cooperation with Western nations was still twice as many than those who oppose it – 60 percent v 29 percent.
I really enjoy the picture RT used for this article. It manages to be colorful and drab at the same time.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.rt.com%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F3d%2F69%2F10%2F00%2Fflag.si.jpg&hash=76e3a4bca8f1770b1b9c9b444d0c8ea92f0e42a0)
Good news
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32405650
QuotePoland has announced a deal to buy US Patriot surface-to-air missiles, amid rising tension with Russia.
President Bronislaw Komorowski said Poland would start talks with the US to finalise the multibillion contract.
The move follows reports that Russia has deployed missiles in its exclave of Kaliningrad, which borders Poland.
Russia's annexation of Crimea last year and its support for rebels in eastern Ukraine have caused great concern among Nato states, notably in Eastern Europe.
Russia denies accusations by Nato that it is arming the rebels and sending troops into Ukraine.
Missile gap
The Patriot is an advanced missile system intended to defend against aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles.
"For the armed forces' technical modernisation, and the Polish armed forces' resilience, to be effective, the so-called anti-missile shield... had to become the priority of priorities", President Komorowski said on Tuesday.
He added that regional security had worsened because of the conflict in Ukraine.
Warsaw wants to buy the Patriots because it is concerned about Moscow placing missiles in Kaliningrad that borders northern Poland, the BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw reports.
Poland currently has no defence against such weapons.
The missile deal - which could be worth about $7bn (£4.7bn) - is the largest in Polish history, our correspondent says.
It is part of Poland's plans to spend $35bn to modernise its military over the next eight years.
Poland also plans to buy helicopters, submarines and armoured personnel carriers.
Seems a wise choice by Poland. I think there was a missile shield proposed a few years back, or during the Bush admin, that got canceled a few years ago?
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/arts_n_ideas/article/no-joke-6-things-that-upset-the-russian-authorities-in-april/519554.html
QuoteNo Joke: 6 Things That Upset the Russian Authorities in April
Russian authorities seem to be going out of their way to find things to crack down on these days. Here's a list of six things that really irritated them in April.
Nazi-Themed Toys
Moscow investigators opened a criminal case over the sale of Nazi figurines at the landmark downtown toy outlet Central Children's Store, which just reopened after a seven-year renovation.
Among these toys cited by authorities were busts of soldiers and Nazi officers, including the Waffen SS, prosecutors said.
The Central Children's Store's general director has been warned about violating Russian legislation on extremism.
The store, which re-opened March 31, has also faced a barrage of criticism over advertisements posted on YouTube in the run-up to the reopening that featured children pretending to interrogate their parents and making fun of the store's location across the street from the Lubyanka.
Celebrity Memes
Russia's media watchdog Roskomnadzor made it illegal to publish Internet memes depicting a public figure in any way that is irrelevant to their "celebrity" personality.
The official announcement, along with an appropriately themed (and legal) meme from The Matrix, was released on Russian social media website VKontakte in April.
In the announcement, Roskomnadzor said that such memes violate Russian legislation on personal information and "besmirch the honor, dignity and business reputation of public figures."
A Museum in Yekaterinburg
A major museum in Yekaterinburg, Russia's fourth-largest city, was closed amid a scandal over an exhibition of World War II photos co-organized by the U.S. and British consulates.
The Metenkov House Museum of Photography was scheduled to exhibit 150 wartime images by British and American photographers as the countries mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II.
A day before the scheduled opening, the museum said it was shutting its doors for an unknown period of time for "technical reasons," according to a post on its page on the Vkontakte social network.
Yana Belotserkovskaya, culture editor for the regional government-owned daily Oblastnaya Gazeta, wrote that the exhibition, which did not contain any photos of Soviet soldiers, was designed to fit into a political narrative formulated by the West that they had won the war without help from the Soviet Union.
The museum's PR manager, Artyom Berkovich, said that he could not confirm or deny whether Russian authorities had forced the closure.
Internet Porn
Roskomnadzor was at it again on April 13, announcing that the Russian authorities intend to block at least 136 pornographic websites.
The move is the result of a court decision in the Russian republic of Tatarstan that ruled the sites must delete all their pornographic content within three days or be blocked, the Izvestia newspaper reported.
The court ruling cited international conventions from 1910 and 1923 on distributing obscene materials.
Twerking
A group of young female dancers dressed as bees for a routine themed around the Soviet version of Winnie the Pooh caused a public outcry after a video of them twerking made the rounds on the Russian Internet. The girls' costumes appeared more orange than yellow, which made them resemble the St. George's ribbon, which is associated with Victory Day.
The owners of the dance school face possible prison sentences over the routine as well as the closure of their school.
Child 44
The release of the mystery thriller "Child 44" was canceled in Russia by the film's distributors in Russia the day before its scheduled release after criticism from the Russian authorities of its historically inaccurate and negative portrayal of the Soviet Union.
The plot of the movie, which is based on Tom Rob Smith's novel of the same name, revolves around the search for a serial killer in Stalin's Russia.
The twerk video is out there for those interested *cough*Siege*cough, but keep in mind that the oldest girls in it are 16. :P
Quote from: Syt on April 23, 2015, 03:06:07 AM
The store, which re-opened March 31, has also faced a barrage of criticism over advertisements posted on YouTube in the run-up to the reopening that featured children pretending to interrogate their parents and making fun of the store's location across the street from the Lubyanka.
Just for fun, I found that ad on youtube as well. It's not at all as bad as that makes it seem.
Russia thinks their independent course is going to make them all rich in a few decades. Yeah I have heard that one before.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2015, 09:37:15 AM
Russia thinks they independent course is going to make them all rich in a few decades. Yeah I have heard that one before.
But...it's just a few "five year plans", which were so successful in Soviet days, so it should all work out. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2015, 09:37:15 AM
Russia thinks they independent course is going to make them all rich in a few decades. Yeah I have heard that one before.
They can join the North Korea Prosperity Club. :)
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 12:47:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2015, 09:37:15 AM
Russia thinks they independent course is going to make them all rich in a few decades. Yeah I have heard that one before.
They can join the North Korea Prosperity Club. :)
:mad: North Korea Prosperity Club is best Korea Prosperity Club!
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 12:47:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2015, 09:37:15 AM
Russia thinks they independent course is going to make them all rich in a few decades. Yeah I have heard that one before.
They can join the North Korea Prosperity Club. :)
Meet is at 8 tonight. Bring a coat and your own lightbulbs.
Uh oh. Is Kadyrov falling from grace?
http://rt.com/politics/252905-kadyrov-interior-ministry-chechnya/
Quote'Shoot to kill': Chechen leader's row with Interior Ministry heats up
Tensions continue to rise between the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov and the Russian Interior Ministry. It follows the killing of a Chechen native by police from another Russian region during arrest. Grozny has accused the ministry of distorting facts.
The scandal began after police from the neighboring Stavropol Region conducted a raid in Grozny, the capital of the Chechen Republic on April 19.
Their task was to detain Chechen native, Dzhambulat Dadaev, who was on the federal wanted list for causing grievous bodily harm.
However, the suspect was gunned down after he rammed the officers' vehicle with his car in an attempt to escape.
Kadyrov was outraged upon learning of the operation, as he said it was performed without the Chechen authorities being notified.
"I officially state that if [armed people] turn up on your territory without you knowing about this – be they Muscovites or Stavropol natives – shoot to kill. We should be reckoned with," Kadyrov said during a meeting with Chechen security officials.
The Russian Interior Ministry described the controversial statement, as "unacceptable."
The ministry stressed that the Stavropol policemen informed their Chechen colleagues of the Grozny raid and were offered assistance.
In order to calm things down, Kadyrov gave an interview in which he even expressed his readiness to step down as Chechen leader, a post he has occupied since 2007.
"I'm just a foot soldier of the Supreme Commander [President Vladimir Putin]. If I'm given the order I'm ready to follow it 100 percent. If I am required to leave – I'll leave. I'm ready to die as well," he told RIA Novosti.
However, the Chechen leader then reignited the flames on Friday, issuing a statement, in which he blamed Russia's Interior Ministry for distorting the facts.
"It is known for a fact nobody within the leadership of the Chechen Interior Ministry was informed of the operation in writing, verbally or by telephone. It goes without saying that none of its staff participated in this event," the statement said.
Kadyrov also criticized the Stavropol policemen for conducting the raid wearing balaclavas, as "all Chechen residents know that those, who wear masks, are no representatives of law, but are bandits."
He added that he believes that the Stavropol policemen were simply misinformed by the Interior Ministry in Moscow concerning the circumstances surrounding the Grozny operation.
Chechnya's Investigative Committee launched a criminal case against the Stavropol policemen, who are accused of abuse of power. However, the head of the Investigative Committee, Aleksandr Bastrykin, overturned the ruling.
Just when you think people couldn't be more retarded ...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/27/russian-stores-pull-holocaust-graphic-novel-maus-over-swastika-on-cover
QuoteRussian stores pull Holocaust graphic novel Maus over swastika on cover
Russian bookstores were hastily removing an award-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust from their shelves on Monday, reportedly because its cover shows a Nazi swastika.
Maus, by American artist and author Art Spiegelman won a Pulitzer Prize in 1992 and was published in Russian in 2013.
But Varvara Gornostayeva, the chief editor at the book's publisher Corpus, said major bookstore chains were taking it off their shelves and internet sites.
"They have removed the book," Gornostayeva told AFP. "It was selling very well and nobody had ever sent us any official complaints."
A reporter for Echo of Moscow radio, Darya Peshchikova, toured bookstores and said staff were expecting raids by the authorities ahead of 9 May, when Russia marks 70 years since Soviet victory over Nazi forces in the second world war.
"They are waiting for checks and decided to clean up their shelves," Peshchikova wrote on Twitter. "The reason is the swastika, employees say."
Russian authorities have moved to censor Nazi insignia, even raiding toy stores and antique shops which carry period paraphernalia, citing a law which forbids "Nazi propaganda" passed last December.
"There is no Nazi propaganda in it, this is a book that should be on the shelves on Victory Day," Gornostayeva argued.
"It's one of greatest anti-fascist books, with a deep and piercing message."
Maus tells the author's personal story of the Holocaust through the memories of his father, a Polish Jew who moved to the United States. It uses animal metaphors and minimalist graphic style, portraying Jews as mice and Germans as cats.
The Russian book's cover features two mice – a father and a son – and a stylised swastika image in the background, with the face of Hitler as a cat in the centre. About 10,000 copies of the book have been sold in Russia, according to the publisher.
By Monday afternoon, three of Moscow's largest bookstores – Biblio Globus, Moskva, and Moskovsky Dom Knigi – had removed the book from their internet stores.
Cached versions of store catalogues showed that all three carried it just a few days ago, but all denied this when contacted by AFP.
"It must be a mistake," said a woman in the PR department of Biblio Globus when asked why a days-old version of the store's webpage show the book as in stock.
So does that mean all WWII footage in Russia shows the Soviets fighting nobody?
Ide's spirit lives in the struggle against Ukrainian Nazis. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cA9cGUGr00
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 28, 2015, 09:02:49 PM
Ide's spirit lives in the struggle against Ukrainian Nazis. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cA9cGUGr00
"I know from reading history that it takes communism to defeat fascism."
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 28, 2015, 09:02:49 PM
Ide's spirit lives in the struggle against Ukrainian Nazis. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cA9cGUGr00
:frusty:
Russia responds to Czech rearmament! :ph34r:
http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-may-resume-tu-160-bomber-production-part-air-force-modernization-defense-1901263
QuoteRussia May Resume Tu-160 Bomber Production As Part Of Air Force Modernization, Defense Ministry Says
By Thomas Barrabi @TBarrabi [email protected] on April 29 2015 9:27 AM EDT
The Russian military plans to continue the modernization of its long-range bomber fleet and will consider renewed dedication to the production of its Tupolev Tu-160 supersonic bomber, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed Wednesday. Work will resume despite escalating tension between Russia and Western powers over the Kremlin's military activity in the last several months.
Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has approved new equipment for Russia's Kazan Aviation Plant in Tatarstan to aid in modernization efforts, Russian news outlet Tass reports. The defense ministry plans to build two Tu-160 bombers by the end of 2015 and to upgrade five existing Tu-160s. Russia currently possesses 15 of the long-range bombers.
"It is necessary already today to start implementing tasks not only for keeping in good order and modernizing the fleet of long-range aviation but also for reproducing Tu-160 missile carriers," Shoigu told Tass. He added that the Tu-160 is "a unique plane that has been several decades abreast of time and has not used its constructive possibilities to the full extent until now."
The planned expansion comes months after Russia said it would extend its bomber patrols to reach as far as the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean. Russia had not ordered bomber patrols of that length since the end of the Cold War.
The United States, the NATO military alliance and the European Union recently have expressed concern on several occasions over Russia's increased military activity. Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the annexation of the formerly Ukrainian territory of Crimea last March, and Western leaders repeatedly have accused the Kremlin of backing pro-Russian separatist rebels in war-torn eastern Ukraine. Russia has denied culpability in that conflict.
NATO developed an expanded "rapid reaction force" to defend against continued Russian territorial expansion. The response force now consists of approximately 30,000 troops, with a 5,000-soldier unit capable of deployment within 48 hours. NATO conducted its first drills with the new force earlier this month, according to a press release.
Japan, Korea or the British would seem to be most in need of them and able to pay for them.
http://news.usni.org/2015/04/27/report-france-to-keep-russian-mistrals-in-planned-1-20-billion-deal
QuoteReport: France to Keep Russian Mistrals In Planned $1.2 Billion Deal
By: Sam LaGrone
April 27, 2015 1:51 PM • Updated: April 27, 2015 5:42 PM
France is set to pay Russia $1.2 billion to settle the lingering dispute over two amphibious warships in a deal that went sour over the ongoing conflict in the Ukraine, according to French and Russian media reports.
The deal — yet to be official — would have France keep the two 21,000 ton amphibs and retain the right to sell the ships to a country of their choosing, reported Le Journal du Dimanche.
"Legally, this decision has not yet been formalized, but it is known that the Russian and French sides agreed within one month to determine the exact condition of cancellation of the contract for the supply of RF class ships Mistral, read a translation via the TASS Russian wire service.
Russia has already paid $811 million as part of the $1.5 billion 2011 deal for the Mistrals — modified to operate in Arctic conditions and accommodate Russia's heavier helicopters — and will reportedly not seek additional penalties or legal action.
France will use proceeds from a planned $2 billion sale of Airbus EC 725 Caracal helicopters to Poland to fund the deal, reported the French paper.
France and Russia have a month to negotiate particulars before the agreement is settled.
The planned delivery schedule of the ships was halted following an announcement from French President François Hollande citing Russian involvement in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as the reason.
The move from France is unexpected. European military defense experts had expected France to eventually deliver the ships to Russia once the situation in Eastern Ukraine had stabilized.
As for new buyers of the Mistrals, there are a few obvious candidates. NATO has expressed some interest in purchasing the ships to ferry its emerging rapid reaction force. The ships could also revive the Canadian Navy's joint support ship concept that would create multi-purpose fleet oilers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2015, 09:09:59 PM
"I know from reading history that it takes communism to defeat fascism."
And it takes Mongol Horse archers to defeat China. That is what we should be investing in now.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2015, 05:52:02 AM
Japan, Korea or the British would seem to be most in need of them and able to pay for them.
Heh, I read an interesting book about a similar case in the late 60s - France was building a bunch of missile boats for Israel; after the 6-Day War, France refused to deliver them for political reasons; the Israelis simply send some guys out and stole them. :pirate
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2015, 08:28:05 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2015, 05:52:02 AM
Japan, Korea or the British would seem to be most in need of them and able to pay for them.
Heh, I read an interesting book about a similar case in the late 60s - France was building a bunch of missile boats for Israel; after the 6-Day War, France refused to deliver them for political reasons; the Israelis simply send some guys out and stole them. :pirate
Now that would make things quite interesting. :ph34r:
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2015, 08:28:05 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2015, 05:52:02 AM
Japan, Korea or the British would seem to be most in need of them and able to pay for them.
Heh, I read an interesting book about a similar case in the late 60s - France was building a bunch of missile boats for Israel; after the 6-Day War, France refused to deliver them for political reasons; the Israelis simply send some guys out and stole them. :pirate
Well, not quite. The Israeli crews were on board the boats from the get-go, and the responsible French authorities essentially allowed the boats to be "stolen," given that they had been paid for and completed (after all, the "company" that sent the crews on boat had only been formed about two weeks before it "bought" the craft).
It was a great Israeli victory, but not really as dashing as the :pirate smiley would indicate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2015, 05:52:02 AM
Japan, Korea or the British would seem to be most in need of them and able to pay for them.
Germany's long-term naval plan contains a ship like a Mistral. Maybe we should just buy one of the ships. That would also be politically opportune.
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2015, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2015, 08:28:05 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2015, 05:52:02 AM
Japan, Korea or the British would seem to be most in need of them and able to pay for them.
Heh, I read an interesting book about a similar case in the late 60s - France was building a bunch of missile boats for Israel; after the 6-Day War, France refused to deliver them for political reasons; the Israelis simply send some guys out and stole them. :pirate
Well, not quite. The Israeli crews were on board the boats from the get-go, and the responsible French authorities essentially allowed the boats to be "stolen," given that they had been paid for and completed (after all, the "company" that sent the crews on boat had only been formed about two weeks before it "bought" the craft).
It was a great Israeli victory, but not really as dashing as the :pirate smiley would indicate.
Do you have any source for the thesis that the French "allowed" the boats to be stolen?
Everything I have read indicates the contrary - that while the Israelis had some local French help in Cherbourg, the French authorities were, allegedly, caught flat-footed; and indeed, the Israeli action lead to a nasty rupture with France.
Quote
The front company feigned interest in the boats as potential survey ships for searching for oil, and declared that the boats' specifications met their needs. To add to the deception Limon pretended to have "tough negotiations" with Starboat. The terms agreed were that the boats would be transferred to Starboat and would be crewed by members of the Israeli Navy due to their experience with the boats. The boats were sold and transferred legally by the government of Israel to the front company with the approval of Michel Debré, the French minister of defence. This was the first part of the deception.
The next stage of the operation was to build a day-to-day routine with the aim of ultimately misleading the French at Cherbourg. The Israelis maintained a routine of short voyages, heading north into the Atlantic. Prior to the operation, the Israeli crews were reinforced. Israeli officers, ratings and sailors began to arrive in groups of two at different destinations throughout Europe as tourists, and then travelled to Cherbourg. It was feared that sending them all to Cherbourg at once would alert French intelligence. They were ordered to keep moving between hotels, and not to stay in any one hotel for more than one night. The crews traveled on Israeli passports so that in the event they were caught, they could not be charged with passport fraud. By 23 December, all crews had arrived, and were scattered around the city.[6]
To sustain an eight-day voyage at sea, the group's supply officer bought fresh and dry supplies from local grocery stores. To prevent arousing suspicion, the supplies were purchased in small quantities each time.[6]
Prior to the escape, the boats had to be fuelled with large amount of diesel. Loading this fuel in one fill would have alerted observers to the fact that a long voyage was planned. Commander Rinat, the head of operations, instead ordered the boats to be gradually fuelled using a small 5-ton tank truck. A quarter of a million litres of fuel was smuggled in drums and hidden belowdecks.[6] By 24 December, the boats had been fully fuelled and stored.
Since sudden engine noise during the night of the escape would alert the French, the operation's commander, Captain Hadar Kimhi, ordered the boats' engines to be regularly started at nights, causing the inhabitants of Cherbourg to become accustomed to the noise. The local police visited the boats in response to inhabitants' complaints, and received the explanations that the electrical supply from the shore was not enough to warm the boats during the cold days of December. The boats received an authorization from the electrical company and police to operate their engines at night. The noise was loud with 20 Maybach main engines running.
This is a wiki article, but the book "The Boats of Cherbourg" was much to the same effect.
I think the smiley is warranted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherbourg_Project
QuoteFrench Defence Minister Michel Debré ordered an air strike to sink the boats. The French Chief of Staff refused to obey and replied he would resign rather than obey the order. The order was countermanded by Prime Minister Jacques Chaban-Delmas, who prevented any further escalation. Although the French government was furious, it realized that there was little that could be done, since the boats were already on the high seas when the ruse was uncovered. French Foreign Minister Maurice Schumann warned that if the boats appeared in Israel, "the consequences will be very grave indeed".
Here's the actual book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Boats-Cherbourg-Bluejacket-Books/dp/1557507147
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2015, 01:41:01 PM
Do you have any source for the thesis that the French "allowed" the boats to be stolen?
Yes. The company that bought the boats had been formed two weeks before the transaction. The boats were entirely unsuited to the task nominally to be performed. The Israeli cover story was thin, but enough to keep any of the local French from getting charged with treason.
QuoteEverything I have read indicates the contrary - that while the Israelis had some local French help in Cherbourg, the French authorities were, allegedly, caught flat-footed; and indeed, the Israeli action lead to a nasty rupture with France.
You read the data one way, I read it another. Whatever. The rupture was on a national level, and says nothing about the connivance of lower-level French officials. The French were not some monolithic bloc all agreed on all policies.
Interesting wikipedia conflict : French wikipedia supports Grumbler's thesis. It's also the view commonly held nowadays in France.
QuoteLa première vedette est lancée le 11 avril 19672. Cinq de ces vedettes sont livrées avant l'embargo ; deux, en essais au moment de l'embargo, profitent de ces essais pour rallier Israël ; les cinq autres étant devenues indésirables dans l'arsenal, le vice-amiral Bouillaut, préfet de la 1re région maritime, les fait amarrer dans le port de commerce, dans une darse appartenant aux CMN, en face des bureaux de Félix Amiot. Hors du port militaire, leur évasion devient alors possible.
Une ruse est alors mise au point : une société d'apparence « norvégienne » (son représentant est Martin Siem (en)), la Starboat and Oil Drilling Company, créée à Panama pour la circonstance le 15 octobre 1969, demande à la France et à Israël de récupérer les vedettes car ces navires, sans armement, l'intéressent, prétendument pour faire de la recherche pétrolière en mer du Nord. L'État hébreu accepte d'autant plus facilement qu'il est à l'origine de la manœuvre par le biais de ses services secrets. Il fournit même les équipages. Dans la nuit du 24 au 25 décembre, vers 2 h du matin, les vedettes appareillent malgré le mauvais temps, avec à leur bord cent cinquante marins et officiers israéliens (ils travaillaient alors sur le chantier naval) supervisés par l'amiral Mordechai Limon, chef de la mission d'achat israélienne en France. Après avoir été ravitaillées deux fois en mer, elles arrivent triomphalement à Haïfa3, où elles sont accueillies par le ministre de la Défense Moshe Dayan le jour de l'An1.
Médiatisation[modifier | modifier le code]
L'affaire est révélée le vendredi 26 décembre 1969 par une dépêche de l'Agence centrale de presse (ACP), à l'initiative du journaliste de Cherbourg Guy Mabire de La Presse de la Manche dont le directeur, ami personnel de Félix Amiot, lui a interdit les jours précédents de révéler les tenants de l'affaire4. L'information connaît un retentissement mondial. Le ministre de la Défense, Michel Debré, pressé de trouver des responsables, sanctionne le vice-amiral Bouillaut (préfet maritime de Cherbourg), le général Cazelles (secrétaire général de la Défense nationale) et l'ingénieur général Bonte (directeur des affaires internationales à la délégation militaire pour l'armement), président et rapporteur la commission interministérielle pour l'étude des exportations de matériel de guerre (CIEEMG), chargée de garantir la régularité de ces exportations. Cela n'empêche pas la France d'être la risée des chancelleries5.
Selon l'historien Pierre Razoux, le Gouvernement français fut informé des intentions israéliennes par l'intermédiaire de ses services de renseignements, mais laissa faire (un tiers du paiement étant déjà fait, les deux tiers restants étant soldés simplement à la livraison, soit cinq milliards de francs, ce qui laissait la trésorerie des chantiers Amiot exsangue en cas de non livraison), saisissant ce prétexte pour officialiser des contrats d'armements préalablement conclus avec certains États arabes6.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedettes_de_Cherbourg (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedettes_de_Cherbourg)
Executive summary
The boats were outside of the military port/French navy port to make the evasion possible.
The French goverment knew what was going on but let them escape. One third of the price was already paid, with the reminder two thirds to be paid on delivery. The Amiot yards were short on cash and could not pass on the payment.
French neutrality policy preserved, and the "outrage" about the event was used to confirm some previous military deals with Arab nations. Good publicity to Amiot yards which sold lots of boats the following years.
The source is Pierre Razoux, a prestigious historian, specialist of Near/Middle Eastern conflicts, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Razoux (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Razoux)
NATO college, French and British defense ministry, writes articles in the international press.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32588868
QuoteRussian WW2 parade: A tank-spotter's guide
Russia will stage its biggest ever military parade on 9 May, to mark the 70th anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany in World War Two.
A rehearsal in central Moscow has revealed some new hi-tech Russian armour for the first time, lifting a veil of military secrecy.
The most talked-about innovation is the Armata T-14 battle tank, described as a new-generation fighting machine to replace Soviet-era tanks.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F82794000%2Fpng%2F_82794992_russian_tank_624_v3.png&hash=5c1716e78123fc6114eaa010d8518232c804c772)
The tank is highly automated - the Russian military says it could be the basis for a fully robotic tank in future.
It has a remote-control gun turret with a 125mm smooth-bore cannon that can fire guided missiles as well as shells.
The crew of three is housed in a reinforced capsule at the front, away from the firing systems.
The Armata's chassis is adaptable - it can also serve as the platform for a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, an engineering vehicle, a multiple rocket launcher and some other variants.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F82770000%2Fjpg%2F_82770591_rusarmatacloseupap.jpg&hash=903c408cde9eeedd7ee2245d77f21fed4d40414e)
Russia plans to bring in about 2,300 Armatas, starting in 2020, to replace Soviet-era tanks. They are built by UralVagonZavod.
Jane's Defence Weekly says the T-14 and Russia's other new armoured systems are "principally clean-slate designs" that "represent the biggest change in Russia's armoured fighting vehicle families since the 1960s and 1970s".
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F82776000%2Fjpg%2F_82776384_kurganetsnewepa.jpg&hash=3d1ad82615340f6a86b9de9beb7d1d8859cc9684)
Kurganets-25 mechanised infantry combat vehicle
The new Kurganets-25 comes in two main tracked variants - the BTR and BMP. Both are armoured personnel carriers, but the BMP has more powerful guns and firing systems.
The guns are remote-controlled and separated from the crew and infantry.
Jane's reports that the Kurganets-25 can be fitted with a 57mm or 30mm cannon.
The new design will replace the Russian army's Soviet-era BTRs and BMPs.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F82775000%2Fjpg%2F_82775646_boomrusmil.jpg&hash=5c1141f3f816623ed19cfb066588ae28d1bd346e)
Boomerang armoured personnel carrier
This is another new infantry fighting vehicle, which also has amphibious capabilities.
The Boomerang chassis can also serve as a platform for other types of vehicle.
Jane's says the design is similar to Western eight-wheel drive military vehicles, known as 8x8. In such designs all eight wheels receive power from the engine simultaneously.
It is among the new vehicles highlighted by the Russian Defence Ministry on its website (in Russian).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F82775000%2Fjpg%2F_82775650_yarsmissile.jpg&hash=d04093cb2556b1dd483abe3932f4ac9243a6974e)
RS-24 Yars intercontinental ballistic missile
The RS-24 began equipping Russia's strategic rocket forces in 2009. It is an improvement on the Topol M system.
The missile would deliver a nuclear warhead and would be fired either from a mobile launcher or a silo.
The missile has decoy systems to confuse an enemy's air defences.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F82780000%2Fjpg%2F_82780804_koalitsvnew.jpg&hash=94a5112e8b23aa9c5b1a3df2720abfda6ae859fa)
Koalitsiya-SV self-propelled artillery
Koalitsiya-SV is a new self-propelled artillery system, said to be based on the Armata hull. It has a 152mm cannon and weighs about 55 tonnes.
The Russian Defence Ministry says the system can hit targets from as far as 70km (43 miles).
The weapon is designed to smash an enemy's armour and fortifications.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F82782000%2Fjpg%2F_82782491_bukmilru.jpg&hash=1e9794bce8a55ac0a6d848f31c25db324984863d)
Buk surface-to-air missile launcher
The Buk air defence system on show in Moscow is among many variants already in service in the Russian military.
It has also been sold to several countries, including Azerbaijan, China and India.
A Buk missile was blamed for downing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine in July 2014. Pro-Russian rebels are suspected of having fired the missile, as they had targeted Ukrainian military jets in the same area previously. All 298 people on board MH17 died. Russian and rebel officials rejected the allegations, arguing that a Ukrainian fighter jet was probably to blame.
Buk missile launchers are accompanied by radar vehicles. The missile can reach a maximum altitude of 25,000m (82,500ft), and can intercept cruise missiles as well as aircraft.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F82782000%2Fjpg%2F_82782988_kornetd.jpg&hash=783f7397ff2727ab3cf58ca4f59593a567f66b04)
Kornet-D anti-tank rocket system
Russia has improved on the Kornet anti-tank system introduced in 2009.
The rockets can target not only tanks but also aircraft, the Russian Defence Ministry says. They can pierce armour plating 130cm (4ft) thick.
The targeting and guidance systems use high-resolution TV cameras, infra-red and laser technology.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russias-new-armata-tank-appears-to-break-down-during-victory-day-rehearsals/520324.html
QuoteRussia's New Armata Tank Seems to Break Down During Parade Rehearsals
One of Russia's brand new Armata T-14 heavy battle tanks, which are said to be the finest tanks in the world, appeared to break down on Red Square Thursday during rehearsals for Moscow's Victory Day Parade, media reports said.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEY7OVOWIAAIwnH.jpg:large)
The Armata is Russia's next-generation main battle tank, and is reported to feature a remote controlled turret and armor heavier than previous Soviet-designed tanks. The new armored vehicles will be publicly paraded Saturday in celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union's victory over Nazi Germany.
Practicing for its Saturday debut, one of the new tanks unexpectedly slowed to a halt right in front of the famous GUM department store on Red Square. The engine could be heard rumbling, but the tank would not move, the Associated Press reported.
Attempts to tow the tank as the rest of the armored columns passed by failed, but according to local newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets, the tank began to move under its own power after the parade passed through the square.
"We have demonstrated how the evacuation of military hardware [during battle] will be conducted," the newspaper quoted the parade's announcer as saying. "The tank's stop was planned."
РОФЛ
I wonder if the tanks are real, and not just mild steel mock ups.
Potemkin's Tanks.
Would have been totally badass to paint a plane sillouette on the side of one of those BUKs. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2015, 10:26:57 AM
Would have been totally badass to paint a plane Boeing 777-200ER sillouette on the side of one of those BUKs. :lol:
Fixed
http://rt.com/politics/257753-russia-us-poll-threat/
Quote60% of Russians see US as threat & hindrance to development - poll
Over half of Russians think the United States poses a threat to their country and will create barriers for Russia's economic development, but only 5 percent thought the US could defeat Russia in an all-out war.
The share of Russians who perceive the United States as a general threat is 59 percent, according to the latest research released by the independent pollster Levada Center on Tuesday. This is up from 47 percent in 2007. The share of Russians who don't see any threat coming from the US is 32 percent now as opposed to 42 percent in 2007.
When asked to elaborate on the possible nature of Russia-US antagonism, 48 percent said the United States was purposefully creating various barriers in order to hinder Russia's development. Thirty-one percent said they feared a US military invasion on Russian territory and 31 percent thought the US was imposing alien ideas and values on their country through non-military means. Only 24 percent of respondents said they feared the US could impose direct control over Russia's political course.
When Russians were asked what their expectations were in case of a real military conflict with the United States, 52 percent said that it would end in mutual annihilation. A third answered they thought Russia would win this war and only 5 percent said they expected the United States and NATO to defeat Russia.
At the same time, the majority of Russians – 55 percent - said they didn't expect their country to be the first to use nuclear weapons, even in the case of war with the US and NATO (13 percent completely ruled out such possibility and 42 percent said such a development was extremely unlikely).Seven percent said that this was possible.
Levada Center's leading researcher Karina Pipiya said in comments to Izvestia daily that the shift in public moods was due to the spreading of the idea that Russia historically follows its own path of development. Such a position is now shared by the Russian authorities and general public. Therefore, most Russians blame any attempts to counter their country's course in foreign and domestic policy as a move aimed as containing and weakening Russia's influence and strength, Pipiya said.
The researcher noted that a different recent poll showed that 57 percent of Russians believe the authorities shouldn't pay any attention to criticism from the West.
In April, the Levada Center conducted a poll that showed 55 percent of Russians want their homeland to pursue its own way of development and only 17 percent think Russia should take the same path as Western nations. Nineteen percent of respondents said Russia should return to the ways of the Soviet Union.
Twelve percent tend to the view that Russia will join "the path of great Eastern nations," like China and India.
Ceaseless propaganda works!
Quote from: Syt on May 12, 2015, 07:10:38 AM
the spreading of the idea that Russia historically follows its own path of development.
True.
Unfortunately, it's a crappy one.
Russia has new tanks, should be no surprise. Seems the normal flow of things, eh? :)
I know there was a post some time back about Putin defending the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. He has done it again, this time it sounds like he is essentially saying that the conditions that caused the SU to sign the back in the day are similar to the situation Russia is in now. :)
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putin-defends-ribbentrop-molotov-pact-in-press-conference-with-merkel/520513.html?utm_source=email_tmt-editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20150512_weekly&utm_content=title_5
QuotePutin Defends Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact in Press Conference with Merkel
By Anna DolgovMay. 11 2015 11:22 Last edited 11:22
Russian President Vladimir Putin defended 1939's Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as Moscow's response to being isolated and having its peace efforts snubbed by Western nations.
At the close of his Sunday meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Moscow — a day after Russian held grand-scale celebrations of the allied victory in World War II — Putin offered a lengthy defense of the controversial agreement that led to the carving up of Eastern Europe.
"The Soviet Union made massive efforts to lay the groundwork for a collective resistance to Nazism in Germany, made repeated attempts to create an anti-fascist bloc in Europe. All of these attempts failed," Putin told journalists at a joint news conference with Merkel, according to a transcript released by the Kremlin.
"And when the Soviet Union realized that it was being left one-on-one with Hitler's Germany, it took steps to avoid a direct confrontation, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed," Putin said.
Merkel offered a diplomatically phrased objection, telling the joint news conference that the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is difficult to understand without considering the additional secret protocol. With that in mind, I think it was wrong, it was done illegally," she said, according to the Kremlin's Russian-language transcript.
The secret protocol, which accompanied what was officially presented as a non-aggression treaty, divided up the territories of Poland, Romania, the Baltic nations and Finland into German and Soviet "spheres of influence." It led to the German and Soviet invasions of Poland, and to the Soviet annexation of the three Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — and parts of Romania.
Putin's defense of the pact comes after Moscow's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine last year, and amid Eastern European countries' concerns their territories could be seized next.
Poland's President Bronislaw Komorowski described this weekend's Victory Day parade in Moscow as a "demonstration of force," The New York Times reported.
Polish Foreign Minister Grzegorz Schetyna said that the end of World War II should not be celebrated in Russia because it was among the countries where it originated, the report said.
Putin's recent remarks mark a sharp about-face from his comments a few years earlier.
During a visit to Poland in 2009, Putin, then prime minister, denounced the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as a "collusion to solve one's problems at others' expense."
"All attempts between 1934 and 1939 to pacify the Nazis by making various kinds of agreements and pacts with them, were unacceptable from the moral point of view, and from the political point of view were pointless, harmful and dangerous," Putin said in 2009 during a visit to Poland's Gdansk, according to a transcript posted on the Russian Cabinet website.
But amid Western sanctions against Moscow for its annexation of Crimea and support for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, the Kremlin has shifted to an increasing glorification of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and his regime's pact with Nazi Germany.
Putin said last November that the pact was not so bad.
"The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression treaty with Germany," he told a meeting with historians. "They say: Oh, this is so bad. But what's so bad about it if the Soviet Union did not want to go to war? What's so bad about it?"
Following his speech, Russia's Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky in the run-up to this year's Victory Day celebrations praised the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as a "colossal achievement of Stalin's diplomacy."
http://rt.com/politics/257821-russia-china-challenges-military/
QuoteMoscow, Beijing will seek reconstruction of current world order together - deputy DM
Military cooperation between Russia and China will be aimed against mono-polar world and double standards, the Russian deputy defense minister told reporters after talks with a Chinese official.
"Our Chinese colleagues have emphasized that we have similar positions on the problem of challenges and threats. They noted the necessity of reconstruction of the current world order, moving away from double standards and strengthening of equal and mutually profitable relations between all countries in the world," General Anatoly Antonov said after talks between Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and the deputy chairman of China's Central Military Council General, Fan Changlong.
Antonov said that the two military officials agreed that Russia and China will conduct naval exercises in the Mediterranean Sea and Sea of Japan in the nearest future. He noted that last year's exercises in the East China Sea yielded "practical results," as did the ground training of Russia and China forces within the framework of the 'Pace Mission 2014' exercises in northern China.
Antonov said the two nations would prioritize the coordinated position on the global missile defense program.
He also told reporters that the Chinese delegation was taken on a tour on Russia's newest top-security, fortified facility in Moscow dubbed the "wartime government HQ."
The talks between Russian and Chinese defense officials came just days after the Moscow summit of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping during which the sides signed a decree on cooperation in tying the development of the Eurasian Economic Union with the 'Silk Road' economic project.
In subsequent press comments Putin labeled the integration of the Eurasian Economic Union and Silk Road projects as "a new level of partnership" and noted that it was implying the common economic space on the whole continent of Eurasia.
QuoteThe Soviet Union made massive efforts to lay the groundwork for a collective resistance to Nazism in Germany, made repeated attempts to create an anti-fascist bloc in Europe. All of these attempts failed," Putin told journalists at a joint news conference with Merkel, according to a transcript released by the Kremlin.
So the solution was to join the Fascist bloc and undermine the anti-fascist bloc when it did form?
Quote"All attempts between 1934 and 1939 to pacify the Nazis by making various kinds of agreements and pacts with them, were unacceptable from the moral point of view, and from the political point of view were pointless, harmful and dangerous," Putin said in 2009 during a visit to Poland's Gdansk, according to a transcript posted on the Russian Cabinet website.
Clearly the moral thing to do was actively ally with them.
Quote"The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression treaty with Germany," he told a meeting with historians. "They say: Oh, this is so bad. But what's so bad about it if the Soviet Union did not want to go to war? What's so bad about it?"
The bad part was not the non-aggression part. It was the 'split Eastern Europe, ship raw materials by the train load, and tell the Comintern to undermine the allied war effort' part. That is appeasement that goes a bit further than simply 'well they are ethnic Germans and you are playing that self-determination card' and wimping out.
It is just....wow.
Oh noes!
http://rt.com/news/257841-russia-china-us-hegemony/
Quote'Nuclear war our likely future': Russia & China won't accept US hegemony, Reagan official warns
The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the "world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.
The former US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his blog that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."
Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."
The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance."
Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."
"On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.
He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future."
Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.
A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents – 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.
"Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."
The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate and alienate Russia.
Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'"
The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"
While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2F1-percent-cat-on-the-apocalypse.jpg&hash=e75bd0108452d9fe8803ac9e0a5f182a31c5755d)
Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2015, 08:02:33 AM
A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents – 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.
The Soviets liberated jack shit. The Western Allies liberated half of Europe and the other half liberated itself 45 years later.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 13, 2015, 08:55:05 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2015, 08:02:33 AM
A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents – 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.
The Soviets liberated jack shit. The Western Allies liberated half of Europe and the other half liberated itself 45 years later.
indeed. Something Russians and their useful idiots can't seem to grasp
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 12, 2015, 08:33:29 PM
I know there was a post some time back about Putin defending the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. He has done it again, this time it sounds like he is essentially saying that the conditions that caused the SU to sign the back in the day are similar to the situation Russia is in now. :)
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putin-defends-ribbentrop-molotov-pact-in-press-conference-with-merkel/520513.html?utm_source=email_tmt-editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20150512_weekly&utm_content=title_5
I went back to read the original Russian transcript, and Putin even got a nice little dig in on Poland as well. :P
http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/49455
"Я напомню, что после подписания соответствующего Мюнхенского соглашения сама Польша предприняла действия, направленные на то, чтобы аннексировать часть чешской территории. И получилось так, что после пакта Молотова – Риббентропа и раздела Польши она сама оказалась жертвой той политики, которую и пыталась вести в Европе."
Roughly: "I remind you, that after the signing of the Munich Agreement, Poland itself also took action aiming to annex part of Czechoslovakia. And it so happened, that after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and the division of Poland, she became a victim of the very same policies she tried to carry out in Europe."
So as I read that: i.e. Poland tried to grab part of Czechoslovakia too, and got what they deserved.
Poland did get what it deserved. Competent German administration.
Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, and Romania also endorsed those policies I guess.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 14, 2015, 12:45:37 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 12, 2015, 08:33:29 PM
I know there was a post some time back about Putin defending the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. He has done it again, this time it sounds like he is essentially saying that the conditions that caused the SU to sign the back in the day are similar to the situation Russia is in now. :)
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putin-defends-ribbentrop-molotov-pact-in-press-conference-with-merkel/520513.html?utm_source=email_tmt-editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20150512_weekly&utm_content=title_5
I went back to read the original Russian transcript, and Putin even got a nice little dig in on Poland as well. :P
http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/49455
Roughly: "I remind you, that after the signing of the Munich Agreement, Poland itself also took action aiming to annex part of Czechoslovakia. And it so happened, that after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and the division of Poland, she became a victim of the very same policies she tried to carry out in Europe."
So as I read that: i.e. Poland tried to grab part of Czechoslovakia too, and got what they deserved.
Well, this one is somewhat true since Teschen was a very small part of Czechoslovakia. Indeed Poland should have allied with the Czechs, not undermined them. Blame Eastern Euro/Balkantardism for that.
One could add that Soviet Russia did the same and almost got the same punishment and that the short-sighted Polish military leadership did not have the same weight as Stalin.
QuoteOne could add that Soviet Russia did the same and almost got the same punishment and that the short-sighted Polish military leadership did not have the same weight as Stalin.
One could indeed. Compared to the M-R Pact the Munich Agreement was a glorious moment in history. It is really hard to grovel at the feet of the heroic Soviet Union in that context. They would have happily watched the Nazis prosper, gathering their share of the spoils along the way, if the Nazis had not invaded. At least my country's 'neutrality' involved helping the other team.
The only positive side-effect of the M-R Pact was to destroy Communism forever as a popular force in the United States, such as it was anyway.
http://rt.com/politics/258601-america-sponsors-russian-ngo/
QuoteUS money destroys civil consciousness, claims United Russia MP
The boost in US spending on Russian NGOs can be described as "aggressive humanitarian intervention," the head of the State Duma Security Committee has said.
"This money is destroying civil consciousness, they organize informational provocations and teach technologies that can destroy the nation's sovereignty and security," MP Irina Yarovaya said in comments published on the United Russia party's website.
She made this statement after mass media reported that the US National Endowment for Democracy spent over nine million dollars on support of Russian non-government groups in 2014 alone.
"Ukraine is the most vivid example of their 'successful democracy' – with all the murders of civilians, an anti-constitutional coup and the rehabilitation of Nazism," the lawmaker added.
Yarovaya also noted that Russian citizens had the right to know which groups got paid for bringing foreign political technologies to their country and the so called law on foreign agents rightfully demanded the disclosure of this information.
According to public opinion research published last week, 59 percent of Russians currently perceive the United States as a general threat, up from 47 percent in 2007. Of these, 48 percent said the United States was purposefully creating various barriers in order to hinder Russia's development, 31 percent said they feared a US military invasion on Russian territory and another 31 percent thought the US was imposing alien ideas and values on their country through non-military means.
Aggressive humanitarian intervention. :lol:
Meanwhile, Russia plans to increase the number of scholarships for foreigners to study at Russian universities with the stated goal of creating an academic elite favorable towards Russia. Totally different thing, obviously, since the
victims targets students get a first class education out of it!
The major headlines in Russia: a 50-something Chechen police chief who is to marry a second wife, aged 17.
Ramzan Kadyrov said it's all ok, because the girl's parents have greenlit the union. Also, no Caucasus woman would ever marry anyone against her will. So all fine.
And then there's Russia's children's ombudsman:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-official-defends-shriveled-27-year-old-women-comments/520830.html
QuoteRussian Official Defends 'Shriveled 27-Year-Old Women' Comments
Russia's children's ombudsman once again sparked a scandal this week when he defended the right of older men to marry teen brides, saying some women were "shriveled" by the age of 27.
Pavel Astakhov was adding his voice to a debate on teen marriage that has rumbled this week after reports that a married local police chief in his forties or fifties in Russia's North Caucasus republic of Chechnya was to take a 17-year-old schoolgirl as his second wife.
"Emancipation and sexual maturity come earlier in the Caucasus, let's not be hypocritical. There are places where women are already shriveled by the age of 27, and look about 50 to us," Astakhov told Russian News Service radio on Thursday.
The next day, the children's ombudsman hastened to make clear his feelings about women.
"Women of any age are wonderful and delightful," Astakhov wrote on his Instagram page.
"The Lord God created Women so we could love them, protect them, look after them and sing their praises. An awkward comparison, an ill-considered word taken out of context cannot change my attitude to the Fairer Sex," he wrote.
Astakhov, a qualified lawyer, has previously courted controversy by supporting the introduction of a law banning the adoption of Russian orphans by U.S. parents. He has also said that Russian literature offers the only sex education that teenagers need. Sex education classes are not currently taught in Russian schools.
Reports of an upcoming bigamous marriage between the Chechen policeman and schoolgirl three times younger than him have dominated Russian headlines this week after the Novaya Gazeta newspaper said the girl and her family were being forced to agree to the marriage by the aging suitor.
Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov expressed anger that the story had been picked up by nationwide media and dismissed the republic's media and information minister for mismanaging the scandal.
Does "Lolita" count as Russian literature? :lol:
Putin continuing his superman shtick. Scores 8 goals in a hockey game that included former NHL players. :lol: :rolleyes: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2466982-vladimir-putin-scores-8-goals-during-hockey-game-with-former-nhl-players
Man, if Putin takes up golf, Kim Jong Il's record may be in trouble.
My scepticism is jumping off the charts with this one.
http://www.janes.com/article/51452/russia-developing-shtorm-supercarrier
QuoteRussia's Krylovsky State Research Center (KRSC) has developed a new multipurpose heavy aircraft carrier design called Project 23000E or Shtorm (Storm).
A scale model of the ship is going to be demonstrated for the first time at the International Maritime Defence Show 2015 in St Petersburg from 1-5 July, Valery Polyakov, the deputy director of KSC, told IHS Jane's .
"The Project 23000E multipurpose aircraft carrier is designed to conduct operations in remote and oceanic areas, engage land-based and sea-borne enemy targets, ensure the operational stability of naval forces, protect landing troops, and provide the anti-aircraft defence," Polyakov said.
The design has a displacement of 90-100,000 tons, is 330 m in length, 40 m wide, and has a draft of 11 m. It has a top speed of 30 kt, cruising speed of 20 kt, a 120-day endurance, a crew of 4-5,000, and designed to withstand sea state 6-7. Currently it has been designed with a conventional power plant, although this could be replaced by a nuclear one, according to potential customers' requirements.
The ship carries a powerful air group of 80-90 deck-based aircraft for various combat missions. The model features a split air wing comprising navalised T-50 PAKFAs and MiG-29Ks, as well as jet-powered naval early warning aircraft, and Ka-27 naval helicopters.
The carrier's flight deck is of a dual design, features an angled flight deck, and four launching positions: two via ski-jump ramps and two via electromagnetic catapults. One set of arrestor gear is included in the design. The design also features two islands; a feature only previously seen on the latest UK design.
Protection against air threats will be provided by four anti-aircraft missile system combat modules. An anti-torpedo armament suite is available.
The electronic support complex includes integrated sensors, including a multifunction phased array radar, electronic warfare system, and communications suite.
Polyakov pointed out that these specifications are subject to change, correction, and modification during the ship's design and development at every stage of work, once potential customers come up with a demand to change the weapons package and equipment.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/chechen-police-chief-marries-teen-bride-amid-mounting-scandal/520932.html
QuoteChechen Police Chief Marries Teen Bride Amid Mounting Scandal
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themoscowtimes.com%2Fupload%2Fiblock%2F7c0%2F5610-03-teenbride-ib-Russia-Chechnya_Collz1b.jpg&hash=55ef693b865daa9779d948ba2ec708f8f06809ff)
A Chechen district police chief was married Saturday to a 17-year-old local girl, weeks after reports that she was being forced to wed the already-married official sparked an uproar in Russia's media sphere.
The bride, identified as 17-year-old Kheda (Luiza) Goylabiyeva in reports, looked pale in video footage filmed at Grozny's civil registry, where she married Nazhud Guchigov, who is reportedly somewhere in his late forties to mid-fifties. Russian media initially reported that Guchigov was 57, before later claiming he was in fact 46.
The marriage has caused a stir among Russian media outlets, which Kadyrov has accused of inaccurately depicting the situation and meddling in the couple's private lives.
The scandal emerged late last month after investigative newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that Goylabiyeva was being forced to marry a local official three times her age. According to the report, Guchigov had launched an intimidation campaign against Goylabiyeva's parents, giving them an ultimatum to surrender their daughter.
Guchigov initially denied the claims made in the Novaya Gazeta report, insisting that he was not planning to take a second wife.
Kadyrov said earlier this month he was upset that the story had been picked up by national media outlets, dismissing the republic's media and information minister for mismanaging the scandal.
"I am sure those who unceremoniously interfered for a long time in the private lives of Nazhud and Luiza will answer [for their actions] in court," Kadyrov wrote on Instagram Friday. "The appropriate actions are already being prepared."
Kadyrov posted Saturday a video of himself dancing at the wedding. The Chechen leader wrote that he had seen the stamps placed in the newlyweds' passports, a formality for married Russian couples. Yet under Russian federal law, second marriages — which are permissible in traditional practice for Chechen men — cannot be registered as official partnerships.
A reporter from the Kommersant newspaper claimed that the woman who registered the wedding at a civil registry strongly resembled Chechen journalist Asya Belova. The head of Kadyrov's administration, former Chechen militant Magomed Daurov, was also present in the room where the registration was taking place.
Kadyrov, who had taken to Instagram to invite any of his one million followers on the popular photo-sharing site to attend the wedding, insisted that all legal norms, religious practices and local traditions had been respected.
The Russian Civil Code states that 18 is the minimum age for marriage but contains clauses that allow for marriage at 16 in certain cases.
Children's rights ombudsman Pavel Astakhov sparked a scandal last week by coming out in favor of the right of older men to marry teen brides.
"Emancipation and sexual maturity come earlier in the Caucasus, let's not be hypocritical. There are places where women are already shriveled by the age of 27, and look about 50 to us," Astakhov told Russian News Service radio on Thursday.
He later apologized in an Instagram post, saying that women of any age were "wonderful and delightful."
Earlier this month, he said that he could not confirm that the 17-year-old bride's rights had been violated by virtue of the marriage, which at that point had not yet happened, according to Russian media reports. He then lauded Kadyrov for his role in reducing the number of early marriages in Chechnya.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 16, 2015, 09:59:55 PM
Putin continuing his superman shtick. Scores 8 goals in a hockey game that included former NHL players. :lol: :rolleyes: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2466982-vladimir-putin-scores-8-goals-during-hockey-game-with-former-nhl-players
Of course all those former NHL players were all over 90. The 1947 Toronto Maple Leafs were humiliated.
QuoteHe later apologized in an Instagram post, saying that women of any age were "wonderful and delightful."
Yeah that makes it better.
The Russian media campaign seems to be working?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFW7elcXIAEg_Uc.png)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDHMRY8VIAAaWDg.png)
I doubt it.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/putin-calls-for-purer-russian-language-free-of-foreign-derived-words/521770.html
QuotePutin Calls for Purer Russian Language, Free of Foreign-Derived Words
President Vladimir Putin advocated the preservation of the Russian language on Tuesday, criticizing the use of foreign-based words online and on television.
Speaking at a joint meeting of the Council for Interethnic Relations and the Council for Russian Language, Putin said that there are evident problems in the overall state of the Russian language.
He urged the imperative of striking a "balance between preserving traditional values and identity on the one hand and avoiding isolation from the global cultural processes on the other."
The overall language environment "is now formed primarily by the media, the Internet and television, where language norms and elementary grammar rules are being ignored ever more frequently and linguistic borrowings from other languages are used excessively, often without any obvious need," Putin told several dozen government officials, writers and education managers, who participated in the meeting.
In order to improve the situation, the government has launched a number of initiatives, including by declaring this year Russia's Year of Literature.
In an obvious referral to Ukraine and the Baltic states, Putin said that "other countries ... ignore or limit the right of significantly large ethnic groups to use their native language, [in order] to conduct a tough, aggressive policy of linguistic and cultural assimilation."
"We see what this may lead to: the division of society into 'full-fledged' citizens and 'inferior' ones, into 'citizens' and 'non-citizens' and even to outright tragic internal conflicts," Putin warned.
According to Putin, Russia is home to 193 ethnic groups and nationalities that speak almost 300 languages and dialects. Despite the country's linguistic diversity, more than 96 percent of people in Russia speak Russian, he said.
Many Russian regions have several state languages. Putin specifically mentioned the republic of Crimea, which was annexed by Russia last year and since then has had three official state languages — Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar.
Russia will spend 20.5 million rubles to educate 1,500 Russian language teachers in Crimea, RIA Novosti reported on Tuesday.
I wonder if that means eliminating a whole metric ton of German loan words (mostly in engineering) that Russia adopted in the past few centuries. :P
Also: Russian leadership flummoxed that language is not static and evolves in daily life. Film at 11.
How about a fuckton of French words that've been there since the 18th century?
Quote from: Solmyr on May 20, 2015, 04:41:44 AM
How about a fuckton of French words that've been there since the 18th century?
Well this is a rather French-like move. :D
Quote from: Solmyr on May 20, 2015, 04:41:44 AM
How about a fuckton of French words that've been there since the 18th century?
War and Peace has not been read in the original Russian by a lot of people in this forum. ;)
Getting a German translation of War and Peace that leaves the French parts intact is difficult, and AFAIK only the translation by Werner Bergengrün left them in.
Meanwhile:
http://rt.com/politics/260301-ruma-foreign-undesirable-organizations/
QuoteDuma passes bill allowing expulsion of undesirable foreign organizations
Russia's lower house has given final approval to a bill that, once signed into law, will prohibit the activities of foreign groups if prosecutors recognize them as threatening to Russia's security or defense potential.
The bill was drafted jointly by two opposition MPs – Aleksandr Tarnavsky of the Fair Russia party and Anton Ishchenko of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Formally it is a set of amendments to the 2012 Federal law 'On measures of influence on persons involved in violation of basic rights and freedoms of Russian citizens'.
The fresh draft charges the Prosecutor General's Office with the task of creating an official list of "undesirable foreign organizations" and outlaw their activities in the country. For this, prosecutors must consult with the Foreign Ministry and the complete list must be made public by the Justice Ministry. The main criterion for putting a foreign or international NGO on the list is "the threat to the Constitutional order and the defense capability or security of the Russian State."
Once the group is recognized as undesirable all its assets in Russia must be frozen, offices closed and distribution of any of its information materials must be banned.
If the group chooses to continue its activities in Russia despite the bans the law orders to impose administrative fines on those who continue to work with it. Private persons can be fined between 5,000 and 15,000 rubles ($1000-$3000), officials will pay between 20,000 and 50,000 rubles and companies will face fines between 50,000 and 100,000 rubles.
Heads of such defiant NGOs will face criminal prosecution and fines of between 300,000 and 500,000 rubles or up to six years behind bars. Ordinary staff members who continue to work for an undesirable group despite being brought to administrative responsibility twice within 12 months with face similar criminal responsibility.
The bill has already raised a wave of criticism among foreign NGOs and Russian rights community. Mass media reported that when interpreted broadly the new rules could oust all major rights organizations from Russia – including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others. HRW already called the bill "strangling" and "a draconic advance on civil society" in an official release.
The chairman of the Presidential Council for Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov described the new bill as "exotic" and said that many foreign groups were "shocked" by it.
The sponsors of the bill, however, have repeatedly denied that it was prepared against some particular groups and described it as more of preventive measure :rolleyes: .
Presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov declined to comment on the new bill on Tuesday evening, adding that Vladimir Putin would consider the document when it is officially submitted to him for signing.
"We never present any preliminary position," Peskov told reporters.
The new bill can be seen in line with the 'Foreign Agents Law' introduced in Russia in late 2012. According to that act, all NGOs who receive funding from abroad, and that are even partially engaged in political activities, must register as foreign agents or risk substantial fines.
In November, last year the Foreign Agents Law was expanded with a bill that makes it illegal for Russian political parties to receive sponsorship, or enter any business deals with NGOs with 'foreign agent' status.
And Russia continues its efforts to reject the model of both the liberal west and the Chinese and adopt the North Korean model.
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2015, 04:57:33 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 20, 2015, 04:41:44 AM
How about a fuckton of French words that've been there since the 18th century?
Well this is a rather French-like move. :D
I was about to say :lol:
Quote from: Syt on May 20, 2015, 06:26:14 AM
Getting a German translation of War and Peace that leaves the French parts intact is difficult, and AFAIK only the translation by Werner Bergengrün left them in.
Wow. If, true never expected German literary translation to be as bad as (German) dubbing. :(
Kudos for Werner though.
PS: German wikipedia page for War and Peace says otherwise.
Take the opening:
QuoteЕh bien, mon prince. Genes et Lucques ne sont plus que des apanages, des поместья, de la famille Buonaparte. Non, je vous previens, que si vous ne me dites pas, que nous avons la guerre, si vous vous permettez encore de pallier toutes les infamies, toutes les atrocites de cet Antichrist (ma parole, j'y crois) -- je ne vous connais plus, vous n'etes plus mon ami, vous n'etes plus мой верный раб, comme vous dites.
Most German translations I've seen leave "Eh bien, mon prince" and then translate the rest into German. I do stand corrected, though, that Bergengrün's translation was the only one to do it right, but it was the one most easily available (though I could only get a hardcover version through Abebooks).
Well, Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov has the solution to the polygamy scandal in his province, following a call from the Russian Human Rights Council to investigate the situation of forced/multiple marriages in Chechnya:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/amid-heightened-scrutiny-kadyrov-urges-chechen-men-to-lock-up-their-wives/521903.html
QuoteFollowing the wedding, Kadyrov — who himself attended the controversial reception — lashed out over the jokes and gossip that had apparently become pervasive on popular instant messaging application WhatsApp since the wedding.
During a television address, Kadyrov urged men to stop the cycle of banter by keeping their women under lock and key.
"Lock them in, do not let them go out, then they will not post anything," Kadyrov — speaking in Chechen — instructed the men among his viewers, according to the BBC. "Behave like Chechens. The family honor is the most important thing," he implored them.
In case merely locking the women up fails to do the trick, Kadyrov took it up a notch by then instructing the men to "take your women out of WhatsApp," according to the BBC.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/risque-miss-russia-photo-shoot-prompts-prosecutorial-probe/522398.html
QuoteRisque Miss Russia Photo Shoot Prompts Prosecutorial Probe
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themoscowtimes.com%2Fupload%2Fiblock%2Fc99%2Fflag-miss-russia.jpg&hash=a50bcebb3d80fcf645de282b9e9708c4549ea877)
Prosecutors in the Sverdlovsk region have launched an investigation after the recently crowned Miss Russia was pictured draped in material resembling the Russian flag on the cover of a glossy magazine.
The cover of the print issue featured Sofia Nikitchuk — this year's Miss Russia — draped in silky material in the colors of the Russian flag under the headline "The Taste of Victory." The magazine issue was devoted to the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Soviet Union and its allies in World War II.
Stolnik's editor-in-chief Anna Reshyotkina confirmed to The Moscow Times on Tuesday that prosecutors had taken an interest in the cover.
"I was called to the Prosecutor's Office for a half-hour conversation after which I had to write a statement saying who was responsible for the decision to use that cover. I took full responsibility for the decision," she said in a phone interview.
Prosecutors have not contacted Reshyotkina since the meeting, which took place last Wednesday, she said.
A source in the Prosecutor's Office told local news website Znak.com that the probe was prompted by a request from an unknown individual who was apparently offended by the May cover of Stolnik, a local lifestyle magazine.
On Tuesday, Stolnik's website had a picture of a different cover for the same issue, this time showing Nikitchuk wearing a red dress against the background of a Russian flag.
The photo shoot took place at the end of April when Nikitchuk returned to her hometown of Yekaterinburg shortly after winning the Miss Russia beauty contest in Moscow.
Nikitchuk won the Miss Yekaterinburg pageant in 2014 before going on to win the national competition in April. She was awarded 3 million rubles ($60,000) and a car and will now represent Russia at international beauty contests.
The desecration of the Russian flag is a criminal offense that carries up to a year in prison under Russian law.
In 2013, three female dancers wrapped Russian flags around their bare breasts before tossing them to the floor during a strip show in the Urals city of Chelyabinsk. Representatives of the local Investigative Committee conducted a probe, but did not open a criminal case.
A month earlier, U.S. rock band Bloodhound Gang had to cancel their concert in Russia after one of its members crammed a Russian flag down his pants and rubbed his butt with it during a show in Ukraine, eliciting outrage in Russia.
Eugene Delacroix would have been arrested for sure :(
We need to get to work on a weapon that kills men but doesn't hurt women.
A tiny guillotine?
Quote from: Syt on May 27, 2015, 03:21:52 AM
A month earlier, U.S. rock band Bloodhound Gang had to cancel their concert in Russia after one of its members crammed a Russian flag down his pants and rubbed his butt with it during a show in Ukraine, eliciting outrage in Russia.
[/quote]
Wait - Bloodhound Gang is still doing shows? Wasn't their 15 minutes of fame up about 20 years ago? :blink:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 27, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
We need to get to work on a weapon that kills men but doesn't hurt women.
What is: syphilis?
That nose is perfect. She should copyright that nose for use on sexbots.
Your daily "Russia is wacky" story:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/chelyabinsk-prosecutors-determine-test-to-diagnose-extremism-is-extremist/522581.html
QuoteChelyabinsk Prosecutors Determine Test to Diagnose Extremism Is Extremist
Prosecutors in the Chelyabinsk region have found traces of extremism in a test designed to detect extremist and aggressive proclivities in teenagers, the regional Prosecutor's Office said in a statement Thursday.
During a large-scale inspection of schools' compliance with federal education legislation, Chelyabinsk prosecutors encountered a test that was to be administered to 8th-graders in the city of Kopeysk to help teachers identify students prone to extremist or aggressive behavior.
Authorities claimed that the test, which had been devised by educational psychologists, could lead teenagers to engage in extremist activity.
"Testing to identify aggressive and violent teenagers could lead to the incitement of social, racial, national or religious hatred," the statement read, without elaborating on the contents or the examination, or explaining which elements led prosecutors to determine that it was extremist.
The head of Kopeysk's education department received a formal warning in response to prosecutors' finding, the statement said.
Russian law enforcement agencies have toiled to squash all things they have reckoned to be extremist. Earlier this week, a court in the far eastern Amur region found signs of "violence and intolerance" in the song lyrics by two prominent Russian metal bands. The court said it had filed a claim with the Justice Ministry to have the songs added on the country's list of extremist materials.
Quote from: Syt on May 29, 2015, 03:43:21 AM
Your daily "Russia is wacky" story:
It's more like Russia is acting like its Soviet predecessor. The more things change in Russia, the more they remain the same, it seems.
Another Putin opponent about to bite the dust:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/05/29/kremlin-opponent-near-death-family-suspects-poisoning/
Spending time in Moscow after going after Kadyrov. Yeah, that worked out so well for many other people.
The more things change... :ph34r:
Also, corruption in Russia? Another Western plot!
http://rt.com/politics/262773-russia-corruption-west-provoke/
QuoteLaw enforcer accuses foreign offshore havens of encouraging Russian corruption
The official spokesman of Russia's Investigative Committee has blamed foreign governments for deliberately provoking corruption in Russia, to attract more criminal capital into offshores registered in their countries.
In a recent interview with the Argumenty Nedeli newspaper, Vladimir Markin said Western nations often refused Russia's extradition requests in major corruption cases. He gave several examples, such as the former finance minister of the Moscow Region, Aleksey Kuznetsov, former director of the state owned shipping company Sovkomflot, Dmitriy Skarga, and late oligarch Boris Berezovskiy. "These are purely corruption cases, there is no politics in them," Markin said.
"Our main problem is that our Western partners would lose if we have more order in our country. The money flowing into offshores gives them tremendous support. This is the reason there is no extradition from London for corrupt officials and crooks."
Aleksey Kuznetsov is wanted in Russia on charges of embezzlement of state funds and money laundering. He currently lives in the USA. Dmitry Skarga resides in the UK after his former employer Sovkomflot accused him of graft and bribery. Boris Berezovskiy was charged with embezzlement in Russia, received political asylum in UK and committed suicide in his London home after losing a major business lawsuit.
The Investigative Committee is a separate federal law enforcement agency set up in 2011 in order to deal with especially important criminal cases, in particular with large scale corruption scandals. It was the Investigative Committee that worked on the so called Oboronservis case – a probe into graft in the property department of the Russian Defense Ministry. The case led to the sacking of Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov and a five-year prison sentence for his top aide Yevgeniya Vasiliyeva.
Quote from: Syt on May 29, 2015, 10:18:27 AM
Also, corruption in Russia? Another Western plot!
Now that's a way of putting a shine on that tired old sneaker. ;)
Way to make friends and influence people! :lol:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32949236
QuoteEuropean Union anger at Russian travel blacklist
31 May 2015
From the section Europe
Former British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg is reportedly among those banned
Ukraine crisis
The European Union has responded angrily to Russia's entry ban against 89 European politicians, officials and military leaders.
Those banned are believed to include general secretary of the EU council Uwe Corsepius, and former British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg.
Russia shared the list after several requests by diplomats, the EU said.
The EU called the ban "totally arbitrary and unjustified" and said no explanation had been provided.
Many of those on the list are outspoken critics of the Kremlin, and some have been turned away from Russia in recent months.
Advertisement
The EU said that it had asked repeatedly for the list of those banned, but nothing had been provided until now.
"The list with 89 names has now been shared by the Russian authorities. We don't have any other information on legal basis, criteria and process of this decision," an EU spokesman said on Saturday.
"We consider this measure as totally arbitrary and unjustified, especially in the absence of any further clarification and transparency," he added.
The list of those barred from Russia has not been officially released, although what appears to be a leaked version (in German) is online.
A Russian foreign ministry official would not confirm the names of those barred, but said that the ban was a result of EU sanctions against Russia.
"Why it was precisely these people who entered into the list... is simple - it was done in answer to the sanctions campaign which has been waged in relation to Russia by several states of the European Union," the official, who was not named, told Russian news agency Tass.
The official said Moscow had previously recommended that all diplomats from countries that imposed sanctions on Russia should check with Russian consular offices before travelling to see if they were banned.
"Just one thing remains unclear: did our European co-workers want these lists to minimise inconveniences for potential 'denied persons' or to stage another political show?" he said.
EU sanctions were imposed after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea region in March 2014, and they have been extended amid ongoing fighting between government troops and pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told journalists on Friday that the list had been shared with EU diplomats and that three Dutch politicians were on it. He said the ban was "not based on international law".
British intelligence and military chiefs, including MI5 director general Andrew Parker, former MI6 chief Sir John Sawers and chief of the defence staff General Sir Nicholas Houghton are reportedly on the list.
Former British foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind told the AFP news agency that he had "read the reports in the media [of his ban] but not a word from the Russians".
Britain's foreign office said: "The Russian authorities have not provided any legal basis for the list or for the names on it.
"If Russia thinks this action will cause the EU to change its position on sanctions, it is wrong."
Also said to be on the list are French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt and the EU's former enlargement chief Stefan Fule.
'A decent club'
Sweden's foreign minister, Margot Wallstrom, said that her country has asked for an explanation from Russia.
Eight Swedes are on the list, including Swedish MEP Anna Maria Corazza Bildt.
"I'm more proud than scared and this gives me more determination to continue... If the Kremlin takes me and my colleagues seriously it means we're doing a good job," Ms Bildt told AFP.
The former Czech foreign minister, Karel Schwarzenberg, also said he was pleased to have made the list.
"When I saw the other names (on the list), I found out I was in a very decent club. I consider this a reward," he was quoted as saying by the CTK news agency.
Other countries with names on the list reportedly include Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria and Spain.
List is tainted by having BHL in it. :(
German media have said that the list looks amateurish and not to have been talked about with Russian embassies, as there's people on it who no longer are in relevant positions.
Quote from: Syt on June 01, 2015, 04:44:21 AM
German media have said that the list looks amateurish and not to have been talked about with Russian embassies, as there's people on it who no longer are in relevant positions.
The Danes on the list includes two former foreign ministers and an irrelevant neo-nazi.
For Spain they have picked one of the VPs of the EP, and a guy that sits in the Foreign Relations Committee of the EP - except that he's specialized in relations with Latin America and hasn't had anything to do with Eastern Europe, ever.
The list includes 18 Poles. :showoff:
Among them is the Speaker of the European Parliament (not sure if he is one still or did his term end last year) (from PO), a former foreign affairs minister in the PiS government, the Speaker of the Polish Senate (from PO), and a MEP and former security advisor to a social-democrat President (from SLD). It seems to have been thrown together quite haphazardly.
Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2015, 05:11:27 AM
For Spain they have picked one of the VPs of the EP, and a guy that sits in the Foreign Relations Committee of the EP - except that he's specialized in relations with Latin America and hasn't had anything to do with Eastern Europe, ever.
Who are they?
Quote from: The Larch on June 01, 2015, 05:45:26 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2015, 05:11:27 AM
For Spain they have picked one of the VPs of the EP, and a guy that sits in the Foreign Relations Committee of the EP - except that he's specialized in relations with Latin America and hasn't had anything to do with Eastern Europe, ever.
Who are they?
Ramon Luis
VALCARCEL SISO
Stv. Vorsitzender des EP, ehem. Präsident der
Regierung der autonomen Region Murcia,
SPANIEN
José Ignacio
SALAFRANCA
SANCHEZ-NEYRA
Ehem. Mitglied AFET-Fraktion, SPANIEN
Ramón Valcárcel? I knew that PP had parked him in Brussels to get rid of him but I was not aware of him getting any relevant position there. He's a doofus.
Never heard of the other one.
http://rt.com/politics/263833-russia-blacklists-foreign-ministry/
Quote'Below the belt': Foreign ministry slams Western diplomats for disclosing Russian blacklists
The Russian Foreign Ministry has expressed disappointment at their Western colleagues for publicizing lists of people subject to personal sanctions in Russia. They called such measures a threat to mutual trust.
"When European partners surpass all boundaries, it can't cause anything but disappointment. How can we trust such partners?" Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksey Meshkov told Interfax.
The comment came soon after Finnish mass media published a list of people included in Russia's blacklist, introduced as a reply to the Western policy of personal sanctions that started in 2014.
Meshkov elaborated that the Russian blacklist was formed over 12 months ago, after a similar action against Russian officials was undertaken by the European Union. He emphasized that every inclusion in the list was backed up by a number of reasons. The diplomat also told reporters the list was transferred to European diplomats after repeated requests and on condition of non-disclosure.
"We do not consider this as a political demarche. We simply wanted to ease the lives of those who are on this list. All that happened afterwards lies completely on our European partners' conscience," Meshkov noted.
The official explained the initial request from the EU was apparently prompted by the need to save time and effort of people, who suspected they were banned from entering Russia, and didn't want to apply for visas if they were to be refused anyway.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on the situation with blacklists on Monday: "We didn't want to make this public. When the European Union introduced restrictions on 150 Russian citizens we did the same, but targeted a smaller number of EU citizens. We didn't want to follow the EU's bad example and turn the disclosure of these names into a loud campaign," Lavrov said.
Deputy director of the Foreign Ministry's Information Directorate, Mariya Zakharova, described Russia's stance on the problem in an extensive Facebook post published on Sunday. She said the blacklist was sent to EU officials confidentially and after repeated requests, only to be immediately disclosed to the press.
"Gentlemen, this was below the belt," Zakharova wrote. She also claimed Russian diplomats had long ago stopped being surprised at the dishonesty of their Western partners, but this time it was on a shocking scale.
"Sanctions policies not approved by the UN Security Council are an aimless action that has never yielded any positive result," she wrote.
In mid-March this year, popular Russian daily Izvestia said Moscow had slapped sanctions on over 200 foreign officials known for their anti-Russian positions and actions. The newspaper concentrated on the US section of the list that included Deputy National Security Advisor Caroline Atkinson, and firebrand Arizona Senator John McCain. Izvestia also quoted an unnamed Foreign Ministry source as saying that further expansion of the Russian sanctions lists was possible if Western nations choose to continue the standoff.
It appears that Russia shared the list after a German politician who went to Moscow to talk to a Russian politician who was on the sanction list, something Moscow normally enjoys, because it shows that those "banned" politicians aren't isolated and are still available as partners. The German was not permitted entry of Russia and had to spend the night in the transit area of the Moscow airport, causing much consternation.
Quote from: The Larch on June 01, 2015, 06:29:29 AM
Ramón Valcárcel? I knew that PP had parked him in Brussels to get rid of him but I was not aware of him getting any relevant position there. He's a doofus.
Never heard of the other one.
Valcárcel has had lots of cushy European posts. Lead the Regions Committee, now is one of the Vice Presidents of the EP.
The whole thing just smacks of "we need some Spaniards in that list", and they coming up with a couple of Spaniards with posts in the EP, even though our parties routinely use the EP to park their dinosaurs and nobody there will have any relevance.
QuoteWe simply wanted to ease the lives of those who are on this list. All that happened afterwards lies completely on our European partners' conscience
What happened exactly? Russia got embarrassed?
How will they sleep at night? Russia should just blacklist everybody not Russian in the entire world and get it over with.
Quote from: Liep on June 01, 2015, 04:45:54 AM
an irrelevant neo-nazi.
Usually those are welcome in Russia.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2015, 07:24:58 AM
QuoteWe simply wanted to ease the lives of those who are on this list. All that happened afterwards lies completely on our European partners' conscience
What happened exactly? Russia got embarrassed?
How will they sleep at night? Russia should just blacklist everybody not Russian in the entire world and get it over with.
Russia made Western diplomats pinkie swear that they would keep the lists under wraps. That they got released just shows how untrustworthy the West is. Also, Russia is nicer than the West, because they put fewer people on the list.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-02/putin-s-secret-budget-hides-shift-toward-war-economy
QuoteThe Secret Money Behind Vladimir Putin's War Machine
If Vladimir Putin's ends remain mysterious, so do the means.
Putin is allocating unprecedented amounts of secret funds to accelerate Russia's largest military buildup since the Cold War, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The part of the federal budget that is so-called black -- authorized but not itemized -- has doubled since 2010 to 21 percent and now totals 3.2 trillion rubles ($60 billion), the Gaidar Institute, an independent think tank in Moscow, estimates.
Stung by sanctions over Ukraine and oil's plunge, Putin is turning to defense spending to revive a shrinking economy. The outlays on new tanks, missiles and uniforms highlight the growing militarization that is swelling the deficit and crowding out services such as health care. Thousands of army conscripts will be moved into commercial enterprises for the first time to aid in the rearmament effort.
"The government has two urgent tasks: strengthening security at all levels of society and promoting innovation to end the macroeconomic stagnation," said Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies and an adviser to the Defense Ministry in Moscow. "The solution to both problems is to intensify the development of the military-industrial complex."
Since bringing the country back from the brink of bankruptcy a decade and a half ago, Putin has increased defense spending more than 20-fold in ruble terms. In dollars, it exceeded $84 billion last year, more than any other nation except the U.S. and China, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
'Permanent War'
Defense and the related category of national security and law enforcement now eat up 34 percent of the budget, more than double the ratio in 2010. The U.S., by comparison, spent 18 percent, or $615 billion, of its budget last year on defense and international security, according to the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Putin's Secret Spending
After studying Putin's actions in Ukraine, including his seizure of Crimea, the National Defense Academy of Latvia, a former Soviet satellite that is now part of NATO and the European Union, concluded that Russia's ultimate aim is to introduce "a state of permanent war as the natural condition in national life."
"We can and must do for the defense industry what we did for Sochi," Putin told generals and executives near the Black Sea resort on May 12, referring to the $50 billion Russia spent to host the 2014 Winter Olympics there. "All questions relating to adequate resource allocation have been resolved."
'Industrial Battalions'
That same day, Putin signed documents creating what he called the "industrial battalions" program, which will give thousands of draftees the option of working in defense enterprises instead of joining the regular military.
After years of chronic funding problems for weapons makers, Russia has started to prepay for the goods and services it buys from the more than 1,300 organizations and 2.5 million people that make up the defense industry. About half of this year's defense budget was dispensed in just the first quarter, though most of what was paid for is classified.
The secret share of Russia's budget may rise to 25 percent in 2016 as the military buildup continues and "more agencies and activities (such as border protection) are classified as national security," the International Monetary Fund said in a report last year. Many of Russia's fellow Group of 20 members cloak less than 1 percent of their spending, the IMF said.
'Military Transformation'
One thing that isn't being hidden from the public is the number of people in uniform, which is "perhaps the most palpable sign of Russia's military transformation," according to Igor Sutyagin, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London.
"While uniformed manpower has declined in every Western nation since 2011, the number of Russian personnel increased by 25 percent to 850,000 between 2011 and mid-2014 -- although this was still short of the 1-million manpower target set in 2010," Sutyagin said in a research note.
Russia also has about 2.5 million active reservists out of a total population of 143 million, according to Global Firepower, which studies the conventional warmaking capabilities of 129 countries. It ranks Russia No. 2, after the U.S. and ahead of China, India and the U.K.
Confusing NATO
Russia is already the main challenger to the U.S. when it comes to selling arms. It delivered some $16 billion of fighter jets, missiles and other weapons around the world last year, accounting for about 3.2 percent of the country's exports, according to Pukhov of the Center for Analysis.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, created in 1949 to contain the Soviet Union, said it's not sure what Putin is trying to achieve with either his actions in Ukraine or his weapons program.
"We cannot fully grasp Putin's intent," the alliance's top military commander, U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove, told Congress in April, according to the Defense Department's website. "What we can do is learn from his actions, and what we see suggests growing Russian capabilities, significant military modernization and an ambitious strategic intent."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gotraffic.net%2Fimages%2Fi22mtV4tpKUU%2Fv3%2F-1x-1.jpg&hash=55a88cef4a8033abf89ca152d79aa968f86d4f38)
Gaidar Institute
he he. he he. he he.
Putin is starting to go off on the Gaidar? Guess it has to do with going shirtless all the time.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 03, 2015, 07:09:05 AM
Putin is starting to go off on the Gaidar? Guess it has to do with going shirtless all the time.
Actually, the guy who came up with the "gay propaganda" law in Russia has now suggested making it illegal to go topless in public (except where it's appropriate like at the beach).
Maybe next time Russia should initiate a reset with the US and West. :unsure:
;)
I'm reading his history of Russia, very interesting.
Meaning Gaidar, you adolescents.
Quote from: KRonn on June 03, 2015, 10:11:54 AM
Maybe next time Russia should initiate a reset with the US and West. :unsure:
;)
wouldn't that require they either nuke or sterilise themselves?
Really interesting article on paid Russian trolls on the internet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth®ion=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2015, 12:48:54 PM
Really interesting article on paid Russian trolls on the internet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth®ion=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below
That's a great read. Thanks for posting it. :)
Indeed, the final twist is worthy of a spy novel.
I must have seen that twist in a couple dozen movies! Ridiculous stuff.
The whole fake chemical accident episode is slightly scary too.
The fake video they link to of a black woman in Atlanta supposedly being shot is hilarious. Would like to see the extended cut, with more dancing and hilariously fake accents.
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2015, 12:48:54 PM
Really interesting article on paid Russian trolls on the internet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth®ion=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below
The US must close the trolling gap with Russia!! :ph34r:
Quote from: KRonn on June 04, 2015, 12:47:04 PM
The US must close the trolling gap with Russia!! :ph34r:
Now there's a jobs program that would work beautifully.
The thing is that it's not that funny. Russians understand that informational wars can be just as effective as real warfare, and by being able to snow the social media, they've pulled off a Pearl Harbor. The fact that they're finally being unmasked doesn't really solve anything, because their objective is to confuse first and fool second. I sure hope that somewhere out there, NSA or some other agency is working diligently on that threat, and figuring out how it can be countered.
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2015, 01:29:11 PM
The thing is that it's not that funny. Russians understand that informational wars can be just as effective as real warfare, and by being able to snow the social media, they've pulled off a Pearl Harbor. The fact that they're finally being unmasked doesn't really solve anything, because their objective is to confuse first and fool second. I sure hope that somewhere out there, NSA or some other agency is working diligently on that threat, and figuring out how it can be countered.
My impression from the article is that the main target isn't the West (though that is a nice bonus), it is ... people in Russia. Russian tactics appear to be aimed firstly at blocking Russian activists' use of the 'net, by pre-empting them with trollish bullshit in Russia itself. Not sure there is anything really that can be done about that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 04, 2015, 12:49:52 PM
Quote from: KRonn on June 04, 2015, 12:47:04 PM
The US must close the trolling gap with Russia!! :ph34r:
Now there's a jobs program that would work beautifully.
Do you mean that or are you just...trolling? ;)
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2015, 01:29:11 PM
The thing is that it's not that funny. Russians understand that informational wars can be just as effective as real warfare, and by being able to snow the social media, they've pulled off a Pearl Harbor.
A couple thousand people died at Pearl Harbor with huge losses in capital ships and aircraft. That hardly compares with an freelancer getting trolled on the internet, and some people in Louisiana getting spooked over a fake chemical accident.
Guller has a point. If people stop trusting internet rumors our society could collapse.
I'm not talking about rumors. I'm talking about public sentiment. The mood of the public can be manipulated by Internet, or alternatively it can be stalled by making people reluctant to take any side of the issue decisively. If an impression is created that "reasonable people can disagree" on a subject where in fact there is a outrageous conduct that needs to be addressed, bad guys win and good guys lose.
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2015, 02:32:59 PM
I'm not talking about rumors. I'm talking about public sentiment. The mood of the public can be manipulated by Internet, or alternatively it can be stalled by making people reluctant to take any side of the issue decisively. If an impression is created that "reasonable people can disagree" on a subject where in fact there is a outrageous conduct that needs to be addressed, bad guys win and good guys lose.
In that case, lobbyists and PR guys have to be criminalized.
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2015, 02:32:59 PM
I'm not talking about rumors. I'm talking about public sentiment. The mood of the public can be manipulated by Internet, or alternatively it can be stalled by making people reluctant to take any side of the issue decisively. If an impression is created that "reasonable people can disagree" on a subject where in fact there is a outrageous conduct that needs to be addressed, bad guys win and good guys lose.
Are you saying that Russia could theoretically make the view that "Russia is the good guy in the Ukraine" a mainstream belief, or that they are already doing so? Neither of these I see as true BTW.
The best they can do is give some fodder to existing conspiracy crackpots. But so can anyone.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 04, 2015, 02:35:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2015, 02:32:59 PM
I'm not talking about rumors. I'm talking about public sentiment. The mood of the public can be manipulated by Internet, or alternatively it can be stalled by making people reluctant to take any side of the issue decisively. If an impression is created that "reasonable people can disagree" on a subject where in fact there is a outrageous conduct that needs to be addressed, bad guys win and good guys lose.
In that case, lobbyists and PR guys have to be criminalized.
Well, when it's done internally, that's just an irreducible part of freedom of speech. You just hope that the benefits outweigh the fact that there is Fox News out there. I think it's a little different when it's perpetrated by a hostile foreign nation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 02:39:35 PM
Are you saying that Russia could theoretically make the view that "Russia is the good guy in the Ukraine" a mainstream belief, or that they are already doing so? Neither of these I see as true BTW.
Not "Russia is the good guy", but "Ukrainian government is perpetrating ethnic cleansing" belief. It doesn't have to be bought, it just has to weigh in on the minds of average citizens. Once the narrative goes from a Russian invasion to a civil conflict where both sides have done nasty things, the appetite for any kind of intervention or aid goes down big time in democratic societies.
Quote
The best they can do is give some fodder to existing conspiracy crackpots. But so can anyone.
Many can, but Russian actually do it. In a very concerted and coordinated way.
But the Ukrainians are *not* totally without sin.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 02:39:35 PM
Are you saying that Russia could theoretically make the view that "Russia is the good guy in the Ukraine" a mainstream belief, or that they are already doing so?
they are in fact doing so already, and with at least a decent amount of success. Far too many people out there buying the Russian bs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 02:49:09 PM
But the Ukrainians are *not* totally without sin.
No one is, so what?
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2015, 02:52:56 PM
No one is, so what?
So the idea that you're afraid will weigh on people's minds is already weighing on my mind and should be weighing on most people's minds, and that wasn't because of a Russian twitter feed and it doesn't mean the Russians have won the social media war.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 02:54:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2015, 02:52:56 PM
No one is, so what?
So the idea that you're afraid will weigh on people's minds is already weighing on my mind and should be weighing on most people's minds, and that wasn't because of a Russian twitter feed and it doesn't mean the Russians have won the social media war.
There is a difference between knowing that no one is without a sin, and having false accusations about someone's sins out there. One is a general vague notion, another is fact that people will think they disregarded but has in fact left some residual impression.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 02:49:09 PM
But the Ukrainians are *not* totally without sin.
We are so! :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 02:54:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2015, 02:52:56 PM
No one is, so what?
So the idea that you're afraid will weigh on people's minds is already weighing on my mind and should be weighing on most people's minds, and that wasn't because of a Russian twitter feed and it doesn't mean the Russians have won the social media war.
I suspect the idea of trolling is to simply churn so much bullshit out there, that some - at least - become convinced that the rights and wrongs of the situation are simply unknowable.
Sure, with any two parties to a conflict, there is going to be "sin" on both sides. With the Ukrainian thing, there certainly was - at least initially - a massive amount of disinformation about the alleged 'sins' of the Ukrainians, much of which was straight-out 'big lie'.
To give but one example: that the Ukrainian rebels were intent on crushing the use of the Russian language, Nazi-style (and
were, in fact, mostly a bunch of Nazis). I remember reading a bunch of stories about how people speaking Russian were attacked in the streets in Kiev. Someone in the West could easily be forgiven for believing that - I mean, what do any of us know about what happens on the streets of Kiev?
People actually from Ukraine apparently know that is complete bullshit, pretty well everyone in Kiev speaks Russian as a matter of course. However, again, someone less informed may think that Russian intervention to "protect minorities" is sorta justified.
Yeah, the less someone knows about the subject, the more even obvious propaganda is having an effect. You may fully understand that the source is total bullshit, but if there is no other piece of knowledge competing with bullshit, that is what will form your subconscious feelings about the subject.
I guess Yi fell for the Russian trolling.
That chick with the perfect nose could troll me all she wants to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 03:50:02 PM
That chick with the perfect nose could troll me all she wants to.
Except it would just turn out to be a 300 pound Russian trucker
pretending to be that chick with the perfect nose. ;)
The NYT article includes a pic, so I think it's really her. Also Der Spiegel (//http://).
Quote from: Malthus on June 04, 2015, 03:53:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2015, 03:50:02 PM
That chick with the perfect nose could troll me all she wants to.
Except it would just turn out to be a 300 pound Russian trucker pretending to be that chick with the perfect nose. ;)
In fact Malthus' Aunt is just a 300 pound trucker pretending to be an author. Truth.
http://tass.ru/en/russia/799098
QuoteLawmaker: Moscow can answer possible deployment of US nuclear missiles in Europe
Colonel General Viktor Zavarzin said "the US administration needs to weigh everything carefully before making such ill-considered steps"
MOSCOW, June 5. /TASS/. Member of the State Duma Defense committee Colonel General Viktor Zavarzin has said that Russia has counter-arguments to the possible deployment of US nuclear missiles in Europe.
"If the Americans indeed deploy their ground-based nuclear missiles in Europe, in this case we will face the necessity of retaliating. And we have such an opportunity," Zavarzin told TASS on Friday.
He confirmed that the current state and technical equipment of the Russian Armed Forces made it possible to respond immediately to all challenges and threats emanating from outside the country's borders. "In this case, the US administration needs to weigh everything carefully before making such ill-considered steps," he said.
The Associated Press reported on Thursday that the Obama administration was considering the deployment of land-based missiles in Europe "that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons". The AP cites an unclassified portion of a report written by the office of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey "that examines weapons the US could develop and deploy if freed from INF treaty constraints."
Someone, think of the children!
http://rt.com/politics/265702-russia-selfie-lessons-safe/
QuoteSafety first – activist suggests teaching children to make risk-free selfies
A public movement suggests extracurricular lessons of "safe selfies" in Russian schools to bring down the growing number of accidents caused by the new fad.
The organizer of the "For Security" group, Dmitry Kurdesov, told popular daily Izvestia that he and his colleagues had prepared an appeal to the Education Ministry with the request to aid them in introducing the "safe selfie lessons." He claimed that the course program had been prepared together with police and professional photographers.
"The recent accidents in which people suffer from 'unsafe selfies' have become frequent. We must teach people from childhood that easy ways to success are dangerous," Kurdesov told reporters.
The activist said that the safe selfie lessons would be organized in Russia's second-largest city of St. Petersburg already this year from September 1, and expressed hope that the initiative would soon spread nationwide. He also suggested that the authorities impose fines on those who pursue dangerous hobbies like roof climbing.
The Education Ministry has been skeptical about the suggestion. Its press service told Izvestia that Russian schools already head a separate course on "safe living" that included tips on handling various objects, including modern electronic devices.
A professional psychiatrist said in comments to Izvestia that making selfies was a symptom of a mental illness caused by severe lack of attention from parents. By making pictures of themselves children compensate for lack of parental attention, at least for a short time, the specialist said, adding that kids from happy families are not usually fond of selfies. :lol: The psychiatrist concluded that saving children from dangerous safety was the work for doctors and not for police or photographers.
A Moscow school director suggested that the movement exercised their teaching not in classes but in city parks so that children could learn the safe selfie making in their free time.
This spring several children and teenagers all over Russia sustained injuries when attempting to shoot a selfie. The ways of self-harm included electrocution and falls from high places. One girl accidentally shot herself in the head with a rubber bullet when posing for a selfie with a pistol.
The "For Security" movement gained notoriety in April when its leader asked the Interior Ministry to institute special "anti-troll" police that would prosecute internet users for threats, insults or creating fake accounts.
At some point it will be revealed that RT is actually the Russian version of The Onion and we will look like a bunch of mugs.
It's the only possible explanation.
Not even technically illegal and ignored, wow, that's some 19th century stuff right there. I'm surprised there isn't a Soviet law on the books on this that was simply never enforced.
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/10/moscow-domestic-violence-problem-russia
QuoteAnna Zhavnerovich went to the police a week after she says her boyfriend beat her unconscious, determined to make sure he was arrested and brought to justice. She was surprised by some of the questions the Moscow police officers asked her when she recounted what had happened, her face still painfully swollen and discoloured.
"They asked me why I didn't have any children," she remembers. "They asked me if I was married." Beneath their line of questioning was the suggestion that somehow the attack was her fault.
They told her that they would investigate, but a few weeks later she received a letter informing her that the case had been dropped. Her ex-boyfriend had not been questioned and no further action was proposed. When she tried to hire a lawyer to start a private suit, she was told that the police had lost her files.
Zhavnerovich, 28, a journalist at a fashionable Moscow-based online lifestyle website W-O-S, chose instead to write an article about what had happened to her. Its publication last month attracted huge attention, highlighting an issue that for decades has been an almost unmentionable taboo. Zhavnerovich was bombarded with hundreds of emails and Facebook posts from women who wanted to tell her that they, too, had been beaten up by partners and struggled to get the authorities to register a complaint.
"I think people were surprised to read that this was happening in young, fashionable Moscow circles – not something to do with alcoholics in some remote, backward village somewhere. That's why it triggered such a huge reaction from the public," Zhavnerovich said. "Judging by the responses I have had, the scale of the problem is enormous."
The interest her account provoked chimed with a political shift in attitudes to this issue, which is finally edging towards the political mainstream. After decades of failed attempts to draft legislation that identifies domestic violence as a crime, politicians at the Moscow Duma hope this session of parliament to debate a new law, which will make it easier for victims to prosecute their attackers, and introduce a series of preventative measures, such as restraining orders and behavioural therapy for offenders.
Politicians have already considered (and abandoned) more than 50 draft versions of a law on domestic violence since the early 1990s, but this time there is muted optimism from campaigners, who say a series of high-profile cases are finally bringing this hidden issue into the open, strengthening demand for improvements in the way complaints from women are handled.
The current debates over how Russia deals with domestic violence reflect changing attitudes to women, in a country where family values remain conservative. It touches on a perplexing Russian paradox – that while the Russian government has long promoted equality in the work place, attitudes towards women remain patriarchal. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which was considering the issue of domestic violence, expressed concern in 2010 at the "state party's repeated emphasis on the role of women as mothers and caregivers".
"If he beats you, he loves you," goes a well-known Russian proverb, a wry articulation of an acceptance that being hit by your husband is simply an everyday part of human relationships. Marina Pisklakova, head of ANNA, a Moscow-based charity which has been fighting for improved support for victims of domestic violence since the 1990s, points out that the violence itself is a global problem, but that Russia is unusual in having such inadequate legislation.
"We desperately need the legislation because when there is no legislation, it makes it look like this is something that is tolerated by society, so the legislation in itself will be a powerful statement that this is not something that is acceptable – and I think that will have an impact on behaviour," she said.
Because there is no separate classification for domestic violence, there are no reliable statistics on prevalence, but the Ministry of Internal Affairs estimated in 2008 that it occurs in 25% of all families, and that 14,000 women die every year "at the hands of husbands or other relatives", with nearly 65% of all homicides related to domestic violence.
"The reporting is very low. It is a very concealed issue," Pisklakova said. "But things are changing; there is not as much denial as there was."
14,000 Russian women die every year at the hands of husbands and relatives
President Vladimir Putin had indicated that he would support the bill, but elsewhere there has been hostility to the proposed legislation. A Russian orthodox archbishop, and Russia's official children's rights ombudsman, criticised groups campaigning on this issue in March, accusing them of disseminating "anti-family propaganda". Pavel Astakhov wrote on his Instagram account: "The family is the safest place! Far more crimes happen in public places, on transport and in stores ... Constant and excessive use of the term 'domestic violence' serves to intimidate families and parents." He advised the government against Russia signing a Council of Europe convention on preventing domestic abuse, arguing that it would be against Russia's "national interests".
Currently, the only cases that get serious consideration from the police and the courts are those where the woman has suffered serious physical injuries or been killed. The onus is on women to file a case, but most lack the necessary legal expertise, let alone money for a lawyer. The system is so complicated that 90% of filed cases are dismissed for technical reasons, and only around 3% result in criminal convictions of any kind. Because a fine of 50,000 roubles (about £630) is the most likely outcome, police are reluctant to accept the bureaucratic work involved in processing a case, said Nikolai Levshits, who works with the charity Russia Behind Bars.
The UN's special rapporteur on violence against women concluded in a recent report: "The lack of a specific law on domestic violence in Russia is a major obstacle to combating this violence."
The emerging campaigns for improvement reveal the strength of the internet in empowering previously voiceless groups of people. Alyona Popova, an activist on this issue, whose change.org petition calling for legislation gathered 120,000 signatures within days of being launched, explains that she became involved after a friend's boyfriend beat her violently. "After 24 hours, he visited her in hospital carrying a huge bunch of flowers and she responded by telling me: 'He is perfect; he is my future. Perhaps this was all my fault.' This is a powerful women, an entrepreneur who runs her own business, and her response was not unusual," she said. "Most women don't go to court. They feel shame; they blame themselves."
She is concerned about the number of women in prison for murder, committed in self-defence. "They get no protection from the police, so in the end they take a vase and hit him on the head," she said. This is an area little-studied in Russia. "No one has any interest in collecting these figures."
Campaigning is beginning to break a taboo. When allegations emerged that the popular actor Marat Basharov had beaten his actress wife Katya Arkharova so violently last October that she was in a coma, the subject was widely debated on television. "When famous women start talking about it then things begin to change," Popova said, but she is not certain that new legislation will pass. "Most of the deputies are men, and there's a perception that these are family matters that should be dealt with in the family. I'm not that optimistic."
Activist Alyona Popova is concerned about the number of women in prison for murder, committed in self-defence
In 2013, there were 43 shelters across Russia with beds for around 400 women – which represents just 3% of the total number of shelter spaces for women victims of violence recommended by the Council of Europe. But the Moscow government last year built a 35-bedroom, well-equipped complex for battered women, with facilities for therapy and psychological support for children – another clear sign that attitudes are changing.
Natalia Zavialova, head of the state-run centre, said of the 200 women who had stayed in the shelter over the year since it opened, only one had taken her case to court; the rest were unwilling to confront their former partners, or were simply overwhelmed by the difficulties of the legal process. But she senses the start of a shift in the seriousness with which the subject is treated. "People are beginning to talk about the subject more openly and have begun to understand that places like this are essential."
Zhavnerovich said she wrote the article to help other women understand what they need to do if they are beaten by boyfriends or husbands. Written in the form of short diary extracts, the piece is her cool account of what happened to her, beginning with the night before New Year, when she and her boyfriend decided to split up after three years together. They agreed, calmly, that this was for the best, and went to sleep. At around 4am she awoke to find him screaming at her, and hitting her head with his fists. She regained consciousness, aware that blood was streaming from her face. It took her a while to decide what to do; when her boyfriend left the flat to go to the local pharmacy to buy antiseptic cream, she called a friend to come and rescue her.
Initially she didn't want to approach the police, convinced it would be a useless exercise. Her friends offered, quite seriously, to go and take revenge with a baseball bat, also certain that there was little likelihood of a constructive response from an appeal to the police. After a week, still reluctant to leave her friend's flat because her injuries were so horrific, she decided to at least try to register a formal complaint. She shows pictures on her iPhone of her face then, unrecognisable because of the injuries.
After her article was published, several lawyers offered their help, but even with discounts (offered in the hope that she would be writing about their services), she estimated that the bills would run up to about $10,000, equivalent to more than six months' salary. "I'm in a well-paid job, but there's no way I could afford that," she said. "Besides that the whole process is so incredibly complicated, you would have spend all your time on preparing the case, collecting the documents, proving you were a victim, acting as a private detective and a lawyer ... most women just don't have the time or the skills."
She was lucky in that eventually a lawyer agreed to take on her case pro-bono, and she thinks there will be a hearing within the next two months. She hopes that her ex-partner will get some kind of community-service sentence. "I'm not bloodthirsty, hoping for revenge, but I do want the case to go to court. At the moment, I am the one made to feel guilty."
She has received such toxic abuse from online commentators that she no longer reads them, but there has also been support; and within days of publication the article became the most read article in the website's history. "Women have been emancipated since the Soviet Union, but they have never been feminists; that movement is beginning now," she said. Zhavernovich is happy to have helped drag the subject out of the shadows. "This was such an unmentionable subject. It was always there but no one ever talked about it. I felt I had a responsibility to tell people about what happened to me."
Poles had a unique chance to shoot down Putin's plane when it was on the way to/from Rome. :ph34r:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-33151125
QuotePutin: Russia to boost nuclear arsenal with 40 missiles
President Vladimir Putin says Russia will add more than 40 intercontinental ballistic missiles to its nuclear arsenal in 2015.
Speaking at an arms fair, Mr Putin said the weapons would be able to overcome even the most technically advanced anti-missile defence systems.
It comes after the US proposed increasing its military presence in Nato states in Eastern Europe.
Tensions are high over Russia's role in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
Nato and Western leaders accuse Russia of sending soldiers and heavy weapons including tanks and missiles to the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly denied this, insisting that any Russians fighting there are "volunteers".
'Arms race'
Russian officials have warned that Moscow will respond if the US carries out its plan to store heavy military equipment in Eastern Europe, including in the Baltic states that were once part of the Soviet Union.
"The feeling is that our colleagues from Nato countries are pushing us into an arms race," RIA news agency quoted Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov as saying on the sidelines of the arms fair outside Moscow.
Analysis - Jonathan Marcus, BBC News defence and diplomatic correspondent
Amidst the rising tensions with the West, Russian President Vladimir Putin has placed a renewed emphasis upon his country's nuclear arsenal.
This is in part a reflection of Russia's continuing conventional military weakness. Moscow is in the midst of a significant modernisation of its strategic nuclear weapons with new ballistic missiles being deployed, more modern bombers, and new submarines being launched.
Over recent years older, obsolete weapons have been withdrawn from service, so the size of Russia's overall arsenal has been shrinking.
However this decline could soon come to an end, raising all sorts of questions for other nuclear powers.
What most alarms the West is the renewed emphasis in Russian rhetoric on nuclear rather than conventional forces.
Threats to deploy short-range nuclear weapons in the Crimea have been accompanied by veiled warnings of nuclear targeting against Nato members who might host ballistic missile defences.
You know who killed Nemtsov? The Wicked West, of course. :mad:
http://rt.com/politics/268000-kadyrov-blames-osmayev-nemtsov/
QuoteChechen leader blames western special services for killing opposition figure Nemtsov
Ramzan Kadyrov has told reporters that the murder of Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov could have been masterminded by US and Ukrainian special services, with the help of Chechen terrorists.
"I hold that the traces of this crime should be looked for not in Chechnya but in Ukraine's State Security Service and further in the United States," Interfax news agency quoted Kadyrov as saying Thursday.
The Chechen leader also said that there were many preconditions, hinting at the possibility that Nemtsov's murder could have been organized by Adam Osmayev, an ethnic Chechen who was heading one of the volunteer units fighting on the side of pro-Kiev forces in the military conflict in southeast Ukraine. Kadyrov added: "Osmayev has been working for Western special services and he knows very well how to get rid of a person who causes problems."
"The organizers of the murder used Nemtsov for their own purposes and then killed him, and now they are seeking to shift the blame on somebody," Kadyrov explained.
The Chechen leader also told reporters that his own murder was ordered by Adam Osmayev's father Aslambek Osmayev back in 2004.
Kadyrov categorically ruled out that he himself or any of his subordinates had been involved in Boris Nemtsov's assassination. "There are claims that I have once said that Nemtsov must be killed. But this is not true! Why would we kill him? What had he done to us? Was he causing us any obstructions? He even did not visit us for a long period of time – I last saw him in Gudermes [the Chechen town] 14 years ago."
Kadyrov also said that he knew nothing about the investigation of Nemtsov's murder except for the information provided by relatives of the suspects and their lawyers.
Adam Osmayev was detained in Ukraine in February 2012 on charges of organizing a deadly bombing in Odessa and preparing an attempt on the life of Vladimir Putin, ordered by Chechen terrorist Doku Umarov. Russia demanded extradition of Osmayev but Ukrainian law enforcement turned it down. After the start of conflict in the Donbass, media reports said that Osmayev replaced the killed commander of the "Dzhokhar Dudayev Battalion" – a mercenary unit manned largely by ethnic Chechens fighting on the side of the Ukrainian military.
Earlier this year, Russian daily Komsomolskaya Pravda quoted an unnamed source in the Federal Security Service as saying that investigators consideredOsmayev to be the main suspect in organizing the killing of Boris Nemtsov. The source added that one of the people detained on suspicion of carrying out the hit had been "closely connected" with Osmayev, and that the two men met many times and talked a lot by phone.
Boris Nemtsov was one of the leaders of the Russian opposition party RPR PARNAS who was shot dead in central Moscow in February in an apparent contract hit. About a week after the killing, Moscow police detained five people and charged them with both organizing and carrying out the attack. The investigation into the case continues.
I love how Kadyrov is a "Chechen leader". It's like calling Hans Frank a "Polish leader". :lol:
Quote from: Syt on June 19, 2015, 02:14:22 AM
QuoteOsmayev has been working for Western special services and he knows very well how to get rid of a person who causes problems.”
By looking at how the Western Special Services do it and doing the opposite I presume.
Russia steps up the War on Colors:
http://rt.com/politics/268378-russian-military-color-revolutions/
QuoteRussian military to order major research to counter 'color revolutions'
Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has told reporters that the military will sponsor a major research of coups conducted through mass protest – so called 'color revolutions' – to prevent the situations that Russia faced in 1991 and 1993.
"Some people say that the military should not be involved in political processes, some say the direct opposite. We will order a study on the phenomenon of color revolutions and the military's role in their prevention," Shoigu told the participants of the Army-2015 political forum Friday.
"We have no right to allow the repetitions of the collapses of 1991 and 1993," he said. "How to do it is another story, but it is clear that we must deal with the situation. We must understand how to prevent this and how to teach the younger generation so that it supported the calm and gradual development of our country."
The minister added that the consequences of color revolutions can be now observed in many Arab nations and also in Serbia. He also said that the Ukrainian crisis that started in 2014 also was "a major tragedy in the row of color revolutions."
In March this year the head of Russia's Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev promised that this body would develop a detailed plan of action aimed at preventing color revolutions or any other attempts of forceful change of lawfully elected authorities through mass street protest. He also said that the Security Council had prepared a list of proposed measures that could negate the possible threat, including some steps against "network protest activities" and propaganda work against "romantic revolutionary stereotype."
Also in March, President Vladimir Putin addressed the dangers of color revolutions in his speech to the Interior Ministry. "The extremists' actions become more complicated," he said. "We are facing attempts to use the so called 'color technologies' in organizing illegal street protests to open propaganda of hatred and strife on social networks."
In the same month, the Interior Ministry drafted a bill containing amendments to the law on rallies that covered car protests and sit-ins. The ministry experts said that the move would circumvent legal ambiguity in the interest of society as a whole.
In November, Putin blasted color revolutions as a main tool used by destructive forces in the geopolitical struggle. "In the modern world, extremism is used as a geopolitical tool for redistribution of spheres of interest. We can see the tragic consequences of the wave of the so-called color revolutions, the shock experienced by people in the countries that went through the irresponsible experiments of hidden, or sometimes brute and direct interference with their lives," the Russian leader said.
In January, a group of Russian conservative activists, uniting war veterans, nationalist bikers and pro-Christian politicians launched an "anti-Maidan" political movement in Moscow to oppose any attempts to thwart the stable development of the country. Its first rallies were held on the same days as some anti-government protests and according to law enforcers the conservatives outnumbered the pro-revolution activists by almost 10-fold.
Time to deploy the Benetton Brigade.
I don't see color. :(
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2015, 03:20:50 AM
I don't see color. :(
No revolution for you. :console:
http://rt.com/news/268774-russia-us-security--patrushev/
Quote'US would like Russia to cease to exist as a country' – Russia's top security official
Russia's extreme wealth doesn't allow the US to rest, prompting Washington to invent a putative "Russian threat" and scheming against Moscow through the Ukrainian crisis, the head of Russia's Security Council, Nikolay Patrushev, told Kommersant daily.
The US is not a universal evil, yet Washington takes the decision whom to appoint as such, says Patrushev, who has been Security Council chief since 2008. Today Washington names Russia as one of the greatest threats to the world, along with the terrorists of Islamic State and the deadly Ebola virus.
There are a great deal of examples of Russia fruitfully cooperating with the US in many aspects, including such burning issues as countering terrorism and reaching a deal on the Iranian nuclear program, Patrushev said. But under the far-fetched pretext of the "Russian aggression in Ukraine" Washington has suspended such contacts, he said.
The US is forcing EU member states to impose anti-Russian sanctions and policies, Patrushev said.
"If it were not for the US, [Europeans] would not pursue such policies," he said, stressing that even the much argued-over issue of the Crimea Peninsula's reunification with Russia would have spent itself already.
"The West does realize that everything that took place in Crimea was legitimate, there was a referendum and so on. They don't have specific objections to Crimea developments," said Patrushev, adding that with the time the issue will "blow over."
American influence over EU countries is "massive," says the head of Russia's Security Council, recalling multiple cases of the European politicians changing their plans to visit Russia after Americans applied pressure on them.
"Europeans are quite flaccid, whereas the Americans are men of spirit," Patrushev said. <_<
"The Americans strive to dominate the world. This is the aim they are targeting in their doctrines. So far they succeed: they dominate despite the changing world," said the top security official.
Russia is following very closely the "color revolutions' trend, in particularly the developments in neighboring Ukraine, he said.
"It's clear that the hidden agenda of destabilization of this country is creating an instrument to radically weaken Russia," Patrushev said, stressing that it was the US who initiated the Ukrainian crisis.
Although the term of the legitimately elected President Viktor Yanukovich was coming to an end and the Ukrainian people would have never re-elected him, the US opted to oust him by coup. Without this there would have been no war in Donbass and Crimea would have remained a part of Ukraine, he said.
The violent power shift in Ukraine was a "political mistake" by the US, said the Security Council secretary.
The US is not bothered with the worsening economic situation in Ukraine, "all they need is applying pressure on Russia and this is exactly what the US is doing," Patrushev said.
The Americans declare that they are interested in maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, yet the US has "no interest in Ukraine whatsoever, they are interested in Russia."
"They would like very much to see Russia cease to exist as a country," said Patrushev, who was director of the FSB (Federal Security Service) from 1999 to 2008.
While Russia possesses incalculable natural resources, the Americans believe that Russians own their wealth "illegitimately and undeservingly," because in Washington's opinion Russians use their wealth in a wrong way, Patrushev said.
The reason for expansions of "instability zones" in the Middle East, North Africa and in Ukraine is "persistent aspiration of the west to tackle their problems at expense of others," Patrushev said.
Destabilization of the world is under way and terror organizations such as Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL), Al Qaeda and others are playing a leading role in this process, the security official said.
It is true that the US is calling on other countries to consolidate their efforts against international terrorism, said Patrushev, yet "in reality, the antiterrorist coalitions are being created for coercive intervention into affairs of sovereign states."
Terrorism cannot be defeated single-handedly or by separate groups of countries, Patrushev said, adding that Russia is always open for any kind of counter-terrorism cooperation.
Make it so.
Wow, that must be the lucidiest thing coming out of Russia in 2015.
Poor flaccid Euroes.... :(
Seems like the Onion took over Russia while we weren't looking.
The most anti-Russian country?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcanflag.com%2Fimages%2Fcanflag%2Fani1%2Fcanadaa.gif&hash=a2d97e3de0dee54ce60d04d84ce8c3bed3712d8e)
:alberta:
And it's all a ploy to court the Ukrainian-Canadian vote! Beeb! :o
http://rt.com/politics/270652-russia-canada-sanctions-pushkov/
QuoteTop MPs urge counter-sanctions against 'most anti-Russian country' Canada
The head of the State Duma's Foreign Relations Committee has proposed reciprocating Canada's latest anti-Russian move by introducing sanctions similar to embargo of agricultural products from EU introduced about a year ago.
"We should not pretend that nothing is happening and we should develop a complex of reciprocal measures aimed at Canada," MP Aleksey Pushkov (United Russia) stated at Tuesday's parliamentary session. He added that today Canada was "the most anti-Russian state in the Western alliance as a whole and definitely also in the G7 group of nations."
"We must undertake reciprocal measures and the embargo on agricultural products from EU countries is completely justified," Pushkov said.
He went on to blast Canadian government and Prime Minister Stephen Harper for deliberately aggravating the relations with Russia in order to artificially boost its image on the international arena.
"The government of this country attempts to attach some importance to the very tiny role in the international politics. They compensate the obvious lack of weight and authority with increased activity in the sphere of sanction policies," Pushkov said. He reminded that previously Harper had ruled out the possibility of Russia's membership in G7 and by this promoted the thesis that the confrontation between Russia and the West was necessary.
"In my view, we must respond to this," Pushkov told fellow lawmakers.
The comments came soon after Ottawa announced that it was introducing additional sanctions against Russian companies, persons and groups that include the Eurasian Youth Union and its leaders, the pro-Putin motorcycle club Night Wolves, the energy giant Gazprom, the defense corporation Rostec and others.
Russian Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin, who oversees the country's weapons and space industries, also blasted Canada's move via Twitter. "Harper was yearning for Ukrainian-Canadian votes so much he sacrificed the future of their own aircraft industry that had dreamt of a deal with Russia," Rogozin stated.
Earlier, the deputy head of the State Duma Economic Policy Committee, MP Mikhail Yemelyanov (Fair Russia), said that Russia must exit all joint project with the Canadian corporation Bombardier. In an interview with RIA Novosti, he said that these joint projects had always been controversial and looked more like tax evasion schemes that feasible production. He added that as Russia makes its own medium-range passenger aircraft it would not lose anything from abandoning this cooperation.
Last Thursday Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree extending the current Russian embargo on food imports from Western nations that use sanctions against Russia until August 5, 2016. The list remained almost the same as the original with minor changes on certain positions. It includes meat of cattle, pigs, edible offal, fish and shellfish, milk and dairy products, vegetables, sausages and so on.
Commenting on the decree, Medvedev said that the countermeasures to Western sanctions were dictated not by political, but economic motives.
I am rather horrified at the existence of a legislative body that makes our Congress look so good.
He's just saying that to piss off Americans.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2015, 12:49:02 PM
I am rather horrified at the existence of a legislative body that makes our Congress look so good.
Oh, Rogozin (with the Ukraining vote quote), is only Deputy PM, not an MP.
Quote from: Syt on June 30, 2015, 12:51:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2015, 12:49:02 PM
I am rather horrified at the existence of a legislative body that makes our Congress look so good.
Oh, Rogozin (with the Ukraining vote quote), is only Deputy PM, not an MP.
Maybe I am not a parliamentary genius but I thought becoming PM or Deputy PM first required you to be a MP.
Quote from: Berkut on June 22, 2015, 10:03:39 AM
Poor flaccid Euroes.... :(
Their military budgets need Viagra.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2015, 12:57:07 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 30, 2015, 12:51:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2015, 12:49:02 PM
I am rather horrified at the existence of a legislative body that makes our Congress look so good.
Oh, Rogozin (with the Ukraining vote quote), is only Deputy PM, not an MP.
Maybe I am not a parliamentary genius but I thought becoming PM or Deputy PM first required you to be a MP.
I've looked at his profile, and it doesn't say he's an MP, he's an appointee. Actually: "He remained an ordinary member of the Duma until the following election in 2007" (Wiki)
Full cabinet here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Russia
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
The Russkies don't seem to like anyone, and are suspicious of everyone else. :ph34r:
They might like Paraguay.
Actually now that I say that Syt will post a rt article denouncing the anti-Russian sentiments of Paraguay.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2015, 12:57:07 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 30, 2015, 12:51:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2015, 12:49:02 PM
I am rather horrified at the existence of a legislative body that makes our Congress look so good.
Oh, Rogozin (with the Ukraining vote quote), is only Deputy PM, not an MP.
Maybe I am not a parliamentary genius but I thought becoming PM or Deputy PM first required you to be a MP.
They don't have a parliament, they have a Duma. :smarty:
It's not a duma! :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2015, 12:49:02 PM
I am rather horrified at the existence of a legislative body that makes our Congress look so good.
I don't know what you mean. :hmm:
http://rt.com/politics/270781-prosecutor-review-baltic-independence/
QuoteThe office of Russia's Prosecutor General has received a request by two members of the State Duma to review the 1991 decision made by the Soviet Union to recognize the independence of the Baltic States.
The two deputies reportedly come from the ruling United Russia party. They claim the split of the Baltic States from the USSR was unconstitutional. The decision to recognize their independence "cemented the separation from the USSR of a strategically important territory, the loss of sea ports and areas of water, led to the disintegration of the country's unified defense environment and to the disruption of economic links to the Baltic republics," they said addressing the Prosecutor General's Office, according to Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
Russian law requires the office of the Prosecutor General to review the request as it would any other. "Indeed, [the Office] has received an address by deputies, which is currently being reviewed in accordance with the demands of the Russian law, like any other address we receive," RIA Novosti quotes a representative of the Office.
The Interfax news agency quotes a "source familiar with the situation" as saying: "Legally speaking, the decision to recognize the independence of the Baltic States is flawed, as it was taken by a non-constitutional body."
Despite the request's questionable fate, top Lithuanian politicians have already reacted, calling it a provocation.
"Our independence was bought with the blood of Lithuanians. No one can encroach on it. We are the only ones to decide our fate," Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite said, as reported by Delfi, a Baltic news portal.
Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius called the request "legally, morally and politically absurd" and said it is "viewed as at least a provocation."
The independence of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia was recognized by the USSR's State Council on September 5, 1991. The State Council was a temporary body which included the President of the USSR as well as the leaders of 10 allied republics.
The Soviet Union's constitution at the time necessitated a referendum and a transitional period in order to settle disputed matters, neither of which took place.
http://rt.com/politics/272416-russia-straight-flag-family/
QuoteUnited Russia activists create 'flag for straights' to oppose 'gay fever'
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.rt.com%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F42%2F82%2F00%2F00%2Ffamily.si.jpg&hash=e45522b9a03d865f45469775e93801ccb7f2355e)
The Moscow city branch of the parliamentary majority United Russia party has created a 'flag for straights'. They want to use it in their campaign in defense of traditional values against aggressive LGBT propaganda.
The flag exists in three variants where a stylized picture of a husband, wife, and three children are pictured holding hands against a background of white, blue and red – the colors of the Russian national flag. Under the picture is the hashtag #realfamily in Russian.
Deputy head of United Russia's Moscow organization said in comments with the popular daily Izvestia that the flag will be officially presented at the Day of Family Love and Faithfulness celebrated in Russia on Wednesday. Aleksey Lisovenko emphasized the new symbol was designed to counter the LGBT community's rainbow flag.
"This is our answer to same sex marriages, this mockery of the very concept of family. We must prevent gay fever in our country and support traditional values," Izvestia quoted the activist as saying.
Last month, Aleksey Lisovenko sent a letter to the State Duma asking the parliament to ban the use of the LGBT community's rainbow flag in Russia, including on websites and social networks.
Soon after the story about the Russian "flag for straights" appeared on the internet, many reporters and users of social networks pointed out that it was almost identical to the flag used by the "Manif Pour Tous" movement that opposes the legalization of same sex marriages in France.The resemblance is apparent with the only difference that the French flag has two kids on it and the Russian has three.
However, in subsequent press comments Lisovenko dismissed accusations of plagiarism saying the symbol was created in cooperation with the French activists who agreed to grant their Russian allies rights for its use. Lisovenko also added that the greater number of children on the Russian flag was meant to demonstrate the difference in Russian traditions.
Also, following a series of injuries and accidents of young folks taking selfies - including a girl who almost killed herself when she posed with a gun to her head and it went off; and a woman who died falling off a bridge - there's some safety tips from the interior ministry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frt.com%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F42%2F74%2F80%2F00%2F4545nasait.jpg&hash=13c66e942db93b28fb7805c8b3656c32ba372b49)
QuoteLisovenko also added that the greater number of children on the Russian flag was meant to demonstrate the difference in Russian traditions.
Tradition of inflating numbers?
Fertility rate 1.75 children born/woman (2014) :hmm:
I like that the day of Family Love involves not loving members of your family.
Is 3 a greater number of children? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2015, 09:20:20 AM
Is 3 a greater number of children? :hmm:
It is greater then 2 yet less than 4.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2015, 09:19:11 AM
QuoteLisovenko also added that the greater number of children on the Russian flag was meant to demonstrate the difference in Russian traditions.
Tradition of inflating numbers?
Fertility rate 1.75 children born/woman (2014) :hmm:
Surely that includes sinful women who are not married, as well as married women who have not done their duty to Volk und Putin to produce new workers and soldiers for the glory of Mother Russia?
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2015, 09:19:11 AM
QuoteLisovenko also added that the greater number of children on the Russian flag was meant to demonstrate the difference in Russian traditions.
Tradition of inflating numbers?
Fertility rate 1.75 children born/woman (2014) :hmm:
Potemkin babies...
Only the poo is real
That 'flag for straights' looks like the Protect and Survive logo.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timidfutures.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F04%2Fprotect-and-survive.png&hash=15bef7ab59adb1e1d52d131df1f4c50d40ddafd8)
Quote from: PJL on July 08, 2015, 02:29:53 PM
That 'flag for straights' looks like the Protect and Survive logo.
Except that the boy is so much more fabulous.
As the shirtless Putin pictures prove, it's hard to look more gay than when Russians try to show how straight they are.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2015, 03:19:12 PM
It was an obvious joke, Tim. Contain yourself.
:mad:
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2015, 09:19:11 AM
QuoteLisovenko also added that the greater number of children on the Russian flag was meant to demonstrate the difference in Russian traditions.
Tradition of inflating numbers?
Fertility rate 1.75 children born/woman (2014) :hmm:
That's a bit of a rebound from their post-soviet low, isn't it?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 08, 2015, 05:54:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2015, 09:19:11 AM
QuoteLisovenko also added that the greater number of children on the Russian flag was meant to demonstrate the difference in Russian traditions.
Tradition of inflating numbers?
Fertility rate 1.75 children born/woman (2014) :hmm:
That's a bit of a rebound from their post-soviet low, isn't it?
Yeah, it is. :( It was down to 1.2 at some point.
As expected, Russia has vetoed a UN resolution that condemns the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica as genocide.
It's only 1.75 kid per woman because, due to vodka and radiation, most women give birth to multi-headed babies. :P
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/poll-shows-russian-attitudes-to-gay-people-are-worse-than-decade-ago/525429.html
QuotePoll Shows Russian Attitudes to Gay People Are Worse Than Decade Ago
Russian intolerance of gay people and same-sex marriages has grown significantly in the last decade, state-run pollster VTsIOM said Friday.
Eighty percent of Russians said they were against same-sex marriages, as opposed to 59 percent in 2005, the pollster found.
The number of those who think gay people should be allowed to get married has decreased from 14 percent in 2005 to 8 percent in 2015. According to the poll, only 3 percent of respondents said LGBT people should be able to bring up children. Another 3 percent supported the idea of marriage, but said children should not be brought up in such households.
The number of people who consider gay people dangerous and said they should be "isolated from society" has also grown significantly since 2004, from 12 to 20 percent, the poll shows.
The Russian government adopted a law in 2013 banning the promotion of "non-traditional sexual relations" to minors. Since then, human rights activists say the number of violent homophobic attacks in the country has increased.
Twenty-two percent of respondents said they didn't care about other people's sexual preferences, compared to 24 percent in 2004, and another 15 percent said homosexuals were "normal people," adding, however, that they wouldn't socialize with them.
A small decrease was recorded in the number of people who think being gay is either a medical or social disease, from 36 percent in 2004 to 35 percent in 2015.
Almost half of Russians — 41 percent — said the authorities should persecute people with "untraditional sexual preferences" in order to "exterminate the phenomenon." Thirty-two percent said the authorities shouldn't care at all, and only 12 percent agreed that the government should acknowledge gay rights and protect the LGBT community from discrimination.
"In this aspect Russia is about twice as conservative as even China," Alexei Firsov, VTsIOM's communications director, was cited as saying Friday on the pollster's website.
"It's interesting that we [Russia] are swimming against the current, strengthening, despite global trends, intolerance toward homosexual relationships. This indicator might serve as a parameter of national identification," he said.
The VTsIOM poll was carried out on April 11-12 and July 4-5 among 1,600 respondents in 46 Russian regions. The margin of error was no greater than 3.5 percent, the pollster said.
It's not surprising. Intolerance and fascism reinforces each other. Fascists gain power by appealing to intolerance, and they fan the flames of intolerance to further entrench it.
We go backwards, not forwards! And always twirling towards oppression!
Quote
"It's interesting that we [Russia] are swimming against the current, strengthening, despite global trends, intolerance toward homosexual relationships. This indicator might serve as a parameter of national identification," he said.
Good to see them build a national identity on such nice traits.
Well they have worked hard to demonize the west and identify tolerance of LGBT with being western so...
Really just a short jump to declaring anybody gay a CIA plant.
http://rt.com/news/273391-us-nuclear-bomb-europe/
QuoteUS B61-12 nuclear bomb test may be drilling use in Europe - Moscow
The recent test of the US В61-12 nuclear bomb confirms Washington's plans to maintain nuclear weapons in Europe that are capable of reaching Russia, Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said on Monday.
Antonov slammed the US nuclear bomb test as "irresponsible" and "openly provocative."
"It turns out that under the disguise of a notorious and invented threat coming from the Russian side, the United States was not only increasing the military potential and activity of NATO member states, but was upgrading its nuclear potential as well," he said.
DETAILS TO FOLLOW
The evil Amerikkkans, how dare they upgrade their nuclear arsenal? Only Russia is allowed to do so:
http://tass.ru/en/russia/801022
QuoteRussian nuclear forces to get 40 new intercontinental missiles this year — Putin
If we have nuclear weapons stationed in Europe I sure hope they are capable of hitting targets beyond Poland.
:lol: I think we would have noticed if the US tested a nuclear bomb.
Calling the test of a bomb without a warhead, a nuclear bomb test is silly even by Russian standards.
http://rt.com/politics/273523-russia-court-rights-constitution/
QuoteConstitutional Court rules Russian law above European HR Court decisions
The Supreme Russian Court has established that no international treaty or convention has precedence over national sovereignty, and decisions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) should be upheld only when they don't contradict basic Russian law.
"The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as legal positions of the ECHR that are based on it cannot cancel the priority of the Constitution," Judge Sergey Mavrin said at Tuesday's session of the Russian Constitutional Court. "All decisions of the ECHR must be executed only with consideration to the Russian Constitution's supremacy. As an exception, Russia can refuse to fulfill the imposed obligations when such a refusal is the only way to prevent the violation of the basic law," the judge added.
In late 2013 the Russian Constitutional Court ruled that it had the right to decide on the execution of contradictory ECHR decisions in Russia. The Tuesday decision expanded the supremacy of the Constitutional Court over foreign courts and international treaties, and established the priority of the Russian Constitution in general.
The Tuesday court ruling was a reply to a group of State Duma deputies, representing all four parliamentary caucuses, who contested a number of Russian laws that, in their view, ordered Russian courts and state agencies to unconditionally execute all orders of the ECHR, even if such orders contradict the Constitution.
MP Aleksandr Tarnavskiy (Fair Russia) said that lawmakers who requested clarification suspected that a number of ECHR decisions were passed in order to dilute the boundaries of Russia's sovereignty as a state, based on the priority of the Constitution as well as the priority of Russia's Constitutional Court as a sole body of state power that has the right to perform constitutional supervision.
After Judge Mavrin announced the court ruling on Tuesday he told reporters that there was a possibility the Constitutional Court would investigate the Yukos case, but only it is brought in front of the court by the plaintiffs. The comment apparently concerned the ECHR's ruling in July 2014 that ordered Russia to pay $2.5 billion in compensation and legal expenses to former shareholders of the oil giant Yukos dissolved in 2007 after its top managers and key owners were jailed for tax evasion.
Later in the day the press service of the Russian Justice Ministry circulated a statement saying that all of the ministry's actions connected with the ECHR's ruling on the 'Yukos vs. Russia' case would be based on the ruling establishing the priority of the Russian Constitution.
Earlier this year the head of Russia's top law enforcement agency – Chairman of the Investigative Committee Aleksandr Bastrykin – suggested changing the Constitution in order to end the precedence of international laws. Bastrykin claimed that the principle of the superiority of international law over domestic had been added to Russian legislation in 1993 due to the strong backing of US advisors and called this move a possible act of legislative sabotage against Russia.
Bastrykin emphasized that despite imposing the supremacy of international law on Russia, the United States itself was not following this principle in their legal system. He added that the primacy of international law was not recognized as valid or was only partially implemented in the United Kingdom and some other countries that use the Anglo-Saxon (precedent) legal system. Nations such as Brazil and India simply consider national law as taking precedent.
The top Russian investigator suggested eliminating the principle that makes international law an integral part of the Russian legal system and introducing the priority of the national law into the Constitution.
I don't think the court is wrong per se - very few countries recognise primacy of international treaties over constitution. But, of course, in Russia, this will be used instrumentally.
We're one of those countries. :)
I always thought Article VI was interesting...does it mean we could sign a treaty that has about as much legal power as a constitutional amendment? :hmm:
QuoteThis Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
No. Article VI just means that state law is subordinate to federal law, including treaties.
The Constitution trumps all. A treaty that violates the Constitution will not be enforced by the courts.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/novaya-gazeta-could-face-closure-after-second-government-warning/525909.html
QuoteNovaya Gazeta Could Face Closure After Second Government Warning
One of Russia's last independent newspapers, the Novaya Gazeta weekly, plans to appeal in court the second government warning it has received within a year — which crosses the threshold that allows the authorities to shut it down.
Media watchdog Roskomnadzor issued the latest warning for an expletive that supposedly appeared in an excerpt from literary fiction the newspaper published, the agency said in a statement Monday evening.
Several letters in the expletive were replaced with asterisks when Novaya Gazeta published the excerpt from a new novel by Vasily Avchenko, an author and the weekly's correspondent in the Far East, earlier this summer.
But Roskomnadzor spokesman Vadim Ampelonsky insisted that the offensive word "could clearly be read," Lenizdat.ru news portal reported.
Following Roskomnadzor's warning, the newspaper replaced the word — which generally means "inattentiveness" — with a similarly sounding synonym in brackets on its website.
A law signed by President Vladimir Putin this spring bans the use of several crude expletives in the media an in arts, including literature.
The ban affected Russia's Oscar-nominated film Leviathan — a tale about a provincial man's fight against a corrupt mayor and church officials — which struggled to obtain a screening permit in the country. The Culture Ministry finally rated the film as only acceptable for adult audiences, and ordered that its expletives be bleeped out.
Novaya Gazeta's editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov said his newspaper will contest the latest warning in court, arguing that literary works should be permitted some leeway, Interfax reported.
"We believe that in works of literature — we are not speaking about journalistic creations here — various deviations from the general norm are possible," Muratov was quoted as saying.
"If you read that text you will see that it is absolutely beautiful literature," Muratov said, adding that Roskomnadzor's warning serves as an "advertisement" for Avchenko's novel about the Sea of Japan and Russians living on its shores.
The book, entitled "Crystal in a Clear Setting," has been shortlisted for this year's National Bestseller award.
But Novaya Gazeta could face a shutdown by the government since it has received two warnings within a year.
Roskomnadzor's spokesman maintained, however, that his agency has not decided to start the procedure just yet, Interfax reported.
"Despite the fact that we do indeed have the right to turn to court with the demand that Novaya Gazeta's registration be terminated, we, as a controlling organ, naturally always use our rights sensibly," Ampelonstky was quoted as saying.
"In any event, the decision to turn to court has not been made," he added, Interfax reported.
The previous warning, which Novaya Gazeta received last October, was for an article by columnist and Ekho Moskvy radio host Yulia Latynina titled "If we are not the West, then who are we?" The media watchdog agency deemed her article "extremist."
I'm glad that Russia has these laws to protect the children and the general public from decadent filth and surreptitious ideas. :)
Leviathan is a fantastic film. Given its content I'm pretty sure that the expletives were just an excuse to try to block its release.
https://www.rt.com/politics/310468-french-mps-to-make-historical/
France. :(
QuoteFrench MPs to make historical visit to reunited Crimea
A delegation of French lawmakers is coming to Russia to pay a visit to the Crimea – the first such visit since the region's accession to the Russian Federation in March 2014.
The head of the mission, MP Thierry Mariani said in an interview with Russian business daily Kommersant that it will consist of nine members of the French National Assembly and one senator. Eight members of the delegation represented the center-left "The Republicans" party, led by Nicolas Sarkozy and two more represented centrists and leftists.
The French politicians are expected to arrive in Moscow on Wednesday evening. On Thursday, they will meet State Duma speaker Sergey Naryshkin and after the meeting will travel to the Crimean towns of Sevastopol and Yalta. The lawmakers plan to meet the head of the Crimean government Sergey Aksyonov and Sevastopol Governor Sergey Menyailo, and with ordinary citizens. In addition, the politicians plan to visit the French cultural center in Sevastopol and the French memorial cemetery that dates back to the Crimean war of 1854-55.
Mariani told Russian reporters the mission consisted of two types of lawmakers – some wanted to assess the situation on the Crimean peninsula after personally witnessing it and others – like himself – already recognized the reunification of Crimea and Russia as a historical fact, confirmed by a valid referendum.
"A part of us are confident that the reunification was logical – it is useless to struggle with history," Kommersant quoted the French MP as saying. "Another important thing is that it is the first really meaningful delegation of members from France's traditional political forces and otherwise. For example, the National Front," Thierry added.
The lawmaker said the visit had not been coordinated with the French authorities, but added the French Foreign Ministry had warned the participants it wouldn't support the idea.
On Wednesday, the French Foreign Ministry released a statement in which it called the trip a private initiative, saying it was a violation of international law and expressed regret over this fact.
In the Kommersant interview, Mariani confirmed the visit was planned as a private initiative and said French lawmakers were free to make such decisions. He also said the invitation from the Russian side was made by the Russian Peace Foundation, chaired by MP Leonid Slutskiy. Additional support came from the "Franco-Russian Dialogue association" and the State Duma through inter-parliamentary contacts.
In April, a delegation of 20 French lawmakers headed by Thierry Mariani paid a visit to Moscow on Sergey Naryshkin's invitation. During this visit all its members criticized EU sanctions against Russia. In particular, Mariani called the restrictions "silly and not yielding any positive results."
French lawmakers said the April visit was a friendship gesture and spoke of similar signals coming from other European governments, who are seeking to mend ties with Russia.
QuoteOn Wednesday, the French Foreign Ministry released a statement in which it called the trip a private initiative, saying it was a violation of international law and expressed regret over this fact.
:thumbsup:
Why is it a violation of international law? The Crimea bit?
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2015, 09:56:33 AM
Why is it a violation of international law? The Crimea bit?
:rolleyes: It's a Crimea.
Quote from: Syt on July 22, 2015, 09:30:19 AM
https://www.rt.com/politics/310468-french-mps-to-make-historical/
France. :(
QuoteFrench MPs to make historical visit to reunited Crimea
A delegation of French lawmakers is coming to Russia to pay a visit to the Crimea – the first such visit since the region's accession to the Russian Federation in March 2014.
The head of the mission, MP Thierry Mariani said in an interview with Russian business daily Kommersant that it will consist of nine members of the French National Assembly and one senator. Eight members of the delegation represented the center-left "The Republicans" party, led by Nicolas Sarkozy and two more represented centrists and leftists.
The French politicians are expected to arrive in Moscow on Wednesday evening. On Thursday, they will meet State Duma speaker Sergey Naryshkin and after the meeting will travel to the Crimean towns of Sevastopol and Yalta. The lawmakers plan to meet the head of the Crimean government Sergey Aksyonov and Sevastopol Governor Sergey Menyailo, and with ordinary citizens. In addition, the politicians plan to visit the French cultural center in Sevastopol and the French memorial cemetery that dates back to the Crimean war of 1854-55.
Mariani told Russian reporters the mission consisted of two types of lawmakers – some wanted to assess the situation on the Crimean peninsula after personally witnessing it and others – like himself – already recognized the reunification of Crimea and Russia as a historical fact, confirmed by a valid referendum.
"A part of us are confident that the reunification was logical – it is useless to struggle with history," Kommersant quoted the French MP as saying. "Another important thing is that it is the first really meaningful delegation of members from France's traditional political forces and otherwise. For example, the National Front," Thierry added.
The lawmaker said the visit had not been coordinated with the French authorities, but added the French Foreign Ministry had warned the participants it wouldn't support the idea.
On Wednesday, the French Foreign Ministry released a statement in which it called the trip a private initiative, saying it was a violation of international law and expressed regret over this fact.
In the Kommersant interview, Mariani confirmed the visit was planned as a private initiative and said French lawmakers were free to make such decisions. He also said the invitation from the Russian side was made by the Russian Peace Foundation, chaired by MP Leonid Slutskiy. Additional support came from the "Franco-Russian Dialogue association" and the State Duma through inter-parliamentary contacts.
In April, a delegation of 20 French lawmakers headed by Thierry Mariani paid a visit to Moscow on Sergey Naryshkin's invitation. During this visit all its members criticized EU sanctions against Russia. In particular, Mariani called the restrictions "silly and not yielding any positive results."
French lawmakers said the April visit was a friendship gesture and spoke of similar signals coming from other European governments, who are seeking to mend ties with Russia.
RT should hire a proofreader because les Républicains is no centre-left party. Mariani is famous for being a tough talking guy but very short on delivery.
Some members of this band claimed they were going to Crimea to check the sorry state of French military cemetery in Crimea, due to the sanctions of course.
It's not like a German, even a neo-Austrian, can complain given the extreme dependency of both Germany and Austria on Gazprom. :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 23, 2015, 10:03:38 AM
RT should hire a proofreader because les Républicains is no centre-left party.
Yeah I raised my eye-brow at that but I have not been there for 15 years so I thought maybe they went mainstream :P
Maybe they meant centre-left by Putin standards.
That will solve everything. Finally, impartial ratings from a non-political source! :)
http://www.rt.com/business/310645-russia-rating-agency-bank/
QuoteRussia's rating agency to start by year end – Central Bank
The Russian rating agency is expected to start work in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Central Bank of Russia said, adding that its initial capital would be about $52 million.
"... credit rating agencies are one of the most important elements of the financial market infrastructure. Their activities must be stable to various factors, including geopolitical risks," the CBR said in a statement Friday.
"Russian market needs a strong credit rating agency with a high level of corporate governance and professional competence," the statement said. It added that the new agency will have to meet the interests of the economy and have a good reputation for both Russian and foreign investors.
The agency will be headed by Ekaterina Trofimova, the vice president of major Russian state-owned bank Gazprombank.
Currently Russia has a number of local rating agencies that are not internationally recognized. The list includes RusRating, Expert RA, the National rating agency and AK&M.
Last Tuesday President Putin signed a law regulating the activity of ratings agencies in Russia, as discontent over 'politicized' actions of the Western 'Big Three' – S&P, Moody's and Fitch – has grown.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/24/news/russia-putin-layoffs/?sr=cnnifb
QuoteRussian austerity: Putin fires 110,000 officials
This is what belt-tightening looks like in Russia: Vladimir Putin has fired 110,000 government officials at a stroke.
The Russian president signed a decree last week limiting the number of staff employed by the Interior Ministry to just over one million. That requires massive layoffs that will bring total headcount down by 10%.
Administrative staff will bear the brunt of the cuts at the ministry, which controls the Russian police, paramilitary security forces and the road traffic safety agency.
Russia is slashing government spending by 10% across the board this year as it suffers its worst economic crisis in years.
The double whammy of tumbling oil prices and Western sanctions, imposed on Russia over its involvement in the crisis in Ukraine, has hit hard.
The economy shrank by 2.2% in the first quarter. The IMF expects it to contract by 3.8% this year, and by more than 1% in 2016.
Putin took a pay cut of 10% in March, shortly after demanding every government department -- except defense -- reduce spending.
Officials figures show unemployment rose to 5.4% in June, compared to 4.8% a year ago.
Quote from: Syt on July 24, 2015, 05:19:19 AM
That will solve everything. Finally, impartial ratings from a non-political source! :)
Potemkin village rating agency... ;)
Quotethe Central Bank of Russia said, adding that its initial capital would be about $52 million.
Million? Not billion?
Well that's just precious.
RUSSIAN BONDS AAA+
ABCHAZIAN BONDS AA+
UUKRANIAN STOCK CCC-
Several EU governments were suggesting the same thing at the start of PIIGS. :contract:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-archives-cast-doubt-on-legends-of-soviet-war-heroes/525353.html
QuoteRussian Archives Cast Doubt on Legends of Soviet War Heroes
Russia's state archive service has published a secret memo by Stalin-era prosecutors arguing that legends of heroism attributed to a group of soldiers credited with having heroically halted Nazi tanks headed for Moscow before perishing together on the battlefield were in fact a product of shoddy news reporting.
The 1948 memo, signed by Soviet Chief Military Prosecutor Nikolai Afanasyev and marked "top secret," corroborates a view long held by some of Russia's liberally minded historians and pundits, arguing that the "Panfilovtsy," (Panfilov's men) were nowhere near as heroic as they had been cast in Russian history books.
But its publication on the state archive service's website Wednesday seems to fly in the face of Moscow's recent fervor to dispel any doubts of the Red Army's heroism, and comes shortly after the Russian culture minister praised a soon-to-be-released film glorifying the "Panfilovtsy."
The "28 Panfilovtsy," who fought under Major General Ivan Panfilov, have long been a household name in the country, with scores of films and books having credited them with stopping German tanks during the Battle of Moscow, and praised them as Red Army legends.
According to a long-held official version of the events, the men all died during the battle, and were posthumously decorated as Heroes of the Soviet Union.
But instead, according to the Soviet prosecutor's secret report, at least several of the men survived — including one who was arrested in 1947 on charges of high treason and confessed to having "voluntarily" surrendered to German troops and later joined a German police force.
The more glamorous version of their fight to save Moscow appears to have been invented by reporters for the official military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda, who first wrote about the story in late 1941, and then added more heroic details in subsequent dispatches, the prosecutor's memo said.
It was the glamorous version that has taken root and has persisted even after some historians denounced it as inaccurate when the findings of dictator Josef Stalin's investigators were declassified after the Soviet collapse.
At least one of the men still listed among "Panfilov's 28" — Ivan Dobrobabin, also known as Dobrobaba — survived the war and returned to his hometown in Kyrgyzstan to find a monument commemorating him as a dead hero, according to accounts published in Russian press after the collapse of the Soviet Union. When he tried to reclaim his identity as a living member of "Panfilov's 28," he was reportedly arrested for treason and sent to the gulags, while the legend of his heroic death lived on in Soviet films and textbooks.
A similar fate reportedly befell another of the original "Panfilov's 28," Daniil Kozhubergenov, whose name is said to have been removed from the list and replaced with that of another man when he turned out to be alive and tried to demand the military benefits due to a decorated soldier, according to an account by independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta.
Now a Russian studio is working on a film entitled "The 28 Panfilovtsy," which is meant to heap praise on the soldiers. The project is being crowd-funded by Russian netizens, who have raised more than 33 million rubles ($575,000) so far, according to its website.
The film's producer Andrei Shalyopa has denounced the state archives' publication of the memo as undermining the "moral potential" of the nation, the Titr news portal reported.
"This is something that is part of our national self-awareness. These are simple examples that help us raise new generations," he was quoted as saying. "Trying to debunk instances of national heroism can only be done to weaken the people's moral foundation. One can hardly think of a noble motive for that."
Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky earlier this summer praised the planned release of the film, scheduled for this fall, telling the upper chamber of Russia's parliament that the production reflected the country's interest in patriotic films, TASS reported.
He had also praised the planned film during the project's initial stages in late 2013, calling it "very symbolic" and saying it reflected a "healthy society, [where] people are ready to spend their time and money on some of the right things."
According to German FAZ, culture minister Medinsky criticized the publication of the 1948 document: "Those who dig with their dirty and greasy fingers in the history of 1941 should be sent via time machine to the trenches to fight fascist tanks with nothing but a hand grenade. My conviction: this disgusting tarnishing of this topic must stop!"
The dean of a St. Petersburg university is quoted, calling it a "shameful fashion to doubt heroic deeds. We were raised in the spirit of self sacrifice for our home. If someone declares what we believe in to be lies, then we are more than justified to be appalled." He continues that there were way more than 28 deaths, and even of Panfilov's division fought somewhere else entirely, the history of the home country must not be tarnished with such "revelations."
Quote from: Syt on July 28, 2015, 11:57:17 AM
The dean of a St. Petersburg university is quoted, calling it a "shameful fashion to doubt heroic deeds. We were raised in the spirit of self sacrifice for our home. If someone declares what we believe in to be lies, then we are more than justified to be appalled." He continues that there were way more than 28 deaths, and even of Panfilov's division fought somewhere else entirely, the history of the home country must not be tarnished with such "revelations."
The dean of a university said that? Man Russia really is a special place.
"Stop celebrating my heroic sacrifice! :mad: I'm alive!"
"Yes, this was a regrettable error, thank you for bringing this to our attention. :) Ivan, have this man shot."
I remember this battle from Panzer General II. They all died in that one as well. Any story that ends with all the heroes dying is immediately suspect, since is left to tell the story?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2015, 01:36:33 PM
I remember this battle from Panzer General II. They all died in that one as well. Any story that ends with all the heroes dying is immediately suspect, since is left to tell the story?
Maybe one of those 28 soldiers was noting down every event in his notebook. Maybe the Nazis were understanding, and waited until everyone else was dead and he finished writing things down.
Makes sense.
Quote from: Valmy on July 28, 2015, 12:10:31 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 28, 2015, 11:57:17 AM
The dean of a St. Petersburg university is quoted, calling it a "shameful fashion to doubt heroic deeds. We were raised in the spirit of self sacrifice for our home. If someone declares what we believe in to be lies, then we are more than justified to be appalled." He continues that there were way more than 28 deaths, and even of Panfilov's division fought somewhere else entirely, the history of the home country must not be tarnished with such "revelations."
The dean of a university said that? Man Russia really is a special place.
This is the guy: http://persona.rin.ru/eng/view/f/0/20371/zapesotsky-alexander
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/us-national-endowment-for-democracy-becomes-russias-first-undesirable-organization/526374.html
QuoteU.S. National Endowment for Democracy Becomes Russia's First 'Undesirable Organization'
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a U.S.-based international organization that exists to promote democracy, was declared an "undesirable organization" Tuesday by Russia's Prosecutor General's Office, meaning all its activities are banned on Russian soil.
"Using the capabilities of Russian commercial and non-commercial organizations under its control, the National Endowment for Democracy participated in work to recognize election results as illegitimate, to organize political action with the goal of influencing government policy, and to discredit Russian army service," the Prosecutor General's Office said in an online statement.
Prosecutors said the NED allocated $5.2 million to Russian organizations in 2013-14 for these purposes, and concluded that it posed a threat "to the constitutional order of Russia, its defense and security."
From now on, all the organization's work in Russia — including with any Russian organizations — will be banned.
The NED has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on raising awareness of corruption and conducting training seminars in Russia on issues such as local activism, women's rights and migrants' rights, according to its website.
The law on undesirable organizations was passed by the government in May in a move that was seen as signaling its growing fear of a foreign-inspired revolution. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. funds civil society organizations in countries around the world with the aim of destabilizing their ruling governments.
Earlier this month, senators of the Federation Council — the upper chamber of the Russian parliament — proposed a list of 12 foreign NGOs whose work they said posed a threat to national security and who should therefore be declared undesirable. The NED was one of them.
Ok? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2015, 02:23:20 AM
Ok? :unsure:
If you aren't interested in hearing about how Russia is becoming increasingly Orwellian, this is the wrong thread.
No, I just meant like 'Who cares, Russia?' Hardly a vital organization and/or one that we would be surprised that Russia might be annoyed with.
You remember Russia's children's ombudsman who said there would never be sex ed in Russian schools, because Russian literature provides everything that kids need to know? He has a new suggestion to protect the kids:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/russian-official-proposes-protecting-children-with-giant-fences/526484.html
QuoteRussian Official Proposes Protecting Children With Giant Fences
Russia's ombudsman for children's rights Pavel Astakhov has proposed enclosing kindergartens, schools and daycare centers with high solid fences in order to protect children from the gazes of potential abusers.
"There can never be too many security measures," Astakhov told state-run Rossiya television on Wednesday. "We believe they must be fortified — nontransparent fences should be placed around children's institutions."
The idea to surround children by opaque fences, impenetrable to the eye, was prompted by a series of complaints about strangers watching children in schoolyards or playgrounds, Astakhov was quoted by Interfax as saying.
The proposal also comes on the heels of an alleged kidnapping case in the Ural Mountains city of Chelyabinsk this week.
Police detained a man on Tuesday on suspicion of having abducted an 9-year-old boy from an orphanage the previous weekend, and have rescued the boy, the Investigative Committee said in a statement.
Quote from: Syt on July 30, 2015, 09:23:04 AM
You remember Russia's children's ombudsman who said there would never be sex ed in Russian schools, because Russian literature provides everything that kids need to know? He has a new suggestion to protect the kids:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/russian-official-proposes-protecting-children-with-giant-fences/526484.html
QuoteRussian Official Proposes Protecting Children With Giant Fences
Russia's ombudsman for children's rights Pavel Astakhov has proposed enclosing kindergartens, schools and daycare centers with high solid fences in order to protect children from the gazes of potential abusers.
"There can never be too many security measures," Astakhov told state-run Rossiya television on Wednesday. "We believe they must be fortified — nontransparent fences should be placed around children's institutions."
The idea to surround children by opaque fences, impenetrable to the eye, was prompted by a series of complaints about strangers watching children in schoolyards or playgrounds, Astakhov was quoted by Interfax as saying.
The proposal also comes on the heels of an alleged kidnapping case in the Ural Mountains city of Chelyabinsk this week.
Police detained a man on Tuesday on suspicion of having abducted an 9-year-old boy from an orphanage the previous weekend, and have rescued the boy, the Investigative Committee said in a statement.
That guy is a hoot.
if they build that fence around Russia I'm sure we can all get behind the idea
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 30, 2015, 01:05:05 PM
if they build that fence around Russia I'm sure we can all get behind the idea
Then we'd have to find a way to escape. :hmm:
If accurate ... wow.
http://tass.ru/en/russia/812150
QuoteHalf of Russians favor online censorship - poll
58% support complete Internet shutdown in the country in case of a national threat of a possibility of mass protests
MOSCOW, August 3. /TASS/. Almost half of Russians believe that online information should be censored, 58% support complete Internet shutdown in the country in case of a national threat of a possibility of mass protests, and 73% believe that negative information about civil servants should not be posted online, says a report prepared by the Russian Center for Public Opinion Studies (VTsIOM) and the Center for Global Communication Studies at the University of Pennsylvania.
The survey shows that 42% of Russian citizens use the Internet on a regular basis. Another 20% said that went online from time to time, up to several times a week, and 38% of Russians said they hadn't used the Internet for six months and more.
Slightly over half of Russians say the Internet has a positive impact on their lives, and one-third of the respondents believe the Internet's influence is negative.
The report notes that "a considerable number of Russians (42%) believe that Western countries use the Internet against Russia and its interests." Sociologists have found out that four out of five citizens (81%) spoke of their negative attitude towards the websites, which are used for organizing anti-government rallies and demonstrations, 73% believed it was inappropriate to post online negative information about civil servants.
According to the survey, only 11% of Russians think the Internet should be completely free from government censorship. On the other hand, 49% of those polled said censorship had to be present online.
Nearly 60% of the respondents said the government should censor or block porn websites with homosexual content, 46% called for controlling the groups in social networks, which contained information about anti-government protests.
"While 5 or 7 years ago the Internet was a 'territory of freedom' for a limited number of young people, today it is used by more than two-thirds of Russians," VTsIOM's Director-General Valery Fyodorov has told TASS. "It turned into a leading information environment, a rival in significance to TV that has surpassed radio and press," he said, adding that the Internet "had also become an important communication channel, including for senior citizens."
Thanks to this, "not only the possibilities, but also the hazards of the uncontrolled circulation of information online have become more appreciable and essential for an increasingly larger number of people across the globe," Fyodorov said.
I miss the days in EUOT when there were Russians among the posters :(
Why are you guys surprised? If anything surprises me, it's the implied insistence of some people here that, somehow, Russians should embrace Western values. Russia is an Asian country.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fansmagazine.com%2Ffiles%2FSummer06%2Frussian1.jpg&hash=69c82b5358ac6655f6c49b067ffcb825c39789fd)
Peter the Great getting ready to stab Martinus.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russians-show-frustration-as-decree-to-destroy-banned-food-comes-into-force/527081.html
QuoteRussians Show Frustration as Decree to Destroy Banned Food Comes Into Force
Russian government plans for mass destruction of banned Western food imports have provoked outrage in a country where poverty rates are soaring and memories remain of famine during Soviet times.
Even some Kremlin allies are expressing shock at the idea of "food crematoria" while one Orthodox priest has denounced the campaign, which officially began on Thursday, as insane and sinful.
However, the authorities are determined to press on with destroying illegal imports they consider "a security threat."
Russian television showed a small mountain of illegally imported European cheese being bulldozed on Thursday while, even before the official start, zealous workers threw boxes of European bacon into an incinerator.
Moscow banned many Western food imports last year in retaliation for sanctions imposed by the United States, European Union and other of their allies during the confrontation over Ukraine.
But now many Russians say the government has lost sight of the everyday struggles faced by ordinary citizens.
More than 267,000 people have backed an online petition on Change.org, an international website that hosts campaigns, calling on Russian President Vladimir Putin to revoke the decision and hand the food to people in need.
"Sanctions have led to a major growth in food prices on Russian shelves. Russian pensioners, veterans, large families, the disabled and other needy social groups were forced to greatly restrict their diets, right up to starvation," it says. "If you can just eat these products, why destroy it?"
With annual food price inflation running at over 20 percent, public indignation has been deepened by Russian media reports that the agriculture ministry was tendering to buy "mobile food crematoria" to speed up the destruction. Agriculture Minister Alexander Tkachev declined to comment on Wednesday.
Putin's decree ordering the food to be destroyed entered into force on Thursday. It does not specify methods but says the process should be carried out "by any available means" and videotaped, apparently to prevent corrupt officials from simply helping themselves and holding a feast.
How much food has evaded the embargo is unclear, but considerable quantities appear to have slipped through the net by various routes, including via Belarus.
The ban, currently in place until Aug. 5, 2016, covers a wide range of imports including pork, beef, poultry, fish and seafood, milk and dairy products, fruits, vegetables and nuts. It applies to food from the United States, EU, Canada, Australia and Norway.
Notwithstanding the petition, no one starves in modern Russia, unlike in the Soviet era when countless millions perished between the 1920s and 1940s from hunger and related disease in both peace time and World War Two.
After the fall of Communism, Russians developed a strong appetite in the 1990s for Western food imports, from cheap U.S. chicken quarters to fine French cheeses for the newly wealthy.
Now the soaring food prices are hurting the poor at a time when the economy is in crisis due to the effects of the sanctions and a steep fall in the price of oil, Russia's main export. The ruble has lost more than 40 percent of its value against the dollar and overall inflation is above 15 percent.
The Rosstat statistics agency says the number of Russians living below the poverty line — defined as those earning less than 10,400 rubles ($160) a month — has jumped. In the first quarter this year, the total hit 23 million, or 16 percent of the population, up from more than 16 million people, or 11 percent of Russians last year.
Opposition figure and former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov responded with bitter irony. "20 million Russian citizens are below poverty line. Their president ordered food products destruction from Aug. 6. Some real triumph of humanism," Kasyanov said on Twitter.
But even some government allies are critical. "I don't understand how food can be destroyed in a country that lived through the horrible hunger during the war and tough years that followed," said a prominent pro-Kremlin TV anchor, Vladimir Solovyov.
'Insane and Stupid'
Authorities in several regions have already got to work on what they said were illegal imports.
"Any product without documents poses a security threat and should be destroyed," said Andrei Panchenko, the head of agricultural watchdog in the Belgorod region, as workers threw the boxes of bacon into a stove.
Officials say the embargo will encourage Russian producers to fill the gap. Now the authorities are also proposing to limit imports of X-ray machines and defibrillators for hospitals, which are already complaining of poor equipment. Even condoms could make it to the list of restricted imports.
One priest from the Russian Orthodox Church, which enjoys close ties with the Kremlin, expressed his anger.
"My grandmother always told me that throwing away food is a sin," the cleric, Alexey Uminsky, was quoted by the web site Orthodoxy and the World as saying. "This idea is insane, stupid and vile."
"Such an idea can only appear with a man who has been in no need for anything in recent decades and is ready to do something like that for populism and quasi-patriotism," he added.
Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov offered little hope of a change of heart, saying: "The presidential decree is taking effect and must be carried out."
Peskov said Putin was aware of the petition but cast doubt on the numbers, saying the website did not vet votes carefully enough. But the Kremlin has hit a raw nerve with many Russians.
"To destroy food with this standard of living is a crime against one's own nation!" wrote a backer of the petition who gave her name on the website as Natalya Afanasieva. "Come to your senses, Mr. President, finally take at least some pity on your people!"
QuoteThe report notes that "a considerable number of Russians (42%) believe that Western countries use the Internet against Russia and its interests."
That seems likely to me. We must have some cyber intelligence unit doing some sort of something with Russia.
Our admin person in Italy is a very nice girl from Russia and we get along pretty well. She seems pretty level headed and she does a great job. She's going to her family East of Moscow for a vacation. I told her jokingly to be careful about bringing delicious Italian food stuff because of the import stop.
At which point she went on a rant about evil Obama, the lying Western media and the Ukrainian Nazi government. :o :ph34r:
I told her that I'd prefer not to talk politics because usually no good comes off it and instead asked for her plans when in Russia.
Is Russians bulldozing food somehow supposed to hurt the West? I can at best roll my eyes at them.
Quote from: Martinus on August 03, 2015, 07:56:30 AM
Why are you guys surprised? If anything surprises me, it's the implied insistence of some people here that, somehow, Russians should embrace Western values. Russia is an Asian country.
Patton had it figured out.
Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2015, 12:18:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 03, 2015, 07:56:30 AM
Why are you guys surprised? If anything surprises me, it's the implied insistence of some people here that, somehow, Russians should embrace Western values. Russia is an Asian country.
Patton had it figured out.
Hitler did it style.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 06, 2015, 06:32:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2015, 12:18:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 03, 2015, 07:56:30 AM
Why are you guys surprised? If anything surprises me, it's the implied insistence of some people here that, somehow, Russians should embrace Western values. Russia is an Asian country.
Patton had it figured out.
Hitler did it style.
that
His routine started strong, but floundered in the middle section, and as the for the end...the kindest thing that can be said is at least he went out with a bang.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/gruesome-family-killing-highlights-russian-domestic-abuse-problem/527070.html
QuoteGruesome Family Killing Highlights Russian Domestic Abuse Problem
Shortly before her violent death, Yulia Belova submitted a handwritten complaint to the police, saying her husband had threatened to kill and dismember her and her children, according to investigators.
It was one of many police reports she filed between October 2014 and July 2015 saying that her husband, Oleg Belov — who now stands accused of killing his six children and his mother, as well as his pregnant wife — had been beating and threatening the family, the Investigative Committee said in a statement Wednesday.
Police shelved the complaints, according to investigators.
Details of the family's disputes, including Belova's handwritten statement, now listed among the case materials, began to emerge after Belova's dismembered remains, along with those of her children, were found in the family's apartment in the city of Nizhny Novgorod this week. The gruesome murder horrified many in Russia and prompted much scrutiny of police handling of the complaints, and much finger-pointing.
The Investigative Committee has opened a criminal case on charges of negligent homicide against the local police chief, his deputy, a department head and two officers in the city for allegedly ignoring Belova's complaints. The last complaint dates from July, according to the Investigative Committee, just days before her death.
"The claimants' arguments for several months were left without due investigation, and district police officers, with the agreement of their chiefs, issued decisions declining to open a criminal case," the Investigative Committee said in a statement.
"The criminal negligence by police officials has allowed Belov to commit the cruel crime," the statement said.
Domestic violence complaints are rarely taken seriously in Russia, where many men — and even some women — believe that a husband who occasionally slaps his wife around is acting within his authority and should not be treated as a criminal. Meanwhile, police "try to not interfere with family scandals," in the words of a report by the Moscow Helsinki Group.
According to Interior Ministry figures cited by ANNA National Center for the Prevention of Violence in a 2010 report, about 14,000 women in Russia die every year "at the hands of husbands or other relatives," while violence of some form occurs in one out of four families in the country, and domestic disputes account for two-thirds of all homicides.
The figures may still under-represent the scope of domestic violence in Russia, according to the Moscow Helsinki Group, because many battered women avoid filing police reports, fearing they would be ignored anyway.
Suggestions that Russian women should not make a big deal out of domestic abuse has come even from children's rights ombudsman Pavel Astakhov.
"The constant excessive use of the term 'domestic violence' is a way of brainwashing, turning into zombies, intimidating families and parents," Astakhov wrote on his Instagram page this spring. "The family is the safest place. A lot more crimes are committed in public places, on transport and in stores. Let's treat the family with care."
Belov, the suspect in the latest multiple murder case, had a history of violence, was known to local social workers and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, according to his mother-in-law Valentina Zaitseva, state news agency TASS reported.
He was arrested near Zaitseva's home in the Vladimir region, about 220 kilometers from Nizhny Novgorod, prompting media speculation that he might have been heading to kill his mother-in-law as well.
Could we nuke it from somewhere?
The recent headlines on RT's Russian Politics news section:
- Duma chief blames US for instigating global instability through intrigue
- New face of Russian foreign policy: 1st woman appointed as Foreign Ministry spokesperson
- Most Russians oppose ban on Soviet symbols - poll
- Agriculture Ministry rejects proposal to ban Coke, Pepsi in Russia
- Russian govt drafts bill allowing reciprocal seizure of foreign nations' property
- Russian senator urges international tribunal into US-Vietnam war
- Intl tribunal should try 1945 US nuke attacks on Japan - Duma chief
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/russian-translators-denounce-use-of-unpatriotic-onomatopoeia-in-comics/527651.html
QuoteRussian Translators Denounce Use of 'Unpatriotic' Onomatopoeia in Comics
The use of words such as "bang," "crash" and "wow" in Russian comic books is unpatriotic and should be avoided, Russian translators said.
Russian newspaper Izvestia reported on Monday that a group of translators of Russian comics penned a letter addressed to the Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences suggesting that all onomatopoeic words be replaced with indigenous versions.
"In comic books you can often encounter words imitating sounds," the translators were quoted as saying. "How can one express the sound of a phone ringing, of a creaky door, or a soda can being popped open, or the crinkle of an ice cream wrapper, or the sound of a motorcyclist's foot rubbing against the ground?" the letter said, according to Izvestia. "Often translators simply transliterate the English words."
The translators proposed a list of words borrowed from the official languages of the Russian Federation that could replace the "unpatriotic" options, the newspaper said. According to the suggestions, words derived from Lezgian — a language spoken in southern Dagestan and northern Azerbaijan — such as "chorkh" and "khurt-khurt" could be used to express scratching and water swallowing respectively.
Izvestia, which says it has the letter in its possession, attributed the initiative to translators from the Center of Comics and Visual Culture. But the center subsequently dismissed the claim in a Facebook post, stating that translators working with the annual KomMissiya comics, graphic novels and manga festival were responsible. "The Center of Comics and Visual Culture is in no way related to this," the post said. "In our department there are basically no translators."
:lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_iDWF4xHslTs%2FTTgbfXaCvYI%2FAAAAAAAAAWU%2FXxasPBOwKWM%2Fs1600%2Fcaptain_w%40nk.jpg&hash=3e745de51fe2c89c6bc2f017e67b92647a8c89ff)
Quote from: Syt on August 11, 2015, 02:13:39 AM
- Intl tribunal should try 1945 US nuke attacks on Japan - Duma chief
Who exactly are they planning on putting on trial here?
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2015, 09:54:21 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 11, 2015, 02:13:39 AM
- Intl tribunal should try 1945 US nuke attacks on Japan - Duma chief
Who exactly are they planning on putting on trial here?
QuoteThe State Duma speaker says it's necessary to create an international court to look into the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, noting that America's modern policy has borrowed a lot from the cynical approach of its former leaders.
Speaking at a roundtable meeting in the Moscow Institute of International Relations on Wednesday, Sergey Naryshkin said the US nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary for the military campaign against Japan. He added that the thousands of civilians killed by the atomic bombs had not been involved in crimes of the Japanese military.
READ MORE: 'Third World War would be last for humanity' – Duma speaker
The lower house speaker suggested that the participants of the roundtable imagine the situation in which Nazi Germany completely destroyed the population of one or several European cities, for example by means of chemical weapons.
"Would this have been included in charges pressed during the Nuremberg trial? Of course, it would!" he said.
Naryshkin also accused the modern leaders of the United States of intent to silence the real reasons behind the nuclear bombings.
"The current US authorities want to conceal not the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this would be impossible, but the hypocrisy and cynicism of their leaders of these times. This happens because such behavior casts a shadow on the modern American policies which, of course, retain the legacy of exceptionalist ideology and the position of own infallibility and arrogant force."
Deputy Duma Speaker Andrey Isayev supported the initiative, saying that there were enough grounds for such step. Isayev also noted that the single and universally-recognized legal assessment of the 1945 attacks was the most important thing that could be done by the international tribunal.
In December 2014, Naryshkin voiced the idea of an international investigation into the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the session of the presidium of the Russian History Society. Back then he also said that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly justifiable from a purely military position, as the defeat of Japan was practically decided after the Soviet Army's victories in Manchuria.
READ MORE: State Duma chief suggests trying US for WWII nuke attacks
The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place 70 years ago, in early August of 1945. They resulted in the deaths of between 150,000 and 250,000 people, mostly civilians. The two attacks, especially the Hiroshima bombing, have been repeatedly denounced by the international rights community as fundamentally immoral and violating the spirit of conventions that banned the use of weapons of mass destruction against an enemy's civilian population.
So they want to put the current leadership on trial for the 1945 bombings because they continue their legacy? Intriguing.
QuoteBack then he also said that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly justifiable from a purely military position, as the defeat of Japan was practically decided after the Soviet Army's victories in Manchuria.
It will be an interesting precedent to prove in a court of law that August 20th occurs before August 6th but perhaps not in a Russian court.
Haven't you learned that you shouldn't doubt stories of national heroism (see above article "Russian Archives Cast Doubt on Legends of Soviet War Heroes")? :P
Duma and Dumaer.
Quote from: Martinus on August 03, 2015, 07:56:30 AM
Why are you guys surprised? If anything surprises me, it's the implied insistence of some people here that, somehow, Russians should embrace Western values. Russia is an Asian country.
"Asian country" is not a coherent concept.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2015, 10:49:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 03, 2015, 07:56:30 AM
Why are you guys surprised? If anything surprises me, it's the implied insistence of some people here that, somehow, Russians should embrace Western values. Russia is an Asian country.
"Asian country" is not a coherent concept.
Now in stereo!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2015, 12:46:30 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2015, 10:49:12 AM
"Asian country" is not a coherent concept.
:mellow:
I don't think Israel and China have much in common just because you could hypothetically travel from one to the other on land.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov muttered some swear words into an open mike during a press conference: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/lavrov/527827.html
Video (in Russian and Arabic): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iNp3oWWMf4
(Lavrov swearing at 0:22 and asking "are we disturbing you?" at 1:05)
Quote from: Solmyr on August 12, 2015, 01:28:44 PM
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov muttered some swear words into an open mike during a press conference: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/lavrov/527827.html
Video (in Russian and Arabic): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iNp3oWWMf4
(Lavrov swearing at 0:22 and asking "are we disturbing you?" at 1:05)
The Moscow Times commented:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-foreign-minister-swears-during-news-conference/527827.html
QuoteForty minutes into the conference, while Lavrov's speech is being translated into Arabic, Russia's foreign minister can be heard quietly but distinctively muttering "imbeciles," before adding an obscene five-letter word widely used in Russia. The Moscow Times cannot publish the word due to a law that bans the use of obscene language in media outlets.
:lol:
The new spokeswoman said that while she was present at the press conference, she didn't hear any such utterances, and therefore couldn't comment.
I can hear the "imbeciles", but whatever obscenity was used is totally drowned about by the Arabic to my ears.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/russias-state-duma-supports-mandatory-hiv-testing-before-marriage/527840.html
QuoteRussia's State Duma Supports Mandatory HIV Testing Before Marriage
The State Duma's health care committee sided on Wednesday with a suggestion to impose mandatory HIV testing on couples who want to get married, news agency Interfax reported.
"It's a reasonable proposal and should be supported. The number of HIV-positive people is growing and it is becoming a serious problem. I think our top public health official [Anna Popova, who suggested the move] is absolutely right," Nikolai Gerasimenko, first deputy chairman of the committee, told Interfax on Wednesday.
Popova, the head of health care watchdog Rospotrebnadzor, proposed the idea on Tuesday at a youth forum titled Territoriya Smyslov na Klyazme and known in English as Terra Scientia, Interfax reported. She also said she would support genetic testing and hepatitis testing for couples who plan to have a baby.
The head of the Federal AIDS Center, Vadim Pokrovsky, said he supported the idea, but only if the testing was carried out on a voluntary basis.
"Mandatory testing might cause serious problems. For example, who should be informed of the results? The future wife, the bride [if her fiance was tested]? How would she react? Most likely the marriage would fall apart," he told the Business FM radio station Tuesday.
"What is going to happen to this bride or groom whose test was positive? The processes that are going to take place next should be seriously thought over," Pokrovsky added.
According to the center's prognosis, the number of recorded cases of HIV in Russia is set to exceed 1 million by the end of this year.
If there is a HIV problem doing testing might not be a bad idea but why at marriage?
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2015, 07:44:31 AM
If there is a HIV problem doing testing might not be a bad idea but why at marriage?
Because Russians don't do pre-marital sex. That's a Western decadent thing.
Given the attitudes of Russian people against HIV-positive individuals, I somehow doubt this would be used to the benefit of the patient.
The Russian anthem as played by the Egyptian army: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=25&v=IifStkAsemU
:lol:
Well that's fucking awkward.
During the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Bush was present at a swimming contest, and the US won a gold medal. However, when the US anthem was played, it stopped in the middle for no reason and wasn't resumed. The Chinese foreign minister next to Bush was petrified. Bush seemed to be completely cool though.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2015, 09:54:21 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 11, 2015, 02:13:39 AM
- Intl tribunal should try 1945 US nuke attacks on Japan - Duma chief
Who exactly are they planning on putting on trial here?
That Enola gay. They don't like gays there.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2015, 10:46:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2015, 12:46:30 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2015, 10:49:12 AM
"Asian country" is not a coherent concept.
:mellow:
I don't think Israel and China have much in common just because you could hypothetically travel from one to the other on land.
It's a cultural concept, and culturally Israel is not an Asian country. By the way, you could also travel from Spain to China on land. :huh:
Quote from: Syt on August 20, 2015, 12:33:48 AM
The Russian anthem as played by the Egyptian army: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=25&v=IifStkAsemU
:lol:
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2015, 02:50:55 AM
It's a cultural concept, and culturally Israel is not an Asian country. By the way, you could also travel from Spain to China on land. :huh:
Which countries do you consider to be Asian countries besides Russia? China? India? Iran? South Africa? :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2015, 03:04:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2015, 02:50:55 AM
It's a cultural concept, and culturally Israel is not an Asian country. By the way, you could also travel from Spain to China on land. :huh:
Which countries do you consider to be Asian countries besides Russia? China? India? Iran? South Africa? :P
China, Mongolia, the Stans, Japan, Korea, countries in South East Asia. India is a distinct culture. I would argue that Iran (Persia) is probably distinct enough as well.
As for Israel, to me it is an element of Western Civilisation in the Middle East. In that, it is a spiritual descendant of the crusader states.
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2015, 04:14:45 AM
China, Mongolia, the Stans, Japan, Korea, countries in South East Asia. India is a distinct culture. I would argue that Iran (Persia) is probably distinct enough as well.
Russia has less in common with China than India does.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/half-of-russians-believe-putin-is-poorly-informed-of-situation-in-the-country-poll-shows/528258.html
QuoteHalf of Russians Believe Putin is Poorly Informed of Situation in the Country, Poll Shows
Over half of Russians think President Vladimir Putin does not receive a complete picture of what is going on in Russia or is being deliberately misled by his entourage, according to a poll released Wednesday by an independent Russian polling center.
Fifty-six percent of respondents in the poll conducted by the Levada Center said that Putin doesn't have a complete picture of the national situation, including fourteen percent who believe his closest advisors and allies are outright concealing the truth from the Russian president.
Only 31 percent of respondents said that they believed Putin was completely aware of what is taking place across the country and truthfully informed by his advisors.
When asked if they believe Putin is guilty of various accusations of misuse of power levied by his opponents, 22 percent of respondents were certain he is innocent — twice as many as in April 2012.
Thirty-one percent of respondents said that Putin's culpability in alleged violations is less important than his role in improving the standard of living.
Only 38 percent of respondents in the survey said they could freely express their thoughts and opinions about government policies. Ten percent said they couldn't express themselves because they were scared of reprisals or felt uncomfortable.
The poll surveyed 1,600 adults across Russia between July 17 and 20.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs30.postimg.org%2F8ycvednq9%2FPutin.jpg&hash=00e690601e999d51396d6db292733ab49eacd49d)
It's funny, because that was a common opinion in the Third Reich, too, to the point where "Wenn das der Führer wüsste ..." (If only the Führer knew ...) became a common byword.
First of all I think polls made in Russia are totally worthless. If you lived there today and somebody came up to you asking these questions, you would openly support the official line, out of survival instincts.
Secondly, yes, this is a very common reflex when society wants a strong leader: it surely isn't his fault if things go badly.
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2015, 04:17:43 AM
As for Israel, to me it is an element of Western Civilisation in the Middle East. In that, it is a spiritual descendant of the crusader states.
Even with most of the population being from Muslim countries and Russia? I don't think so and it is becoming more 'assimilated' with its neighbors all the time. I have a hard time not seeing it as a Middle Eastern country, granted an unusually well run one.
Quote from: Syt on August 20, 2015, 12:33:48 AM
The Russian anthem as played by the Egyptian army: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=25&v=IifStkAsemU
:lol:
"Abdel, can I have that AK-47 back for a minute?"
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2015, 07:51:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2015, 04:17:43 AM
As for Israel, to me it is an element of Western Civilisation in the Middle East. In that, it is a spiritual descendant of the crusader states.
Even with most of the population being from Muslim countries and Russia? I don't think so and it is becoming more 'assimilated' with its neighbors all the time. I have a hard time not seeing it as a Middle Eastern country, granted an unusually well run one.
I think you would change your mind if you went there. It is definitely more 'european' than ME, despite the fact that less than half of its population is from Europe. The physical origins of its population has proven not to be the governing factor.
Proof of this: the most "difficult" sections of the Israeli Jewish population are the Settlers and the Haradim (or ultra-Orthodox). These are the people from among whom come those who undertake the most fanatical, terroristic actions, that remind people of the ME in general. However, in origin they are typically *not* from the population of Jews from the ME. Most of both are European (or, in the case of "settlers", European or American).
Quote from: Syt on August 20, 2015, 07:40:30 AM
It's funny, because that was a common opinion in the Third Reich, too, to the point where "Wenn das der Führer wüsste ..." (If only the Führer knew ...) became a common byword.
That's very standard when you have authoritarian countries and personality cults. People in the gulags also thought that if only Stalin knew...
Quote from: Malthus on August 20, 2015, 08:06:16 AM
I think you would change your mind if you went there. It is definitely more 'european' than ME, despite the fact that less than half of its population is from Europe. The physical origins of its population has proven not to be the governing factor.
Proof of this: the most "difficult" sections of the Israeli Jewish population are the Settlers and the Haradim (or ultra-Orthodox). These are the people from among whom come those who undertake the most fanatical, terroristic actions, that remind people of the ME in general. However, in origin they are typically *not* from the population of Jews from the ME. Most of both are European (or, in the case of "settlers", European or American).
The newest converts to a culture are always the most fanatic :P
Anyway I will visit Israel right after my trip to Egypt.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-foreign-agents-risk-losing-right-to-run-media/528308.html
QuoteRussia's 'Foreign Agents' Risk Losing Right to Run Media
As the crackdown on Russian NGOs continues, the Communications Ministry has suggested forbidding those labeled as "foreign agents" from launching and registering media outlets.
The proposal, part of a bill that the ministry published on a government website for draft laws, stipulates that non-governmental organizations registered as "foreign agents" — a label with strong connotations of espionage in Russia that is applied to organizations that receive funding from abroad and are engaged in loosely defined political activity — cannot be founders of media outlets.
Civil rights advocates fear the bill is a marker of the situation worsening for the "foreign agents," several of which said they were closing this summer after being forced to pay six-figure fines in rubles and having to give up their foreign financing, despite earlier promises that "foreign agents" would not have to close their doors.
Forbidding "foreign agents" from owning media is a direct violation of a Constitutional Court ruling of 2014, according to which this status shouldn't infringe on the organization's rights, said Ilya Shablinsky, a member of the presidential Human Rights Council.
"This bill is the next step after restricting the agents' rights in the electoral legislation [they are already banned from participating in electoral campaigns in any capacity]," he was cited by Vedomosti newspaper as saying Thursday.
"And this is very bad: we have more than 50 organizations on the list [of 'foreign agents'], and for a lot of them, running media outlets is their main area of activity," he said.
Deputy Communications Minister Alexei Volin disagreed, telling Vedomosti that the suggestion doesn't violate any laws, and on the contrary, brings the law that regulates mass media in line with other laws, as well as conforming to existing regulation that restricts foreign ownership of media outlets.
But unlike actual foreigners, "foreign agents" should not be allowed to own even 20 percent of a media outlet, he said.
"We don't recommend having foreign agents among the owners of your media, go find some decent people [instead]," he was cited by the newspaper as saying Thursday.
Free Speech Crackdown
There are some 20 existing media outlets that are owned by NGOs registered as "foreign agents," said Pavel Chikov, head of the Agora human rights association.
For example, elections watchdog Golos, which is currently in the process of getting its "foreign agent" status revoked, runs the newspaper Grazhdansky Golos (Civic Voice), while Memorial, an NGO that advocates the rehabilitation of victims of Soviet repressions, runs Kavkazsky Uzel (Caucasus Knot), one of the most prominent media outlets in the North Caucasus.
"Passing the bill would mean that these media outlets will lose their registration," Chikov told Vedomosti on Thursday. "This law will result in the liquidation of dozens of media outlets," he said.
The crackdown on the media is being carried out in anticipation of the State Duma elections in 2016, said Grigory Melkonyants, co-chair of Golos.
"First the Central Election Commission sent out letters banning 'foreign agents' from delegating election observers to the polls, while most of these organizations actually usually send observers in the form of journalists," he was cited by Vedomosti as saying Thursday.
The bill, according to Melkonyants, would not only seriously infringe on foreign agents' rights, but would also complicate the registration process for other media, meaning existing registration would be revoked from many organizations — especially those whose staff have used their credentials to report on elections.
Morality Check
The bill proposes several other restrictions on the registration of Russian media.
For example, the names of countries would not be allowed to be used in media names without permission from the Justice Ministry, according to the document, along with the names of various organizations and people without their own permission. The names of the outlets will also be checked for "humanness" and "morality," the text of the bill says, without elaborating.
A media outlet can be denied registration at the Prosecutor General's request, the bill states. This is only natural under anti-extremism legislation, Volin from the Communications Ministry told Vedomosti — the Prosecutor General is empowered to determine whether the media outlet is extremist, thus he has the right to deny it registration.
All in all, the initiative currently looks raw and poorly thought through, said Leonid Levin, chair of the State Duma Committee for Information Policy. Formally speaking, forbidding foreign agents from owning media seems reasonable, but on the other hand it can be seen as an infringement upon freedom of speech, the lawmaker added.
"We're not forbidding people who work for foreign companies from expressing their opinion," Levin, a member of the Just Russia party, was cited by Vedomosti as saying Thursday. He also questioned the need for regulation in addition to limiting foreign ownership to 20 percent of a media outlet.
Nevertheless, "all these issues should be discussed, and we're ready to listen to what the ministry has to say," the lawmaker said.
Oh, and here's why you can't have foreign agents monitoring elections: they're actually exposing stuff (though I guess this will be buries in the Russian state media):
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/election-watchdog-reveals-united-russia-candidates-receive-foreign-funding/528307.html
QuoteElection Watchdog Reveals United Russia Candidates Receive Foreign Funding
A number of United Russia candidates running in gubernatorial elections in Russian regions this year have received foreign funding for their campaigns, which is against election laws, research by the independent election watchdog Golos revealed.
Golos spotted the same violation during gubernatorial elections last year.
"Just last year some regions were headed by 'foreign agents.' Judging by the current trend, after the elections on Sept. 13, the number of re-elected governors whose campaigns were financed by foreign donors will grow," said the report published on the watchdog's website Thursday.
The largest donations from abroad were received by candidates from the ruling United Russia party and by the party itself, according to Golos. Overall, the electoral funding of all United Russia candidates is two-and-a-half times larger than the combined funding of all the other participants in the 2015 gubernatorial race put together.
The usual scheme for concealing foreign sources of donations involves two Russian intermediaries, the report said. The Russian company that officially donates money to the candidate must be owned or controlled by another Russian company, which, in turn, is owned or managed by a foreign entity.
In many cases, the funding comes from offshore companies registered in Cyprus or the Virgin Islands that are stockholders of Russian enterprises.
This scheme, according to Golos, was used by Lipetsk region governor Oleg Korolev, who was elected last year. His campaign received 7 million rubles ($200,000 at the time) this way. Astrakhan region governor Alexander Zhilkin received 1.5 million rubles ($42,857 at the time) through the same scheme.
This year at least two United Russia candidates — Viktor Nazarov in the Omsk region and Vasily Golubev in the Rostov region, both incumbent governors — received foreign funding through intermediary Russian companies, the report said.
Spokespeople for Nazarov's campaign claimed the money was returned to the donor as soon as it became clear that it had come from abroad, Kommersant newspaper reported Thursday.
A Chinese journalist photographed this watchtower along the Chinese-Russian border :lol:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1445094.html
Wikipedia was taken offline in Russia by a local court after it refused to remove an article about a certain kind of hashish. The media watchdog let it go back online after 18 hours, though no change was done. Moscow Times suggests that this was merely done as a show of strength and to intimidate.
Quote from: Syt on August 27, 2015, 03:46:42 AM
Wikipedia was taken offline in Russia by a local court after it refused to remove an article about a certain kind of hashish. The media watchdog let it go back online after 18 hours, though no change was done. Moscow Times suggests that this was merely done as a show of strength and to intimidate.
I suspect Wikipedia couldn't give a rat's ass over whether it is available in Russian.
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2015, 04:17:46 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 27, 2015, 03:46:42 AM
Wikipedia was taken offline in Russia by a local court after it refused to remove an article about a certain kind of hashish. The media watchdog let it go back online after 18 hours, though no change was done. Moscow Times suggests that this was merely done as a show of strength and to intimidate.
I suspect Wikipedia couldn't give a rat's ass over whether it is available in Russian.
The show of strength was towards domestic audience, I presume. "We can block one of the largest sites in the world; we can block your little dissident blog if we want to.
Quote from: Syt on August 27, 2015, 05:09:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2015, 04:17:46 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 27, 2015, 03:46:42 AM
Wikipedia was taken offline in Russia by a local court after it refused to remove an article about a certain kind of hashish. The media watchdog let it go back online after 18 hours, though no change was done. Moscow Times suggests that this was merely done as a show of strength and to intimidate.
I suspect Wikipedia couldn't give a rat's ass over whether it is available in Russian.
The show of strength was towards domestic audience, I presume. "We can block one of the largest sites in the world; we can block your little dissident blog if we want to.
Yeah ok, but given the stuff that regularly comes out of Duma, I am not sure that blocking Wikipedia would even register with the Russian public. :P
There was also a row with Facebook about keeping info on Russian users inside Russia (per recent laws). I believe Facebook basically told Russia to fuck off.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russians-consider-marrying-giving-birth-and-education-most-important-things/528835.html
QuoteMost Important Things to Do Before Turning 30
Here are the things Russians consider men and women should do before turning 30, according to the poll conducted by Levada Center.
For Men:
To get an education – 65%
To get married – 56%
To serve in the military – 55%
To have a career – 52%
To buy a place to live – 46%
To have children – 40%
To buy a car – 30%
To fall in love – 26%
To start a business – 20%
To travel – 17%
To learn to cook – 9%
To take part in charity – 9%
For Women:
To get married – 77%
To have children – 75%
To get education – 60%
To learn how to cook – 52%
To fall in love – 32%
To have a career – 19%
To travel – 18%
To buy a place to live – 14%
To take part in charity – 8%
To buy a car – 6%
To start a business – 4%
To serve in the military – 3%
I would fail as a Russian. :mellow:
Quote from: Liep on August 27, 2015, 02:53:12 PM
I would fail as a Russian. :mellow:
Yes but to be a Russian is to fail.
Quote from: Syt on August 27, 2015, 02:47:43 PM
For Men:
To get married – 56%
To fall in love – 26%
For Women:
To get married – 77%
To fall in love – 32%
Interesting.
Yeah that is a little old school isn't it?
If only the mods knew. :(
http://www.rt.com/news/314894-watchdog-adult-movies-roskomnadzor/
QuoteDon't watch porn, 'make real friends' instead, Russian media watchdog tells female activist
Russia's media watchdog has given fans of adult movies a handy tip on how to survive after Russia banned Pornhub and 10 other websites on the grounds they are harmful to children. "Go and make friends in real life instead of watching X-rated films," it said.
When activist Olga Borisova took to her Twitter account to ask the watchdog, Roskomnadzor, for an alternative to Pornhub, she probably didn't expect to get such a direct answer.
READ MORE: 'Porn is not real life': Danish schools should show blue movies to students, professor says
Taken aback by the advice to make friends in real life, Borisova wondered whether there was anyone "beautiful and decent" at Roskomnadzor.
"Sure," the communications watchdog replied in all seriousness.
The ban on one of the world's most-used porn sites follows a ruling from a Krasnodar court that PornHub, along with another 10 websites, violates laws that protect children from "harmful information." While the specific content that triggered the ban remains unclear, a September 7 statement by Roskomnadzor cited offenses contained in Article 242 of Russia's Criminal Code. This covers "illegal production, distribution and demonstration of pornographic materials or objects." Using the internet to carry out these acts is an aggravating circumstance, Roskomnadzor stated, adding that there's a penalty of up to six years in prison in this case.
On Thursday, Russia banned the Yahoo! Screen video streaming service, after numerous formal requests from Roskomnadzor demanding the removal of an Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) propaganda video were ignored.
READ MORE: Russian watchdog cancels Wikipedia ban over cannabis entry
Roskomnadzor caused a furor last month when it briefly banned the Russian-language version of Wikipedia over an entry about cannabis that a court earlier ruled contained illegal information. The prospect to have Wikipedia blocked provoked a stir among Russian social media users and activists, with people looking for ways to get around the ban. The ban was lifted just a few hours later, and the state watchdog said the Wikipedia article in question had been edited to comply with regulations.
In mid-August, Roskomnadzor warned that news story-sharing site Reddit may also be blocked by some Internet providers in the country over a thread about "growing drug-containing plants."
:perv:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-regions-prepare-to-vote-after-campaign-of-tricks-complacency/529868.html
QuoteRussian Regions Prepare to Vote After Campaign of Tricks, Complacency
On Sunday, the governors of 21 Russian regions and more than 1,300 heads of small city administrations will be elected, together with deputies for 11 regional parliaments and 25 city legislatures.
The nationwide elections, known as unified election day, are considered by some analysts to be a final rehearsal for the State Duma elections in 2016 in which tactics and methods are being tested accordingly.
The main question is whether the opposition will be able to gain any ground, but chances are slim, say pundits.
"The Kremlin fears elections at all levels," Dmitry Oreshkin, an independent political analyst, told The Moscow Times, commenting on vigorous efforts in some regions to eliminate the opposition at the candidate registration stage.
The campaign has seen several tactics employed that have raised eyebrows among political commentators.
Securing the Seat
This year nine regional governors resigned before their terms officially ended in order to participate in the elections in September. Most of them still had another two years left in office, though some had just a few days left of their terms.
Mikhail Ignatyev, head of the republic of Chuvashia, handed in his notice in June, two months before his office was due to expire, according to the independent election watchdog Golos. Rustam Minnikhanov, head of the republic of Tatarstan, proved the most impatient: He resigned just a day before his term ended on March 24 this year.
Under Russian legislation, if a sitting governor resigns before their term expires, elections are scheduled for the closest unified election day. Critics say this tactic is used by pro-Kremlin governors to secure their seat for another five years.
The technique was piloted by Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, who resigned unexpectedly in June 2013 and was re-elected in September after winning a tough battle against Russian opposition firebrand Alexei Navalny, who almost forced Sobyanin into a second round of voting.
Among the benefits of the sudden summer resignation, analysts named the fact that it caught the opposition off guard, while Sobyanin was able to plan the campaign for as long as he thought necessary, since he knew he would resign.
The official reason most of the governors give President Vladimir Putin, who has to accept their resignation for the race to go forward, is their desire to become elected governors — most were instead appointed before gubernatorial elections were reinstated in 2012 — and be held accountable by their electorate.
Stymieing the Opposition
This year, Navalny and his allies are actively participating in the race as part of the Democratic Coalition, which consists of Navalny's Party of Progress, Parnas and several other parties.
The coalition put forward candidates for the regional parliaments of Novosibirsk, Kostroma, Magadan and Kaluga, but only succeeded in registering them in Kostroma.
To eliminate the opposition, election commissions used the so-called signature filter that proved effective in 2014. In order to register, campaigners are required to gather a certain number of signatures from potential voters in their support and submit them to the election commissions. These commissions frequently declare some of the signatures invalid on various grounds, and deny the candidates registration.
This tactic has proved to be easier and less risky than falsifying the results of the actual votes, said Andrei Buzin, co-chair of the council of Golos. After widespread fraud accusations following the State Duma elections in 2011, the authorities made the decision to minimize ballot fraud during major elections, he said, as it generates a major media backlash. Now they prefer to use another technique to get rid of the opposition: cutting it off at the registration stage.
In addition to failing to enter the race, some of Navalny's allies suffered collateral damage. His longtime supporter Leonid Volkov, who ran a campaign in Novosibirsk, is currently under investigation and faces up to six years in prison for allegedly breaking a microphone belonging to a LifeNews tabloid reporter.
Andrei Pivovarov, the opposition campaign manager in Kostroma, is on trial for an alleged attempt to steal personal data. Georgy Alburov, an investigator at Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation and a candidate in Magadan, was attacked by unidentified thugs while campaigning.
After his allies were pushed out of most of the regions they had stood in, Navalny announced a rally in Moscow on Sept. 20 and called on his supporters to come and express their protest against the elections he says are unfair.
Foreign Funding
A number of United Russia candidates running in gubernatorial elections were spotted receiving foreign funding for their campaigns in direct violation of election laws by the independent election watchdog Golos.
The largest donations from abroad were received by candidates from the ruling United Russia party and by the party itself, Golos revealed in research published last month on its website.
The usual scheme for concealing foreign sources of donations involves two Russian intermediaries, the report said. The Russian company that officially donates money to the candidate must be owned or controlled by another Russian company, which in turn is owned or managed by a foreign entity.
In many cases, the funding came from offshore companies registered in Cyprus or the Virgin Islands that are stockholders of Russian enterprises.
This year at least two United Russia candidates — Viktor Nazarov in the Omsk region and Vasily Golubev in the Rostov region, both incumbent governors — received foreign funding through intermediary Russian companies, the report said.
Spokespeople for Nazarov's campaign claimed the money was returned to the donor as soon as it became clear that it had come from abroad, the Kommersant newspaper reported last month.
No Manifestos
Only five acting governors — of the Arkhangelsk, Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Sakhalin and Jewish autonomous regions — have published original electoral manifestos, the Petersburg Politics think tank said in a report published last week.
The manifestos that have been published mostly focus on previous achievements and promise stability instead of development, the think tank found.
"Some of the manifestos are written in such a way as though the candidates have already won the elections," the report said.
All the candidates seeking election were appointed as acting governors by Putin in recent months, and most were nominated and endorsed by the ruling United Russia party.
The lack of manifestos was explained by pundits as down to a deficit of clear vision among candidates and complacency that since they have already been endorsed by Putin, there is no need to persuade voters that they will improve their lives.
"Governors don't need manifestos because manifestos will not get them elected, only the Kremlin's endorsement will do that," said Natalya Zubarevich, director of the regions program at the Independent Institute of Social Policy, a think tank in Moscow.
Senator Castling
Gubernatorial elections this year could result in a few changes in the Federation Council, the upper chamber of the Russian parliament. Last month Vladimir Yakunin, the notorious head of the Russian Railways state monopoly and a close friend of Putin, raised eyebrows by announcing his decision to leave the lucrative job for a senator's seat.
Yakunin was put forward as a candidate for the Federation Council by Nikolai Tsukanov, the acting governor of the Kaliningrad region, who is taking part in Sunday's elections and who, if he wins, will be able to delegate a senator to the upper chamber of parliament.
But Yakunin, accused by his detractors of making Russian Railways highly unprofitable, seems confident of his backer's success: He has already left the state rail monopoly and has been replaced by one of its top managers, Oleg Belozerov.
The seat of senator for the Arkhangelsk region could be taken by Viktor Pavlenko, the current mayor of Arkhangelsk, known for suggesting a local gay parade could be held on Paratroopers Day, which is notorious for its drunken violence.
To eliminate the opposition, election commissions used the so-called signature filter that proved effective in 2014. In order to register, campaigners are required to gather a certain number of signatures from potential voters in their support and submit them to the election commissions. These commissions frequently declare some of the signatures invalid on various grounds, and deny the candidates registration.
This tactic has proved to be easier and less risky than falsifying the results of the actual votes, said Andrei Buzin, co-chair of the council of Golos. After widespread fraud accusations following the State Duma elections in 2011, the authorities made the decision to minimize ballot fraud during major elections, he said, as it generates a major media backlash. Now they prefer to use another technique to get rid of the opposition: cutting it off at the registration stage.
Well, good that they figured out the best way to stifle the opposition. ;) In the US the IRS can be a handy tool for doing similar. :ph34r:
Quote from: KRonn on September 11, 2015, 01:10:42 PM
Well, good that they figured out the best way to stifle the opposition. ;) In the US the IRS can be a handy tool for doing similar. :ph34r:
I find it really tiresome when some Americans with political axes to grind start making comparisons to truly authoritarian regimes. This trivializes the plight of people having to live under such regimes, and adds to the large pile of utterly stupid shit people say without really thinking.
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2015, 05:11:02 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 11, 2015, 01:10:42 PM
Well, good that they figured out the best way to stifle the opposition. ;) In the US the IRS can be a handy tool for doing similar. :ph34r:
I find it really tiresome when some Americans with political axes to grind start making comparisons to truly authoritarian regimes. This trivializes the plight of people having to live under such regimes, and adds to the large pile of utterly stupid shit people say without really thinking.
Well it is KRonn...
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2015, 05:11:02 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 11, 2015, 01:10:42 PM
Well, good that they figured out the best way to stifle the opposition. ;) In the US the IRS can be a handy tool for doing similar. :ph34r:
I find it really tiresome when some Americans with political axes to grind start making comparisons to truly authoritarian regimes. This trivializes the plight of people having to live under such regimes, and adds to the large pile of utterly stupid shit people say without really thinking.
Surely the IRS isn't that bad.
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2015, 05:11:02 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 11, 2015, 01:10:42 PM
Well, good that they figured out the best way to stifle the opposition. ;) In the US the IRS can be a handy tool for doing similar. :ph34r:
I find it really tiresome when some Americans with political axes to grind start making comparisons to truly authoritarian regimes. This trivializes the plight of people having to live under such regimes, and adds to the large pile of utterly stupid shit people say without really thinking.
Most jokes are pretty stupid when taken at face value.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 11, 2015, 05:44:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2015, 05:11:02 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 11, 2015, 01:10:42 PM
Well, good that they figured out the best way to stifle the opposition. ;) In the US the IRS can be a handy tool for doing similar. :ph34r:
I find it really tiresome when some Americans with political axes to grind start making comparisons to truly authoritarian regimes. This trivializes the plight of people having to live under such regimes, and adds to the large pile of utterly stupid shit people say without really thinking.
Most jokes are pretty stupid when taken at face value.
Well, it's neither a joke nor a serious statement. It's just an empty throwaway comment with neither bite nor insight.
Ok
:lol:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/russia-has-older-democracy-than-us-and-first-black-general-proves-it--elections-chief/530309.html
QuoteRussia Has Older Democracy Than U.S. and First Black General Proves It — Elections Chief
The head of Russia's Central Elections Commission has claimed that Russia has an older democracy than the U.S. because Russia appointed its first black general two centuries before the first African-American made that rank.
"When I meet my colleagues from the U.S. and they get too proud of their democratic achievements, I ask them what to me is a simple question: 'In what year did the U.S. Army get its first black general?'" head of the elections commission Vladimir Churov told state-run TASS news agency on Saturday — a day before Russia's regional elections.
Most Americans struggle to give a precise answer "but in any case nobody claims that such a general appeared before the end of World War II," Churov was cited as saying.
In fact, the first African-American to be appointed general in the U.S. Armed Forces was Benjamin O. Davis, Sr., who made brigadier general in 1940 — a year before the U.S. was drawn into the war and five years before it ended.
Churov said he shows his conversation partners an image of Russia's first black general, Abram Petrovich Gannibal, who, according to the elections chief, was appointed in 1740, TASS reported.
Gannibal, the son of an African aristocrat, was reportedly kidnapped as a child and presented as a gift to Peter the Great, who was impressed with the boy's talents, provided him with a good education and helped advance his career.
Gannibal made the rank of military general sometime after the tsar's daughter, Empress Elizabeth, came to power in 1741.
Churov said the example usually ends all argument on which of the two countries has a longer history of democracy, TASS reported — presumably to Russia's advantage.
Churov did not elaborate on his definition of "democracy" and did not clarify how the appointment of an Afro-Russian as a military general under Russia's monarchy proved the country to be more democratic.
Nowadays in Russia, Gannibal is known less for his military achievements and more for being the great-grandfather of one of Russia's most iconic literary figures — poet and author Alexander Pushkin.
So the head of the election commission has no idea what democracy is. I shouldn't be surprised at this point.
France: A continuous Democracy since 1793!
Heh, how's that "oldest" democracy Potemkin theme working out for them?? :ph34r:
Well it is amusing that they have no concept of what the word means. I always though the DDR was named as such as some sort of cynical ploy or perhaps a sick joke. In truth, they just don't know what words mean.
I guess Africa is not just the cradle of humankind, but also the cradle of democracy.
So the Russian concept of democracy is having an absolute but well-meaning ruler that puts "common" people in office, not the common people actually electing those offices.
I'm glad Sweden didn't send aid to the Russians during WW2.
It has the sound of being anything that includes/is run by more than just White People.
Diversity and democracy do sound alike.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2015, 10:48:38 AM
It has the sound of being anything that includes/is run by more than just White People.
Well in Russia it included and was run by a singular white person so not sure that works out.
Do you guys ever come across articles in which a Russian official says something which is *not* loony tunes?
Yeah, the Russian embassy in London trolled Cameron pretty hard on Twitter over his Corbyn remarks.
Quote from: Norgy on September 14, 2015, 06:19:37 PM
Yeah, the Russian embassy in London trolled Cameron pretty hard on Twitter over his Corbyn remarks.
It wouldn't make headlines any more, but they have a point. It's tiresome when politicians do this but it must work because they do it everywhere.
I like Corbyn. :)
http://www.rt.com/news/315337-center-war-games-russia/
QuoteRussia simulates international conflict in 'biggest war drills since Cold War'
More than 95,000 troops belonging to Russia and its regional allies have started the annual Center exercises that span from the Volga to Siberia.
"Center-2015 is the final step in the armed forces' military preparations during 2015," said a statement from the ministry of defense, which said that it conducted nearly 80 military drills in August alone, as well as an unannounced inspection of the troops involved in the exercises last week.
READ MORE: Russia is ready to establish airbases in neighboring countries – Russian PM
The war games will engage more than 7,000 pieces of armor, up to 170 planes and 20 warships. 20 different training ranges will be used as troops belonging to all security branches, including border guards, FSB and drug police, will make maneuvers ranging up to 6,000 km. The exercises are scheduled to finish on September 20.
"What we are seeing now has not been seen since the Cold War – late 1970s and early 1980s. The army isn't just testing out new vehicles, equipment and techniques, but is using ever greater resources for doing so," military historian Vyacheslav Filatov told Russia's army-sponsored Zvezda channel.
Kazakhstan will provide troops while other members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which also include Belarus, Armenia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, is sending officers to observe and take charge of segments of the drill.
The scenario for the war games sees the allied army attempting to localize an international threat coming from central Asia. Most troops will be purposefully operating in unfamiliar terrain, and there will be simulations of the need to treat of huge numbers of casualties, with "wounded" troops being delivered to mobile hospitals.
READ MORE: US launches biggest NATO airborne drills since Cold War to 'enhance security & stability' in Europe
"While these maneuvers are defensive in their nature, NATO will be looking on with concern," military expert Sergey Fedorov told Zvezda. "They are astonished by the scale of the war games – it is something they have rarely seen, and would never practice themselves, restricting themselves only to limited situational drills."
Also starting Monday, about 1,000 troops from Latvia, with the same number being supplied by NATO allies, including US, UK and Germany, begun conventional training exercises in the country. A day earlier the alliance finished Swift Response 15, the biggest military exercises in Europe since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, involving about 5,000 soldiers.
Earlier in the month, the US deployed two MQ-1 Predator long-range unmanned surveillance drones and 70 airmen to Latvia on a training mission.
READ MORE: Pentagon deploys drones to Latvia to maintain 'security & stability'
In May, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia jointly asked for permanent NATO bases, alleging that Russia has the capacity to invade them within four hours of ordering an attack. Moscow lashed out at the move, saying it contravenes the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act.
LOL at all the hype about our massive NATO maneuvers (oh noes! The US sent a few drones to Latvia :lol:). Go ahead and spend all that money on the military Russia.
Quote from: Norgy on September 14, 2015, 06:19:37 PM
Yeah, the Russian embassy in London trolled Cameron pretty hard on Twitter over his Corbyn remarks.
So Putin supports Corbyn...how encouraging.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/news-of-closure-of-american-center-in-moscow-rattles-muscovites/531609.html
QuoteNews of Closure of American Center in Moscow Rattles Muscovites
News of the possible shutting down of an American culture center sponsored by the U.S. Embassy in Moscow after 22 years of operation rattled Muscovites on Wednesday.
Ambassador John Tefft was the first to break the news in a statement published on the embassy's website, warning that the Kremlin was eroding ties that the two countries had managed to preserve even during the Cold War.
"The U.S. Embassy in Moscow deeply regrets the Russian government's unilateral decision to close the embassy's American Center at M. Rudomino All-Russia State Library of Foreign Literature in Moscow," Tefft said.
"These latest unilateral steps further call into question the Russian government's commitment to maintaining people-to-people ties between the Russian and American people, which continued even during the Cold War and other complicated moments in our countries' long history," the ambassador added.
Both experts and ordinary Muscovites who had used the center's services expressed unanimous concern about the move, which many suggested was political.
The administration of the Library of Foreign Literature says that the center will continue to work, and insists that voiding the agreement with the embassy is just a technicality and that a new contract will be agreed. But embassy officials claim that reshaping the way the center functions is aimed at squeezing the Americans out.
Giving Notice
The American Center in Moscow is the largest and oldest institution devoted to U.S. culture in Russia, according to its website. It was financed by U.S. Embassy funds and had a U.S. national as its director.
The center received a notice from the foreign-language library saying the library's agreement with the U.S. Embassy had been terminated and that the center's director would be replaced, as the library was taking "full control of all of the center's activities," Tefft's statement read.
The library portrayed the move as targeting the U.S. Embassy's financing of the center, rather than its activities.
Library director Vadim Duda said in his own statement Wednesday that the library administration wanted the American Center to continue its work, all its employees to keep their jobs, the center to retain the offices and facilities it had been leasing, and to preserve all of its programs.
"But we must put our cooperation in compliance with the demands of Russian law," Duda said. "A state-run federal library cannot maintain the current agreement on the financing of the American Center, which, in effect, is the lease of facilities."
The library has offered the Americans the chance to work out a "new scheme of contract relations," Duda said, adding that the library was "willing to support [the center's] activity even without financing from the American side."
The center's employees expressed dismay at the decision to shut down the American Center "as you know it."
"We are all heartbroken by the news," the center said in a statement, adding: "Many questions and details are still being resolved."
The programs scheduled for September remain in effect, but the prospects of future operations were in limbo, the center said.
No Americans?
Replacing the American director of the center with a Russian employee and announcing the library's intention of taking full control of any activities happening in the space that the American Center formerly occupied is an attempt to squeeze the Americans out of the American center, Will Stevens, a spokesman for the embassy, told The Moscow Times.
"[They] are calling this space a new 'North American Division' of the library. While we welcome the library's apparent intention to continue offering access to the former American Center's resources, they are essentially attempting to maintain a so-called American Center without any Americans," he said in written comments Thursday.
Duda, the library director, disagreed and insisted that the center will not only continue to operate, but will preserve its ties with the embassy.
"We're not planning to destroy ties [with the embassy], we're currently in contact with our American colleagues," he told The Moscow Times on Thursday. "I'm sure that when this question becomes one of business and not politics, together with our American colleagues we will immediately find a way out," he said.
The previous agreement with the embassy, according to Duda, violated Russian legislation on leasing facilities, though he did not specify how, saying only that: "The current agreement that outlined the grant [from the U.S. Embassy] had some clauses that violated legislation relevant to the matter," he said.
Duda said that the library's administration would do everything in its power to reach a new formal relationship with the embassy. "For example, [it could be] a grant for carrying out events and programs," he told The Moscow Times.
He neither confirmed nor denied replacing the center's director.
Shadow of Politics
The attempt to reshape the work of the American Center comes at a time of souring relations between Russia and the West over the crises in Ukraine and Syria.
Moscow has curtailed Western programs in the country, forced Russian nongovernmental organizations that receive funding from abroad to register as "foreign agents" and passed a law banning foreign organizations that Russia deems "undesirable."
The U.S.-based National Endowment for Democracy was the first organization to get axed under that Russian law, when Moscow proclaimed the group "undesirable" this summer.
The move against the U.S. cultural center also comes a year after Russia shut down the largest student exchange program with the U.S. — the Future Leaders Exchange Program, or FLEX.
"It's very bad and shortsighted to destroy the infrastructure of academic and civil contacts. Those who are making these decisions are obviously motivated by some symbolic views [under which] 'America' today is bad in every context," said Ivan Kurilla, a professor at the European University in St. Petersburg.
"[The library's late director] Yekaterina Geniyeva who passed away deserved great respect: She was able to preserve the situation [regardless of political influences]," he told The Moscow Times in written comments Thursday. "Today we are seeing just how much can be done by certain people," he said.
Geniyeva, the renowned and respected director of the library from 1993 until 2015, said in an interview published shortly before her death this summer that Culture Ministry officials had asked her to close down the American Center.
She said she had responded that the authorities could do as they pleased, but had demanded a written order stating that the authorities were closing down the center "in connection with tense relations between the two states [U.S. and Russia]," she told the Meduza news portal.
Duda, the current director, insists the decision to terminate the agreement had nothing to do with the Culture Ministry. "This matter didn't surface just now or recently," he told The Moscow Times. "We decided for ourselves it was time to have a new agreement on cooperation [with the embassy]," he said.
Spokespeople for the Culture Ministry also said the initiative had come from the library's management. "The decision was made by the new administration of the library," they told The Moscow Times in written comments Thursday.
"The contract between the library and the embassy (or the U.S. State Department, to be more exact) — its structure, phrasing and conditions — are not in accordance with current Russian legislation that regulates the leasing of space. It should be brought in sync with the civil laws of the Russian Federation," the ministry said.
Much-Loved Space
The American Center received more than 50,000 Russian visitors and held more than 400 cultural and educational events over the past year alone, and hosted scores of prominent American speakers, including astronauts, actors, athletes, academics, politicians and authors, Tefft said in his statement.
Muscovites polled by The Moscow Times said the center was a unique facility providing a lot of useful services completely free of charge.
"I discovered the center in 2001, when I moved to Moscow. I didn't have the money to buy good books, but I did have the desire to continue my studies," Oksana Maksimovich, a frequent visitor to the facility, told The Moscow Times on Thursday.
"The center had a great selection of literature and online access to bigger library resources," as well as friendly staff members always ready to help, she said.
To use the center's services, it was enough to simply register at the library. "It was permitted to take books home from the center," Alexandra Bazhenova-Sorokina, a philologist who also used the center, told The Moscow Times.
"I often recommended events at the center to my students. It was nice to know that in the very center of Moscow a space like that existed, and it felt right to have it in the foreign language library," she said.
"I really like the center; we will try to keep it for our readers," said Duda, the library director.
Putin is dumb, film at 11.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2015/09/vladimir_putin_sending_russian_troops_to_syria_russia_is_intervening_out.html
QuoteDesperate in Damascus
Vladimir Putin is intervening in Syria out of weakness, not strength.
By Fred Kaplan
The presence of Russian troops, tanks, and planes in Syria isn't something to shrug off, but it's not worth a lot of worry, either—or, to the extent it might be, it's not for the reasons that the neo-Cold Warriors find so alarming.
It's true that, much as Russian officials claim they merely want to help the world fight ISIS, their main motive is to shore up the regime of their ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. However, those two goals are not mutually exclusive: Moscow does have an interest in crushing radical Islamist groups that might spread to the heavily Muslim regions of southern Russia. Either way, the uptick in military supplies to Syria (on top of the billions of dollars in arms sales and aid over many years) marks not an expansion of Russia's influence in the Middle East but rather a last-ditch effort to preserve its one last bastion—an extremely shaky bastion, at that.
In the past decade, Russia has lost erstwhile footholds in Libya and Iraq, failed in its attempt to regain Egypt as an ally after the fall of Hosni Mubarak, and would have lost Syria as well except for its supply of arms and advisers to Assad—whom it still may lose, despite its desperate measures.
The portrayal of Vladimir Putin as a grand chess master, shrewdly rebuilding the Russian empire through strength and wiles, is laughable. Syria is just one of two countries outside the former Soviet Union where Russia has a military base (the other being Vietnam, and its naval facility there, at Cam Ranh Bay, has shrunk considerably). His annexation of Crimea has proved a financial drain. His incursion into eastern Ukraine (where many ethnic Russians would welcome re-absorption into the Motherland) has stalled after a thin slice was taken at the cost of 3,000 soldiers. His plan for a Eurasian Economic Union, to counter the influence of the west's European Union, has failed to materialize. His energy deal with China, designed to counter the west's sanctions against Russian companies, has collapsed.
One school of thought contends that Putin is seeking a way back in to the international community—the sanctions seem to be hurting his cronies, as well as certain sectors of the Russian economy—and that his moves in Syria, along with rumors of a conciliatory speech at the upcoming session of the U.N. General Assembly, are meant to be part of this campaign. At best, though, this is only part of the story: Even if Putin joins the fight against ISIS (which is in his interest to do), and even if he's willing to let Assad go, he will want a say in choosing a successor—another reason for putting more boots, treads, and wheels on the ground.
Or maybe his motives are entirely cynical. One way to find out is to talk with him—to scope out the possibilities of cooperation (or at least of exploiting our converging interests) and to spell out the consequences if his actions turn hostile. This is clearly what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahudid when he spoke with Putin on Monday, arriving in Moscow with his top general and intelligence chief in tow. (The general and his Russian counterpart set up a coordination group to prevent unintended confrontations between the two countries during military actions over Syria.) It's what Secretary of State John Kerry did when he talked with his counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, over the weekend. It's what President Obama may do if and when he talks with Putin at the U.N. next week. Max Boot laments all this as "genuflecting"; a better description would be "cautious engagement," and there's nothing wrong with that, especially since it's Putin who's holding the weak hand here.
The notion, expressed by some of the candidates at the last Republican presidential debate, that Putin might use his strengthened position in Syria as leverage to pry the Saudis, Jordanians, and Egyptians into his fold—how to begin toting the absurdities? His position in Syria is hardly strong; if these Sunni Arab leaders were remotely inclined to go in with Moscow (which they aren't), they would hardly find Putin's ramped-up alliance with Assad as cause to reconsider.
There are, however, three genuinely worrisome things about Putin's latest move, even assuming less-than-hostile intentions. First, after the first reports last week of Russian troops and weapons moving into Syria, a senior administration official told me that he would be concerned if those weapons included anti-aircraft missiles, since neither ISIS nor the other rebel groups have airplanes. Two days later, it turned out that the weapons did include such weapons. So who are the Russians' intended targets? If they mean to assure Assad that they will shoot down American, Turkish, Israeli, or Gulf State airplanes that try to bomb the Syrian government's assets (or Hezbollah targets), it's worthwhile to spell out, to Putin or his generals, the consequences.
Second, if the Russians do join the fight against ISIS, they are likely to fight against other anti-Assad rebels too—including rebels (among them Syrian Kurds) that the United States is supporting. If Russia really does want some form of partnership in this, it must agree not to cross certain lines in the sand; even if Putin really doesn't want to be partners, it's worth letting him know what lines not to cross, if he doesn't want to provoke a larger conflict, with us or other countries.
Third, it's possible that Russia's entry could set back the war on ISIS by galvanizing new waves of jihadists—especially from the area around Chechnya and the heavily Muslim states on Russia's southern border whose hatred of Moscow dates back to their decades of subjugation under the Soviet Union. In other words, under the best possible scenario, Putin's urge to help could, on balance, hurt. Aimen Dean, a Saudi-born security analyst with deep background in the region's conflicts, goes so far as to predict that, for these reasons, "Russia's mission creep in Syria will only produce catastrophic results across the region and beyond."
We are not seeing the resumption of a global East–West Cold War but rather the complication of a regional sectarian civil war. That very real war is intractable and tragic enough; imagining some intermingling of the two would make things many times worse.
Quote from: Syt on September 18, 2015, 04:13:04 AM
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/news-of-closure-of-american-center-in-moscow-rattles-muscovites/531609.html
QuoteNews of Closure of American Center in Moscow Rattles Muscovites
News of the possible shutting down of an American culture center sponsored by the U.S. Embassy in Moscow after 22 years of operation rattled Muscovites on Wednesday.
Ambassador John Tefft was the first to break the news in a statement published on the embassy's website, warning that the Kremlin was eroding ties that the two countries had managed to preserve even during the Cold War.
Someone needs to relocate that "RESET!" button.
The Grand Mufti of Russia has officially declared Russia the legal successor of Golden Horde, at the opening of the Moscow mosque. No non-Russian sources yet.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 22, 2015, 08:42:31 PM
Someone needs to relocate that "RESET!" button.
Sorry you only get one.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 23, 2015, 07:09:16 AM
The Grand Mufti of Russia has officially declared Russia the legal successor of Golden Horde, at the opening of the Moscow mosque. No non-Russian sources yet.
I do not understand what 'legal' means in this context.
Quote from: Valmy on September 23, 2015, 08:10:26 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 23, 2015, 07:09:16 AM
The Grand Mufti of Russia has officially declared Russia the legal successor of Golden Horde, at the opening of the Moscow mosque. No non-Russian sources yet.
I do not understand what 'legal' means in this context.
Same as with a person? Russia is the natural child of the Golden Horde?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 23, 2015, 08:14:45 AM
Same as with a person? Russia is the natural child of the Golden Horde?
In what sense? Just because they occupy a lot of the same territory? Russia did not even move into the Golden Horde's heartland until a few centuries after they fell. And now 500 years later they are the 'successor' in a legal sense?
It transfers the rights, debts & obligations of the Golden Horde to Russia?
It might be an important step towards opposing Russia to ISIS in the Muslim World.
Russia is now a Khanate, no?
I don't think time & space have anything to do with the decision/announcement.
Quote from: Valmy on September 23, 2015, 08:10:26 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 23, 2015, 07:09:16 AM
The Grand Mufti of Russia has officially declared Russia the legal successor of Golden Horde, at the opening of the Moscow mosque. No non-Russian sources yet.
I do not understand what 'legal' means in this context.
Europa Universalis player going overboard?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 23, 2015, 09:29:45 AM
It transfers the rights, debts & obligations of the Golden Horde to Russia?
It might be an important step towards opposing Russia to ISIS in the Muslim World.
Russia is now a Khanate, no?
I don't think time & space have anything to do with the decision/announcement.
What rights and obligations does the Khan of the Golden Horde have in the Muslim World? He wasn't the Caliph or something.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 23, 2015, 09:37:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 23, 2015, 08:10:26 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 23, 2015, 07:09:16 AM
The Grand Mufti of Russia has officially declared Russia the legal successor of Golden Horde, at the opening of the Moscow mosque. No non-Russian sources yet.
I do not understand what 'legal' means in this context.
Europa Universalis player going overboard?
EU player writ large!
Presumably, it means Russia has a claim to all of this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Golden_Horde_Uzbek.png)
Oh yeah, and also Erdogan and Abbas were present at the mosque opening ceremony.
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150923/1027378974.html
so Russia is indeed nothing more than a bunch of bleached (all the forests) mongols after all... Not sure what Rurik would think about that.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 23, 2015, 02:51:08 PM
so Russia is indeed nothing more than a bunch of bleached (all the forests) mongols after all... Not sure what Rurik would think about that.
The Scandinavian mercenary? I doubt he'd care.
Huh. Looks like the Russian word for "gold" is the derived from the Latin word for a type of coin.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2015, 04:13:33 PM
Huh. Looks like the Russian word for "gold" is the derived from the Latin word for a type of coin.
If you mean solidus, then apparently not. Solidus (and solid, etc.) is derived from Indo-European root "solh" meaning "whole", while Russian zoloto (and similar words in other Slavic languages) share the same Indo-European root as Anglo-Germanic "gold", "gelh" meaning "yellow" or "to shine".
http://www.rt.com/news/317013-parliament-authorization-troops-abroad/
More bombs!
http://www.rt.com/politics/317366-gorbachev-calls-for-russia-germany/
Quote"History teaches us that when Germans and Russians walk hand in hand both nations and all Europeans benefit. The more often Putin and Merkel talk to each other the better it is for everyone," Gorbachev told Bild daily.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-O5k-wpoDWjU%2FVVcSzqnFsqI%2FAAAAAAAAAJE%2F_YoKjT1ez_A%2Fs1600%2FMolotov-Ribbentrop.jpg&hash=59a2a8ddc43b48ce5c240245a9e5f0ea75606393)
:hmm:
Quote from: Solmyr on September 24, 2015, 06:14:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2015, 04:13:33 PM
Huh. Looks like the Russian word for "gold" is the derived from the Latin word for a type of coin.
If you mean solidus, then apparently not. Solidus (and solid, etc.) is derived from Indo-European root "solh" meaning "whole", while Russian zoloto (and similar words in other Slavic languages) share the same Indo-European root as Anglo-Germanic "gold", "gelh" meaning "yellow" or "to shine".
Oh, well I guess not. Sure looked like it.
Well that presumes one does not consider Poles and Hungarians Europeans.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/putin-syria-ukraine-russia/408562/?utm_source=SFFB
QuoteWatch What Putin Does, Not What He Says
Nothing in the Russian president's UN speech suggested he was about to bomb Syria or withdraw from Ukraine. But that's what he did.
The thing about Vladimir Putin is, it really doesn't matter what he says.
When the Russian president took to the tribune at the UN General Assembly earlier this week, he did so amid rampant expectations that he would say something extraordinary—something capable of either ending his standoff with the West, or else sending it to new heights. In the end, he did neither. He said what he's said countless times before: that the West is full of itself and hypocritical, that the world needs no policeman, and that Russia will do what it pleases.
Nothing in what he said on that UN podium suggested that he was about to bomb Syria, or that he was about to pull his guns back from the frontlines in eastern Ukraine. But that's what he did. Two days later. Both on the same day. For good measure, he confiscated another year of his citizens' pension savings, too, but we'll get to that later.
Experts will debate what Putin is really after in Syria, pointing, perhaps, to the fact that in his battle against ISIS he's bombing territory that ISIS doesn't hold. Once they figure out what he's up to, Western leaders can decide whether they can, or should, try to stop him.
But while we don't yet understand Putin's plan in Syria, we do know what he's after in Ukraine: a permanently frozen conflict that leaves the Ukrainian government in Kiev eternally less than sovereign, depriving a country of 45 million people of any real purchase on its own political or economic future. If European leaders think they've got a problem with refugees and economic migrants now, they might want to imagine how that Ukrainian scenario plays out a few years into the future.
We know this from paying attention not to what Putin says, but to what he does. The current Russian president didn't create the "frozen conflicts" that dot the post-Soviet space, but he was grateful to inherit them and has exploited them masterfully. He has manipulated the Transnistria conflict to prevent Moldova's integration into the European Union for years. When Mikheil Saakashvili came to power in Georgia, Putin used Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Adjara to keep Saakashvili in line; when that failed, a short, victorious Russian war did the trick. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict suffices to keep Armenia loyal and Azerbaijan off balance. And since 1991, the Crimean peninsula has been the thorn in every Ukrainian president's side—that is, until Putin plucked that thorn away and stuck it in his own foot.
War in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, then, was the price Putin—together with the people of Ukraine and, to a lesser extent, Russia—would have to pay for a new source of leverage. War would open unbridgeable chasms, making conflict-resolution difficult, and would push Kiev to capitulate and cede de facto, if not de jure, control of its territory. It would be a harder fought thing than in Moldova or Georgia, of course, because the Ukrainians would know—unlike their neighbors in the early 1990s—that the conflict could be frozen for decades. But Russia would win.
By all accounts, Russia has, indeed, won. The same day that Russian jets flew their first bombing runs in Syria, news came that forces were being pulled back from the frontlines in the Donbas, and that resupplies would not be coming, replaced only by humanitarian convoys. Pro-Russian separatist leaders began declaring that the war was, for all intents and purposes, over. Because the Ukrainian military is unlikely to fire unless fired upon, the territory currently outside Ukraine's control will remain that way until a political settlement is reached. This puts Russia in line with the Minsk ceasefire agreements and gives it grounds to appeal for an end to international sanctions against the country, because that's what the Minsk agreements were designed to do: to end the fighting, not to solve the conflict.
The problem is, the Ukrainian government is the only party that wants to reach a real peace settlement. For the separatists in eastern Ukraine, a settlement means losing power and, perhaps, their freedom. For the Russians, a settlement means losing leverage.
Now—right when the focus is on Syria, right when Ukraine has slipped off the radar screen—is when Western leaders will have to decide not what Putin is after, but what the West is after. Were the sanctions they imposed on Russia and the economic and military assistance they delivered to Ukraine designed to stop the fighting, or, as U.S. President Barack Obama said at the UN, to restore Ukraine's sovereignty? If Obama was telling the truth, if Ukrainian sovereignty is the goal, then a frozen conflict cannot be accepted.
If a frozen conflict cannot be accepted, then sanctions, which were imposed in response to the fighting in the Donbas, will have to be kept in place even after the violence has stopped. In fact, Western leaders may find that sanctions have to be increased, if the message is to be driven home to the Kremlin.
And this is where the pensions come in. Putin's foreign adventures get a lot of attention, but they shouldn't obscure the fact that he is, first and foremost, a Russian politician. As the reality of the Russian economy's protracted recession sets in—the result of cheap oil and a cheaper ruble, the latter of which has at least something to do with Western sanctions—Putin's post-Crimea-annexation popularity could fade. And so he finds himself telling Russians, both rich and poor, that Russia's future is bright just as their own futures are looking increasingly bleak. His citizens and elites want butter, and he offers guns. But no pensions: He had to take last year's contributions by workers to the state pension fund and plow them into the budget, to help cover the burgeoning deficit. And this year's. And now next year's.
Propaganda and patriotic fervor will suffice to make the guns-for-butter tradeoff work for a while, but if Putin is to stay in power he needs to show people that things will get better. Deescalating the fighting in eastern Ukraine—moving from a hot war to a frozen conflict—was supposed to do that by inducing Western leaders to lift sanctions. As a result, playing along and dropping those sanctions will have profound consequences both for how Russia is governed, and for how Ukraine isn't. But who has time for that, when Russia is dropping bombs on Syria?
I did notice that lately Russians seem to sometimes say things that may appear to some to not be strictly true.
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2015, 11:15:16 AM
I did notice that lately Russians seem to sometimes say things that may appear to some to not be strictly true.
If one listens carefully one does find that, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information these Russians have communicated and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, there are epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of language a heavier burden than it can reasonably be expected to bear.
Lies, damned lies, and statements by Russian diplomats.
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2015, 11:27:53 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2015, 11:15:16 AM
I did notice that lately Russians seem to sometimes say things that may appear to some to not be strictly true.
If one listens carefully one does find that, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information these Russians have communicated and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, there are epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of language a heavier burden than it can reasonably be expected to bear.
Yeah, in a nutshell.
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2015, 11:15:16 AM
I did notice that lately Russians seem to sometimes say things that may appear to some to not be strictly true.
I don't think the words they use mean what they think they mean... Shades of Princess Bride. :D But must be some great stuff for night time comic shows around the world.
So, does Putin want a Cold War or WW3? :hmm:
WWE
Meanwhile, in the loonier parts of Russia ....
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/russian-city-bans-indecent-dance-moves-cake-cutting-at-weddings/537466.html
QuoteRussian City Bans Indecent Dance Moves, Cake-Cutting at Weddings
Shooting, cake-cutting and indecent dance moves have been outlawed at "traditional weddings" in Grozny, the capital of Russia's Chechen republic, as part of efforts to safeguard the spiritual and moral development of the republic's young people.
A list of acts that will henceforth be banned at "traditional Chechen weddings" was published by Grozny City Hall's culture department this week.
It dictates that guests will no longer be able to show up drunk or dressed "in a way that does not conform with the Chechen mentality."
"Indecent" or "acrobatic" moves on the dance floor are prohibited, and dance partners are forbidden from moving closer than an arm's length away from one another. Guests can only dance at the invitation of the master of ceremonies, while the bride is banned from dancing at all.
It was not immediately clear who would decide when weddings are "traditional" or whether the new rules would simply apply to all weddings in Grozny.
"Shooting from any kind of weapon" — a popular tradition at weddings in the Caucasus —is not tolerated. Less explicable is a ban on cutting the wedding cake.
According to the document, wedding hosts must "severely suppress" any violations of the rules, and if things nonetheless get out of hand, organizers are required to summon the police — though it was not immediately clear what action police would take, since many of the new rules contradict Russian law.
The moves are designed to safeguard traditional culture in the majority-Muslim North Caucasus republic — particularly for the younger generation, according to the list. Its publication comes after Chechnya's notoriously outspoken leader Ramzan Kadyrov last week called on wedding dress shops to stop selling too-revealing, "European" dresses that he said had become fashionable and were undermining the republic's traditions.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/news/article/north-korean-leaders-honored-in-siberia/537581.html
QuoteNorth Korean Leaders Honored in Siberia
The visits of two North Korean leaders to Russia have been immortalized with memorial plaques in the city of Novosibirsk, the West Siberian branch of Russian Railways announced Wednesday.
The plaques were put up on the wall of the Siberian city's train station to mark respective visits by the late leaders Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il in 1984 and 2001, in a ceremony attended by the North Korean ambassador to Russia.
"Our nations share not only the past, but the present as well," the West Siberian railway's deputy head Alexander Gritsai was quoted as saying at the ceremony, citing as an example the ongoing project to link up the Trans-Korean and Trans-Siberian railways.
The ceremony was one of many events planned as part of the Year of Russian and North Korean Friendship, said Nikolai Afonasov, a representative of Russia's Foreign Ministry in Siberia, who attended the ceremony.
Kim Il Sung's favorite train, which he preferred to all other types of transport, is now displayed at his mausoleum, Kumsusan.
His son Kim Jong Il was known for his fear of flying, and traveled around the country and abroad exclusively by train.
Russia is to blame says Dutch report about the MH17 incident. It was shot down by pro-Russian rebels with a pre-2011 BUK missile with assistance from Russian soldiers "on holiday", presumably.
Unpossible says BUK, Russia only uses our new missiles from after 2011 ergo it was the Ukrainians with their outdated military hardware. Logically.
https://www.rt.com/politics/318368-we-need-world-of-tanks/
Quote'We need World of Tanks gamers to operate robot tanks' – Russia's weapons chief
After a Russian defense firm revealed its plans to make a remotely-controlled tank in the near future, Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin announced that the military would soon need people experienced in the computer game "World of Tanks."
"We need no tankers now, we need World of Tanks players" Rogozin wrote in a Monday tweet.
The comment came after Russian mass media distributed the release of the Uralvagonzavod company which claimed that in the nearest future it would make the T-90 tank remotely controllable from distances of 3 to 5 kilometers.
This was not the first time Rogozin voiced his preferences in drone technologies. In early September he wrote that very soon we all would witness the situation in which an army manned with "bespectacled nerds" would completely destroy the forces of "handsome athletes who fight on a lower technological level."
T-90 is the previous model of the main battle tank produced by Uralvagonzavod, now the enterprise switches the production to more modern Armata tank. However, the export variants of the vehicle are still being offered and the experimental remotely operated machines are being developed.
World of Tanks is a free online multiplayer computer game released by Belarus company Wargaming in 2010. In 2014 Forbes magazine estimated the number of registered WOT users at over 50 million.
The mouse and keyboard are mightier than the sword!
https://www.rt.com/politics/318638-negative-attitude-of-russians-to/
QuoteNegative attitude of Russians to US policies hits new record high
Over 70 percent of Russians have a negative view of the role played by the US in international politics, while only a mere 4 percent view Washington's current course positively.
According to the results of the latest research conducted by the independent polling organization the Levada Center, 71 percent of the Russian public think that the United States currently plays a negative role in the world. The researchers noted this was the highest figure ever since it started to carry out this poll eight years ago.
The previous peak in negativity towards the US was in 2008, after a brief war that erupted after Georgia, backed by Washington, attacked the self-proclaimed republic of South Ossetia, which was protected by Russian peacekeepers under an international agreement.
Back then 53 percent of Russians said that they were against the United States' international politics and 12 percent assessed it in positive way.
According to the Levada Center, 29 percent of responders think relations between the United States and Russia could be described as hostile, while a further 45 percent think relations are tense.
Only 4 percent said the relations were "calm and normal," while under one percent described them as "neighborly and good."
In addition, 75 percent of pollsters said that all major industrialized nations were hostile to Russia and wanted to solve their domestic problems at Moscow's expense. :blink: Seventeen percent admitted that countries like the United States, Britain, Germany and Japan had common goals with Russia, in countering terrorism, crime and environmental challenges, as well as in humanitarian and cultural spheres.
Over the summer, the Levada Center conducted a similar poll, which showed the attitude of Russians towards the US, the EU and Ukraine had slightly improved, but was still at a very low level, mainly due to the various anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the West.
In mid-May another Russian polling center, the VTSIOM released the results of its research, which showed that the US and President Barack Obama are seen as enemies of Russia by the Russian public. Other entries onto the list were the EU, the Kiev government and Islamic terrorists.
Speaking to RBC, the Levada Center's deputy director Aleksey Grazhdankin said the Ukraine crisis was one of the main reasons for negative attitude of Russians towards the US.
"The negative sentiments towards America are caused by several factors, like Donbass, armed clashes and bloodshed, which has become possible due to Kiev's operations, which have been supported by the US. This is what the public thinks," the researcher told reporters.
Huh. What did we do this time? Because last I checked the US has not really done anything outside of sign that treaty with Iran in years.
Oh the Ukraine thing? Well we did issue strongly worded letters.
I find it astonishing, though, that 75% of the people think all other industrialized nations are scheming against them. That's some serious siege mentality there.
Quote from: Syt on October 14, 2015, 08:06:42 AM
I find it astonishing, though, that 75% of the people think all other industrialized nations are scheming against them. That's some serious siege mentality there.
We are super threatened by Russia, and spend all of our waking moments try to keep Russia down. For reasons.
Quote from: Syt on October 14, 2015, 08:06:42 AM
I find it astonishing, though, that 75% of the people think all other industrialized nations are scheming against them. That's some serious siege mentality there.
How many people in the industrialized nations think Russia is scheming against them (or one of them)?
I just watched the first episode of the Norwegian tv series "Okkupert" and that is some top quality paranoia on expense of the Russkies.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2015, 08:10:03 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 14, 2015, 08:06:42 AM
I find it astonishing, though, that 75% of the people think all other industrialized nations are scheming against them. That's some serious siege mentality there.
We are super threatened by Russia, and spend all of our waking moments try to keep Russia down. For reasons.
You have to admit that it is working though.
Quote from: Liep on October 14, 2015, 08:11:21 AM
How many people in the industrialized nations think Russia is scheming against them (or one of them)?
I think Russia is a bad joke and the only people being schemed against are the Russian citizens. The only people paranoid about Russia have the misfortune to live nearby...hey like Norway.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2015, 08:03:57 AM
Huh. What did we do this time? Because last I checked the US has not really done anything outside of sign that treaty with Iran in years.
Oh the Ukraine thing? Well we did issue strongly worded letters.
It doesn't matter what we do, what matters is what the Russian TV says we do. I'm telling you, it's downright scary. That's not just propaganda there, that's wartime propaganda.
Quote from: Syt on October 14, 2015, 08:06:42 AM
I find it astonishing, though, that 75% of the people think all other industrialized nations are scheming against them. That's some serious siege mentality there.
We kind of are though. We have (sort of) coordinated sanctions against them.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2015, 08:48:23 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 14, 2015, 08:06:42 AM
I find it astonishing, though, that 75% of the people think all other industrialized nations are scheming against them. That's some serious siege mentality there.
We kind of are though. We have (sort of) coordinated sanctions against them.
The "sanctions" bullshit is a pretext. We're doing what we were planning to do anyway once we realized that Russia was getting off its knees.
Quote from: DGuller on October 14, 2015, 08:50:26 AM
The "sanctions" bullshit is a pretext. We're doing what we were planning to do anyway once we realized that Russia was getting off its knees.
Ok, FSB.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2015, 08:53:14 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 14, 2015, 08:50:26 AM
The "sanctions" bullshit is a pretext. We're doing what we were planning to do anyway once we realized that Russia was getting off its knees.
Ok, FSB.
:rolleyes: You know, not every Russian secret agent works for FSB.
Quote from: DGuller on October 14, 2015, 08:54:35 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2015, 08:53:14 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 14, 2015, 08:50:26 AM
The "sanctions" bullshit is a pretext. We're doing what we were planning to do anyway once we realized that Russia was getting off its knees.
Ok, FSB.
:rolleyes: You know, not every Russian secret agent works for FSB.
All right, GRU.
Quote from: Syt on October 14, 2015, 08:01:58 AM
https://www.rt.com/politics/318638-negative-attitude-of-russians-to/
In addition, 75 percent of pollsters said that all major industrialized nations were hostile to Russia and wanted to solve their domestic problems at Moscow's expense.
I wonder why? :hmm:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 14, 2015, 04:51:34 PM
All right, GRU.
GRU has more important things to do than subtle messageboard propaganda.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FITsoXIk.gif&hash=621f67d01c68e6c23c70e61043f40e57dedbde25)
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-war-mentality-boosts-treason-case-count/539131.html
QuoteRussia's 'War' Mentality Boosts Treason Case Count
The number of convictions for treason in Russia tripled in 2014 and experts say the figure looks set to rise again this year as relations with the West deteriorate, tensions over Ukraine persist and Russia's intelligence services focus their attention on uncovering yet more spies, turncoats and traitors.
The maximum sentence for treason is 20 years and the secrecy associated with the charge usually means court sessions take place behind closed doors.
Many cases gain little or no public attention, and sometimes the defendant and their lawyers do not have access to all the information about the crimes they are supposed to have committed.
"Everything is linked to Ukraine," said Ivan Pavlov, a lawyer specializing in treason cases who saw charges against two of his clients dropped this year. "When there is a war they look for enemies."
Amid Russia's deepening international isolation over Ukraine and now Syria, officials routinely characterize association with foreign organizations as a possible threat to national security.
There were 15 treason convictions last year, all resulting in lengthy prison terms, according to Supreme Court data. In 2013 there were a mere four convictions.
There are no official statistics for 2015, but Russian media have reported on four treason convictions so far this year and at least one treason trial is currently ongoing. A spokesperson for a Moscow court told state news agency RIA Novosti in March that seven people accused of treason had been placed under arrest in the capital's high-security Lefortovo prison since January.
"There are new cases every month," said Zoya Svetova, a journalist and human rights activist who has met many of those accused of treason in Lefortovo, and tracks their cases.
Many treason trials never get reported because the Federal Security Service (FSB), a successor agency of the KGB, frightens relatives and defendants into silence, according to Pavlov, with a favorite tactic being to promise shorter sentences in exchange for cooperation with investigators.
Many treason defendants are given state-appointed lawyers who oversee a confession of guilt from their clients, said Pavlov. One such lawyer, Andrei Stebenev — who was appointed to represent treason defendants Yevgeny Petrin, Gennady Kravtsov, Svetlana Davydova and Valery Selyanin — was disbarred earlier this year for failing to provide proper legal support to Davydova.
Russia's treason laws were controversially broadened in 2012 so that there are now three main definitions of the crime: spying, accidentally or deliberately divulging state secrets, and passing information to a foreign organization that harms Russian security.
A lesser charge, that of revealing state secrets, carries a much lighter sentence than treason. Foreign nationals accused of spying cannot be accused of treason, and are charged instead with espionage. Both of these charges also appear to be being used more and more frequently in Russia.
The Moscow Times has compiled a list of 13 treason cases that have emerged this year using open source data and interviews with lawyers and human rights activists.
Yevgeny Chistov
Arrested: 2014
Status: Unknown
Almost nothing is known about Yevgeny Chistov. The treason charges against him were made public in July when a spokesperson for Lefortovo court in Moscow said that his detention had been extended until September. According to Russian news agency Interfax, he was arrested last year. Human rights activist Svetova said Chistov is a former FSB officer who refuses to talk about his case.
Svetlana Davydova
Arrested: January 2015
Status: Freed in February 2015
Of all the treason cases in recent months, the accusations against Svetlana Davydova, 37, created the biggest public outcry. The mother of seven children, including a two-month-old girl, Davydova was arrested because of a phone call she made to the Ukrainian Embassy in Moscow in April 2014 to inform them that Russian troops stationed near her home in the town of Vyazma in the western Smolensk region had left their barracks and could be on their way to fight in Ukraine. Davydova, a staunch opponent of Russian interference in Ukraine, was released from Lefortovo prison on Feb. 3 after more than 40,000 people petitioned the Kremlin on her behalf. The charges — a rare case of security officials using new treason clauses added in 2012 — were dropped in March.
Kasyan (first name unknown)
Arrested: February 2014
Status: Unknown
The only public mention of Kasyan (whose first name has not been disclosed) was in a June report from the Interfax news agency, citing unidentified security sources, that said he had been arrested for treason in the southern city of Sochi one day after the end of the 2014 Winter Olympics held there. "Since then more than a year has passed, but neither the local FSB press service nor regional media has mentioned him," Interfax noted.
Gennady Kravtsov
Arrested: May 2014
Status: Sentenced to 14 years in September 2015
Reading the verdict for Gennady Kravtsov in a Moscow court earlier this year, the judge said that he had taken into account Kravtsov's two young children — aged 4 and 8 — when deciding the sentence. He proceeded to give Kravtsov 14 years behind bars — one year less than that requested by prosecutors. Kravtsov, who worked as an engineer specializing in satellites for Russia's GRU military intelligence agency between 1990 and 2005, was convicted of treason on the basis of a job application letter he sent to a Swedish defense firm five years ago. Kravtsov, who denies his guilt, described his sentence in court as "madness."
Germanov (first name unknown)
Arrested: Unknown
Status: Unknown
No information about Germanov (whose first name has not been disclosed) is available apart from the June Interfax report that also mentioned Kasyan. Interfax, citing unidentified security sources, said Germanov was a soldier accused of treason who has been under arrest for more than a year. "Germanov's case has already been transferred [up] to the regional level and his term of arrest was extended at the start of the year by the North Caucasus district military court," the Interfax report read.
Vladimir Lapygin
Arrested: Unknown
Status: Pretrial detention
The arrest of Vladimir Lapygin only became public knowledge in late July when Interfax cited an unidentified security service source as saying that the 75-year-old scientist was facing treason accusations. Lapygin's house arrest was extended by a Moscow court to Nov. 13 earlier this month. According to Interfax, Lapygin worked at the Central Research Institute of Machine Building (TsNIImash), an offshoot of Roscosmos, Russia's national space agency, and was also a professor at the prestigious Bauman Moscow State Technical University.
Maxim Lyudomirsky
Arrested: 2014
Status: Pretrial detention
The first public mention of Maxim Lyudomirsky by Russian officials was in July, when Russian news agencies quoted a court spokesperson as saying that Lyudomirsky's detention was being extended. Russian tabloid LifeNews, which has close ties to the security services, reported at the time that Lyudomirsky, 58, was head engineer at the Moscow-based laser technology company Electrooptika and is suspected of passing secrets about weapons development to a foreign state. Lyudomirsky previously owned 23 percent of Electrooptika and was arrested in 2014, according to Interfax. Lyudomirsky's detention was reportedly extended last month until Nov. 25.
Sergei Minakov
Arrested: January 2015
Status: Freed in March 2015
Unexpectedly released from Lefortovo just two months after he was detained on treason charges, little is known about Sergei Minakov. According to a March blog entry by human rights activist Svetova, Minakov grew up in an orphanage and was a soldier in the Soviet army in Afghanistan before serving on the Black Sea Fleet as an electrician. When he was arrested, he was working on civilian trawlers in the Black Sea, according to Svetova. Other media reports suggest he was serving on the Black Sea Fleet's Koida tanker when he was detained. Days after a relative of Minakov's hired Pavlov as a lawyer, investigators dropped the case. Minakov has made no public statement since he was set free.
Pyotr Parpulov
Arrested: March 2014
Status: On trial
Currently standing trial in Krasnodar, the accusations against Pyotr Parpulov reportedly arose from a trip he took to neighboring Georgia in 2010. Parpulov denies the treason charges. According to his relatives, Parpulov was employed by Sochi Airport for more than 30 years, and was working in a senior position there at the time of his arrest. Parpulov's 25-year-old daughter Yulia Parpulova told the Kavkazsky Uzel (Caucasian Knot) news website in February that her father was arrested in a dawn raid on the family's apartment and that she had not been allowed a meeting with him for almost a year. "I have seen more unfairness and more legal violations in Parpulov's case than I have seen in my whole career as a lawyer," Parpulov's lawyer Oleg Yeliseyev told Kavkazsky Uzel on Oct. 8.
Yevgeny Petrin
Arrested: June 2014
Status: Pretrial detention
A major in the FSB until 2013, Petrin was accused of working in the interests of the U.S. and arrested in June 2014 while employed in the internal communications department of the Russian Orthodox Church's Moscow patriarchate. Petrin, who denies his guilt, maintains that he uncovered a group of spies in the Russian Orthodox Church trying to worsen relations with the Orthodox Church in Ukraine — and was meeting with foreigners, with the knowledge of colleagues, in an effort to find out more. In an interview in February with the Yod news website, Petrin's brother Andrei said that investigators threatened to poison Petrin and kill his cat, which had been left alone in his apartment after his arrest, and bring it to him in pieces. According to his brother, Petrin is an accomplished linguist, thought seriously about becoming a monk and decided to join the FSB at the urging of nationalist firebrand politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Petrin's lawyer Ivan Pavlov said on Oct. 9 that the investigation into Petrin was complete and the defense team had received the case materials ahead of the upcoming trial.
Valery Selyanin
Arrested: 2013
Status: Sentenced to 15 years in June 2015
Little is known about Valery Selyanin, whom human rights activist Svetova described as a 59-year-old physicist who got involved in business in the 1990s. He is reportedly accused of treason because of equipment he handed to two Iranian men. In a handwritten letter from Selyanin that Svetova posted on her blog earlier this year, he wrote: "Today even the most incorrigible idealist does not believe that there can be fair sentences in criminal proceedings in Moscow courts based on evidence from the FSB." Selyanin denies his guilt, according to Svetova.
Viktor Shur
Arrested: December 2014
Status: Sentenced to 12 years in October 2015
An amateur coin collector and former oil worker, Viktor Shur was arrested on a trip to the western Russian city of Bryansk from his adopted home of Ukraine where he held a residency permit. A spokesperson for a court in Bryansk — where Shur was convicted earlier this month — said that Shur admitted he was guilty of collecting secret information for Ukrainian intelligence services about Russian military installations. Shur's son Valery told Ukrainian media earlier this year that his father was not a spy and was cooperating with investigators to avoid a long sentence.
Roman Ushakov
Arrested: August 2013
Status: Sentenced to 15 years in March 2015
Roman Ushakov was reportedly arrested after collecting money and orders from the CIA that were left under a specially modified rock in the Moscow suburb of Biryulyovo. The 33-year-old from Siberia was working as a police major in 2009 when investigators allege he contacted the CIA via their website and began a four-year collaboration with agents from the U.S. intelligence agency. Ushakov reportedly admitted all the charges and asked for forgiveness. The judge in Moscow's district court gave him three years more than the 12 years requested by prosecutors. Russian counterespionage officers became suspicious of Ushakov in 2013 when, after leaving the police force, he took trips abroad to Finland, the United Kingdom, Spain and Turkey, the Kommersant newspaper reported in March.
Zakhar Agapishvili, Sergei Danilchenko, Levan Charkviani and Konstantin Yashin
Arrested: Unknown
Status: Serving prison sentences
Zakhar Agapishvili, Sergei Danilchenko, Levan Charkviani and Konstantin Yashin were sailors in Russia's Black Sea Fleet who were sentenced on treason charges, according to a February report by the Interfax news agency, citing an unidentified source. The Interfax report is the only public mention of the four men, other than information on Russia's Supreme Court website stating that their appeal was denied and that the sentence against the four men on treason charges came into force in November 2014. Agapishvili and Danilchenko were officers in the Black Sea Fleet, while Charkviani and Yashin were rank-and-file sailors, according to Interfax.
Are there show trials yet?
There will be fewer, but better, Russians.
Russian history as told by cat gifs. (Explanations in Russian)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/victorstepanov/cat-gifstory#.li5kEVwzd
Quote from: Liep on October 21, 2015, 04:38:46 AM
Russian history as told by cat gifs. (Explanations in Russian)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/victorstepanov/cat-gifstory#.li5kEVwzd
:thumbsup:
For the Russian-challenged, the gif titles and captions are:
Baptism of Rus, 988
It is said in the chronicles: He who does not appear at the river in the set time, becomes an enemy of our lord Jesus Christ.
Internecine wars of the sons of Vladimir I, 1015-1019
Brother marched against brother, and those wars lasted four years.
Mongol invasion, 1237-1242
Huge Mongol hordes marched on Slav lands.
The Mongol yoke, 1243-1480
At that time the Russian princes paid tribute to the khans. And the khans gave them yarliks to rule lands and properties.
Reign of Ivan the Terrible, 1547-1584
Executions, killing of enemies, oprichnina.
Yermak's Siberian expedition, 1582-1583
Yermak and his Cossacks ventured up the rivers, crossed swamps and forests.
Time of Troubles, 1598-1613
Prolonged wars, mass executions, conflict among boyars.
Beginning of the Russian navy under Peter I, 1696
The Tsar ordered to build ships and to lower them on the water.
Mikhail Lomonosov walks to Moscow, 1731
He sought knowledge himself and instructed us to do the same.
Suvorov crossing the Alps, 1799
Soldiers under command of the great military leader crossed the high snowy cliffs.
War with Napoleon, 1812
After a lengthy retreat, Russian forces drove Napoleon from Moscow to Paris.
The Decembrist Uprising, 1825
The uprising is crushed, the dreams are shattered.
Opening of the railroad connection between St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1851
Infernal monstrosity made from iron and breathing fire like the Devil.
Sale of Alaska to the USA, 1867
For 7.2 million dollars!
October Revolution, 1917
The hurricane of revolution swept across the whole country.
Creation of first kolkhozes, 1918
Work, work, and again work.
Signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 1939
Somebody, stop the presses!
Occupation of Berlin and Germany's capitulation, 1945
Victory!
Stalin's cult of personality, 1930-1956
Oh, great Soviet leader comrade Stalin!
Gagarin's space flight, 1961
Space was conquered by Soviet
cat man.
Khruschev's corn campaign, 1963
Om nom nom corn, said Khruschev.
Brezhnev's rule and the period of stagnation, 1964-1985
Two words: developed socialism.
Gorbachev's anti-alcohol campaign, 1985
Cats for sobriety.
Disintegration of USSR, 1991
"Such a country we lost."
Boris Yeltsin's second term, 1996-1999
Voted with our hearts and took off.
And about the rest we'll talk some other time.
https://www.rt.com/politics/319287-nyc-far--expensive-russian/
Quote'NYC far & expensive': Russian MP says UN headquarters must be moved from America
A lawmaker from ruling party United Russia says the United Nations Organization should move its headquarters from the United States to a place equidistant from all capitals of UN member-countries.
"The reforms are necessary and they should reflect the growing importance of the new centers of power – our partners from the BRICS bloc. This especially applies to India which is now world's third-largest economy and which will become the country with the world's largest population in the next seven or eight years," MP Vyacheslav Nikonov said at the State Duma session on Wednesday.
The lawmaker added that other centers of power were Brazil and South African Republic – the largest economies in South America and Africa.
Nikonov also insisted that the headquarters of the United Nations should not remain in the United States as "over the past 20 years this country has applied illegal sanctions to more than half of all humanity." Another example of the US behavior that required urgent action was the recent decision to restrict the rights of Russian parliamentary speakers who needed to visit the New York City to take part in the inter-parliamentary events at the UN, he noted.
READ MORE: Move UN HQ to neutral country, says Russian MP
"Why should it be in New York City? It's far away and it's expensive. Why don't we choose the following criteria instead – determine a point on Planet Earth that would be equidistant from the capitals of all 183 member-countries of the UN," RIA Novosti quoted the lawmaker as saying.
This is not the first time that a Russian politician proposes to move the United Nations offices from NYC. In August, State Duma MP Igor Zotov (Fair Russia) addressed the UN Secretary-General with a letter in which he stated that the UN headquarters must be located in a neutral country and accused the USA of using its position to apply leverage against its political opponents.
Zotov noted that the current placement of the UN offices allows the United States to manipulate the work of the General Assembly through "selective" access of other nations' politicians to the working meetings of the body. He also suggested that the decision to move the UN headquarters is made through a broad consensus of representatives of all UN member-countries, various activists and politicians, and legal and political experts.
READ MORE: Top senator urges UN to punish nations that impose unilateral sanctions
This initiative appeared soon after the scandal in which US authorities issued a delayed and restricted visa to the chair of the Russian upper house, Valentina Matviyenko, who planned to attend an inter-parliamentary conference at UN headquarters and meet UN Secretary-General in New York City. As a result, the entire Russian delegation had to cancel its participation in the event and the meeting between Matviyenko and Ban had to be postponed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the only place on Earth that's roughly equidistant from all capitals be at the center of the Earth? I'm not sure if rock monsters and mole men would approve. :hmm:
I just tried for a few minutes about Valentina Matviyenko in relation to the US and to UN and I could only find articles that were from RT or outlets unknown to me that look to have just cribbed the RT article.
Quote from: Syt on October 22, 2015, 03:56:07 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the only place on Earth that's roughly equidistant from all capitals be at the center of the Earth? I'm not sure if rock monsters and mole men would approve. :hmm:
Perhaps the Moon might be more practical. :D
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 22, 2015, 05:04:15 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 22, 2015, 03:56:07 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the only place on Earth that's roughly equidistant from all capitals be at the center of the Earth? I'm not sure if rock monsters and mole men would approve. :hmm:
Perhaps the Moon might be more practical. :D
not equidistant :p
Not at a given time, but it meets the spirit of the demand.
The equidistant part is obviously unrealistic, but I do agree that it seems odd for the UN to be headquartered in the US. Would be better if it is based in, say Switzerland, or some island in the middle of nowhere.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 22, 2015, 05:30:37 AM
The equidistant part is obviously unrealistic, but I do agree that it seems odd for the UN to be headquartered in the US. Would be better if it is based in, say Switzerland, or some island in the middle of nowhere.
Here you go, M. And yes, I have quoted Slate. -_-
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/09/23/u_n_general_assembly_how_did_the_united_states_end_up_hosting_the_united.html
QuoteGiven the anti-American vitriol sometimes on display at UNGA, it might surprise Americans today that when the location of the U.N. headquarters was originally decided, the United States was the overwhelming consensus choice.
As Charlene Mires writes in her fun new book, Capital of the World: The Race to Host the United Nations, "With so much of the world struggling to recover from wartime destruction, it was a predominantly American crusade."
The big European powers pushed to locate the U.N. on the continent. but even boosters of this plan acknowledged the difficulty of locating the new organization in the midst of the wreckage of war. "There are ruins everywhere, and even where there are no ruins, there are terrible problems," admitted one French diplomat. Relatively unscathed Geneva was a possibility but carried associations with the ill-fated League of Nations.
When a vote on the location of the headquarters was taken in London in 1945, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, and Canada voted for a European headquarters. As Mires writes, "The rest, from Latin America (Brazil, Chile, and Mexico), the smaller nations of Europe (Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia), the Pacific (Australia and China), the Soviet Union, and Iran voted for a new start for the new organization, in the United States."
The Soviets were enthusiastic backers of the plan. "The old world has had it once, and it is time for the New World to have it," said Moscow's representative Andrei Gromyko, later to become known as a perennial thorn in the side of U.S. foreign-policy ambitions during the Cold War. The Soviets may also have been calculating that a U.N. presence in Europe would counter their own plans for expansion.
Quote from: Syt on October 22, 2015, 03:56:07 AM
Quote
"over the past 20 years this country has applied illegal sanctions to more than half of all humanity."
:unsure: I don't even...
QuoteCorrect me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the only place on Earth that's roughly equidistant from all capitals be at the center of the Earth? I'm not sure if rock monsters and mole men would approve. :hmm:
And bringing up Brazil is really weird. It is located in the same time zone as alot of Brazil. Where would Brazil prefer it to be? Finally why does it have to equidistant to anything? Nobody is riding horses to New York.
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2015, 08:07:06 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 22, 2015, 03:56:07 AM
Quote
"over the past 20 years this country has applied illegal sanctions to more than half of all humanity."
:unsure: I don't even...
QuoteCorrect me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the only place on Earth that's roughly equidistant from all capitals be at the center of the Earth? I'm not sure if rock monsters and mole men would approve. :hmm:
And bringing up Brazil is really weird. It is located in the same time zone as alot of Brazil. Where would Brazil prefer it to be? Finally why does it have to equidistant to anything? Nobody is riding horses to New York.
Also, the Russians have Siberia, and their Chinese neighbors have... well, most of mainland China. They should be keenly aware that there's distance, and then there's distance.
This is just more from the Russkies who are saying/doing what they think will diminish the US. I think if we consider the various articles just posted here attacking something about the US then they've been on a real campaign for a while now. Goes hand in hand with their land grabs in Crimea, Ukraine, Mid East and IMO coming soon will be attempts at the Baltic states.
https://www.rt.com/politics/319490-chastity-faith-and-patriotism-/
Quote'Chastity, faith & patriotism': Russian Church offers govt fresh anti-AIDS program
A Russian Orthodox bishop has told the government commission on health that it's wrong to fight AIDS through sex education and the distribution of condoms, suggesting instead to promote chastity, faith and patriotism among citizens.
Bishop Panteleimon of Orekhovo-Zuyevo noted that the church officials were happy that Russia was not adopting the so called "harm reduction" programs like free handover of condoms or replacement therapy.
"We know that we need different methods and programs. I hold that AIDS can be defeated not only by explaining the dangers of this disease, but also through propaganda of healthy moral values," he said.
READ MORE: HIV alarm: Number of infected in Russia may double in 4 yrs, expert warns
The cleric told the government officials that they must promote chastity among the population, especially among children. He also claimed that the word had been completely forgotten in Russia and suggested refreshing its definition as "not simply abstaining from certain pleasures, but a wholesome perception of the world, with the love to family, patriotism, faith and intellectual activities."
The bishop reported that the Russian Orthodox Church had already developed and tested several AIDS prevention programs for children in primary and secondary schools and for college students. He also said that over 10,000 people had already taken part in these programs that focused on traditional family values.
The government commission on healthcare held a special session dedicated to aids on Friday. During it Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev quoted the Health Ministry data that the number of HIV-positive people is growing in Russia at a rate of 10 percent a year. Health Minister Veronika Skvortsova warned her government colleagues that without urgent measures Russia could face an AIDS epidemic as soon as in 2020.
Last year, MP Roman Khudyakov of the Liberal Democratic Party prepared a bill ordering the creation of a national database of people carrying dangerous contagious diseases. If the bill is passed a special agency would collect medical records and make patients undergo fingerprinting. The new rules would apply to Russian citizens and visiting foreigners.
READ MORE: HIV-infected people may face obligatory fingerprinting in Russia
Khudyakov said in press comments that several federal ministries and agencies, including the Federal Migration Service, Interior Ministry, Emergencies Ministry and Prosecutor General's Office had approved his draft, but as of today the parliament has not looked into it.
QuoteLast year, MP Roman Khudyakov of the Liberal Democratic Party prepared a bill ordering the creation of a national database of people carrying dangerous contagious diseases. If the bill is passed a special agency would collect medical records and make patients undergo fingerprinting. The new rules would apply to Russian citizens and visiting foreigners.
This from the Liberal Democratic Party? Well I guess these are the people who created the most totalitarian system in history and called it 'People's Democracy'.
Quote from: Valmy on October 23, 2015, 08:03:01 PM
QuoteLast year, MP Roman Khudyakov of the Liberal Democratic Party prepared a bill ordering the creation of a national database of people carrying dangerous contagious diseases. If the bill is passed a special agency would collect medical records and make patients undergo fingerprinting. The new rules would apply to Russian citizens and visiting foreigners.
This from the Liberal Democratic Party? Well I guess these are the people who created the most totalitarian system in history and called it 'People's Democracy'.
Russians sure like misusing such words in an Orwellian fashion. Or just to troll the civilized world. Liberal Democratic Party is in fact a fascist party. Not a real fascist party, but a KGB-created party to attract fascists so that they wouldn't be attracted to real fascist parties.
https://www.rt.com/politics/320475-fm-lavrov-pledges-stronger-support/
QuoteFM Lavrov pledges stronger support to Russian diasporas despite Washington & Brussels
Russia will continue to develop the 'Russian World' concept and support compatriots all over the world despite resistance on the part of the US and the EU, Foreign Minister Lavrov says in a newspaper article.
"Rendering multi-sided support to the Russian World is an unconditional priority of Russian foreign policy as stated in the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. As repeatedly emphasized by President Vladimir Putin, we will continue to energetically defend the rights of our compatriots using all means allowed by the international law," the top Russian diplomat wrote in his article published by Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily.
"The Russian World has become more consolidated, with working democratic structures at national, regional and global levels. Anti-Russian actions by Washington and Brussels, including the one-sided sanctions, have failed to have any effect on our relations with [Russian-speaking] communities all over the world that properly reacted to all events and expressed their support to Russia," Sergey Lavrov wrote in his article dedicated to the Fifth World Congress of Compatriots Abroad, which will open in Moscow later this week.
The minister also summed up the results of government support for efforts aimed at unification of ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers all over the world, and coordination of their grassroots bodies with official state programs. He said the Russian government had successfully implemented the 2013-2014 plans developed by the Commission for the Affairs of Compatriots Abroad and already approved a similar action plan for 2015-2017.
READ MORE: Champion of Russian Diaspora pledges support for Putin
Lavrov wrote that Russian communities abroad total about 30 million people and make up one of the world's four largest diasporas. He also notes the government program includes measures to support the cultures and traditions of other peoples, in particular Tatars and Jews.
The Fifth World Congress of Compatriots Abroad is due to open in Moscow on November 5. It will be attended by over 400 envoys from various organizations from 97 countries, as well as top officials from Russian federal agencies and regional bodies of power.
"I am confident that by common effort we will successfully fulfill all the current tasks in the interests of discovering the colossal potential of the Russian World," Lavrov concluded.
READ MORE: Moscow creates fund to protect Russian compatriots abroad
I wonder when there will be calls from Volksrussen to be Anschlussed.
It is true. We just sit around thinking up ways to keep Russians from being supported by Russia.
Seems more precursor talk to justify and help Putin when it's decided to go after the Baltic nations.
Quote from: KRonn on November 02, 2015, 10:23:10 AM
Seems more precursor talk to justify and help Putin when it's decided to go after the Baltic nations.
Yep.
"Accidentally" :rolleyes:
https://www.rt.com/news/321640-leaked-russian-nuclear-torpedo/
Quote'Assured unacceptable damage': Russian TV accidentally leaks secret 'nuclear torpedo' design
The Kremlin has confirmed "some secret data" was accidentally leaked when Russian TV stations broadcast material apparently showing blueprints from a nuclear torpedo, designed to be used against enemy coastal installations.
During President Vladimir Putin's meeting with military officials in Sochi, where the development of Russia's military capabilities were being discussed, a number of TV crews were able to capture footage of a paper that was certainly not meant for public viewing.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTh5MMOWIAAPg5W.jpg:large)
The presentation slide titled "Ocean Multipurpose System: Status-6" showed some drawings of a new nuclear submarine weapons system. It is apparently designed to bypass NATO radars and any existing missile defense systems, while also causing heavy damage to "important economic facilities" along the enemy's coastal regions.
The footnote to the slide stated that Status-6 is intended to cause "assured unacceptable damage" to an adversary force. Its detonation "in the area of the enemy coast" would result in "extensive zones of radioactive contamination" that would ensure that the region would not be used for "military, economic, business or other activity" for a "long time."
According to the blurred information provided in the slide, the system represents a massive torpedo, designated as "self-propelled underwater vehicle," with a range of up to 10 thousand kilometers and capable of operating at a depth of up to 1,000 meters.
It remains unclear if such a system is indeed being developed or the slide was presented as just one of the options the Russian military could hypothetically offer. However, according to the leaked paper, the weapons system could be developed by the Rubin design bureau for marine engineering, and may potentially be delivered using nuclear-powered "Project 09852" and "Project 09851" submarines.
Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that major TV channels had leaked some classified data on Tuesday following the meeting in Sochi.
"It is true some secret data got into the shot, and it was subsequently deleted," Peskov said on Wednesday. "We hope that this won't happen again."
During Tuesday's meeting Putin stressed that Russia will counter NATO's US-led missile shield program through new "strike systems capable of penetrating any missile defenses."
"Over the past three years, companies of the military-industrial complex have created and successfully tested a number of prospective weapons systems that are capable of performing combat missions in a layered missile defense system," Putin said. "Such systems have already begun to enter the military this year. And now we are talking about development of new types of weapons."
Not sure this is a smart move? :unsure:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-limits-purchases-of-foreign-made-drugs/551479.html
QuoteRussia Limits Purchases of Foreign-Made Drugs
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has signed a decree limiting purchases of imported medicines, according to a document published on the government's website on Wednesday.
According to the authors of the document, the measure is aimed at the development of domestic production and will apply only to state purchases of imported medicines.
The new regulation, due to come into effect on Dec. 7, will affect 608 medicines included in Russia's Vital and Essential Drugs List, according to Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov, the TASS news agency reported Wednesday.
Two hundred and eighty-two of these medicines are currently being produced in Russia by two or more manufacturers, Manturov said.
No true Russian requires any drug other than Vodka. :P
Russia sends law to decriminalise domestic violence to the Duma just in case you didn't already think they were complete arseholes.
http://politsovet.ru/50602-zakon-o-dekriminalizacii-bytovyh-poboev-vnesen-v-gosdumu.html
International courts matter little to Russia.
http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-constitutional-court-verdicts/27428191.html
QuoteRussian Law Allows High Court To Reject International Court Verdicts
Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law that will allow the country's Constitutional Court to decide whether to enforce verdicts against Moscow that are made by interstate courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights.
Putin signed the law -- which was recently passed by the State Duma and the Federation Council -- on December 15.
The law states that Russia's Constitutional Court should be guided by the principle of "the supremacy and the supreme legal force of the Russian Constitution" when determining if Russia, Russians, or Russian entities should comply with a judgment made by an international court.
The law is seen as a response to the Russian government's having lost several high-profile cases brought against it at international courts.
The new legislation also establishes the order and the procedure for processing an inquiry to the court.
The law grants the Russian president and government the right to submit such inquiries on international court verdicts to Russia's Constitutional Court.
I sorta don't blame 'em for that one.
Putin is holding his annual press conference and it's suitably evasive. Instead of answering questions about corruption by government officials he tells a joke about a fur coat. Almost Gogolesque.
Quote from: Liep on December 17, 2015, 05:22:28 AM
Putin is holding his annual press conference and it's suitably evasive. Instead of answering questions about corruption by government officials he tells a joke about a fur coat. Almost Gogolesque.
Didn't he tell a story like that last year?
Quote from: Syt on December 17, 2015, 05:24:18 AM
Quote from: Liep on December 17, 2015, 05:22:28 AM
Putin is holding his annual press conference and it's suitably evasive. Instead of answering questions about corruption by government officials he tells a joke about a fur coat. Almost Gogolesque.
Didn't he tell a story like that last year?
Wouldn't surprise me. :D
Putin also said that Blatter deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
Quote from: Liep on December 17, 2015, 06:00:19 AM
Putin also said that Blatter deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
True. Blatter isn't Bush.
Quote from: Liep on December 17, 2015, 05:22:28 AM
Putin is holding his annual press conference and it's suitably evasive. Instead of answering questions about corruption by government officials he tells a joke about a fur coat. Almost Gogolesque.
Is that a fur coat he acquired by himself by wrestling down a huge brown bear in the forest? ;)
Quote from: KRonn on December 17, 2015, 01:15:08 PM
Quote from: Liep on December 17, 2015, 05:22:28 AM
Putin is holding his annual press conference and it's suitably evasive. Instead of answering questions about corruption by government officials he tells a joke about a fur coat. Almost Gogolesque.
Is that a fur coat he acquired by himself by wrestling down a huge brown bear in the forest? ;)
It was the fur from this unfortunate ... Rabbit. ;)
The KGB, the FBI and the CIA are all trying to prove they are the best at catching criminals. The Secretary General of the UN decides to set them a test. He releases a rabbit into a forest, and each of them has to catch it. The CIA people go in. They place animal informants throughout the forest. They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of extensive investigations, they conclude that the rabbit does not exist. The FBI goes in. After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and make no apologies: the rabbit had it coming. The KGB goes in. They come out two hours later with a badly beaten bear. The bear is yelling: "Okay! Okay! I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!"
:lol: Malthus!
Quote from: Liep on December 17, 2015, 06:00:19 AM
Putin also said that Blatter deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
He's right.
No one has done more to bring Americans and Europeans together. He actually got Europeans expressing thanks over US extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 17, 2015, 07:03:58 PM
Quote from: Liep on December 17, 2015, 06:00:19 AM
Putin also said that Blatter deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
He's right.
No one has done more to bring Americans and Europeans together. He actually got Europeans expressing thanks over US extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction.
True. :D
Quote from: Syt on November 12, 2015, 03:17:44 AM
"Accidentally" :rolleyes:
https://www.rt.com/news/321640-leaked-russian-nuclear-torpedo/ (https://www.rt.com/news/321640-leaked-russian-nuclear-torpedo/)
Quote'Assured unacceptable damage': Russian TV accidentally leaks secret 'nuclear torpedo' design
The Kremlin has confirmed "some secret data" was accidentally leaked when Russian TV stations broadcast material apparently showing blueprints from a nuclear torpedo, designed to be used against enemy coastal installations.
During President Vladimir Putin's meeting with military officials in Sochi, where the development of Russia's military capabilities were being discussed, a number of TV crews were able to capture footage of a paper that was certainly not meant for public viewing.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTh5MMOWIAAPg5W.jpg:large)
The presentation slide titled "Ocean Multipurpose System: Status-6" showed some drawings of a new nuclear submarine weapons system. It is apparently designed to bypass NATO radars and any existing missile defense systems, while also causing heavy damage to "important economic facilities" along the enemy's coastal regions.
The footnote to the slide stated that Status-6 is intended to cause "assured unacceptable damage" to an adversary force. Its detonation "in the area of the enemy coast" would result in "extensive zones of radioactive contamination" that would ensure that the region would not be used for "military, economic, business or other activity" for a "long time."
According to the blurred information provided in the slide, the system represents a massive torpedo, designated as "self-propelled underwater vehicle," with a range of up to 10 thousand kilometers and capable of operating at a depth of up to 1,000 meters.
It remains unclear if such a system is indeed being developed or the slide was presented as just one of the options the Russian military could hypothetically offer. However, according to the leaked paper, the weapons system could be developed by the Rubin design bureau for marine engineering, and may potentially be delivered using nuclear-powered "Project 09852" and "Project 09851" submarines.
Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that major TV channels had leaked some classified data on Tuesday following the meeting in Sochi.
"It is true some secret data got into the shot, and it was subsequently deleted," Peskov said on Wednesday. "We hope that this won't happen again."
During Tuesday's meeting Putin stressed that Russia will counter NATO's US-led missile shield program through new "strike systems capable of penetrating any missile defenses."
"Over the past three years, companies of the military-industrial complex have created and successfully tested a number of prospective weapons systems that are capable of performing combat missions in a layered missile defense system," Putin said. "Such systems have already begun to enter the military this year. And now we are talking about development of new types of weapons."
A torpedo that isn't picked up on Radar isn't that big a deal.
https://www.rt.com/politics/329817-justice-ministry-comes-up-with/
QuoteJustice Ministry defines 'political activity' to amend 'Foreign Agents Law'
Russian Justice Ministry has developed an amendment with a definition of 'political activity', in order to apply the recently-introduced law obliging all politically-oriented NGOs receiving sponsorship from abroad to register as foreign agents.
The fresh bill, published on the government website on Friday, defines political activity as any work in the sphere of nation-building, federal and municipal politics, defense, foreign policy, securing of Russia's sovereignty and also anything dealing with human and civil rights and freedoms.
READ MORE: Putin agrees to corrections of 'Foreign Agents Law', blasts NGOs servicing foreign interests
The bill elaborates that political activities can take the form of public events, such as gatherings, meetings and rallies and also in public debates and discussions as well as in combinations of these forms. Any participation in elections, polls and referendums, including the monitoring of these events is also listed as a political activity.
The Justice Ministry experts also included in the list any distribution of information containing assessments of authorities of any level and their policies, especially if such assessments are made in order to change the existing laws. This includes public addresses and open letters to various officials and instances.
If passed, the amendment would help to form distinct and exhaustive criteria defining the political activities and contribute to uniformity of legal practice throughout the country, the experts wrote in the explanatory note accompanying the bill.
The bill was prepared after in October last year after President Vladimir Putin ordered his administration to take measures aimed at defining political activities in Russia. Putin also personally promised Human Rights activists that the controversial law on foreign agents would be amended.
"The definition of political activity must not be vague, it must not be expandable, and there must be only one way to understand it. And in any case we should not fit anything that is not welcomed by representatives of the authorities or Justice Ministry or anyone else under this definition," Putin told the members of the Presidential Council for Human Rights.
READ MORE: Putin promises amendments to controversial 'foreign agents law'
The president made a similar statement when he talked to members of the Russian Public Chamber in June. Then, he admitted the possibility of amendments to the Foreign Agents Law, but added that in general the law is fit for purpose.
The Russian Foreign Agents Law introduced in late 2012 orders all NGOs that receive funding from abroad (even those partially engaged in political activities), to register as foreign agents or risk substantial fines.
The sponsors of the act and top Russian officials including President Putin have repeatedly emphasized that its main purpose was providing better information for voters, and that it would eventually benefit democracy.
That's silly. The 3 NGOs I seldomly collaborate with would fall under that definition; and all they do is care for the poor, but part of their activity is writing assessments and policy recommendations to local and regional authorities. It's part of what NGOs do.
Quote from: celedhring on January 25, 2016, 09:12:39 AM
That's silly. The 3 NGOs I seldomly collaborate with would fall under that definition; and all they do is care for the poor, but part of their activity is writing assessments and policy recommendations to local and regional authorities. It's part of what NGOs do.
I have a weird feeling that this law will seldom be enforced, it is just a way for the authorities to go after specific NGOs they do not like. Russia has a history of those sorts of laws.
Quote from: celedhring on January 25, 2016, 09:12:39 AM
That's silly. The 3 NGOs I seldomly collaborate with would fall under that definition; and all they do is care for the poor, but part of their activity is writing assessments and policy recommendations to local and regional authorities. It's part of what NGOs do.
ie. they reveal the true conditions in the country. TERRORISM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/01/ramzan-kadyrov-video-opposition-mikhail-kasyanov-rifle-sights
They really don't do subtle over there. :o
Instagram decides that even Chechens war lords can't send death threats via its services.
http://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/articles/2016/02/01/626355-instagram
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russias-official-unemployment-figure-hits-1-million/557945.html
QuoteRussia's Official Unemployment Figure Hits 1 Million
The number of officially registered unemployed people in Russia has grown by 3.4 percent over the past week, and now exceeds 1 million citizens, the TASS news agency reported Monday, citing the Labour Ministry's press service.
Growth in the number of unemployed citizens has been registered in 82 Russian regions between Jan. 20 and 27, while three regions saw a decline in the unemployment rate, the news agency reported.
The regions with the steepest rise in unemployment detected over the past week include Crimea, Altai, Tuva and Bashkortostan.
So Russia has a bit more than twice as many officially unemployed as Austria does. At ca. 17 times the population. Seems legit. :)
Quote from: Syt on February 02, 2016, 03:11:44 AM
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russias-official-unemployment-figure-hits-1-million/557945.html
QuoteRussia's Official Unemployment Figure Hits 1 Million
The number of officially registered unemployed people in Russia has grown by 3.4 percent over the past week, and now exceeds 1 million citizens, the TASS news agency reported Monday, citing the Labour Ministry's press service.
Growth in the number of unemployed citizens has been registered in 82 Russian regions between Jan. 20 and 27, while three regions saw a decline in the unemployment rate, the news agency reported.
The regions with the steepest rise in unemployment detected over the past week include Crimea, Altai, Tuva and Bashkortostan.
So Russia has a bit more than twice as many officially unemployed as Austria does. At ca. 17 times the population. Seems legit. :)
In Russia, drinking vodka officially counts as "employment". :)
Quote from: Syt on February 02, 2016, 03:11:44 AM
So Russia has a bit more than twice as many officially unemployed as Austria does. At ca. 17 times the population. Seems legit. :)
They have a strong leader. :hmm:
If you're convicted of forced Labour in Siberia you're no longer unemployed :ph34r:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/02/07/russia-having-success-in-hybrid-war-against-germany/
QuoteRussia having success in hybrid war against Germany
The attack came in the form of a Saturday evening newscast from Moscow. It would take days before the German government realized what was happening, but by that time the damage was already done. Germany's sizable Russian-speaking community –made up of migrants from the former Soviet Union — was up in arms about a report that refugees from the Middle East had gang-raped a 13-year-old Russian girl in Berlin — and that the local police was covering up the crime.
Until recently, Germany had largely been spared the wrath of Russia's state propaganda machine. Germans, in their eagerness to be conscientious world citizens and reliable business partners, were seen in the Kremlin as allies to coddle and co-opt. That view changed abruptly in 2014, when Angela Merkel led the drive for European Union sanctions to punish Russia for its war against Ukraine. Now, as the German chancellor flounders domestically because of her open-door refugee policy, she has made herself vulnerable to attack. "I've never seen so much glee from the Russians as during Germany's refugee crisis," said a diplomat in Berlin.
On Jan. 16, Russia's state-run Channel One led the 9 o'clock evening news with a shocking report from Berlin. "Evidence has emerged that migrants in Germany have started raping children," presenter Yekaterina Andreyeva said in the intro. That evidence came in the form of testimony by the "Aunt Marina" of a teenage girl, identified as Lisa, who claimed she had been abducted on her way to school and raped by migrants for more than a day. More proof that Germany is going to hell in a hand basket was a blurry video of a supposed recent arrival who bragged about raping a "virgin" with five other men. (Germany's Bild newspaper later reported that the video had appeared on YouTube more than six years ago.)
Lisa's relatives told Channel One that the police was refusing to find the perpetrators. The Berlin police was unavailable for comment over the weekend. Frightened neighbors, mostly members of the Russian diaspora in Germany, gathered for a "spontaneous" protest in the Marzahn district in eastern Berlin, Channel One reported. One woman tearfully recounted how her 14-year-old child was terrified of passing a refugee shelter on the way to school. It later turned out that the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party had organized the protest.
Coming just weeks after widespread sexual assaults by migrants in Cologne on New Year's Eve, Lisa's story was incendiary — and spread like wildfire through social media. The Berlin police finally addressed the case in a press release posted on Facebook. While the girl had indeed been reported as missing, the police said, she had not been abducted or raped.
Yet to those who believe that German authorities have lost control over the country, the police statement sounded like a cover-up. The following weekend, Russian speakers held rallies across Germany. In Berlin, 700 protesters, backed by the anti-Islam movement PEGIDA, gathered in front of the Federal Chancery holding smiley-face balloons with their mouths taped over and signs reading "Our children are in danger."
What should have been a case for family counselors and detectives blew up into a diplomatic scandal. As Lisa holds both German and Russian citizenship, the Kremlin entered the fray. In late January the Russian embassy in Berlin sent an "aggressive" protest note to the German Foreign Office demanding a full investigation, according to Der Spiegel. Then Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov brought up "our girl Lisa" in his annual press conference in Moscow. "I really hope that the migration problems won't lead to an attempt to whitewash reality with political correctness for domestic political reasons," Lavrov said. "That wouldn't be right."
The German government could no longer ignore that it was the target of a full-on propaganda attack, including very public trolling by the Russian foreign minister. Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, denounced the "political instrumentalization" of the case. Even Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany's foreign minister who never tires of "dialogue" with the Kremlin, lost his patience, saying there was no justification for using a 13-year-old girl for "political propaganda."
In the meantime, the Berlin police were getting to the bottom of what happened to Lisa in the 30 hours she had gone missing. Her accounts of the supposed kidnapping were contradictory, and a medical examination showed that she had been neither raped nor beaten. The trail finally led to the apartment of a 19-year-old German acquaintance, where Lisa had temporarily hidden from her parents because of problems at school. What confused the story was the discovery by investigators that long before her disappearance, the girl had in fact had sexual contact with two men, both of Turkish origin, and neither a refugee. State prosecutors have since opened an investigation into child molestation.
The truth doesn't matter, because it's already mission accomplished for the Kremlin. By mentioning the case of Lisa publicly, Lavrov pulled off a common trick in Russia's self-declared "information war" against its enemies: a government official picks up on a report in state media, leading to its legitimation and further dissemination. Fake news is essentially laundered and enters the public consciousness as fact.
Two years ago, it was hard for people in the West to imagine how Russian state media used half-truths and blatant lies to distort the pro-EU Maidan protest in Kiev into a fascist conspiracy. When Ukraine's president, Viktor Yanukovych, fled to Russia and a provisional government took power, the Kremlin news channels spread reports of armed gangs of Ukrainian nationalists terrorizing Russian speakers in southeastern Ukraine. Having been inculcated for months about the threat of Ukrainian revanchism, large parts of the Russian-speaking population were genuinely scared — and supported an intervention by Russia on their behalf. Viewers at home and abroad had been well primed for the coming conflict. The news was fake; the fear was real.
As shown on Russian state TV, the hysteria among Germany's Russian speakers toward refugees was identical to the panic of Ukraine's Russian speakers about fascist gangs. The main message of the inflammatory reports from Berlin was that Merkel was finished, Germany was on the decline, and Western liberal democracies were undoing themselves via foolhardy multiculturalism and misplaced tolerance.
It's no small irony that the principal actors in this apocalyptic view of Europe's refugee crisis are former migrants themselves. After reunification in 1990, Germany opened its borders to migrants from the former Soviet Union: more than 2 million ethnic Germans and some 215,000 Jews, according to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. Integration into German society was not always successful, however, and much of the older generation still gets its news from Russia thanks to satellite channels and the Internet.
For TV viewers in Russia, the plight of Russian speakers in Germany — allegedly victimized by refugees and ignored by the police — fits into the larger narrative of "compatriots" in neighboring countries who are subjected to discrimination and violence. Half a million of these "Russian Germans" are ready to move back to Russia because of the flood of refugees, state news agency RIA Novosti reported last week, citing the leader of an obscure Russian immigrant party in Germany.
Stoking outrage in Germany's Russian-speaking community is not an end in itself, but a means to exploiting cracks in German society exposed by the refugee crisis. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who served as a KGB agent in Soviet-occupied East Germany and speaks fluent German, believes that Berlin and Moscow can form a strategic axis based on Russian natural resources and German technology. Merkel, in her insistence that Russia do more to bring peace to Ukraine, is getting in the way.
In March 2014, Putin appealed directly to Germans for their support, drawing parallels between the annexation of Crimea and German reunification. Winning over German public opinion became a priority, and state media holding Rossiya Segodnya ("Russia Today") opened a German channel, RT Deutsch, later that year. The Kremlin was exploiting a growing distrust among Germans toward traditional news outlets, expressed in the far-right PEGIDA protests. A poll conducted in October found that 44 percent of Germans agreed with PEGIDA that mainstream media distorted the news to suit the elites.
Propaganda was only one element in the so-called "hybrid warfare" that Russia directed against Ukraine. Long before the Kremlin deployed "little green men" — Russian troops without insignia — to Crimea, it had used other non-military measures such as playing pipeline politics, buying politicians, and backing fringe parties with radical agendas. Those same measures are being used in Germany and other European countries.
Contrarians on the left and right are enthusiastic about the support from Moscow.
Alexej Dankwardt, a Leipzig city councilman, was kicked out of the Left Party caucus last month after writing on Facebook that he wished Merkel would be toppled in a "German Maidan" and forced to "sprint half-naked to save herself from the angry masses." Dankwardt, who represents Lisa and her family as a lawyer, has become a frequent commentator on Russian state TV.
In a November 2014 meeting with Alexander Gauland, one of the founders of the far-right Alternative for Germany, Russian diplomats offered "strategic advice" to the upstart, euroskeptic party. Last March, Udo Voigt, a leader of the National Democratic Party, attended a gathering of European rightwing extremist parties in St. Petersburg.
The standard Kremlin response to charges that it's waging a hybrid war against Europe is that Russia is simply defending itself against similar methods employed by Western powers. In a speech to Russia's Academy of Military Sciences in January 2013, Chief-of-Staff Valery Gerasimov complained that Russian knowledge of asymmetric warfare was "superficial." The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the United States in particular, had demonstrated their mastery of non-military campaigns in the Arab Spring and Ukraine's pro-Western Orange Revolution in 2004, Gerasimov said.
Such modesty is disingenuous. Disinformation and subversion as weapons of war are as old as catapults and cavalry. The Kremlin's advantage in the information age is that all of Russia's major media outlets are under its control, allowing it to hammer its audience with one, unified message. The Kremlin claim that it's in an "information war" with the West implies that there is vast conspiracy among myriad media in the United States and Europe, public and private, to produce the same lies about Russia.
In fact, Western diplomats are at a loss about how to counter the effects of Kremlin propaganda on Russian speakers in EU countries. In March, the European Union established the East StratCom Task Force "to address Russia's ongoing disinformation campaigns." Despite its important-sounding name, the bureaucratic unit has no budget, 10 employees, and barely 4,000 Twitter followers.
A year ago, Germany's domestic intelligence service warned that Russia was widening its espionage activity in Europe with the goal of destabilizing its neighbors and influencing decision-makers. A cyber-attack on the main server of the German parliament last spring has since been traced back to Russian military intelligence, Der Spiegel reported, quoting a high-ranking security official. There have reportedly been similar attacks on other NATO states and German arms companies.
A legion of useful idiots is ready to do the Kremlin's bidding. Horst Seehofer, the head of Merkel's Bavarian sister party the Christian Social Union, has been haranguing the chancellor for months to tighten her refugee policy. On Wednesday, Seehofer met Putin outside Moscow, where the Bavarian premier expressed his hope that sanctions against Russia would soon be lifted.
Afterwards, Seehofer told journalists it was "classy" of Putin to say he wouldn't meddle in Germany's refugee policy. Meanwhile, the Rossiya TV channel trumpeted the "commotion" that the visit had caused back in Berlin.
Russian "USO" in Latakia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2mMbNMpw8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2mMbNMpw8)
Quote from: citizen k on February 08, 2016, 06:51:42 PM
Russian "USO" in Latakia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2mMbNMpw8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2mMbNMpw8)
They look really bored. I'm sure that's what the soldiers really wanted to see, a guy in a big hat sing, men and women in ties dancing, and the guy from Wheel of Fortune.
Needs more scantily-clad cheerleaders.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2016, 12:26:21 PM
Needs more scantily-clad cheerleaders.
What do 20 year old soldiers want to watch? Maybe a guy singing opera and some dudes preforming ballet? No wonder they lost the cold war.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2016, 04:56:50 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2016, 12:26:21 PM
Needs more scantily-clad cheerleaders.
What do 20 year old soldiers want to watch? Maybe a guy singing opera and some dudes preforming ballet? No wonder they lost the cold war.
Based on the data from another thread...anal pr0n.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 08:47:51 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 08, 2016, 06:51:42 PM
Russian "USO" in Latakia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2mMbNMpw8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2mMbNMpw8)
They look really bored. I'm sure that's what the soldiers really wanted to see, a guy in a big hat sing, men and women in ties dancing, and the guy from Wheel of Fortune.
Russians value culture very highly. They entertain you with stuff that should entertain you, not stuff that will entertain you.
Quote from: DGuller on February 09, 2016, 08:57:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 08:47:51 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 08, 2016, 06:51:42 PM
Russian "USO" in Latakia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2mMbNMpw8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2mMbNMpw8)
They look really bored. I'm sure that's what the soldiers really wanted to see, a guy in a big hat sing, men and women in ties dancing, and the guy from Wheel of Fortune.
Russians value culture very highly. They entertain you with stuff that should entertain you, not stuff that will entertain you.
Also that clip is from RT, who's to say the entertainment didn't change when they turned the cameras off.
Quote from: Liep on February 10, 2016, 04:42:37 AM
Also that clip is from RT, who's to say the entertainment didn't change when they turned the cameras off.
:yes: They probably had a wine tasting event afterwards.
"God, I hope the entertainment ends soon. Then I can get back to filling out lost equipment forms".
Quote from: DGuller on February 09, 2016, 08:57:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2016, 08:47:51 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 08, 2016, 06:51:42 PM
Russian "USO" in Latakia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2mMbNMpw8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2mMbNMpw8)
They look really bored. I'm sure that's what the soldiers really wanted to see, a guy in a big hat sing, men and women in ties dancing, and the guy from Wheel of Fortune.
Russians value culture very highly. They entertain you with stuff that should entertain you, not stuff that will entertain you.
Soo much better than Ann-Margret and Bob Hope. :yes:
:o
http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-kadyrov-time-step-down-chechnya/27577524.html
QuoteKadyrov Says He's Ready To Step Down
Kremlin-backed Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has said he is ready to resign.
In an interview with the Kremlin-allied NTV television, Kadyrov said "my time has passed."
Kadyrov's current term of office is due to end in early April.
"There are lots of successors on our team. We've got very good specialists," Kadyrov added in the interview that aired on February 27, first in Russia's Far East.
The announcement comes on the one-year anniversary of the killing of Kremlin critic Boris Nemtsov.
Many in the opposition accuse Kadyrov of playing a role in Nemtsov's murder.
"Nemtsov did not bother me at all, in fact. That's because he is not my level," Kadyrov told NTV.
"The nation's leadership needs to find another person so that my name isn't used against my people," Kadyrov added.
The five suspects arrested for the crime all have ties to Chechnya and the North Caucasus.
"I know that, after the killing of Boris Nemtsov, the relationships between the federal government and Chechnya's leadership have worsened considerably," Dmitry Gudkov, one of only a handful of opposition lawmakers left in the State Duma, told RFE/RL's Russian Service on February 27.
"This explains Ramzan Kadyrov's recent hysteria toward the opposition," Gudkov added.
Earlier this week, opposition leader Ilya Yashin released a report accusing Kadyrov of involvement in Nemtsov's killing and demanding his resignation.
Kadyrov was nominated for the Chechen presidency by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2007 and approved almost without any objections by the Chechen parliament.
Putin has relied on Kadyrov to stabilize Chechnya after two separatist wars, making him effectively immune from federal controls.
Ivan Grozny stepped down as well. Then boyars, fearful that there will be no one to arbitrarily execute them, begged for him to come back, on the condition that he'll execute plenty of them and often. Maybe that's Kadyrov's plan as well?
Maybe he feels like getting out with his loot while the getting is good.
Probably wants to devote more time to his instagram account.
I think he was told by Putin that he is getting too uppity and due to his good services 'til now, is given the choice to leave with dignity, and outside of a coffin.
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2016, 04:27:56 AM
I think he was told by Putin that he is getting too uppity and due to his good services 'til now, is given the choice to leave with dignity, and outside of a coffin.
Eastern European conspiracy theorizing at its finest. :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on February 27, 2016, 06:03:54 PM
Ivan Grozny stepped down as well. Then boyars, fearful that there will be no one to arbitrarily execute them, begged for him to come back, on the condition that he'll execute plenty of them and often. Maybe that's Kadyrov's plan as well?
My thoughts exactly! :o
Trump to look at recognizing Crimea as Russian territory, lifting sanctions
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-crimea-sanctions-russia-226292
:yuk:
But see, Hillary's worse.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 27, 2016, 03:02:52 PM
Trump to look at recognizing Crimea as Russian territory, lifting sanctions
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-crimea-sanctions-russia-226292
Not a good position to take, but that being said...I think everyone knows that Ukraine is never going to get Crimea back short of WW3. Eventually we'll all accept the status quo anyway, even if we might not admit it.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 27, 2016, 07:43:38 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 27, 2016, 03:02:52 PM
Trump to look at recognizing Crimea as Russian territory, lifting sanctions
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-crimea-sanctions-russia-226292
Not a good position to take, but that being said...I think everyone knows that Ukraine is never going to get Crimea back short of WW3. Eventually we'll all accept the status quo anyway, even if we might not admit it.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep making Russia pay the price, in the interest of prevention if nothing else.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2016, 08:00:23 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 27, 2016, 07:43:38 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 27, 2016, 03:02:52 PM
Trump to look at recognizing Crimea as Russian territory, lifting sanctions
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-crimea-sanctions-russia-226292
Not a good position to take, but that being said...I think everyone knows that Ukraine is never going to get Crimea back short of WW3. Eventually we'll all accept the status quo anyway, even if we might not admit it.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep making Russia pay the price, in the interest of prevention if nothing else.
I don't disagree.
Odd timing of this comment, coming right after the rumors of Putin hacking the DNC and bailing out the Donald start to circulate.
Certainly makes the case of the missing tax return more interesting, doesn't it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2016, 08:11:56 PM
Certainly makes the case of the missing tax return more interesting, doesn't it?
They're not missing; he knows exactly where they are. And they are still none of your business. Manafort said today they are not going to be released.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 27, 2016, 07:43:38 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 27, 2016, 03:02:52 PM
Trump to look at recognizing Crimea as Russian territory, lifting sanctions
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-crimea-sanctions-russia-226292
Not a good position to take, but that being said...I think everyone knows that Ukraine is never going to get Crimea back short of WW3. Eventually we'll all accept the status quo anyway, even if we might not admit it.
Practically speaking, we should probably cut a deal with Russia to get rid of the sanctions. The longer we wait, the more enthusiasm for the sanctions will wane in other countries, and the sanctions regime will start breaking down. This is probably the point we can extract maximum concessions from Russia. However, Trump doesn't seem poised to attempt to extract maximum concessions.
Save it, Cossack.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 27, 2016, 08:40:07 PM
Practically speaking, we should probably cut a deal with Russia to get rid of the sanctions. The longer we wait, the more enthusiasm for the sanctions will wane in other countries, and the sanctions regime will start breaking down. This is probably the point we can extract maximum concessions from Russia. However, Trump doesn't seem poised to attempt to extract maximum concessions.
Obama hinted at a deal when this Ukraine thing first started: eventual recognition of Crimea as part of Putinstan in exchange for ending involvement in the Donbas. But the bad guys didn't bite.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2016, 08:11:56 PM
Odd timing of this comment, coming right after the rumors of Putin hacking the DNC and bailing out the Donald start to circulate.
Certainly makes the case of the missing tax return more interesting, doesn't it?
2016 just gets weirder and weirder.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2016, 08:44:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 27, 2016, 08:40:07 PM
Practically speaking, we should probably cut a deal with Russia to get rid of the sanctions. The longer we wait, the more enthusiasm for the sanctions will wane in other countries, and the sanctions regime will start breaking down. This is probably the point we can extract maximum concessions from Russia. However, Trump doesn't seem poised to attempt to extract maximum concessions.
Obama hinted at a deal when this Ukraine thing first started: eventual recognition of Crimea as part of Putinstan in exchange for ending involvement in the Donbas. But the bad guys didn't bite.
Their economy is so fucked. I don't know what exactly we want from them, to stop dicking around in Syria, natural gas concessions to Europe, a free hand in Iran...they should be willing to come to the table.
Ukraine means a lot to Russians and Putin now in particular--concessions on that topic may be tougher to extract.
This might be big. Ivanov was a possible presidential candidate instead of Medvedev and might have even become an alternative to Putin.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37058751
QuoteRussia's Putin sacks chief of staff Sergei Ivanov
Russian President Vladimir Putin has unexpectedly dismissed his chief of staff Sergei Ivanov.
Mr Ivanov has been part of Mr Putin's trusted inner circle for many years.
The 63-year-old has now been made a special representative for environmental and transport issues.
A statement from the Kremlin said that Mr Putin had "decreed to relieve Ivanov of his duties as head of the Russian presidential administration", but gave no reason.
Mr Ivanov's deputy since 2012, Anton Vaino, has been appointed as his successor.
Mr Vaino, 44, is a former diplomat.
Born in the Estonian capital Tallinn in 1972, he graduated from the prestigious Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) and served in the Tokyo embassy. Later he managed presidential protocol and government staff, the Kremlin website says (in Russian).
On being appointed, he told Mr Putin: "Thank you for your trust. I think the administration's most important task is to support your activity as head of state in terms of drafting laws and control over how your instructions are implemented."
Mr Putin told a Russian TV station on Friday that Mr Ivanov had asked to leave the post, and recommended that Mr Vaino should replace him.
This is a move that has mystified Moscow. Sergei Ivanov has long been one of Vladimir Putin's closest allies and, like him, served in the Soviet security service, the KGB.
As chief of staff he was one of the most powerful men in the country. In a meeting with President Putin shown on state television both men claimed that the chief of staff was stepping down at his own request.
But despite the smiles for the cameras, few here are convinced - especially now, just before parliamentary elections.
So is this the fall-out from some kind of power struggle? No-one knows yet. But the official claim - that a man once touted as a potential president, suddenly wanted to run Russia's environmental policy - has been met with great scepticism.
Putin's inner circle
In remarks to Mr Putin, quoted on the Kremlin website, Mr Ivanov said "it's true that in early 2012 I asked you, in a conversation, to entrust me with this very complicated post, even - you could say - troublesome post, for four years.
"Well, it turns out that I've been presidential chief of staff for four years and eight months."
Secret service ties
Mr Ivanov took up the post in December 2011. He served previously as a deputy prime minister and defence minister.
He is a member of the Russian Security Council and a former member of the KGB state security service, like Mr Putin.
In the late 1990s, when Mr Putin was head of the Federal Security Service (FSB), which replaced the KGB, Mr Ivanov was appointed as his deputy. When Mr Putin came to power, he named Mr Ivanov as one of the five people he trusted most.
It was once thought that Mr Ivanov might become president of Russia after Mr Putin's second term, as a third term for Mr Putin would have been unconstitutional.
But that post was taken by another close Putin ally, Dmitry Medvedev. Mr Putin became prime minister, before returning to the presidency just three-and-a-half years later.
Dead within 18 months.
https://www.rt.com/politics/358296-internet-in-russia-is-freer/
QuoteInternet in Russia freer than in US, claims top Kremlin official
The deputy head of the presidential administration, Vyacheslav Volodin, has said that Russia has more internet freedom than the United States, where people receive prison sentences for online comments about President Barack Obama.
Volodin was giving a press conference in the central Russian city of Tambov, where a local reporter asked him to comment on the possibility of introducing a rule that would require social networks to obtain ID from their users "so that people could know who is on the other side of the internet." The official replied that unlike many countries, Russia has chosen self-regulation on the internet and he saw no need to change this.
"Now we are capable of solving various issues through self-regulation and a ban on distribution of information about illegal drugs, suicide and extremism. Society has a need for this."
READ MORE: State Duma ponders tighter controls on internet news aggregators
He also noted that Russia had more internet freedom than other nations, in particular the United States.
"Take a look at the legal practice. Have you ever heard about the legal proceedings initiated by [Russian] civil servants and senior officials against ordinary internet users over even the most harsh statements made on the internet?" Volodin asked journalists.
A woman in the audience answered that a man had once attempted to sue her for dissemination of discrediting materials about him on the internet, but failed as police and prosecutors refused to recognize her material as unlawful. "You can see that prosecutors protect you. And if you take a look at the US statistics, even over the past six months, you will see that several people there received prison sentences between 12 and 18 months for their posts about President Obama," Volodin told journalists.
"Ask yourselves – who has more democracy – us or them?" he concluded.
The official did not specify which legal cases he was talking about, but this could be the arrest of John Martin Roos – a 61-year-old Wisconsin man who was detained in April this year for threatening the US president on social media. Police also found weapons and several pipe bombs as they searched Roos' home. He has not yet been sentenced. In 2013, Donte Jamar Sims from Florida was sentenced to six months in prison plus one year of supervised release for making threats to President Obama over Twitter.
READ MORE: Man jailed for threatening Obama on Twitter
In August 2014, Russia introduced a law requiring all blogs with 3,000 daily readers or more to follow many of the rules that exist in conventional mass media, such as tougher controls on published information and a ban on the use of explicit language. The restrictions include the requirement to verify information before publishing it and to abstain from releasing reports containing slander, hate speech, calls for extremism or other banned information such as advice on suicide.
In July this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a package of anti-terrorist amendments that allow automatic blocking of websites for promoting extremism and terrorism and require all communications companies, including internet providers, to retain information about their clients' data traffic for three years and to hand it over to the authorities on demand (one year for messengers and social networks). Providers also must keep records of phone calls, messages and transferred files for six months.
Such a non-sequitor. I guess just saying the US sucks excuses basically everything.
'We are going to shoot all 10 year olds. But it's ok because the US sucks.'
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2016, 09:40:12 AM
Such a non-sequitor. I guess just saying the US sucks excuses basically everything.
'We are going to shoot all 10 year olds. But it's ok because the US sucks.'
Apparently, North Korea passed a law banning saying things like that, because is was so often said ironically there. :D
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2016, 09:40:12 AM
Such a non-sequitor. I guess just saying the US sucks excuses basically everything.
'We are going to shoot all 10 year olds. But it's ok because the US sucks.'
That's been Soviet playbook since forever. It was called "but in US they lynch negroes" argument (which is ironic because most Russians will make most American vitriolic racists go "uh, dude, that's really racist"). Arguments like these are one of the more reliable ways to identify a kremlinbot in the comments section (though it gets more difficult as probably legit alt-righters have started using these types of arguments themselves).
Speaking of Soviet playbook: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-37352326. Must be a nice feeling for a non-Russian athlete to realize they're up against FSB. I wonder when FSB will start spiking American athletes' food with dope just before drug tests.
Antisemite cossack sluts.
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2016, 08:23:50 PM
Speaking of Soviet playbook: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-37352326. Must be a nice feeling for a non-Russian athlete to realize they're up against FSB. I wonder when FSB will start spiking American athletes' food with dope just before drug tests.
And two black athletes at that. Hilariously Russian.
In the end this might actually work against them. Once people realize how much of this internet 'FIGHT TEH POWAH' stuff is driven by the Russians it will discredit it to many who would otherwise be receptive.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 08:30:41 AM
In the end this might actually work against them. Once people realize how much of this internet 'FIGHT TEH POWAH' stuff is driven by the Russians it will discredit it to many who would otherwise be receptive.
Meh, it didn't help much in the Cold War when it was the Soviets funding "FIGHT TEH POWAH" groups.
Quote from: celedhring on September 14, 2016, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 08:30:41 AM
In the end this might actually work against them. Once people realize how much of this internet 'FIGHT TEH POWAH' stuff is driven by the Russians it will discredit it to many who would otherwise be receptive.
Meh, it didn't help much in the 60s when it was the Soviets funding "FIGHT TEH POWAH" groups.
Really? Because I think it did.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 08:35:52 AM
Quote from: celedhring on September 14, 2016, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 08:30:41 AM
In the end this might actually work against them. Once people realize how much of this internet 'FIGHT TEH POWAH' stuff is driven by the Russians it will discredit it to many who would otherwise be receptive.
Meh, it didn't help much in the 60s when it was the Soviets funding "FIGHT TEH POWAH" groups.
Really? Because I think it did.
I don't think it did... I think it was more the Soviet Union itself collapsing than anything else.
Surely the masses will rise against this tyranny.
https://meduza.io/en/news/2016/09/14/russia-bans-porhhub
Quote from: Liep on September 14, 2016, 11:20:42 AM
Surely the masses will rise against this tyranny.
https://meduza.io/en/news/2016/09/14/russia-bans-porhhub
nah, it'll be replaced by porndasha, the true russian alternative
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 14, 2016, 12:41:51 PM
Quote from: Liep on September 14, 2016, 11:20:42 AM
Surely the masses will rise against this tyranny.
https://meduza.io/en/news/2016/09/14/russia-bans-porhhub
nah, it'll be replaced by porndasha, the true russian alternative
Conveniently owned by a Putin associate.
State sponsored porn? Damn. That really is a totalitarian regime.
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 12:45:46 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 14, 2016, 12:41:51 PM
Quote from: Liep on September 14, 2016, 11:20:42 AM
Surely the masses will rise against this tyranny.
https://meduza.io/en/news/2016/09/14/russia-bans-porhhub
nah, it'll be replaced by porndasha, the true russian alternative
Conveniently owned by a Putin associate.
edit:
heh, I read that as "conveniently showing Putin's asshole", which would also work as propaganda... :yucky:
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 12:48:41 PM
State sponsored porn? Damn. That really is a totalitarian regime.
It's already been done against some opposition figures.
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/dont-ask-dont-tell-whats-next-for-russian-pollster-the-levada-center-55337
QuoteOne Answer Too Many: The Fall of Russia's Only Independent Pollster Levada
Russia's only independent pollster might have given one too many answers.
There's a knock on the door. "'Hello! I'm a foreign agent. Can I ask you a question?" the person on the other end says.
Six months ago, Lev Gudkov could still smile during an interview with The Moscow Times at the thought of the average Russian's reaction to such an introduction from a pollster at his door.
Since then the mood at the independent Levada Center has soured. On Sept. 5, the Justice Ministry included Levada on its "foreign agents" registry after finding the NGO was engaged in "political activity" and receiving funding from abroad. It came on the doorstep of a parliamentary vote and right after Levada published an 8-percent drop in ruling party's United Russia's rating.
The decision was a long time coming. The pollster first received a warning from prosecutors in 2013. Still, its current predicament is "a trial" and has an air of finality, says Natalya Zorkaya, head of sociopolitical research at the Levada Center, the strain visible on her face during a meeting at its headquarters in central Moscow.
In the short term, the Levada Center will have to identify itself in surveys and publications as a "foreign agent," a Soviet-era term with connotations of espionage. In the long term, the pollster says, it will likely be forced to halt its work completely as it struggles with government audits, an absence of funding and stigma.
The Levada Center can contest the label in court, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov hastened to tell media. But the pollster's troubles are a telling reflection of the change in atmosphere since its inception.
Ask Gudkov, who has run the pollster since Levada's death in 2006, about the perestroika period and his eyes begin to twinkle.
As Russians began to question their government and their predicament under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s, a group of pollsters led by Yury Levada, the godfather of Russian sociology, began to question them as well.
"There had been no interest in opinion polling before," says Gudkov. "'Why would you study what people watch? They watch what we show them!' That was the attitude in Soviet times," he says, in a reference to Sergei Lapin, chairman of the Soviet committee for television and radio.
When in 1989, the sociologists at the All-Russian Public Opinion Center (VTsIOM) including Levada and Gudkov, asked citizens to respond to a long list of questions, they expected several hundred replies at most. Instead, employees at the local post office could barely move among the stacks of the roughly 200,000 letters they received. "It was the first time people were asked what they thought, so they approached it like a referendum," says Gudkov.
Ironically, the Levada Center was born out of a standoff with the very regime that is now pushing it toward closure. When Vladimir Putin came to power, Yury Levada's team continued to document public opinion on sensitive topics, such as the wars in the republic of Chechnya — credited with allowing Putin to strengthen his hold over the country in his early days in the Kremlin — and support for United Russia.
For the Kremlin, the lack of control over potentially opinion-shaping research was worrying. A staff reshuffle at VTsIOM followed in 2003, with the Kremlin looking to appoint more pliable board members. Levada resented the interference and set up his own private pollster, which since then has grown into the most authoritative voice on Russian public opinion.
Given the lack of other feedback mechanisms, such as fair elections and the possibility of protesting without repercussions, some argue Levada Center polls are the only reliable mechanism to gauge what Russians are really thinking.
While its results mostly coincide with those of the two major state-run pollsters, the All-Russian Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) and VTsIOM, "we don't have a monthly get-together with the Kremlin," says Gudkov.
Levada has many enemies, however — and they don't just reside in the Kremlin.
For years, it has published figures showing widespread support for Putin, including his famous sky-high approval rating and many of his most controversial policies. A study in 2015, for example, showed most Russians thought gay people should be "liquidated" or "ostracized" from society — not exactly the answer progressives are hoping for.
According to Gudkov, some of the Levada's harshest critics are the liberal opposition who argue the numbers are skewed.
"They don't want to accept that a large mass of people, poor and provincial, support an authoritative regime," he says. "But it means they're effectively saying: I only rely on polls that agree with my point of view."
"It's exactly what our respondents [who support Putin] say, too," he adds.
In the current political atmosphere of antagonism between those who support the Kremlin and those who oppose it, "Sociology has become the main object of suspicion: in the press, at seminars, by politicians," he says.
For Gudkov, it's not about the numbers, but about their interpretation. His polls have steadfastly shown overwhelming support for Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, for example. "In focus groups, respondents say: 'We showed the world our teeth, we finally started respecting ourselves,'" he explains. "These people are poor, they suffered hugely after the fall of the Soviet Union. All of Putin's demagoguery plays into this."
It is interpretations such as these that have made the Justice Ministry classify Levada's work as "political activity," at the request of the ultrapatriotic anti-Maidan movement.
In a report published online, the ministry cited several of Gudkov's statements, including one made in a lecture in July 2016 in which he described Russia as "a closed authoritarian system, where the state leans on law enforcement, special forces, oligarchs, state officials and bureaucracy and represents their interests."
The pollster has had support from unexpected corners. Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov has called its blacklisting "complete nonsense." The Russian Association for Market and Opinion Research (OIROM) also published a letter contesting the classification of sociological research as "political."
"Data from sociological research only reflects objectively existing societal-political views and the beliefs of the country's citizens, but doesn't shape them," it said in an online letter, asking the Justice Ministry to review its decision. The letter was also signed by VTsIOM and FOM.
But the support is ambiguous. "Insofar as we are colleagues in the same profession of collecting and presenting data, I feel solidarity," says Alexander Oslon, head of FOM. "But it's not our job to be political publicists. There are people who make boots [pollsters], people who wear them [consumers] and analysts who decide when you can wear them," he adds.
Even if Levada dials down its tone, its future looks gloomy. Already, some regional authorities have stopped working with the pollster, Gudkov says. And after such publicity the stigma of the "foreign agent" label will be difficult to shake, making respondents wary of answering truthfully or answering at all.
Meanwhile, the pollster will be forced to sever ties with all foreign partners, including educational institutions, such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which, because it received funding from the Pentagon was classified by the Justice Ministry as representing the interests of a foreign government.
"We're caught in a trap," says Zorkaya. Meanwhile, having polled Russians for decades, she expects Levada's troubles will largely go unnoticed.
"Most Russians will have no idea this happened," she says. "But among those who do, a majority will support it or feel completely indifferent."
Very secret, except for that camera in the ceiling. :P
Nisjnij Novgorod:
https://twitter.com/gniloywest/status/777516576526442496
Rostov:
https://twitter.com/Gulay_Pole/status/777480191094513665
28.6% turnout in Moscow for the Duma election one hour before closing time. With a lack any real opposition I guess the biggest statement you can make is to not vote.
Quote from: Liep on September 18, 2016, 12:14:26 PM
28.6% turnout in Moscow for the Duma election one hour before closing time. With a lack any real opposition I guess the biggest statement you can make is to not vote.
Also, the duma doesn't really have a lot of power, and I'd also think at this point United Russia won't be allowed to lose. If they ever lose power, everyone goes down.
Exit polls had Putin's party at 46% official results gives them about 54% and for that they get 76% of the seats in the Duma. Also, the KGB is born again.
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/in-major-police-reforms-the-kremlin-is-reportedly-bringing-back-the-kgb-55384
Might end up naming it MGB. :zombiestalin:
Quote from: Liep on September 19, 2016, 01:38:20 AM
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/in-major-police-reforms-the-kremlin-is-reportedly-bringing-back-the-kgb-55384
QuoteThe Investigative Committee might even return to the structure of the Prosecutor General's Office, from which it broke away and became independent in 2011. This would signal a major demotion for the committee's leading personnel, many of whom are now under arrest or rumored to be resigning.
Pretty sure a demotion is the least of their troubles at this point... :hmm:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/03/putin-scraps-deal-to-dispose-of-bomb-grade-plutonium-in-swipe-at/
Russia cancels disarmament deal, but will bring it back if US agrees to scrap the Magnitsky Act, cancel all sanctions and compensate any loss Russia has suffered during the sanctions. Sounds reasonable.
A couple of Russian Tu-160s flew a patrol through the Western European coast yesterday, reaching the Bay of Biscay.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fep01.epimg.net%2Finternacional%2Fimagenes%2F2016%2F10%2F04%2Factualidad%2F1475594995_374518_1475603597_sumario_normal_recorte1.jpg&hash=c3af43eebf5976bc5d62faceb4f335ea478626fe)
What does "poner rumbo" mean?
Quote from: celedhring on October 04, 2016, 06:59:58 PM
A couple of Russian Tu-160s flew a patrol through the Western European coast yesterday, reaching the Bay of Biscay.
....
Apparently it was last month.
Yeah, it says it right there in the graph, but for some reason it surfaced two days ago (at least in the Spanish press) and I mixed it up.
So Russians are bombing Aleppo, Kerry directly accused them of war crimes with UN security council resolution vote coming up tomorrow, and Russian planes just violated Finnish and Estonian airspace. Shit is really flying towards the fan here.
Quote from: Solmyr on October 07, 2016, 05:46:41 PM
So Russians are bombing Aleppo, Kerry directly accused them of war crimes with UN security council resolution vote coming up tomorrow, and Russian planes just violated Finnish and Estonian airspace. Shit is really flying towards the fan here.
Winter War part deux.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F66.media.tumblr.com%2F22202859aaa06fb1dff6d03b79b137ea%2Ftumblr_mgx49jEmRy1r3fd4to1_500.jpg&hash=a556e961305bced1e00968f88ed0bf4833ae1874)
Seems like Russia wants to create some facts before the U.S. election.
https://www.rt.com/news/362209-russian-permanent-naval-facility-tartus/
QuoteRussia plans permanent naval facility in Syrian port of Tartus – MoD
The Russian military plans to expand its supply base in Syria into a fully-fledged permanent naval base. The Russian facility in Tartus has long been used to resupply Russian warships during Mediterranean Sea missions.
"We are going to have a permanent Navy base in Tartus. We have prepared the paperwork, which is now being reviewed by other government agencies. The documents are pretty much ready, so we hope to submit them to you for ratification soon," General Nikolay Pankov, deputy defense minister responsible for communication with other parts of the Russian government, told the Federation Council, Russia's senate.
The Tartus facility has been in place since 1977. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it was used to resupply and repair Russian warships deployed to missions in the Mediterranean Sea, but did not serve as a permanent base for any of them.
Last week Russia confirmed delivery of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system to Tartus to protect the port facility and mooring warships from potential airstrikes and missile attacks.
The delivery came amid media reports that the Pentagon planned a massive cruise missile attack on Syrian airfields, which would dismantle Damascus' aerial capabilities.
The US accuses Syria and Russia of perpetrating war crimes in Syria over the offensive operation against militant forces in eastern Aleppo. Russia says the operation followed US failure to deliver on its promise to separate the so-called moderate rebels form terrorist forces in Aleppo and that Washington is playing the blame game to draw attention away from its failures.
This comes on the heels of the decision to have a permanent air force presence in Syria. Also, Russia recently deployed Iskander missiles with nuclear capability and a range of 500 km to the Kaliningrad region "as part of a drill."
Good. I hope they have dozens and dozens of military bases in the middle east. If they take over the region and it works, well I call that a win. If they fail, and they are about 99% likely to do so, then Russia just blew tons of money and resources it does not have and cannot spare on a disaster.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2016, 07:27:38 AM
Good. I hope they have dozens and dozens of military bases in the middle east. If they take over the region and it works, well I call that a win. If they fail, and they are about 99% likely to do so, then Russia just blew tons of money and resources it does not have and cannot spare on a disaster.
Yeah, I'm pretty much of the same opinion.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/25/2d/3a/252d3aece2c2e0a80f8db92bb22e5a0e.jpg)
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2016, 07:27:38 AM
Good. I hope they have dozens and dozens of military bases in the middle east. If they take over the region and it works, well I call that a win. If they fail, and they are about 99% likely to do so, then Russia just blew tons of money and resources it does not have and cannot spare on a disaster.
Then you'll be happy to hear they consider re-opening bases in Cuba and Vietnam, too. :P
Quote from: Syt on October 10, 2016, 07:58:39 AM
Then you'll be happy to hear they consider re-opening bases in Cuba and Vietnam, too. :P
Just because I applaud this move does not mean I am eager for them to do other things.
Why would Cuba or Vietnam want those bases? They seem to be fine on their own.
I think it was more a case of Russians thinking aloud rather than official consultations taking place. :P
https://www.rt.com/politics/362339-russia-tests-war-time-state/
QuoteNew wartime state management system gives full power to Russian military – report
A recent military exercise in southern Russia saw the first real-time test of the state management system that allows the Defense Ministry to assume direct control over municipal and regional authorities, police, state security and emergency services.
"In the course of the strategic war games Caucasus-2016, the Defense Ministry has for the first time tried how a military district command can directly manage the regions of the Russian Federation," popular daily Izvestia quoted an unnamed high-placed military source as saying.
"Exercising the interaction with state power bodies was one of the main objectives of the war games. In general it went well, but we also encountered some problems and presently we are preparing some legislative proposals that would correct the revealed drawbacks," the source added.
READ MORE: High alert: Russia tests army's readiness in massive snap exercise in west & south
In particular, the military wants to switch completely from the previous scheme, under which in times of war all regional authorities and federal ministries worked on their own dedicated tasks and the Defense Ministry only had a coordinating role.
The new rules of wartime administration would give all administrative powers to the military, which would issue direct commands to regional authorities, law enforcers, rescuers and the National Guard.
Russia currently has five military districts that comprise the Defense Ministry's territory division units. In times of war, the command of each of these districts will be divided into two parts – the Operative Strategic Command and the Wartime Military District. The former will be in charge of military operations and the latter will control the draft, logistics and execution of all special regime measures, such as maintaining public order and the increased security of strategic installations and communications.
The new system was tested in southern Russia's Stavropol Region, Ingushetia and Crimea.
Military sources also told reporters that all the proposed changes are in line with the 2016-2020 Plan of Defense signed by President Vladimir Putin in November 2015.
READ MORE: 40 million Russians involved in annual 4-day defense drills
Earlier this month, Russia conducted major civil defense training involving 40 million people nationwide. A total of 200,000 rescue professionals and 50,000 vehicles took part in the exercise, which lasted four days. According to the Emergencies Ministry, the drill was meant to test coordination between federal, regional and local authorities, the feasibility of contingency plans for emergencies, the state of civil defense infrastructure such as shelters and emergency supply stockpiles, and other aspects of the system. However, this year's exercise was not exceptional in terms of scale – the drill in 2013 involved over 60 million people.
They had a racoon festival in St. Petersburg because it has apparently gained popularity as a house pet. This guy's arms seem to prove my immediate thought that it's not a good idea.
(https://themoscowtimes.com/static/uploads/publications/2016/10/10/f18a34ad736c469a9ec33baac10c8dd9.jpg)
Quote from: Liep on October 12, 2016, 08:22:11 AM
They had a racoon festival in St. Petersburg because it has apparently gained popularity as a house pet. This guy's arms seem to prove my immediate thought that it's not a good idea.
There is a whole family of those "potential house pets" living under my neighbor's porch. :D
Personally, I would never attempt to make a pet out of something that has hands. :hmm:
https://www.rt.com/politics/373430-duma-orders-all-staff-report/
QuoteDuma orders staff to report on all data they disclose on internet
Employees of the lower house of the Russian parliament have been ordered to submit a detailed report on all publicly accessible information they have posted on the internet. Some civil servants say the order is vague and excessive.
Russian business daily Kommersant reported on Thursday that the document requiring all staff to report on their internet activities was published on the State Duma intranet earlier this month.
The report is to be submitted as a signed form detailing the "addresses of websites... on which the civil servants posted any publicly accessible information about themselves, as well as any data that would help to identify them."
The form must include, among other things, their name, date of issue of their passport, and the position they hold.
The State Duma internal instruction is based on a government order issued at the end of 2016. This order requires all civil servants to report their internet activities in 2016 by April 1.
It also states that starting from 2017, anyone who applies for a job in a state agency must provide information about his or her internet activities for over three years prior to the date of application.
The bill does not contain any universal rules for all civil servants, but it does order human resource departments of various state agencies to develop their own rules and to brief their employees on them. Those who violate the social network code can be fired "due to the loss of trust" – which would bar future state employment.
Several unnamed sources in the Duma told Kommersant that the new requirements were extremely difficult to meet, as the order requires reporting on every post made in social networks, and other internet activities, which can be difficult or next to impossible to remember. They also said that they were already overburdened with reporting following the introduction of a law requiring them to report all income and spending.
So, who here would be able to outline all websites where they posted anything that can be linked to them in the last 36 months? :D
Also, imagine having to disclose all your spendings to your employer. :ph34r:
Okay, we all know Russia is a garbage country, but wtf?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/07/putin-approves-change-to-law-decriminalising-domestic-violence
QuotePutin approves change to law decriminalising domestic violence
Critics say amendment sends wrong message in country where one woman dies every 40 minutes from domestic abuse
Vladimir Putin has signed into law a controversial amendment that decriminalises domestic violence.
The amendment, which sailed through both houses of Russian parliament before Tuesday's presidential signing, has elicited anger from critics who say that it sends the wrong message in a country where one woman dies every 40 minutes from domestic abuse.
From now on, beatings of spouses or children that result in bruising or bleeding but not broken bones are punishable by 15 days in prison or a fine, if they do not happen more than once a year. Previously, they carried a maximum jail sentence of two years.
Alena Popova, an activist who has campaigned against the law, said it would be fine to pass the amendments if a draft law specifically aimed at tackling domestic violence was passed at the same time. But that law, which provides for restraining orders and other safeguards in domestic abuse cases, is stalled in parliament and is not expected to be passed.
"Passing these amendments and not passing the other law is another sign that our society refuses to take this problem seriously," she said.
Defenders of the law say it closes a nonsensical loophole by which violent acts committed by family members are punished more harshly than those committed by strangers.
"The question is not whether it's OK to hit or not. Of course it isn't. The question is how to punish people and what you should punish them for," said Olga Batalina, one of the MPs who drafted the law.
Others claim the law is about protecting Russian traditions according to which the family is sacred. Priest Dmitry Smirnov, head of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchy's commission on family matters, said on a television programme that the idea the state should be able to poke its nose into family affairs was a western imposition on Russia. "Some of the things happening in northern Europe now are such that even Hitler couldn't have dreamed them up," he said.
Some of the mainstream discussion around gender and domestic violence in Russia can be shocking.
An article last week in the science section of the popular tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda cheerfully told readers about an "advantage" of wife-beating. It said: "Recent scientific studies show the wives of angry men have a reason to be proud of their bruises. Biologists say that beaten-up women have a valuable advantage: they more often give birth to boys!"
Popova said that during her one-woman protest outside parliament, various people had insulted her. Some had claimed she was paid to protest by western governments, while others told her that some women simply deserved to be beaten, she said.
Discussion of the bill in parliament coincided with the women's marches in Washington DC and around the world in the aftermath of Donald Trump's inauguration as president, provoking a broader discussion about the problem of domestic violence and the role of women in contemporary Russia.
In Moscow, there was no official march organised, partly due to lack of interest, and partly because of the difficulty in gaining permission to march from the Russian authorities. A planned demonstration against the domestic violence amendments has been repeatedly stymied by authorities.
Margarita Grigoryan, a Moscow-born businesswoman who grew up in London but moved backed recently to open a business, organised a short walk around the Russian capital. About 15 people took part. "I was depressed that someone so overtly misogynistic could get into the White House, and especially being in this country, I felt I wanted to protest, but there was nothing at all organised here," she said.
Political analyst Maria Lipman said the situation around gender roles in Russia was paradoxical. "The Soviet period saw gender equality from above, so some of the rights that women in the west fought for were granted or even imposed on Russian women," said Lipman.
"This meant that the way gender relations developed was different, and Russian women never had to fight for their rights. Now on the one hand we have huge problems with unequal pay, with no women in politics, with domestic abuse, but on the other hand there are more top [female] editors of leading media outlets than in the United States, and there are many top women bankers, for example."
Nearly 300,000 people signed a petition organised by Popova to protest against the amendments, and a recent online campaign also attempted to bring the domestic abuse problem out into the open. Using the hashtag #Iamnotscaredtospeak, thousands of Russian women shared their stories of sexual harassment, violence and rape on social media. The tidal wave of terrible stories shocked many Russians, and prompted something of a discussion. But there is a major disparity between the attitudes of Russia's urban middle class, and the situation in the regions.
"There is a big constituency in Russia for whom interference in family affairs can be portrayed as another issue in which the west is trying to impose its views on Russia," said Lipman.
Maria Alekhina, of the Pussy Riot protest group, said the legal amendments were a red herring, and it was Russian society and attitudes as a whole that needed to change to help alleviate the domestic abuse situation.
Alekhina spent nearly two years in prison for carrying out a "punk prayer" in Moscow's main cathedral in 2012, and said between a quarter and a third of the women she met in jail were there for attacking abusive husbands: "They were usually women who had been beaten up for years, and there was nowhere for them to go. We have no social help and no psychological help available. So one day they just pick up a knife and kill their husbands."
Domestic Violence: "Because the make-up sex brings couples closer"
Russia leads the way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2017, 07:35:44 PM
Domestic Violence: "Because the make-up sex brings couples closer"
And baby boys.
To be fair to Russia, beating wives is much more culturally accepted there, so it made less sense to have draconian criminal penalties against it.
Russia sounds evil. Is this true?
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 08, 2017, 09:20:59 AM
Russia sounds evil. Is this true?
Depends on how you define evil. If evil is pervasive cynicism in everything, then yes, Russia is a pretty evil country.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2017, 09:22:30 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 08, 2017, 09:20:59 AM
Russia sounds evil. Is this true?
Depends on how you define evil. If evil is pervasive cynicism in everything, then yes, Russia is a pretty evil country.
That isn't what he asked.
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 08, 2017, 09:20:59 AM
Russia sounds evil. Is this true?
yes, it definitely sounds evil.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2017, 08:56:20 AM
To be fair to Russia, beating wives is much more culturally accepted there, so it made less sense to have draconian criminal penalties against it.
So since even the new amendment has a clause specifying domestic violence won't be decriminalised if it happens more than once per year, it won't change much actually? :hmm:
QuoteFrom now on, beatings of spouses or children that result in bruising or bleeding but not broken bones are punishable by 15 days in prison or a fine, if they do not happen more than once a year. Previously, they carried a maximum jail sentence of two years.
:( Did I miss some reference?
QuoteRussia suspected over hacking attack on Italian foreign ministry
Exclusive: Italian government official says no classified emails were compromised in attack believed to have lasted more than four months last year
Russia is suspected by Italian officials of being behind a sustained hacking attack against the Italian foreign ministry last year that compromised email communications and lasted for many months before it was detected, according to people familiar with the matter.
An Italian government official confirmed that the attack took place last spring and lasted for more than four months but did not infiltrate an encrypted system used for classified communications.
Paolo Gentiloni, the Italian prime minister who was serving as foreign minister at the time, was not affected by the hack, according to the official, who said Gentiloni avoided using email while he was foreign minister.
The foreign ministry's "field offices", including embassies and staff members who report back to Rome about meetings with foreign officials, were affected by the malware attack. But the government official said sensitive information had not been compromised because it would also have been encrypted.
The official did not confirm that Moscow was behind the attack. But two other people with knowledge of the attack said the Russian state was believed to have been behind it. The hacking is now the subject of an inquiry by the chief prosecutor in Rome.
"There were no attacks on the encrypted level. So the information – delicate, sensitive information – that is usually shared in this net, which is restricted by code, has never been attacked or part of this attack," the government official said.
The person said that after the attack was discovered, the foreign ministry modified its online "architecture" and introduced new instruments to enhance internal security. The official declined to comment on how the intrusion was detected.
The revelation comes amid heightened concerns that Russia has targeted Nato members, including the US, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Bulgaria, as part of a cyber campaign that seeks to weaken the governments of those countries and disrupt critical infrastructure.
In the US, intelligence agencies have blamed Russian government-sponsored hacking groups for breaching the Democratic National Committee and officials in Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2016 presidential elections, in part to try to help Donald Trump win the White House.
People who discussed the matter with the Guardian on condition of anonymity said they believed the attack against the foreign ministry was an attempt to gain insight into decision-making within the Italian government.
If Russia did attack Italy, it was targeting a country generally considered less hostile to it than other EU countries such as Germany or the UK. While Italy has supported sanctions against Russia that were imposed following the annexation of Crimea, the government under former prime minister Matteo Renzi strongly opposed a proposal to levy new sanctions against Moscow for its role in the Syrian conflict.
News of the hacking could stoke concerns that Russia may seek to influence the next Italian election, which could be called as early as June. In an interview with the Guardian late last year, a foreign diplomat in Rome questioned whether the current centre-left government, which will face a tough re-election challenge, had prepared itself for possible interference by Russia.
The government's main opposition, the anti-establishment Five Star Movement, has adopted pro-Russian positions on topics ranging from Vladimir Putin's military intervention in Syria, to his invasion of Ukraine, to a call for Italy to lift sanctions against Russia and reassess its commitment to Nato.
Raffaele Marchetti, a political scientist and cybersecurity expert at LUISS University in Rome, said Italy had stepped up its attention to security recently and that he had been encouraged by the appointment of Marco Minniti as interior minister because of Minniti's expertise on the cyber issue.
"But of course much more needs to be done and implemented," Marchetti said.
Italy's vulnerability to cyber-attacks was exposed earlier this year following the arrest of a brother-sister hacking duo who were accused of trying to illegally gain access to the email accounts of Renzi when he was prime minister, as well as several other prominent Italian politicians and business executives.
Giulio Occhionero and his sister Francesca Maria, who was born in the US and is an American citizen, maintained servers in the US that were seized by the FBI as part of the investigation.
The servers are due to be sent to Italy and officials have said the extent of the pair's alleged crimes will only be known once the servers are examined. While they are not believed to have gained access to Renzi's email account, there is deep suspicion within the security community in Italy that the two were likely working with or on behalf of other foreign or domestic interests.
The two are still being held in jail. Their lawyers have denied the siblings committed any wrongdoing.
They stole the pasta recipies and the secret to that Sardinian maggot cheese. Which is maggots.
They were in danger of losing the moped helmet gap.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/opposition-leader-alexei-navalny-arrested-amid-protests-across-russia
QuoteOpposition leader Alexei Navalny detained amid protests across Russia
Crowds gather in major cities to protest against corruption in largest anti-government demonstrations for five years, with over a hundred detained
Police detained over a hundred people in Moscow and dozens in other Russian cities, as some of the biggest protests against the Kremlin in several years were held across the country on Sunday.
Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition leader and anti-corruption campaigner who had called for the protests, was detained in central Moscow.
He was bundled into a police bus, which was unable to drive away for several minutes as crowds set upon it and tried to free him. There were also isolated incidents of protesters clashing with riot police and shouting "Shame!" and "Russia will be free!"
The protests gathered crowds of hundreds or thousands in most big Russian cities, from the far east port of Vladivostok to the European heartland. Police in Moscow estimated that around 7,000 people attended though the real number may have been much higher. The crowds surged down the length of the capital's main thoroughfare, Tverskaya. Around 500 people were reported to have been detained by police in Moscow alone.
The protests appeared to be one of the largest coordinated outpourings of political resentment in Russia since the massive 2011–13 demonstrations that followed a fraud-tainted parliamentary election.
The protests on Sunday focused on reports by Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation claiming that the prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, had amassed a collection of mansions, yachts and vineyards. The alleged luxuries include a house for raising ducks, so many placards in Sunday's protests showed mocking images of yellow duck toys.
Navalny later posted on Twitter: "Hi, everything is fine with me. I'm at the police station and we're talking about the [Medvedev] film with the police. Keep up your peaceful walk, the weather is good."
In Vladivostok, police forcefully detained some demonstrators near the city's railway terminal, in one case falling down a small grassy slope as they wrestled with a detainee.
News reports and social media reported demonstrations in large cities throughout the country including Novosibirsk, Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk. At least 25 people were reported arrested in Vladivostok and 12 in Khabarovsk.
Some demonstrators showed up with their faces painted green, a reference to a recent attack on Navalny when an assailant threw a green antiseptic liquid on to his face.
The film mentioned is the one posted by Jakob in the other thread.
Seems like these days getting detained is about the best you can hope for if you are a Russian opposing Putin.
He is lucky he didn't slip and fall in front of a train.
Dude, you've got to have a real insecurity problem if you have to go after these weenies.
Russia Moves to Ban Jehovah's Witnesses as 'Extremist' (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/world/europe/russia-moves-to-ban-jehovahs-witnesses-as-extremist.html)
It's probably not the best idea to be walking around in Russia and calling yourself a witness.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/07/vladimir-putin-i-dont-have-bad-days-because-im-not-a-woman
QuoteVladimir Putin: I don't have bad days because I'm not a woman
...
When Stone asked the Russian president during a tour of the Kremlin if he ever had bad days, Putin said being a man meant he did not have to worry about this. "I am not a woman, so I don't have bad days. I am not trying to insult anyone. That's just the nature of things. There are certain natural cycles," Putin told the director, according to Bloomberg News, which has seen an advance version of the documentary.
...
Putin also used the interview to deny there was any persecution of gay people in Russia, despite a law against the "propaganda of homosexuality among minors" and recent reports of a "gay purge" in the Russian republic of Chechnya. But when asked whether he would be comfortable showering next to a gay man, he said no.
"I prefer not to go to the shower with him. Why provoke him? But you know, I'm a judo master," said Putin, laughing.
He is just working to endear himself to his alt-right fans.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/03/russia-makes-it-illegal-to-insult-officials-or-publish-fake-news/
QuoteVladimir Putin signs sweeping Internet-censorship bills
Publishing "unreliable socially significant information" can lead to big fines.
President Vladimir Putin has tightened his grip on the Russian Internet Monday, signing two censorship bills into law. One bans "fake news" while the other makes it illegal to insult public officials.
Russia has never really been a liberal democracy. It lacks an independent judiciary, and the government has found a variety of techniques to harass and intimidate independent media in the country.
But the new legislation gives the Russian government more direct tools to censor online speech. Analyst Maria Snegovaya told The Washington Post that the legislation "significantly expands the repressive power of Russia's repressive apparatus."
Under one bill, individuals can face fines and jail time if they publish material online that shows a "clear disrespect for society, the state, the official state symbols of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and bodies exercising state power."
Insults against Putin himself can be punished under the law, The Moscow Times reports. Punishments can be as high as 300,000 rubles ($4,700) and 15 days in jail.
A second bill subjects sites publishing "unreliable socially significant information" to fines as high as 1.5 million rubles ($23,000).
"Russia has not historically had major constraints on Internet freedom," analyst Matthew Rojansky told the Post. "The Internet has thus been one realm in which full diversity of opinion and free expression, even on the most sensitive political topics, were generally permitted."
Now, however, the Russian government has "essentially unconstrained authority to determine that any speech is unacceptable. One consequence may be to make it nearly impossible for individuals or groups to call for public protest activity against any action taken by the state."
The Russian government has steadily tightened its grip over the Russian Internet, The Moscow Times notes. "Tougher Internet laws introduced over the past five years require search engines to delete some search results, messaging services to share encryption keys with security services, and social networks to store users' personal data on servers within the country."
Pollster in Russia publishes a poll saying people's trust in in Putin is at 30%.
Kremlin criticizes the pollster.
Within 24 hours a new poll is published, saying public trust in Putin is at 72%.
:D
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-31/trust-in-putin-soars-after-kremlin-criticizes-state-pollster?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic
Hmm, if not "fake news", it is kind of misleading news (not as if polls are really news anyway).
The two polls are rather quite different...the first was an open "name the politician you trust" vs "do your trust Putin or not". For the open question, Putin lead any other by over 2 to 1, and the two runners up (and 4 of the top 5, those alas, the fifth is our good buddy Vladimir Zhironovsky) are major government figures.
The press release from the second poll even references the first's results (along with several other related poll questions).
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 31, 2019, 12:49:14 PM
Hmm, if not "fake news", it is kind of misleading news (not as if polls are really news anyway).
The two polls are rather quite different...the first was an open "name the politician you trust" vs "do your trust Putin or not". For the open question, Putin lead any other by over 2 to 1, and the two runners up (and 4 of the top 5, those alas, the fifth is our good buddy Vladimir Zhironovsky) are major government figures.
The press release from the second poll even references the first's results (along with several other related poll questions).
If it's as you describe, then it is fake news. I don't understand why people have a gradation of terms for trying to fool people, the goal is always one and the same.
Hmm, I think it's far more likely it is just lazy/sloppy reporting in lamely trying to sensationalize something that isn't sensational.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 01, 2019, 01:34:58 PM
Hmm, I think it's far more likely it is just lazy/sloppy reporting in lamely trying to sensationalize something that isn't sensational.
So lying and spreading fake stories is good so long as you are doing it for sensationalism or out of laziness?
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2019, 01:48:48 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 01, 2019, 01:34:58 PM
Hmm, I think it's far more likely it is just lazy/sloppy reporting in lamely trying to sensationalize something that isn't sensational.
So lying and spreading fake stories is good so long as you are doing it for sensationalism or out of laziness?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn0.sbnation.com%2Fimported_assets%2F1583495%2F2012599-le_sigh.jpg&hash=d85575bd2dd5eff61a4c40d4849682db7a8d9f09)
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 01, 2019, 01:34:58 PM
Hmm, I think it's far more likely it is just lazy/sloppy reporting in lamely trying to sensationalize something that isn't sensational.
Probably, plus lack of critical thinking skills. Anyone even remotely up to date on the state of affairs in Russia would at least give a double take on hearing that Putin is trusted by only 30% of Russians.
I was very tempted by the Putin busts for sale in Russia. :)
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 01, 2019, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2019, 01:48:48 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 01, 2019, 01:34:58 PM
Hmm, I think it's far more likely it is just lazy/sloppy reporting in lamely trying to sensationalize something that isn't sensational.
So lying and spreading fake stories is good so long as you are doing it for sensationalism or out of laziness?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn0.sbnation.com%2Fimported_assets%2F1583495%2F2012599-le_sigh.jpg&hash=d85575bd2dd5eff61a4c40d4849682db7a8d9f09)
I guess I don't get the distinction. You are still distorting things and it is still very destructive.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2019, 07:01:20 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 01, 2019, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2019, 01:48:48 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 01, 2019, 01:34:58 PM
Hmm, I think it's far more likely it is just lazy/sloppy reporting in lamely trying to sensationalize something that isn't sensational.
So lying and spreading fake stories is good so long as you are doing it for sensationalism or out of laziness?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn0.sbnation.com%2Fimported_assets%2F1583495%2F2012599-le_sigh.jpg&hash=d85575bd2dd5eff61a4c40d4849682db7a8d9f09)
I guess I don't get the distinction. You are still distorting things and it is still very destructive.
Of course. Tonitrus is not saying anything different though.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 01, 2019, 07:48:52 PM
Of course. Tonitrus is not saying anything different though.
I said I didn't understand what he was saying. So therefore I wouldn't know.
The exasperation is that I went from being the person pointing out the flaw in the article, to then being accused of saying it is "good" because I didn't categorize it zealously enough as "fake news" by suggesting it might be a bit more of a case of Hanlon's razor.
And, in fact, looking at the article again, it is probably not even that bad. The headline is bit on the sensational side, and while the two polls referenced are very different (which the article mentions, but perhaps doesn't stress adequately), but the true angle of the article appears to be that after the first, open-question poll showed Putin only hitting a 30% mark...which should not be a big deal in a poll of that nature, unless you're a vain autocrat...the Kremlin publicly criticized it and the polling organization quickly issued a new poll with the more narrow question in order to be able t present a higher number in favor of Putin.
So the article makes a very good point about a polling organization cow-towing to an autocrat, and then sabotages itself with a poor headline, and some not-well-thought out conclusions from the polls (that being that the first poll showed trust in Putin at a "13-year-low of around 30%").
USS Chancellorsville on the right, RFS Admiral Vinogradov on the left.
(https://i.redd.it/jqt1ta41cx231.jpg)
Quote
PHILIPPINE SEA (June 07, 2019) - At approximately 11:45 am on June 7, 2019 while operating in the Philippine Sea, a Russian destroyer (Udaloy I DD 572) made an unsafe maneuver against USS Chancellorsville (CG-62), closing to ~50-100 feet putting the safety of her crew and ship at risk.
While Chancellorsville was recovering its helicopter on a steady course and speed when the Russian ship DD572 maneuvered from behind and to the right of Chancellorsville accelerated and closed to an unsafe distance of ~50-100 feet. This unsafe action forced Chancellorsville to execute all engines back full and to maneuver to avoid collision.
We consider Russia's actions during this interaction as unsafe and unprofessional and not in accordance with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), "Rules of the Road," and internationally recognized maritime customs.
This from the US Navy youtube channel with more footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5D5H0nlw54&feature=youtu.be
I'm sorry, a YouTube clip of Russian hijinx that is more than a few seconds long and doesn't include mocking music or the word blyat? I call fake.
Russian warships are still rather good looking. When not rusting away, that is.
Quote from: Maladict on June 07, 2019, 11:58:11 AM
Russian warships are still rather good looking. When not rusting away, that is.
Always liked how messy their decks look, with all the missile tubes, several turrets, etc... spread around.
Russian stuff is generally ugly.
The Russians do beautiful hulls but are even uglier than Western ships when it comes to superstructure and topside stuff. Of course, they need twice as much topside stuff if they want to have anything that actually works.
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2019, 04:08:16 PM
Russian stuff is generally ugly.
They even manage to have their cities look completely ugly from space.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 08, 2019, 03:14:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2019, 04:08:16 PM
Russian stuff is generally ugly.
They even manage to have their cities look completely ugly from space.
:o Just like katmai!
"Russia is seeking to bolster its presence in at least 13 countries across Africa by building relations with existing rulers, striking military deals, and grooming a new generation of "leaders" and undercover "agents", leaked documents reveal."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/11/leaked-documents-reveal-russian-effort-to-exert-influence-in-africa (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/11/leaked-documents-reveal-russian-effort-to-exert-influence-in-africa)
How retro...
They can't just leave it all to China, after all.
Busy day for Moscow authorities. It'll be interesting to see what sort of protest/response there'll be next Saturday.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49125045
Navalny is apparently having an allergic reaction while in prison. I'm surprised he lasted this long.
Quote from: Maladict on July 28, 2019, 08:27:06 AM
Navalny is apparently having an allergic reaction while in prison. I'm surprised he lasted this long.
He might survive whatever it is he's having an allergic reaction to, hopefully. If they arrest 1000+ in a peaceful protest for a Moscow city election then what will happen if Navalny dies from apparent poisoning.
More arrests.
Quote from: Liep on July 28, 2019, 02:23:28 PM
Quote from: Maladict on July 28, 2019, 08:27:06 AM
Navalny is apparently having an allergic reaction while in prison. I'm surprised he lasted this long.
He might survive whatever it is he's having an allergic reaction to, hopefully. If they arrest 1000+ in a peaceful protest for a Moscow city election then what will happen if Navalny dies from apparent poisoning.
Who knows, maybe it was just a particularly pointy umbrella.
Quote from: PRC on June 07, 2019, 11:38:13 AM
USS Chancellorsville on the right, RFS Admiral Vinogradov on the left.
(https://i.redd.it/jqt1ta41cx231.jpg)
Quote
PHILIPPINE SEA (June 07, 2019) - At approximately 11:45 am on June 7, 2019 while operating in the Philippine Sea, a Russian destroyer (Udaloy I DD 572) made an unsafe maneuver against USS Chancellorsville (CG-62), closing to ~50-100 feet putting the safety of her crew and ship at risk.
While Chancellorsville was recovering its helicopter on a steady course and speed when the Russian ship DD572 maneuvered from behind and to the right of Chancellorsville accelerated and closed to an unsafe distance of ~50-100 feet. This unsafe action forced Chancellorsville to execute all engines back full and to maneuver to avoid collision.
We consider Russia's actions during this interaction as unsafe and unprofessional and not in accordance with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), "Rules of the Road," and internationally recognized maritime customs.
This from the US Navy youtube channel with more footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5D5H0nlw54&feature=youtu.be
Damn, but that was close. I first saw a video taken from the US ship and was a bit shocked how close the ships were, and surprised they didn't collide.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/20/europe/russia-navalny-hospitalized-intl-hnk/index.html
QuoteMoscow (CNN)Russian opposition leader and outspoken Kremlin critic Alexey Navalny was unconscious and on a ventilator in a Siberian hospital Thursday after falling ill from suspected poisoning, his spokesperson said.
Navalny, 44, started feeling unwell while on a return flight to Moscow from the Siberian city of Tomsk, his spokeswoman Kira Yarmysh, said on Twitter. The plane later made an urgent landing in Omsk, she added.
"We assume that Alexey was poisoned with something mixed into the tea. It was the only thing that he drank in the morning. Doctors say the toxin was absorbed faster through the hot liquid," said Yarmysh.
Navalny remains unconscious and is now connected to a ventilator, Yarmysh said.
Navalny has been admitted to the Omsk emergency hospital No. 1 and is in a "serious condition," hospital head physician Alexander Murakhovsky said, according to Russian state news agency TASS.
Russian state media RIA Novosti, citing hospital staff, reported that Navalny was in an emergency unit and that his condition was "serious, stable."
Preemptive strike at getting ideas watching news from Belarus I guess.
Navalny got poisoned again? It would be hilarious if it wasn't well, not hilarious.
Hopefully he doesn't accidentally fall out of a high-rise window soon. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2020, 10:57:48 AM
Hopefully he doesn't accidentally fall out of a high-rise window soon. :sleep:
Well, he is in a coma, so at least he's got that going for him.
Surprising absolutely nobody...
QuoteAlexei Navalny: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok
Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent, Germany's government says.
It said toxicology tests at a military laboratory showed ""unequivocal proof" of an agent from the Novichok group.
Mr Navalny was airlifted to Berlin for treatment after falling ill during a flight in Russia's Siberia region last month. He has been in a coma since.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2020, 11:23:53 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 20, 2020, 10:57:48 AM
Hopefully he doesn't accidentally fall out of a high-rise window soon. :sleep:
Well, he is in a coma, so at least he's got that going for him.
"Sleepwalking"
Quote from: The Larch on September 02, 2020, 10:01:58 AM
Surprising absolutely nobody...
QuoteAlexei Navalny: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok
Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent, Germany's government says.
It said toxicology tests at a military laboratory showed ""unequivocal proof" of an agent from the Novichok group.
Mr Navalny was airlifted to Berlin for treatment after falling ill during a flight in Russia's Siberia region last month. He has been in a coma since.
What's the probability of Trump being 'wheeled-out' to deny or cast doubt on that report?
Quote from: mongers on September 02, 2020, 07:33:23 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 02, 2020, 10:01:58 AM
Surprising absolutely nobody...
QuoteAlexei Navalny: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok
Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent, Germany's government says.
It said toxicology tests at a military laboratory showed ""unequivocal proof" of an agent from the Novichok group.
Mr Navalny was airlifted to Berlin for treatment after falling ill during a flight in Russia's Siberia region last month. He has been in a coma since.
What's the probability of Trump being 'wheeled-out' to deny or cast doubt on that report?
Zero.
Quote from: The Larch on September 02, 2020, 10:01:58 AM
Surprising absolutely nobody...
QuoteAlexei Navalny: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok
Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent, Germany's government says.
It said toxicology tests at a military laboratory showed ""unequivocal proof" of an agent from the Novichok group.
Mr Navalny was airlifted to Berlin for treatment after falling ill during a flight in Russia's Siberia region last month. He has been in a coma since.
Russia should not be blamed for Mr. Navalny's addictions. :mad:
:lol:
Half expect Corbyn to pop up and say we shouldn't rush to conclusions because we haven't asked the Russians if they poisoned Navalny yet.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 03, 2020, 04:29:49 AM
:lol:
Half expect Corbyn to pop up and say we shouldn't rush to conclusions because we haven't asked the Russians if they poisoned Navalny yet.
:(
That really was a low point in a very long history of lows.
Quote from: mongers on September 02, 2020, 07:33:23 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 02, 2020, 10:01:58 AM
Surprising absolutely nobody...
QuoteAlexei Navalny: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok
Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent, Germany's government says.
It said toxicology tests at a military laboratory showed ""unequivocal proof" of an agent from the Novichok group.
Mr Navalny was airlifted to Berlin for treatment after falling ill during a flight in Russia's Siberia region last month. He has been in a coma since.
What's the probability of Trump being 'wheeled-out' to deny or cast doubt on that report?
I am sorry Mongers I was wrong :D
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/05/donald-trump-casts-doubt-on-navalny-poisoning-saying-us-hasnt-had-any-proof
Quote from: Tamas on September 05, 2020, 12:46:56 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 02, 2020, 07:33:23 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 02, 2020, 10:01:58 AM
Surprising absolutely nobody...
QuoteAlexei Navalny: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok
Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent, Germany's government says.
It said toxicology tests at a military laboratory showed ""unequivocal proof" of an agent from the Novichok group.
Mr Navalny was airlifted to Berlin for treatment after falling ill during a flight in Russia's Siberia region last month. He has been in a coma since.
What's the probability of Trump being 'wheeled-out' to deny or cast doubt on that report?
I am sorry Mongers I was wrong :D
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/05/donald-trump-casts-doubt-on-navalny-poisoning-saying-us-hasnt-had-any-proof
:)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/05/russian-diplomat-found-dead-in-berlin-was-intelligence-officer-embassy-fsb
QuoteRussian diplomat found dead in Berlin was intelligence officer
German media identify man who apparently fell from window of Russian embassy as member of FSB
A Russian diplomat found dead near the country's embassy in Berlin last month was an undercover intelligence agent, German media have reported.
The news magazine Der Spiegel reported on Friday that police had recovered the body of a Russian diplomat who apparently fell from an embassy window, and that the man had been identified as a member of the Federal Security Service (FSB), Russia's main intelligence and law enforcement agency.
The death has not previously been reported. Der Spiegel said police had discovered the body near the embassy on 19 October and that emergency services were unable to resuscitate. The news outlet reported that German security sources were not sure of the cause of death and that the Russian embassy had not authorised an autopsy.
The embassy has declined to comment on the death of any of its staff. The German foreign ministry has confirmed the death of a Russian diplomat but said it cannot give more information.
The investigative news outlet Bellingcat, citing leaked databases, identified the intelligence agent as the son of a high-ranking FSB officer, a deputy director of the intelligence agency's Second Service, which has been accused of plotting overseas assassinations.
Those include the 2019 murder of Zelimkhan Khangoshvili. The former Chechen rebel commander, who was a Georgian citizen, was killed in Berlin's Kleiner Tiergarten. Other targets of the Second Service have included the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who almost died after a poisoning attack in 2020. Russia has denied it was behind both attacks.
According to Bellingcat, the diplomat arrived in Berlin two months before Khangoshvili's murder. There is no evidence linking the two events, the outlet reported. Before that posting, the diplomat was posted to Russia's mission to the United Nations in Vienna.
What is it with Russian assassinations and windows?
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2021, 05:01:59 AM
What is it with Russian assassinations and windows?
A window of opportunity for them
Or someone else? :secret:
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2021, 05:01:59 AM
What is it with Russian assassinations and windows?
Message plus plausible deniability. It's hard to ever rule out a suicide in any given case, but over many cases, everyone knows statistically what happens to people someone is displeased with.
So obviously this is all speculation, but if this guy was an FSB guy potentially involved in overseas assassinations as is implied... why did he get the treatment?
Factional in-fighting? Revenge from previous targets? Some other group giving the Russians a taste of their own medicine? He was double agent getting taken out? Tying up loose ends because he knew too much?
Because from the writeup, it seems he was more a "do unto others" kind of guy than a "being done to" guy in the Russian scheme of things.
OMG is DG OK?
Mi-5 wet job? :ph34r:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2021, 02:49:07 PM
Mi-5 wet job? :ph34r:
:lol: Just planning the murder trip.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/1200x675/p09jk185.jpg)
Also MI6 :contract: :P
I think you're wrong. Mi5 is counter intelligence, so they should handle wet jobs on UK soil.
The guy just had an accident. Don't know why it has to be foul play with you guys, just because Russian intelligence services are involved :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2021, 03:11:28 PM
I think you're wrong. Mi5 is counter intelligence, so they should handle wet jobs on UK soil.
Didn't he die in Berlin though? :hmm:
QuoteThe guy just had an accident. Don't know why it has to be foul play with you guys, just because Russian intelligence services are involved :P
Even aside from intelligence isn't there a really weirdly high number of Russian government figures who die in accidents? I swear I saw something about the number of generals who'd died accidentally recently
Oops. :Embarrass:
They probably died from natural causes. Like being a kulak or something.
Quote from: Jacob on November 06, 2021, 02:44:10 PM
Some other group giving the Russians a taste of their own medicine? He was double agent getting taken out? Tying up loose ends because he knew too much?
You can rule out the first, as it was done from an embassy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57733684
QuoteFrance in a fizz over Russia's champagne label law
France has hit back at a new Russian law ordering French champagne makers to label their bottles as sparkling wine.
France has strict rules protecting its bubbly, meaning to be called champagne it must be from the French region that shares the name.
But under Russia's new law, only local producers can call their drinks "shampanskoye" - the Russian equivalent of champagne.
France's main champagne industry group called the law "unacceptable".
Under the new legislation - signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday - foreign producers of sparkling wine are ordered to describe their products as such on the back of the bottle.
French producers are still allowed to use the word champagne on the front of bottles, but the use of "shampanskoye" is allowed only on local produce.
Moët Hennessy, France's most well-known champagne-maker, suspended deliveries to Russia over the weekend before adding the "sparkling wine" label on bottles it shipped there to comply with the law.
On Tuesday, French Agriculture Minister Julien Denormandie weighed in on the debate, insisting that only Champagne's vineyards can truly use the name.
"You can imagine the reaction of the French authorities," Mr Denormandie told Sud Radio.
"The word champagne comes from that beautiful region of France where champagne is produced," he said.
France produces around 231 million bottles of champagne a year. It makes around €2.5bn (£2.1bn; $2.9bn) from exports, with the UK and US the biggest customers.
Russia imports almost 50m litres of sparkling wine every year. French champagne represents 13% of this market and Moët Hennessy 2% of this.
French media have suggested Moscow's move could be part of an effort to revive the shampanskoye sparkling wine industry in its Soviet-era home of Crimea, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014.
Champagne is designated under France's Appellation d'Origine Controlee (AOC) system, which is supposed to give them exclusive use of the word in countries that follow EU laws on distinctive geographical indications.
Greek Feta, Italian Parmesan and British Stilton blue cheese are also protected by such rules.
:ph34r:
^_^
What's the big deal. French wines can still use the word champagne on the front of the bottle.
1. Russian consumers need to know what they are getting. Without this law anyone can put "shampanskoye" on a bottle and sell it.
2. Russia needs to protect its artisan producers and cultural heritage.
3. This is really Macron's fault. If he would have just let Le Pen win the issue would have been moot.
So, Russia represents a bit less than 3% of the market for French champagne? If I were a maker, I'd tell the Russians that their laws are their problem, and change nothing. The twenty Russians who can afford French champagne will either smuggle it in or get the law changed, and sales will not be affected.
Quote from: grumbler on January 02, 2022, 07:48:33 PM
So, Russia represents a bit less than 3% of the market for French champagne? If I were a maker, I'd tell the Russians that their laws are their problem, and change nothing. The twenty Russians who can afford French champagne will either smuggle it in or get the law changed, and sales will not be affected.
Isn't it 29% assuming an average 750 ml bottle?
,edit* my bad missed that only 13% is French.
3 percent of that total, but maybe a higher percentage of the most expensive (and profitable) cuvées?
I have a feeling that this is not about crippling the French economy but pure trolling. :P
Oddly, Crimean, uhm, shampanskoye used to have a decent reputation in Germany. Krimsekt (sekt being the German word for sparkling wine :P , but here's a more detailed explanation for the wine nerds, erm, oenophiles here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkling_wine#Sekt ) was (at least in the working class circles I grew up in) considered fancier than German or Italian brands, but markedly below the French ones (Champagner in German generally denotes the top shelf French bubbly).
Yeah it's Russia's specialty: geopolitical trolling :lol:
A bit like the recent statement about American mercenaries and chemical weapons in Eastern Ukraine which appears to have borrowed heavily from Colin Powell's presentation to the UN on Iraq.
Quote from: Syt on January 03, 2022, 03:19:59 AM
Oddly, Crimean, uhm, shampanskoye used to have a decent reputation in Germany. Krimsekt (sekt being the German word for sparkling wine :P , but here's a more detailed explanation for the wine nerds, erm, oenophiles here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkling_wine#Sekt ) was (at least in the working class circles I grew up in) considered fancier than German or Italian brands, but markedly below the French ones (Champagner in German generally denotes the top shelf French bubbly).
It's been about 20 years since I spent significant time in Germany. However, two things stood out to me: (1) my recollection was that many of the dedicated wine shops were focused mostly on cheap wines for regular consumption whereas the better wines were easier to find in the big markets like the Kaufhof (Frankfurt) - pretty much the opposite as was the case in the US; (2) many Germans had an inferiority complex about their national wines and tended to prefer other European countries even where not warranted.
Germany made (and probably still makes) a lot of rotgut sekt, but it also made (and still makes) pretty decent sparkling wine that is almost certainly better than anything that used to made in the former Soviet Union.* As for Italy there is a lot of variation in sparkling wine - from garbage mass produced proseccos to Franciacortas that are as good as the top champagne marques.
*The problem with wine making in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was not the raw material but the fact that managers were evaluated on output targets. Thus, e.g., in Hungary, Tokaji went from being one of the most prized wines in the world to utter junk to highly valued again within a decade of Hungary breaking free again.
Doom?
https://en.desk-russie.eu/2021/12/30/what-does-the-russian-ultimatum.html
Quote
What does the Russian ultimatum to the West mean?
by Françoise Thom
20 min read December 30, 2021
CATEGORY analysis
On December 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry unveiled two draft texts — a "Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees" and an "Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]". Moscow's stated goal is to obtain "legal security guarantees from the United States and NATO." Moscow has requested the United States and its NATO allies to meet the Russian demands without delay.
"The two texts are not written according to the principle of a menu, where you can choose one or the other, they complement each other and should be considered as a whole," declared Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. The second text is a kind of parallel guarantee because "the Russian Foreign Ministry is fully aware that the White House may not meet its obligations, and therefore there is a separate draft treaty for NATO countries." The Russian maneuver is to bind NATO through the United States, the United States through NATO. There is nothing to negotiate, you have to accept everything as a whole.
Some Russian media, such as the digital newspaper Vzglyad, are already triumphant: "The world before and the world after December 17, 2021 are completely different worlds... If until now the United States held the whole world at gunpoint, now it finds itself under the threat of Russian military forces... A new era is opening, new heroes are coming, and a new Danila Bagrov [character of the patriotic mobster in the popular film Brat], raising his heavy fist and looking into the eyes of his interlocutor, asks softly again: how strong are you, American?"
An orchestrated blackmail
The Russian blackmail is explicit and is directed at both the Americans and the Europeans. If the West does not accept the Russian ultimatum, they will have to face "a military and technical alternative", according to Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko: "The Europeans must also think about whether they want to avoid making their continent the scene of a military confrontation. They have a choice. Either they take seriously what is put on the table, or they face a military-technical alternative." After the publication of the draft treaty, the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against NATO targets (similar to those that Israel inflicted on Iran), was confirmed by former Deputy Minister of Defense Andrei Kartapolov (Duma Defense Committee): "Our partners must understand that the longer they drag out the examination of our proposals and the adoption of real measures to create these guarantees, the greater the likelihood that they will suffer a pre-emptive strike."
To make things clear Russia fired a "salvo" of Zircon hypersonic missiles on December 24. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, commented on this event: "Well, I hope that the notes [of December 17] will be more convincing". Editorialist Vladimir Mozhegov added: "What are our arguments? First and foremost, of course, our most reliable allies — the army and the navy. To be more precise, the hypersonic Zircon missile (the "carrier killer", as it is affectionately called in the West), which makes it absurd for the United States to have a fleet of aircraft carriers. The impact of the Zircon cracks a destroyer like a nut. Several Zircons will inevitably sink an aircraft carrier. The Zircon simply does its job: it methodically shoots huge, clumsy aircraft carriers like a gun at cans."
An article in the digital newspaper Svpressa eloquently titled "Putin's ultimatum: Russia, if you will, will bury all of Europe and two-thirds of the United States in 30 minutes" dots the i's: "The Kremlin will have to prove its position with deeds. It is probably only possible to force the "partners" to sit at the negotiating table by coercion. Economically, the Russian Federation cannot compete with the West. There remains war." Military expert Konstantin Sivkov believes that "to bring the United States and NATO to the negotiating table, some kind of super weapon is needed. For the moment, Russia does not show this potential to its adversaries. But it exists. Russia has the capability to use superpowered munitions with a capacity of up to 100 megatons. [...] We must repeat that we are not interested in a world without Russia, as Putin once said, and demonstrate our determination to strike if NATO expands. After that, I can assure you that they [the West] will be afraid. Nothing else can stop them. [...] It is naive to rely on diplomatic procedures. [...] Russia's move is a signal that already radical measures are going to be taken. You refused, so you will have yourselves to blame..."
What is at stake
Reading the Western press, one is under the impression that nothing is happening. Westerners do not seem to understand what is at stake. They think that only the fate of Ukraine is being decided, which is of less concern to them than that of Armenia, judging by the pilgrimages of our presidential candidates. Many French officials find it normal that Russia should claim a sphere of influence. They resemble those who in 1939 believed that Hitler's demands would be limited to Danzig. However, one only has to look at the texts proposed by Moscow to understand that the stakes are quite different.
The Russian ultimatum demands that "the following be legally established: the renunciation of any enlargement of NATO [to the east], the cessation of military cooperation with post-Soviet countries, the withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from Europe and the withdrawal of NATO armed forces to the borders of 1997". Russia and the United States commit themselves not to deploy nuclear weapons abroad and to withdraw those already deployed, as well as to eliminate nuclear weapons deployment infrastructure outside their territory. Article 4 states, in part, that "the Russian Federation and all participants which were, as of 27 May 1997, member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, shall not deploy their armed forces and armaments on the territory of any other European state in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997." And Article 7 specifies that "the participants, which are Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, shall refrain from conducting any military activities on the territory of Ukraine, as well as of the other States of Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia."
This includes the fourteen Eastern European and Balkan states that have become members of NATO in the last twenty-four years: "Thus, in addition to the post-Soviet space, the Moscow initiative includes a wide range of countries located between Western Europe and Russia — mainly Poland and the Baltic States, which are targeted because additional forces of the North Atlantic Alliance have been deployed there as decided at the NATO summit in Warsaw in 2016." In short, "the Russian initiative could help the Americans to quietly leave Central and Eastern Europe," according to the headline of an article posted by the very official think tank Russtrat. But it is not only that: "the link established between the concept of 'fundamental security interests' (which is introduced for the first time) and the range of missiles obliges the United States to refrain from entering our seas (mainly the Black Sea, but also those of the north: the Baltic, Barents, Okhotsk), and to stop the flights of American bombers (taking into account the real range of 'Tomahawks' of about 1800 km), practically over the whole of Europe and most of Asia. The same is true of Japan, for which acceptance of the Treaty clauses means the de-occupation and liquidation of American bases..."
To sum up, "the parties exclude the deployment of nuclear weapons outside the national territory and return to the national territory the weapons already deployed outside the national territory at the time of the entry into force of this Treaty." Commentator Pyotr Akopov points out: "Russia has now drawn its red lines very clearly. [They imply] not only the refusal to expand NATO to the East, but also, as stated in the draft agreement with the alliance, the refusal "to conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine, as well as other states of Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia". He adds: "It is clear that the United States will repatriate its nuclear weapons only when the Anglo-Saxon project of world domination finally collapses, but it is good to prepare the ground... If the West does not want to notice our red lines (more precisely, if it pretends not to want to notice them), then it is primarily his problem, not ours."
And what is Russia offering in exchange for all the concessions demanded of the West? Does it propose to evacuate Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Donbass, since it talks about returning to the situation in 1997? Nothing of the sort. In return, it says it is ready... to commit itself not to threaten American security. One remembers a joke during the Cold War: "What is ours is ours, what is yours is negotiable".
In a word, Russia is demanding that NATO commit suicide, and that the United States be reduced to the role of a regional power. According to Vzglyad, America is in fact invited "to stand behind its Hercules columns (sic) and to keep quiet on its 'islands'. And this means that de facto (whatever the answer to these proposals) the 'American world' as such for Russia has ceased to exist". As a result, Russia will have the upper hand in Europe. The countries of Western Europe are already taken for granted, with Moscow counting on the pool of collaborators that it has cultivated for years within the European ruling elites: it has just sent them a strong signal by appointing François Fillon as director of the petrochemical giant Sibur. Deprived of American support, the "Russophobic" countries that crystallize the resistance to Moscow's hegemony will only have to bow to the inevitable. According to Russtrat, "Of course, Poland and the Baltic countries will be unhappy. But they will probably be the only ones to oppose the American withdrawal from Central and Eastern Europe. After all, the rest of the 'Young Europeans' are guided by the position of the 'core' of the European Union [Western European countries], and they do not have stable anti-Russian complexes."
This "core" "does not share the Russophobic and anti-Russian sentiments [of the Central and Eastern European countries], is aware of the inevitable American withdrawal from Central and Eastern Europe, and does not want to interfere. [...] It is better for the United States to come to an agreement with Moscow, while offloading the problem of ensuring the security of Central and Eastern Europe onto the 'core' of the European Union, France and Germany, which are in favor of the EU's 'strategic autonomy'" Ryabkov rightly points out that the Russian initiative has "a powerful potential for the formation of European security." On December 18, he clarified: "We propose negotiations on a bilateral basis with the United States. If we involve other countries, we will simply drown it all in talk and verbiage. I hope the Americans do not underestimate how much everything has changed, and not for the better."
Moscow is counting on the demoralizing effect on Europe of this Russian-American negotiation on its fate from which it is excluded and on the weakness of the American side in the absence of the European allies. The European Union wanted to participate. But Moscow has adamantly imposed the bilateral format with Washington. Russian Senator Alexei Pushkov explains why: in his view, European countries are trying to participate in the negotiations in order to sabotage them. However, "the prospect of agreements depends only on the relations between Russia and the United States". In his view, only the US authorities control the flight of their bombers near Russia's borders and are also able to deploy US missile systems on the territory of Ukraine. While European countries do not possess weapons that could threaten Russia and are not independent in the deployment of these weapons on their territory.
The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact is never far away in the minds of the Kremlin leaders. It is also a question of status, and a reflection of Putin's obsession with erasing the collapse of the USSR. Thus Nezavisimaya Gazeta emphasizes that "Russia has acted as the heir to the USSR, the second superpower, which considers itself entitled to negotiate with the West on an equal footing." By negotiating as an equal with the president of the United States Putin demonstrates at the same time to the Russians that his position as the boss is recognized by the cursed Westerners. The feeling of debasement the Russians experience in their hearts by submitting to despotism vanishes when they see the humiliation of the West: foreigners too are bowing down to Putin. The regime's propaganda knows how to play these sensitive chords.
Why this Russian ultimatum?
It is important to understand what motivated Putin to launch this challenge to Western countries. As always, Russian behavior is dictated by a careful analysis of the "correlation of forces", which, according to Kremlin experts, has just tipped in favor of the anti-Western revisionist powers. After 20 years of preparation for war, the Russian position is considered to be stronger than ever, according to the Russtrat think tank: "In the next year and a half, Russia will considerably change the balance of global power. [...] Russia's current historical situation is unique. The state has prepared itself for the major challenges that may arise under critical pressure. Huge reserves have been accumulated, including gold. National financial and information infrastructure plans have been created and launched. Digitization has begun to encompass the entire economy, bringing it to a new level of competitiveness. The expansion of our own industrial base, including in highly sensitive high-tech areas, is proceeding in leaps and bounds, the 'technology gap' is closing. We have overcome critical dependence in the area of food security. [...] For the past five years, the army has been the world's leader. In this area, the 'technological gap' is in our favor and is only widening... Moreover, the explosion of planetary inflation is causing an energy crisis, which makes the Europeans, for the most part, much more accommodating and rules out a blockade of our energy supplies, WHATEVER WE DO." If Russia and China coordinate their actions against Ukraine and Taiwan respectively, "everything will become much easier for us. And for China too, from which we will divert attention, which will free our hands even more..." In short, "Russia has restored its weight in the international arena to the point that it is able to dictate its own terms in the shaping of international security." As for "the decrepit empire of the Stars and Stripes, weakened by LGBT, BLM, etc., it is clear that it will not survive a two-front war."
On the other side the United States is facing an unprecedented crisis, with galloping inflation, supply shortages, a weak president, a society more divided than ever. As a result, according to Irina Alksnis in RIA Novosti, "Russia as well as China and other powers working to transform the world system [...] have a window of opportunity to accelerate the eviction of the United States from the global throne by increasing the pressure on them. Even though the weakening of the West has been going on for some time, the current crises indicate that the process has moved to a qualitatively new level, and it would therefore be foolish not to seize this opportunity. Especially since, for our part, we have completed our own mechanisms and strategic tools — alternative to those of the West — necessary for the smooth functioning of the national economy and relations with other countries, whether it is the production of goods, monetary regulations, dissemination of information, etc..."
Hence the approach of the Kremlin: "This is not a proposal for discussion, but an ultimatum — a demand for unconditional surrender. The West has no choice but to lose face — unless it stands proudly and goes to war with Russia. Judging by the way the West has begun to show disarray on the other side, they are well aware of this." By threatening war, stresses RIA Novosti, "Moscow is emphasizing that Russia is ready — morally, technically, and in every other sense of the word — for any development of events. And the reputation it has earned in previous years confirms that the Russians will indeed be ready to use force if they deem it necessary. It is worth recalling the words of Vladimir Putin, who stated bluntly this summer that if Russia sank the British destroyer responsible for a provocation off the coast of Crimea, there would be no major consequences: the outcry of the world press should not be counted as such [...] No, this time the West will pay with its own hands."
Obviously, war is not without risks, which, hopefully, the Russian military are trying to get across to Putin. Let's go back to the analysis of military expert Konstantin Sivkov quoted above: since Russian conventional forces are insufficient, "we can solve the problem of neutralizing Europe and the United States only by physically eliminating them with our nuclear potential... The US and Europe will physically disappear. There will be almost no survivors. But we too will be destroyed. Unless the fate of Russia is better, because we have a large territory. Our opponents will not be able to destroy everything with nuclear strikes. Therefore, the percentage of the surviving population will be higher. However, Russia as a state may disappear after a large-scale nuclear war. It may fragment."
But let us get back to the turning point of December 17. The trigger for the Kremlin was the misguided policy of the White House which, after the debacle in Afghanistan, multiplied the number of emissaries to Moscow this autumn, making the weakness of the United States even more obvious in Putin's eyes: "Senior American officials have made frequent trips to Moscow. The visit of CIA Director William Burns in November was the fourth visit of a senior White House official since the Geneva meeting. It is not difficult to guess that the purpose of the CIA director's personal visit was not at all to make demands about Ukraine, as the Western media tried to have itt, but to try to find a compromise. Faced with the collapse of international authority due to the unsuccessful withdrawal from Afghanistan, the White House was eager to find a deal with the Kremlin."
On November 2, 2021, Burns did meet with Russian Federation Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev and, presumably, President Putin. He is a favorite figure in the Kremlin: in 2005-2008, he was ambassador to Russia and "found common language with Putin. Sober and pragmatic, totally devoid of the messianic complex characteristic of Americans, Burns has always advocated the refusal to expand NATO eastward." Burns' visit was interpreted in Moscow as an indication that the policy of appeasement has prevailed in Washington and thus an encouragement to raise the stakes and "seize the strategic initiative".
Basically, we find in these considerations a Leninist substratum. The United States and its European allies were the haves of the international order, the main beneficiaries of the existing system, which brought them privileges disproportionate to their contribution. Thanks to the crisis, their hegemony is on the decline. The formerly "proletarian" states are prevailing, under Russian leadership. Here again Putin is replaying the Cold War, this time with a happy ending.
What to do?
Westerners must first perceive the situation as it is, however unpleasant it may be for our democratic states more accustomed to futile undertakings than to ensuring their preservation. To do this, we must extricate ourselves from the Russian lie.
The first lie concerns Moscow's alleged concerns for Russian security, the danger that NATO missiles deployed in the border countries would represent for it. It is enough to read the texts quoted above to see that the "security" concerns put forward by Moscow are only a smokescreen, that NATO itself is considered as a paper tiger, as here implied by RIA: "The Atlanticists, despite all their appetites, will not enter into open conflict with Russia, they do not want it and are afraid of it. Even reasonable Anglo-Saxon strategists understand that the West does not have the strength to keep Ukraine in its orbit for long, the laws of Russian history (like the laws of geopolitics) will always work."
When Moscow talks about "security" one must understand "Russian domination" and "impunity", because that is what it is all about. In the Kremlin's view, everything it does not control can jeopardize the regime. This can be seen in Russian domestic politics, where the oases of freedom have been dried up one by one during the last decades. What Moscow fears in Ukraine is not a few NATO instructors, but freedom. It wants a disarmed Ukraine so that it can intimidate the Kiev rebels and set up a regime hated by its people, thus totally dependent on the Kremlin. Russia let Aliev launch an operation against Armenia precisely because President Pachinian had been chosen by the Armenian people against the Kremlin's puppets. If Russia succeeds in driving the United States out of Europe, it will soon feel threatened by the freedoms of Western European countries, and under the pretext of ensuring its "security", it will display the same determination in our country as in its own to enslave the media, to eradicate democratic institutions and independent parties. Already today, Lavrov is calling for the resignation of Stoltenberg, the Secretary of NATO, who, according to him, "is not up to his task".
Another illusion that must be discarded is the idea of a bubbling civil society in Russia that could curb the bellicose aspirations of President Putin. Polls show that the brainwashing by the official propaganda is very effective: 50 percent of Russians surveyed consider NATO and the West in general to be responsible for the current tension. 16 per cent blame Ukraine. The few remaining opponents very rarely criticize foreign policy and hardly denounce the nauseating chauvinism emanating from Putin's regime.
Finally, let us mention the democratic sacred cow that must be sacrificed: the absolute faith in the virtue of "dialogue", which most Western leaders, from Florence Parly to Mario Draghi, continue to advocate in relation to Moscow. But nothing is more dangerous than these summit exchanges, which, whatever one may say, inevitably feed in Russian ruling elites either paranoia or delusions of grandeur and intoxication with power. If the West is firm, the Kremlin concludes that it wants to destroy Russia; if the West offers concessions, the Kremlin concludes that it is weak and pressure should be increased.
Very often the best policy with Russia is that of silence and distance: do nothing, say nothing and stand your ground. Clinging to dialogue at all costs, especially when Moscow keeps us at gunpoint like a madman holding a hostage, only shows our weakness and encourages the Kremlin to escalate.
Above all, we must stop giving the Cold War the pejorative connotation that it does not deserve. The French Minister of Defense Florence Parly has recently declared that Western countries must avoid escalation with Russia in order not to provoke a new Cold War. As long as we remain within these conceptual frameworks, Russia will win. It should be remembered that the Cold War began in 1946, when the West stopped caving in to Stalin, after having abandoned the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to him. It was thanks to the Cold War that the countries of Western Europe retained their freedom.
The lessons of 1946-7 are still relevant today. The pioneers of the Cold War were the British, who formed a Western bloc around the Anglo-French core and persuaded isolationist Americans to stay in Europe. In the spring of 1947, the French, Italian and Belgian governments expelled Communist ministers, aware of the threat linked to Moscow's fifth column in Europe. This clear willingness to resist Stalin finally persuaded Washington to commit itself to European security. We could draw lessons from this experience today, instead of engaging in a childish war with Britain. But to do that, we have to learn to face the facts, to think in political terms, instead of drifting rudderless in media passions and polls. In 1946-7 we knew that freedom was worth dying for, something that is obviously forgotten today. After Munich in 1938, the West was ashamed to have abandoned Czechoslovakia into Hitler's clutches. Today we are cowardly letting down Ukraine, but we do not even realize our dishonor, nor the danger of giving in to an aggressor. We are like the Byzantines who were discussing the sex of angels while the Ottoman forces were destroying the city walls.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 03, 2022, 09:48:15 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 03, 2022, 03:19:59 AM
Oddly, Crimean, uhm, shampanskoye used to have a decent reputation in Germany. Krimsekt (sekt being the German word for sparkling wine :P , but here's a more detailed explanation for the wine nerds, erm, oenophiles here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkling_wine#Sekt ) was (at least in the working class circles I grew up in) considered fancier than German or Italian brands, but markedly below the French ones (Champagner in German generally denotes the top shelf French bubbly).
It's been about 20 years since I spent significant time in Germany. However, two things stood out to me: (1) my recollection was that many of the dedicated wine shops were focused mostly on cheap wines for regular consumption whereas the better wines were easier to find in the big markets like the Kaufhof (Frankfurt) - pretty much the opposite as was the case in the US; (2) many Germans had an inferiority complex about their national wines and tended to prefer other European countries even where not warranted.
Germany made (and probably still makes) a lot of rotgut sekt, but it also made (and still makes) pretty decent sparkling wine that is almost certainly better than anything that used to made in the former Soviet Union.* As for Italy there is a lot of variation in sparkling wine - from garbage mass produced proseccos to Franciacortas that are as good as the top champagne marques.
*The problem with wine making in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was not the raw material but the fact that managers were evaluated on output targets. Thus, e.g., in Hungary, Tokaji went from being one of the most prized wines in the world to utter junk to highly valued again within a decade of Hungary breaking free again.
Thanks, very interesting. :) I confess I'm not coming from a particularly wine-affiliated part of Germany, nor did wine have anywhere near the level of consumption of beer - unlike Austria where things are a lot more even, with both beer and wine being quite popular.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2022, 09:56:29 AM
Doom?
https://en.desk-russie.eu/2021/12/30/what-does-the-russian-ultimatum.html
Batty hysterical stuff.
Biden is not going to sign those treaties and there is zero chance they would be approved if he somehow signed by accident. The world will not end because Biden and Putin have a phone call. Putin is not an idiot and is aware that even though "Russtrat think tank" is touting Russia's "digitization" and gold reserves, in real life the Russian economy is still swirling around the toilet bowl, with GDP still below 2008 levels. He also probably knows that the Russian army is not the world leader in anything other than casualties sustained by recruits in hazing incidents and "accidentally" shot down civilian airliners.
Angels have sex?
That's pretty wild. Putin's about to start all out nuclear war if the US doesn't completely abandon Europe?
I guess all we have to do is wait a few weeks or a month to see if the apocalypse arrives.
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2022, 10:46:37 AM
Angels have sex?
It's a Byzantine thing. You wouldn't understand.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 03, 2022, 10:43:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2022, 09:56:29 AM
Doom?
https://en.desk-russie.eu/2021/12/30/what-does-the-russian-ultimatum.html
Batty hysterical stuff.
Biden is not going to sign those treaties and there is zero chance they would be approved if he somehow signed by accident. The world will not end because Biden and Putin have a phone call. Putin is not an idiot and is aware that even though "Russtrat think tank" is touting Russia's "digitization" and gold reserves, in real life the Russian economy is still swirling around the toilet bowl, with GDP still below 2008 levels. He also probably knows that the Russian army is not the world leader in anything other than casualties sustained by recruits in hazing incidents and "accidentally" shot down civilian airliners.
I don't think it is hysterical at all.
This goes back to what I was saying before. The problem with jingoist nationalist bullshit is that it is a domestic ploy more often then not, and even if they don't really believe it, they can be forced into a position where they have to act like they do regardless.
I think the actually suggestions in the article about what to do are pretty clear and reasonable.
1. Stop meeting with them. It doesn't appear to help.
2. Say nothing, do nothing, but don't give in. Just reiterate US and Western positions that have not changed, and don't acknowledge the blackmail as what it is either.
Don't fly to Munich.
Maybe. I still think it's incredibly difficult to read intentions here.
I wouldn't take the Russians at their word on this as an ultimatum - you don't release documents like this unles it's a starting point for negotiations and Russia historically has always taken an extreme and intransigent position at the start of negotiations. It's not normal to publish texts like this. In part there's performance but also I think they just want to force the pace of things (and I think one of the key factors driving it that may push an invasion is the sense in Russia's leadership that they have a limited window of opportunity before Russia stops being relevant on security issues even in Europe). It still doesn't seem clear whether this is build up to a war (though my guess is not) or an attempt at coercive diplomacy.
The terms are absurd of course. It could be an ultimatum, it could be an attempt to generate a pretext for conflict, or it could be a very aggressive opening bid. But - if you want a war in Ukraine it feels like it wouldn't be difficult to generate a pretext in Ukraine and it still seems weird to me that if you want a conflict in Ukraine that you'd entangle it in a wider argument with NATO rather than try to further isolate Ukraine. And if you wanted a war with Ukraine wouldn't you have already gone rather than the pretty public build-up lasting a month or two - on a purely practical level what's the window for Russia doing something while it's frozen and more easy v mud? Because it feels like that is a real limit on it being an easy quick win.
I agree about not doing summits especially at the leadership level, but I think it's probably worth engaging at a lower level and basically trying to turn it into a long, drawn-out, technical process. That would obviously need deterrent at the same time. For example practically speaking Ukraine is not going to join NATO - certainly not in the foreseeable future. We don't need to commit to some treaty saying that but can probably work out some agreement of no NATO expansion in the next 10 years - that's not giving Russia anything that isn't already reality for example (and shouldn't preclude commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and our right to support that country and provide with arms and training etc).
It's probably worth noting that Russian coverage of Putin's New Year's press conference was not particularly hysterical or focused on preparing the Russian population for war. It was another of what was, according to some Russia analysts, until the last month was the striking thing about Putin's rhetoric this year which has been the social turn. The coverage was focused on his stuff about the economy and, in particular, raising living standards which seems strange if they were planning to start a war. Similarly there's been rumours that the defence minister Shoygu might be moved to a domestic portfolio - again an odd thing if you're prepping for a war (but would make sense if there's any truth to the rumours about positioning him as a post-Putin leader).
Edit: Although apparently Scholz trying to arrange a meeting this month with Putin to "reset" relations is not helpful - and I wasn't really under the impression that German-Russian relations were in need of a reset :bleeding:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 03, 2022, 10:43:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2022, 09:56:29 AM
Doom?
https://en.desk-russie.eu/2021/12/30/what-does-the-russian-ultimatum.html (https://en.desk-russie.eu/2021/12/30/what-does-the-russian-ultimatum.html)
Batty hysterical stuff.
Biden is not going to sign those treaties and there is zero chance they would be approved if he somehow signed by accident. The world will not end because Biden and Putin have a phone call. Putin is not an idiot and is aware that even though "Russtrat think tank" is touting Russia's "digitization" and gold reserves, in real life the Russian economy is still swirling around the toilet bowl, with GDP still below 2008 levels. He also probably knows that the Russian army is not the world leader in anything other than casualties sustained by recruits in hazing incidents and "accidentally" shot down civilian airliners.
It is batty ,yes, but as a joke it falls flat.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2022, 02:22:42 PM
Edit: Although apparently Scholz trying to arrange a meeting this month with Putin to "reset" relations is not helpful - and I wasn't really under the impression that German-Russian relations were in need of a reset :bleeding:
Any details about that? I have not read anything about a "reset" in the German press. Normally Scholz stands for continuity...
Not sure - I can't find the original tweet. But I literally posted here, went to Twitter and saw a journalist doing a story on Scholz wanting a meeting :lol:
And in his defence I think almost every Western leader elected in the last 15 years or so has wanted to try a meeting with Putin to "reset" relations.
Heard an interesting view* from a US prof, missed his name but he was from a East Coast university and/or think-tank, it was Putin has misread the USA because of two factors, namely the US acquiescing in Nordsteam-2 sanctions being lifted and the 'precipitous' withdrawal from Afghanistan shows the US as weak and it doesn't have the political will power to stand firm against Russia.
The chap said Putin thinks the exit from Afghanistan is as significant for the US as the 1989 one was for the future of the Soviet Union, so there's opportunity to be exploited.
* it was on Al Jazeera English.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2022, 03:35:40 PM
Not sure - I can't find the original tweet. But I literally posted here, went to Twitter and saw a journalist doing a story on Scholz wanting a meeting :lol:
And in his defence I think almost every Western leader elected in the last 15 years or so has wanted to try a meeting with Putin to "reset" relations.
I think Salisbury wants to reset it's relationship with Putin, it might possibly involve poison. :bowler:
Quote from: mongers on January 03, 2022, 03:35:53 PM
Heard an interesting view* from a US prof, missed his name but he was from a East Coast university and/or think-tank, it was Putin has misread the USA because of two factors, namely the US acquiescing in Nordsteam-2 sanctions being lifted and the 'precipitous' withdrawal from Afghanistan shows the US as weak and it doesn't have the political will power to stand firm against Russia.
The chap said Putin thinks the exit from Afghanistan is as significant for the US as the 1989 one was for the future of the Soviet Union, so there's opportunity to be exploited.
* it was on Al Jazeera English.
I think that's right - I'd also add Biden's speech post-Afghanistan which I think is incredibly significant where he basically said the US was now only intervening when its "vital interests" are in play and basically set out the consequences of the pivot to Asia. Dealing with China and the Pacific is the primary focus of the US and anything else is, at best, secondary.
I think part of this is Putin testing that.
The repercussions from the US withdrawal from Afghanistan are pretty muted, aren't they?
Also, I think there are a reasonable amount of political points for the Democrats to go hawkish on Russia, especially if Russia invites it - though perhaps my understanding is superficial.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2022, 01:40:19 PM
I don't think it is hysterical at all.
It's hysterical in that it takes Kremlin affiliated propaganda at face value. Following a pattern from the Cold War where hardline anti-Russian polemicists end up sounding like rabid Russian nationalists in that they accept exaggerated accounts of Russian capabilities or intentions, perhaps better to scare their audience or perhaps because they are bamboozled themselves. Putin's Russia c. 2021/2 is not Hitler's Germany c. 1938/9 in either capabilities or ultimate ambitions. Russia is still an isolated, declining power. It's also hysterical in assuming that the US and NATO are seriously contemplating a Munich-style capitulation, which is not remotely in the cards.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2022, 03:35:40 PM
Not sure - I can't find the original tweet. But I literally posted here, went to Twitter and saw a journalist doing a story on Scholz wanting a meeting :lol:
And in his defence I think almost every Western leader elected in the last 15 years or so has wanted to try a meeting with Putin to "reset" relations.
Scholz meeting Putin is just business as usual and does not in itself denote any kind of change in German-Russian relations. Merkel was in Moscow like twenty times during her tenure and met Putin elsewhere as well. That's more often than visits to London or Madrid...
Quote from: Zanza on January 03, 2022, 04:39:44 PMScholz meeting Putin is just business as usual and does not in itself denote any kind of change in German-Russian relations. Merkel was in Moscow like twenty times during her tenure and met Putin elsewhere as well. That's more often than visits to London or Madrid...
Surely it's not business as usual when Russia's got thousands of troops in Ukraine? I think it's an issue if Putin gets the message from Germany that despite that, it is just business as usual.
Edit: And that's not to say Scholz should never meet Putin or go to Moscow. But why the rush to do it this month? Surely it's better to delay and coordinate with other allies (such as Poland and the Baltics etc) and go in a couple of months when, hopefully, this is all defused and calmed down.
Russian successes in recent years have involved the use of indirect and shadow warfare capabilities - disguised special forces, proxy militias with drones and air/artillery support, information warfare. Piling up masses and infantry and armor on a border strikes me as an act of desperation, playing to Russian weaknesses instead of strengths. I'm not saying there is zero risk to calling the bluff, but calling it puts Putin in a very tight spot - committing that kind of force to a real invasion would be extremely costly in every sense whereas NATO would have an array of options to deploy at any point on the escalatory chain of its choosing.
Yeah I think there needs to be an off-ramp as I think it's unlikely that they'd invade but if Russia's in (or feels it is in) a corner then I've no idea what would happen. It's why I'd probably try and engage on their proposed treaties but way down the food-chain and setting up some formal process for negotiations and talks. Basically a combination of playing for time and trying to defuse everything by bogging it down in lengthy negotiations on details.
Then you can go back to more business as usual referring to the "x process" - we've already got Minsk and Normandy so somewhere else.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 03, 2022, 04:33:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2022, 01:40:19 PM
I don't think it is hysterical at all.
It's hysterical in that it takes Kremlin affiliated propaganda at face value. Following a pattern from the Cold War where hardline anti-Russian polemicists end up sounding like rabid Russian nationalists in that they accept exaggerated accounts of Russian capabilities or intentions, perhaps better to scare their audience or perhaps because they are bamboozled themselves. Putin's Russia c. 2021/2 is not Hitler's Germany c. 1938/9 in either capabilities or ultimate ambitions. Russia is still an isolated, declining power. It's also hysterical in assuming that the US and NATO are seriously contemplating a Munich-style capitulation, which is not remotely in the cards.
I don't think Chamberlain walked into Munich thinking he was going to engage in a Munich-style capitulation either.
Putin's Russia may not be Hitler's Germany, but EU is not exactly Chamberlain's Britain either.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2022, 04:56:37 PM
I don't think Chamberlain walked into Munich thinking he was going to engage in a Munich-style capitulation either.
Total aside - but the new Netflix film (based on one of Robert Harris' novels I think), Munich looks very good. With Jeremy Irons as Chamberlain as a bit of a hero, which is, of course, exactly how he was seen at the time:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/dec/15/hitler-chamberlain-munich-edge-reason-robert-harris-jeremy-irons
Obviously it's Harris so it's actually a spy thriller just set at the Munich Conference, but looks good - especially Irons.
I don't think anyone in the West is thinking "OMG lets appease Putin just like Chamberlain did! That will surely work out!"
I do think there are plenty of people in the West who look at the entire problem first and foremost from the standpoint of "How do we de-escalate this situation?" and are willing to risk anything for what they imagine peace to be.
And more importantly, I think Putin and Russia believe that most of the West is more interested in peace at any cost, and are in fact counting on that.
Like I said, Chamberlain didn't hop on a plane and scuttle off the Munich in the middle of the night with the intent of kissing Hitlers ass and desperate to sell out anything. But he did enter the discussion with the idea that avoiding a war was more important then basically any other value, and Hitler knew that, and played him appropriately. (This all assumes that it wasn't just a delaying tactic on the part of Chamberlain who knew war was coming and felt like he needed time to get GB ready - personally, I don't believe that, but I do know it is a common interpretation).
Is Biden thinking that he should sell out to Putin? Of course not.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2022, 05:05:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2022, 04:56:37 PM
I don't think Chamberlain walked into Munich thinking he was going to engage in a Munich-style capitulation either.
Total aside - but the new Netflix film (based on one of Robert Harris' novels I think), Munich looks very good. With Jeremy Irons as Chamberlain as a bit of a hero, which is, of course, exactly how he was seen at the time:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/dec/15/hitler-chamberlain-munich-edge-reason-robert-harris-jeremy-irons
Obviously it's Harris so it's actually a spy thriller just set at the Munich Conference, but looks good - especially Irons.
I am looking forward to this....
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2022, 04:45:25 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 03, 2022, 04:39:44 PMScholz meeting Putin is just business as usual and does not in itself denote any kind of change in German-Russian relations. Merkel was in Moscow like twenty times during her tenure and met Putin elsewhere as well. That's more often than visits to London or Madrid...
Surely it's not business as usual when Russia's got thousands of troops in Ukraine? I think it's an issue if Putin gets the message from Germany that despite that, it is just business as usual.
Edit: And that's not to say Scholz should never meet Putin or go to Moscow. But why the rush to do it this month? Surely it's better to delay and coordinate with other allies (such as Poland and the Baltics etc) and go in a couple of months when, hopefully, this is all defused and calmed down.
The idea is that his visit contributes to defusing and calming down the situation. Germany also participated in previous talks between Russia and Ukraine, the so-called Normandy format. It is obviously urgent as there are signs of impending escalation, so waiting a couple of months does not seem sensible.
The 1930s Western powers preferred to fight a Germany with millions of soldiers, modern planes, and modern tanks, over fighting a Germany with 100,000 soldiers and cardboard tanks. There was a lot of drugs in the 30s.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2022, 05:06:04 PM
I do think there are plenty of people in the West who look at the entire problem first and foremost from the standpoint of "How do we de-escalate this situation?" and are willing to risk anything for what they imagine peace to be.
The "West" is vague. In the US of A, aside from maybe from a few diehard hippie peaceniks on the far left and the Putin cheerleaders in the true believer Trumpy right, the number of people "willing to risk anything for what they imagine peace to be" when it comes to the Russkies is a very small set.
It doesn't look like Biden has caved to Putin quite yet. So I guess we wait for Russian soldiers to invade and/ or Russian missiles to start flying in preemptive strikes?
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2022, 08:48:40 PM
It doesn't look like Biden has caved to Putin quite yet. So I guess we wait for Russian soldiers to invade and/ or Russian missiles to start flying in preemptive strikes?
That is what they are threatening. I don't think the article is claiming that is what they will actually do...
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2022, 09:35:28 PM
That is what they are threatening. I don't think the article is claiming that is what they will actually do...
In either case, it seems it's up to the Russians to take a step since the West doesn't seem to be altering course significantly.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2022, 03:57:19 PM
The repercussions from the US withdrawal from Afghanistan are pretty muted, aren't they?
Not for the people of Afghanistan.
Also, people keep saying "Putin is not an idiot", that he will act logically, etc. However, there are increasing signs that he is by now living in his own reality, where Russia is a 19th century style great power and he is an important figure on the world stage who must be respected or there will be consequences. Gang upbringing combined with delusions of grandeur. Many Russian commentators are writing about how Putin is uninterested in Russia's internal affairs, making at most token gestures to address those; being an internationally recognized mover and shaker whose name will live on in history is his only goal. Also many are comparing the current period to that of Brezhnev - except Brezhnev and Co. went through WW2 and absolutely did not want a repeat of that, whereas Putin and his cronies have no personal experience of a horrible war, so they don't care if they start one. It does not matter to them if lots of Russians will die - Putin already said in a public speech that any Russians who die in a nuclear war are guaranteed entrance to paradise.
Russia *is* a great power - maybe a distant number 3 but still number 3. Putin's been around for quite a while now and for the last 20+ years has been pretty successful matching his ambitions to his nation's capabilities.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 04, 2022, 02:08:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2022, 03:57:19 PM
The repercussions from the US withdrawal from Afghanistan are pretty muted, aren't they?
Not for the people of Afghanistan.
For sure, but the question was the degree to which the American withdrawal was a watershed moment for the US, indicating a moment of critical weakness. And I think the answer here is "not really"
One general point about "acting logical" on the international stage is that what's usually missed by this point is that "logical" must be applied from the actor's own internal political point of view. I don't think we know enough to be certain about that in Putin's case. Well, I definitely don't.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 04, 2022, 02:08:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2022, 03:57:19 PM
The repercussions from the US withdrawal from Afghanistan are pretty muted, aren't they?
Not for the people of Afghanistan.
You have to fight
for your right
to party
Pretty dramatic footage of protests coming out of Kazakhstan - including miners and other blue collar groups joining them which is normally a bad sign.
Moscow might soon be distracted by that, which they will, no doubt, interpret as Western-backed/provoked.
QuoteThe idea is that his visit contributes to defusing and calming down the situation. Germany also participated in previous talks between Russia and Ukraine, the so-called Normandy format. It is obviously urgent as there are signs of impending escalation, so waiting a couple of months does not seem sensible.
How does that work in practice though?
I can see Scholz maybe being able to provide a useful message if Germany is very closely coordinating with allies - especially Poland and the Baltic States. But I'm not really sure how Scholz could expect/hope for a trip to help defuse things - as opposed to being interpreted by Russia as a sign that Germany still sees things as business as usual despite Russia's escalations. It also feels a bit weird when Borrell is doing a trip to the "line of contact" in Ukraine and then to Kyiv which has been briefed as part of the EU's strong support of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2022, 02:13:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2022, 01:19:33 PM
You have to fight
for your right
to party
:thumbsup:
Afghanistan rejected this message as Jewish-American propaganda.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2022, 02:05:29 PM
How does that work in practice though?
I can see Scholz maybe being able to provide a useful message if Germany is very closely coordinating with allies - especially Poland and the Baltic States. But I'm not really sure how Scholz could expect/hope for a trip to help defuse things - as opposed to being interpreted by Russia as a sign that Germany still sees things as business as usual despite Russia's escalations.
The same way as Biden or any other leader calling Putin? Threaten sanctions in case of escalation. Scholz is now the most powerful politician in the European Union and Germany alone is Russia's second biggest trade partner after China. The EU can inflict more economic pain on Russia than vice versa.
The difference is that all of Putin's "demands" are largely aimed at the US and he cares about the prestige of being a great power next to the US and China with those old-school summits.
I agree with that though, I hope that's the message Scholz delivers clearly.
But I'm not sure Scholz going with a clear message of sanctions and serious consequences for Russia (at your first meeting with Putin on his soil) is de-escalatory or defusing the situation, even if I think that message is key to that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2022, 04:48:59 PM
The difference is that all of Putin's "demands" are largely aimed at the US and he cares about the prestige of being a great power next to the US and China with those old-school summits.
I agree with that though, I hope that's the message Scholz delivers clearly.
But I'm not sure Scholz going with a clear message of sanctions and serious consequences for Russia (at your first meeting with Putin on his soil) is de-escalatory or defusing the situation, even if I think that message is key to that.
IMO, Scholz' visit could move the needle in any direction depending on what his message is and how he delivers it.
Also IMO, Scholz has every right to - and indeed an obligation - to establish his relationship with Putin on behalf of Germany and on behalf of the EU. Suggesting that he should not meet, to me, is a suggeting that Scholz should not do his job.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2022, 05:08:07 PM
IMO, Scholz' visit could move the needle in any direction depending on what his message is and how he delivers it.
Also IMO, Scholz has every right to - and indeed an obligation - to establish his relationship with Putin on behalf of Germany and on behalf of the EU. Suggesting that he should not meet, to me, is a suggeting that Scholz should not do his job.
Agree it depends on the message - if it is there are serious consequences going down this path and Germany and EU are willing to impose significant sanctions then I think that could be helpful ( though I think it would be interpreted as inflammatory to travel to Moscow on your first trip there to deliver that message). If the message that comes across is along the lines of what Draghi has said which is basically saying Russia's not preparing for action and they just want talks.
He's within his rights - but I just don't get why the urgency to do it this month. Just wait a month or two. And I'd note that German commentators have criticised this and it's seems a bit of a shame given that there were hopes the Greens, especially, would help push Germany to taking a more European approach with Russia. The always fun Green MEP Reinhard Butikofer, for example called exactly that out, that it seems to him that Scholz "is not only opposing the Greens and the EU, but also against the necessary foreign policy reliability. Didn't the coalition agreement promise a European policy towards Russia?"
Or this from someone at the ECFR:
QuoteGustav C. Gressel
@GresselGustav
1/6 If true (still hop it's not) this would again wreck Germany's reputation for a domestic publicity stunt.
1 Russia doesn't want to talk to Flag of Germany, their demands are addressed to the United States.
2 to change this the EU would have to be structurally capable to act in the fields ...
2/6 ... Russia is interested in dealing with like military support to Ukraine, strategic armaments, force posture in Europe. In all of this the #SPD is actually blocking Germany from becoming an actor...
3 #Putin is not interested in Resets. He demands results, the ones Germany can't deliver.
3/6 4 Unilateral outreach only undermines cohesion in the EU, especially if - as in this case - the exact objective of discussion is kept secret. See for corresponding attempts in the past. None of which produced results other than alienating allies in Brussels.
4/6 5 This would further undermine trust in Germany which already is very low because of #NS2. It would end any benevolence towards the new government and deepen trenches.
6 If this is all Germany has to offer on substance, it becomes abundant and useless to talk about #ESDP, #PESCO,
5/6 ... #strategicautonomy whatsoever for half of the EU. A Germany being a risk instead of an asset to the security of its neighbours would need to be contained. Probably more countries would join in that effort (for economic reasons as well) than just the Eastern flank.
6/6 So I sincerely hope @OlafScholz makes a quick end to all Germany #Reset plans wherever or by whomever they are cooked up. There is nothing good to be done here, only harm.
They could be wrong and Scholz might go with a clear message that's been coordinated with Germany's allies (especially countries in the EU that see Russia as a security risk).
And the domestic political stunt pointt is not just true of Germany, I think it goes for almost every Western European leader when they're first elected. I know Macron went big for a while on meetings with Putin because he thought he could solve the relationship. I don't think it's ever delivered anything, but there's nothing wrong with it - it just seems a little riskier than usual given the current context.
Not at all related to this - or Germany - but more part of how I think Russia does just keep pushing in Europe without meeting much resistance, I saw that a couple of weeks ago Francois Fillon, former French PM and the Presidential candidate of the right in 2017 accepted a position on the board of directors of a Russian gas company.
Chamberlain had every "right" to go sell Czechoslovakia to Germany.
I don't understand the idea of "rights" when it comes to this kind of stuff. The question isn't whether they have the moral "right" to do so, it is whether or not it is actually beneficial to their countries for them to do so.
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 05:41:09 PM
Chamberlain had every "right" to go sell Czechoslovakia to Germany.
I don't understand the idea of "rights" when it comes to this kind of stuff. The question isn't whether they have the moral "right" to do so, it is whether or not it is actually beneficial to their countries for them to do so.
Fair enough, there are no "rights" involved, though I think implying that Scholz' meeting is equivalent to "peace in our time" is perhaps a bit premature.
Personally I think it's pretty natural for the new chancellor of Germany to actively engage with one of the biggest foreign policy challenges facing his country and the EU. Maybe his actions won't be helpful, maybe they will, but this is an area where Germany should be involved.
I absolutely see the argument that Germany cold shouldering or ignoring Putin for a bit may be the right move, but I don't see anything particularly egregious in Scholz deciding to start the conversation as he starts his chancellorship either. Of course, if he goes in like a wet noodle that's different than if he goes with some gravity.
I'm just a bit surprised to see Sheilbh, who typically is fairly understanding of countries pursuing their interests, framing Scholz' visit purely in terms of the needs of a larger international consensus.
If Merkel was still chancellor and would announce that she seeks a private talk with Putin, would your perception be any different?
Quote from: Zanza on January 04, 2022, 10:54:46 PM
If Merkel was still chancellor and would announce that she seeks a private talk with Putin, would your perception be any different?
Six of one, half dozen of the other to be honest.
I think as a new Chancellor - as with any head of government/state - a crisis is not a great time for your first trip to any country, because what they normally want to do is a reasonably friendly meeting that will try to set or "reset" the tone. In practice I'm not sure whether that matters very much because I think the reasons there were problems to begin with will re-assert themselves, but I think there's more desire on a first meeting to go well than if you've been to Moscow and met Putin 20 times. You'll already have had difficult meetings. I think it's a particular issue with Russia (and maybe China) because I think they're relatively comfortable exploiting that - see Borrell's trip to Moscow which happened during the Navalny protests. While the press conference was happening Russia announced they were expelling several EU diplomats, Lavrov spent his time attacking the EU as an "unreliable partner" and called out the failure to authorise the Sputnik vaccine - and (which I'm sure was a coincidence) one of the Russian journalists asked Borrell about Cuban sanctions which obviously the EU opposes. I'm not saying any of that will happen, but I think the Kremlin is good at taking advantage of Western politicians who want a good, polite meeting (basically I think Western leaders care about relationships - and I think the Kremlin and maybe Beijing are just more focused on interests including exploiting the concern about relationships).
Edit: I think Turkey does similar - see the lack of chairs at the EU-Erdogan meeting. I think they're both leaderships that don't mind taking advantage of courtesy/politeness. But similarly if Turkey was massing troops on a neighbours borders and making threats toward Greece, I'd suggest that European leaders probably shouldn't seek a meeting in Ankara until that situation was resolved.
I also think that whatever message Scholz is intending to take with him is a challenge for a new leader - especially one who doesn't have much foreign policy experience (from my understanding) in their first couple of months.
On the other hand I'm not sure Merkel would be particularly good at delivering that message given German policy with Russia (v the rest of Eastern Europe, including Germany's EU partners) when she was Chancellor - or that she'd have the trust of CEE members of the EU and NATO, as I think that disillusionment with German policy largely started under Merkel.
QuoteI'm just a bit surprised to see Sheilbh, who typically is fairly understanding of countries pursuing their interests, framing Scholz' visit purely in terms of the needs of a larger international consensus.
I wouldn't say international consensus in general should be a huge concern - because there are bad international consensuses. But on security I think the Western alliance matters and - whether in the EU or the NATO framework - I think you have to be guided and very careful to be close to the countries who are most directly affected. Scholz has visited Warsaw - I think at this stage the better move would probably be a quick set of visits to the Baltics or maybe Finland. It's not "provocative" like going to Kyiv (Borrell's doing that on behalf of the EU), but it emphasises Germany's EU and NATO partners who are on the border with Russia and have all expressed public concerns about Russia and their security in the last month.
Also I think it's very important not to have big countries talking over the heads of little countries - I think one of the things Biden's done well in the last month is there's been read-outs of regular calls with Ukraine, but also with the US's regional NATO allies - Poland, the Baltics, Romania,, Bulgaria, Hungary etc. I think that's helpful - and right - I also think it's how you show leadership, in a way that skipping to Biden-Putin talks wouldn't.
I also think it's a question of what is in Germany's interests. Is it establishing the relationship with Russia, or is it rebuilding trust with Germany's actual allies and EU partners to the east? It is incredibly low given NordStream 2, the Franco-German surprise proposal on EU-Putin summits and other issues while Putin's been in charge. Trust in Germany (and France and Italy) is low even with very mainstream, centrist pro-EU politicians in CEE when it comes to Russia and I think this move has the potential to just reinforce that lack of trust and, as that ECFR guy says, deepen the trenches on month two of a new government which is not great.
QuotePersonally I think it's pretty natural for the new chancellor of Germany to actively engage with one of the biggest foreign policy challenges facing his country and the EU. Maybe his actions won't be helpful, maybe they will, but this is an area where Germany should be involved.
The EU point is part of the issue though. I think on Russia that Germany (and France and Italy) do not have the trust of basically any CEE EU member. So to speak for the EU they first need to build that trust and part of that will involve trimming their interests which may be more open to cooperating with Russia to the interests of their CEE partners - rather than presuming to speak for the EU when they clearly don't and there's huge dissatisfaction with their policy from "New Europe".
Edit: Although I suspect all of this is going to be overtaken by events - protesters storming government buildings in Almaty:
https://twitter.com/Reevellp/status/1478657476123889665?s=20
I've no doubt the Kremlin will interpret this as Western sponsored/backed possibly the US launching a colour revolution (Moscow's great fear) next door to distract from Ukraine/Putin's push in Europe. Obviously that's nonsense but is, I think, how they will genuinely interpret it.
Edit: I understand cost of living/the huge global price increases in food staples has been a bit driver of whatever's happening in Kazakhstan (which sounds familiar). Worth noting the price of staples in Turkey have doubled in the last couple of months. It could all be nothing but food security is often linked to waves of protests/revolutions so I wouldn't be surprised if we saw similar big protests in other countries - though no idea where.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2022, 05:41:09 PM
Chamberlain had every "right" to go sell Czechoslovakia to Germany.
I don't understand the idea of "rights" when it comes to this kind of stuff. The question isn't whether they have the moral "right" to do so, it is whether or not it is actually beneficial to their countries for them to do so.
Fair enough, there are no "rights" involved, though I think implying that Scholz' meeting is equivalent to "peace in our time" is perhaps a bit premature.
Not making any such claim. Just using the standard rhetorical technique of illustrating a more extreme example of the same principle.
Quote
Personally I think it's pretty natural for the new chancellor of Germany to actively engage with one of the biggest foreign policy challenges facing his country and the EU. Maybe his actions won't be helpful, maybe they will, but this is an area where Germany should be involved.
Of course. But since he is doing so as a member of an actual military alliance with close allies who are also involved, it probably makes a lot of sense to coordinate your diplomacy with those other allies and involved parties. Assuming, of course, his desire is to actually contain Putin, rather then accommodate Putin.
Quote
I absolutely see the argument that Germany cold shouldering or ignoring Putin for a bit may be the right move, but I don't see anything particularly egregious in Scholz deciding to start the conversation as he starts his chancellorship either. Of course, if he goes in like a wet noodle that's different than if he goes with some gravity.
I'm just a bit surprised to see Sheilbh, who typically is fairly understanding of countries pursuing their interests, framing Scholz' visit purely in terms of the needs of a larger international consensus.
I think how the West deals with China and Russia is in fact going to suceed or fail around a larger international consensus. Especially China, but Russia as well.
The entire point of both countries current international diplomatic stance is to destroy the last 70 years of international, consensus around democracy and the rule of law and go to a regional power dynamic where countries are constrained by their regional economic and military power. Russia is trying to rather hard to convince the world that NATO is no longer a thing, and that the EU is meaningless, and hence any agreements made should be made between Russia and Poland, and Russia and Estonia and Russia and Ukraine and Russia and Germany. Etc., etc.
So yeah, Germany going and meeting with Putin on Putin's terms matters. Maybe it was a good idea for Germany anyway, but I can certainly understand why people would find it concerning.
Zanza, the perception in the rest of the EU, rightly or wrongly, is that Germany is way too chummy with Russia, hence it will not deliver strong warnings of sanctions or anything of the sort. It's seen as a desperate attempt to placate your energy daddy.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 05, 2022, 09:42:08 AM
Zanza, the perception in the rest of the EU, rightly or wrongly, is that Germany is way too chummy with Russia, hence it will not deliver strong warnings of sanctions or anything of the sort. It's seen as a desperate attempt to placate your energy daddy.
Yep, pretty much.
Let's see how it goes. So far only a meeting of the German and French national security advisors with their Russian counterpart was announced, no meeting between Scholz and Putin.
His foreign minister is currently in Washington to align with Blinken on Ukraine. She wants to be tougher on Russia, but Scholz - as is his character - remains vague. He is not that interested in foreign policy, so it is likely he will pick a course that he hopes will avoid conflict. Basically a continuation of Merkel's mercantilism and focus on dialog.
The topic shows again the weakness and limits of the EU foreign policy. The views of e.g. Poland have no weight at all in Germany as Poland is itself rather hostile towards Germany, so their governmenthas zero influence. Also the German "let's talk with Russia" approach has other proponents in the EU, e.g. Austria, Italy or Luxembourg. Not sure if the different views can be reconciled. When Germany recently proposed to move more decision making power to the EU level, which would create a more coherent policy, this was considered the coming of the Fourth Reich in Poland...
By the way, I personally would immediately authorize weapons exports to Ukraine and stop Nordstream 2, so I do not share Scholz' or Merkel's cautious approach.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2022, 07:10:31 AM
I wouldn't say international consensus in general should be a huge concern ...
Okay, those are all fair points.
Zanza - I guess the response to the German proposal re: foreign policy is based on the assumption that the more united EU would hew closer to German policy, rather than allow smaller countries to influence EU (and German) policy more effectively.
Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2022, 11:12:08 AMLet's see how it goes. So far only a meeting of the German and French national security advisors with their Russian counterpart was announced, no meeting between Scholz and Putin.
I think that's the right level and approach
QuoteThe topic shows again the weakness and limits of the EU foreign policy. The views of e.g. Poland have no weight at all in Germany as Poland is itself rather hostile towards Germany, so their governmenthas zero influence. Also the German "let's talk with Russia" approach has other proponents in the EU, e.g. Austria, Italy or Luxembourg. Not sure if the different views can be reconciled. When Germany recently proposed to move more decision making power to the EU level, which would create a more coherent policy, this was considered the coming of the Fourth Reich in Poland...
Yeah and obviously the Polish government is bad generally, but why would they want more decision making power at the EU level when they don't think their concerns and fears about their biggest neighbour are taken seriously in Germany, France or Italy - three of the biggest countries in the EU with pretty solid voting power (especially if you add in the tax havens/other countries bought by Moscow). And, without war comparisons, it is historically an area of large powers talking to each other and making decisions about small powers, who aren't even at the table - it's not a post-colonial experience but it's not a million miles away. I think that is an important part of the view that the current situation - unanimity at the EU level and a US security guarantee - is less risky than the alternative.
I've said before but I think the model on this for Europe and the EU should be France and Greece. Where France has worked really hard to support Greece in recent confrontations with Erdogan, including sending some of the French fleet. It's partly driven by the dynamic in the Franco-Turkish relationship but France and Greece have now signed an even stronger mutual defence pact than NATO and I think Greece basically trusts France to hear its view, respect it and incorporate it into France's assessment of their own interests in the Eastern Med. They have made Greek concerns their own - and that allows Greece to actually relax about overtures with Turkey because there's enough trust with France.
I think until CEE countries feel that way with the big Western EU countries - Germany, France and Italy - about relations with Russia then EU foreign policy/strategic autonomy will go nowhere, because they don't trust those countries on what is, in their view, an existential issue.
Separately I also think the EU should focus on smaller issues where there is consensus rather than pushing for a voice on things like Russia or Iran. Because I think acting is better even if it's on a minor issue you consider beneath you like the Western Balkans, rather than getting a seat at the table and revealing you can't do anything beyond bromides because the member states are divided. I think that would build credibility and capacity both externally, but also with EU countries more effectively.
Shelf, you seem to be saying that the core concept of the EU as a foreign policy actor is basically bullshit...?
Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 11:39:54 AM
Shelf, you seem to be saying that the core concept of the EU as a foreign policy actor is basically bullshit...?
Sheilbh and me have said so before here on the board. It's hardly a controversial view.
The EU is not a sovereign state, but a unique way the sovereign states of Europe organize their own foreign policy by building shared institutions that pool some of the sovereignty of its members. But no member state is willing to give up its core sovereignty and that includes many foreign policy topics.
So has anyone raised the idea of involving Ukraine in discussing Ukraine with Russia, or are we really doing a Czechoslovakia here?
Quote from: Tamas on January 05, 2022, 12:01:33 PM
So has anyone raised the idea of involving Ukraine in discussing Ukraine with Russia, or are we really doing a Czechoslovakia here?
Agreed.
The White House line has consistently been that there will be no discussions or decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine. But I think the US approach of having a few tracks is probably the right one - a line with Russia, a line with NATO allies (particularly in the region) and a line with Ukraine. Because Ukraine is a friendly country that has been invaded because it wants to be closer to Europe - what kicked all this off was Euromaidan and the association agreemement with the EU, not NATO - but practically it's not a member of NATO or the EU so I think it's fair to have them on a separate track.
QuoteSheilbh and me have said so before here on the board. It's hardly a controversial view.
Exactly - I think we've agreed on that and on some possible solutions because I think the world and certainly Europe's neighbourhood would be better if the EU was a foreign policy actor.
But we're not there yet and I'm not convinced by the "if we build it they will come" approach works where you build structures, issue statements and demand a seat at the table before building the internal capacity and trust.
Berkut, just imagine the United States, but not with virtually all foreign policy competence concentrated in a single person, but rather in a kind of senate (but with the state govenors I stead of senators) that always needs to decide unanimously on any foreign policy. With a structure like that, you only have foreign policy power when there is full consensus. A single domestic opponent stops it...
Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2022, 01:12:52 PM
Berkut, just imagine the United States, but not with virtually all foreign policy competence concentrated in a single person, but rather in a kind of senate (but with the state govenors I stead of senators) that always needs to decide unanimously on any foreign policy. With a structure like that, you only have foreign policy power when there is full consensus. A single domestic opponent stops it...
Right. That is...unfortunate. A situation where a Putin can trivially neuter it.
Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2022, 01:12:52 PM
Berkut, just imagine the United States, but not with virtually all foreign policy competence concentrated in a single person, but rather in a kind of senate (but with the state govenors I stead of senators) that always needs to decide unanimously on any foreign policy. With a structure like that, you only have foreign policy power when there is full consensus. A single domestic opponent stops it...
I don't think I need to imagine it:
(https://historiana.eu/assets/uploads/noble_30.JPG)
Europeans do love these big dysfunctional confederations.
Quote from: Berkut on January 05, 2022, 01:15:15 PMRight. That is...unfortunate. A situation where a Putin can trivially neuter it.
You don't even need Putin to meddle. Add in the geography - one side faces Russia, the other faces the Middle East and North Africa and a lot are distant from either border and live some of the most pleasant and well-to-do lives in the world. It's tough to get a common perception of risks, threats or priorities in that environment.
I don't know if it'll be possible until people think of themselves as Europeans in the way Americans think of themselves as American. Or at least until they are able to identify and empathise with each other despite their governments (which I think is happening - but as the Eurozone crisis and all the foreign policy stuff shows is still a work in progress).
Incidentally, meanwhile in Almaty:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIXA_8NWUAQPgKh?format=jpg&name=small)
The President's announced his patron the former leader (since 1991) will step aside from his remaining roles. But also said this is clearly a conspiracy which he's going to respond to "as toughly as possible", they have also called for Russian help countering "terrorism". Apparently he's spoken to Putin and Lukashenko.
Separately apparently there's a list of demands from the People's Committee of Kazakhstan (whoever they are):
Quote1. lower food prices
2. lower fuel prices
3. lowering the pension age to 58/60
4. resignation of the entire government
5. release those arrested
6. higher salaries for working-class people
7. deletion of all branches of national companies
8. cancellation of waste collection
9. cancellation of toll roads for Kazakh vehicles
10. Increase in minimum pension
11. increase in family allowances
12.president kassym-zhomart tokayev meeting these political demands
Which does not sound particularly like a foreign plot but very, very domestic.
Wait, why would they demand point 8? :huh:
Not fully clear and I wonder if that's a mistranslation :lol:
Yeah surely wanting waste to just pile up all over the country is not what they are demanding. I presume a translation issue?
Probably they want to cancel the fees for it
Quote from: Tamas on January 05, 2022, 02:35:02 PM
Probably they want to cancel the fees for it
:yes:
My guess too,
And the CSTO have announced that they'll be sending a "peacekeeping force" to Kazakhstan for a "limited period of time" - it feels likely that this is going to get very nasty now :(
Not least because the only reason I can think why the Kazakh government would request foreign support is they don't trust their own army or security forces, which I'd worry means very hard represssion is coming.
Not very nice.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2022, 05:23:11 PM
And the CSTO have announced that they'll be sending a "peacekeeping force" to Kazakhstan for a "limited period of time" - it feels likely that this is going to get very nasty now :(
Not least because the only reason I can think why the Kazakh government would request foreign support is they don't trust their own army or security forces, which I'd worry means very hard represssion is coming.
Wonder if we'll see defections among them fighting the peacekeepers?
I am shocked to learn that the founder of a neo-Nazi para-military group that intended to provide military training to members, carry out assassinations, and engage in terrorist activities fled to Russia once his group was infiltrated and arrests were being made.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/neo-nazi-group-infiltrator-the-base-1.6302804
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2022, 09:57:56 PM
Wonder if we'll see defections among them fighting the peacekeepers?
There's been some reports of defections.
From the BBC journalist in Almaty - gunfire and explosions tonight :(
https://twitter.com/abdujalil/status/1479181466571579394?s=20
Grim. I guess Ukraine is safe for a while.
It is amazing what the Russian government would rather waste its time and resources doing besides governing Russia well.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2022, 03:58:12 PM
It is amazing what the Russian government would rather waste its time and resources doing besides governing Russia well.
If your people let you get away with it, why not?
Just read about the Kazakhstan situation. Finally made bbc news.
BBC News - Kazakhstan unrest: Russian troops fly in as crackdown continues
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-59900037
I wonder if this might serve to remove the knife from Ukraines neck as it is needed elsewhere.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2022, 02:07:43 PM
Incidentally, meanwhile in Almaty:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIXA_8NWUAQPgKh?format=jpg&name=small)
The President's announced his patron the former leader (since 1991) will step aside from his remaining roles. But also said this is clearly a conspiracy which he's going to respond to "as toughly as possible", they have also called for Russian help countering "terrorism". Apparently he's spoken to Putin and Lukashenko.
Separately apparently there's a list of demands from the People's Committee of Kazakhstan (whoever they are):
Quote1. lower food prices
2. lower fuel prices
3. lowering the pension age to 58/60
4. resignation of the entire government
5. release those arrested
6. higher salaries for working-class people
7. deletion of all branches of national companies
8. cancellation of waste collection
9. cancellation of toll roads for Kazakh vehicles
10. Increase in minimum pension
11. increase in family allowances
12.president kassym-zhomart tokayev meeting these political demands
Which does not sound particularly like a foreign plot but very, very domestic.
Several lists like this one are floating around, most of them anecdotal.
The most "real" one demanded to bring down the gas prices (not gasoline - natural gas) for gas-fuelled cars. The government has satisfied this demand.
Then there are lists of "demands" which include legalising polygyny...
The Collective Security forces were moved in after the protesters murdered 18 local policemen, including at least 2 beheadings, and wounded several hundred. These protesters are well-armed, coordinated, and they no longer stand a chance.
What the hell is up with the high gas prices at the moment anyway? Quite the big political issue in the UK too right now.
Quote from: Tyr on January 06, 2022, 06:50:05 PM
What the hell is up with the high gas prices at the moment anyway? Quite the big political issue in the UK too right now.
IMHO - low storage levels in Europe cased by hotter summer/colder winter than usual, and high demand especially in Asia where a lot of supply has been redirected.
Nord Stream 2 could help normalise the prices, but for political reasons it's been stalled by our European partners.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 06, 2022, 06:48:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2022, 02:07:43 PM
Incidentally, meanwhile in Almaty:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIXA_8NWUAQPgKh?format=jpg&name=small)
The President's announced his patron the former leader (since 1991) will step aside from his remaining roles. But also said this is clearly a conspiracy which he's going to respond to "as toughly as possible", they have also called for Russian help countering "terrorism". Apparently he's spoken to Putin and Lukashenko.
Separately apparently there's a list of demands from the People's Committee of Kazakhstan (whoever they are):
Quote1. lower food prices
2. lower fuel prices
3. lowering the pension age to 58/60
4. resignation of the entire government
5. release those arrested
6. higher salaries for working-class people
7. deletion of all branches of national companies
8. cancellation of waste collection
9. cancellation of toll roads for Kazakh vehicles
10. Increase in minimum pension
11. increase in family allowances
12.president kassym-zhomart tokayev meeting these political demands
Which does not sound particularly like a foreign plot but very, very domestic.
Several lists like this one are floating around, most of them anecdotal.
The most "real" one demanded to bring down the gas prices (not gasoline - natural gas) for gas-fuelled cars. The government has satisfied this demand.
Then there are lists of "demands" which include legalising polygyny...
The Collective Security forces were moved in after the protesters murdered 18 local policemen, including at least 2 beheadings, and wounded several hundred. These protesters are well-armed, coordinated, and they no longer stand a chance.
Thanks, Radio Sputnik?
Quote from: Tyr on January 06, 2022, 06:50:05 PM
What the hell is up with the high gas prices at the moment anyway? Quite the big political issue in the UK too right now.
A big part of that is the moronic anti-nuclear sentiment, which means Europe relies a lot more than it should on gas to cover gaps in electricity generation (it's the default backup for any green source as the plants themselves are relatively cheap, they spool up quite fast and coal is too contaminant).
We've been collectively digging our own graves for the past few decades by phasing out instead of building up nuclear energy plants (with the notable exception of the French).
And the best part is Russia gets to use that gas money to build actual nukes, destabilize our countries and in military expeditions to their rebellious vassals. Brilliant.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 06, 2022, 06:48:32 PM
Several lists like this one are floating around, most of them anecdotal.
The most "real" one demanded to bring down the gas prices (not gasoline - natural gas) for gas-fuelled cars. The government has satisfied this demand.
Then there are lists of "demands" which include legalising polygyny...
The Collective Security forces were moved in after the protesters murdered 18 local policemen, including at least 2 beheadings, and wounded several hundred. These protesters are well-armed, coordinated, and they no longer stand a chance.
Hey Gaijin, good to hear from you, how are you doing.
Hi Gaijin :cheers:
So what's the general perspective inside Russia on... *gestures vaguely*... all of this....
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, relations with Europe and the US?
Actually... are you in Russia these days?
Quote from: Iormlund on January 06, 2022, 08:38:57 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 06, 2022, 06:50:05 PM
What the hell is up with the high gas prices at the moment anyway? Quite the big political issue in the UK too right now.
A big part of that is the moronic anti-nuclear sentiment, which means Europe relies a lot more than it should on gas to cover gaps in electricity generation (it's the default backup for any green source as the plants themselves are relatively cheap, they spool up quite fast and coal is too contaminant).
We've been collectively digging our own graves for the past few decades by phasing out instead of building up nuclear energy plants (with the notable exception of the French).
And the best part is Russia gets to use that gas money to build actual nukes, destabilize our countries and in military expeditions to their rebellious vassals. Brilliant.
just shows that greens don't care about the environment, only about their dogmas.
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2022, 07:35:46 PM
Thanks, Radio Sputnik?
Newsweek, for example:
https://www.newsweek.com/police-officer-beheaded-kazakhstan-russia-protests-violence-almaty-1666378%3famp=1
They are reporting 1 policeman beheaded, local news report up to 3. So I took 2.
It's violent there. Nothing peaceful about that botched coup attempt.
Quote from: mongers on January 06, 2022, 09:03:16 PM
Hey Gaijin, good to hear from you, how are you doing.
Hey Mongers, long time no speak! All good on my end, thanks :) and you?
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2022, 12:47:00 AM
Hi Gaijin :cheers:
So what's the general perspective inside Russia on... *gestures vaguely*... all of this....
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, relations with Europe and the US?
Actually... are you in Russia these days?
Hi there Jacob! Nah, I'm in Switzerland these days. Haven't been back to Russia or Japan (which feels more "home") for almost 3 years.
As for the general feeling in Russia, I guess most people watch this latest bout of hysteria with a sort of weary amusement. On one hand, it's not worth more than a couple of sarcastic jokes. On the other hand, they're ready to stand up and fight if the "collective West" loses its marbles and lashes out :) Kazakhstan is a good example of this, it took only 3 days for the Collective Security forces to move in to stop the violence.
That's just my reading, I could be wrong. *shrug*
I don't seek to idolise the individual protesters fighting the police, in every revolution/coup/whatever violent scum will always be on the forefront. But consequently, their behaviour cannot be used to judge the validity of the levels of desperation driving a populace to such resistance.
e.g. in Budapest in 1956, plenty of far-right people fought side-by-side with the liberal/moderate left youth against the occupiers and their client regime. No doubt if they had won they would had become fierce rivals (considering all the guns, possibly even enemies) of each other. But that doesn't change the fact that the revolution was for a good cause and it was because of an entire nation pushed to the limit of what it can take.
To me its quite clear a lot of resentment had to boil under the surface in Kazakhstan for this to happen. And the swift "help" of the alliance is no surprise. It's been Russian policy to squash rebellions that could give their own people ideas quickly and forcefully for over a 100 years. (Coming in and defeating freshly independent Hungary in 1849, jumps to mind, not to mention 1956 or 1968).
Quote from: Tyr on January 06, 2022, 06:50:05 PM
What the hell is up with the high gas prices at the moment anyway? Quite the big political issue in the UK too right now.
It's a global thing as the fact that it's an issue in the UK and continental Europe shows because I think we've got a slightly more diversified supply than most of Europe (more Norway, domestic production and Gulf States) - so it's not just a Russia thing. It's not clear that Russia is using the "gas weapon" either. The amount of gas flowing to Europe has been low but my understanding is Russia has needed to rebuild domestic stocks at the same time. Prices are now high enough in Europe that US LNG ships are on their way because it's a better deal than Asia.
The big thing driving it, from what I've read, is demand in Asia and the global economy recovering from covid. And I think there's a lot to Adam Tooze's points on the China shock element of various factors specific to China driving very high demand and that we're now in a world where China is the whale when it comes to energy demand so even small shifts in their market will have global effects. Europe is competing with North-East Asia for the same imports (gas supplies to South Asia, Latin America or non gas producing Middle Eastern states have fallen dramatically). And gas storage in Asia is even lower than in Europe so I suspect it'll be quite bumpy - I also think the bumpiness is going to be an inevitable part of energy transition because it's easy to produce more capacity for fossil fuels and fossil fuel power than there is demand, that's what we did in the 20th century. It's going to be very difficult to calibrate winding it down with eventual falling demand so there's no gaps and I think it's more likely we'll see periods like this of price spikes etc.
Welcome back Gaijin! :hug:
One analysis I've read talks about how as a result of the protests, Nazarbayev has been removed from his position as "lifetime" head of security council, which was supposed to be his way of staying in power indefinitely after leaving the Presidency. Putin will learn from this, which means that a) repressions will become even harder in the coming year, and b) any talk of a successor will now be shelved, because no successor could provide Putin a 100% guarantee that he won't be touched. Furthermore, anyone who even looks like a potential successor is in danger of being "cleansed".
Quote from: Tyr on January 06, 2022, 06:50:05 PM
What the hell is up with the high gas prices at the moment anyway? Quite the big political issue in the UK too right now.
I read that 20% of the world's crypto mining occurs in Kazakhstan and that has jacked up the energy prices
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2022, 04:38:28 AM
I don't seek to idolise the individual protesters fighting the police, in every revolution/coup/whatever violent scum will always be on the forefront. But consequently, their behaviour cannot be used to judge the validity of the levels of desperation driving a populace to such resistance.
e.g. in Budapest in 1956, plenty of far-right people fought side-by-side with the liberal/moderate left youth against the occupiers and their client regime. No doubt if they had won they would had become fierce rivals (considering all the guns, possibly even enemies) of each other. But that doesn't change the fact that the revolution was for a good cause and it was because of an entire nation pushed to the limit of what it can take.
To me its quite clear a lot of resentment had to boil under the surface in Kazakhstan for this to happen. And the swift "help" of the alliance is no surprise. It's been Russian policy to squash rebellions that could give their own people ideas quickly and forcefully for over a 100 years. (Coming in and defeating freshly independent Hungary in 1849, jumps to mind, not to mention 1956 or 1968).
Yeah, I see where you're coming from and I share some of your thoughts.
I'd disagree on a couple of points, though.
First, Putin doesn't need to "prevent his own people from having ideas." All we need to do is look at Georgia and Ukraine to see the result of these "peaceful protests": civil war, poverty, mass emigration, broken country with powerless government. So the Russians have been well vaccinated against wanting to overthrow their own government.
Second, while the protests in Kazakhstan did start peacefully, they escalated to murderous violence almost overnight. You see, the local government has accepted the initial demands to lower the gas prices and even resigned. So the peaceful protesters (without quotation marks) have disbanded. What came in their stead were the well armed militants.
Here's a typical story of a well-meaning protester. She's a beauty blogger and she owns a jewellery store. When the protests began, she supported them with her reputation, drove the protesters around in her car, brought food and water to them. In "fucking gratitude" (her words), the militants looted her store, burned and destroyed all the businesses around. She says "the city is fucked." She's now understandably bitter:
https://youtu.be/_4f_2bpiTR8
(Video is in Russian, sorry, but the visuals are telling).
As such, the Security operation is a purely anti-terrorist one.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2022, 06:34:13 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 06, 2022, 06:50:05 PM
What the hell is up with the high gas prices at the moment anyway? Quite the big political issue in the UK too right now.
I read that 20% of the world's crypto mining occurs in Kazakhstan and that has jacked up the energy prices
Yeah, good time to load up on crypto now :)
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 06:35:40 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2022, 04:38:28 AM
I whatever violent scum will always be on the forefront. But consequently, their behaviour cannot be used to judge the validity of the levels of desperation driving a populace to such resistance.
e.g. in Budapest in 1956, plenty of far-right people fought side-by-side with the liberal/moderate left youth against the occupiers and their client regime. No doubt if they had won they would had become fierce rivals (considering all the guns, possibly even enemies) of each other. But that doesn't change the fact that the revolution was for a good cause and it was because of an entire nation pushed to the limit of what it can take.
To me its quite clear a lot of resentment had to boil under the surface in Kazakhstan for this to happen. And the swift "help" of the alliance is no surprise. It's been Russian policy to squash rebellions that could give their own people ideas quickly and forcefully for over a 100 years. (Coming in and defeating freshly independent Hungary in 1849, jumps to mind, not to mention 1956 or 1968).
First, Putin doesn't need to "prevent his own people from having ideas." All we need to do is look at Georgia and Ukraine to see the result of these "peaceful protests": civil war, poverty, mass emigration, broken country with powerless government. So the Russians have been well vaccinated against wanting to overthrow their own government.
So because revolutions are messy and violent, people should just never rebel against the government?
People don't rebel because they're bored. They rebel because there are systematic problems in society that cannot be solved while working within the system.
Do revolutions often fail to fix those systematic probelms? Yes, but saying that becasue of that people should nrver try and give up to accept their shitty lot in life is nihilistic in the extreme.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 06:35:40 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2022, 04:38:28 AM
I don't seek to idolise the individual protesters fighting the police, in every revolution/coup/whatever violent scum will always be on the forefront. But consequently, their behaviour cannot be used to judge the validity of the levels of desperation driving a populace to such resistance.
e.g. in Budapest in 1956, plenty of far-right people fought side-by-side with the liberal/moderate left youth against the occupiers and their client regime. No doubt if they had won they would had become fierce rivals (considering all the guns, possibly even enemies) of each other. But that doesn't change the fact that the revolution was for a good cause and it was because of an entire nation pushed to the limit of what it can take.
To me its quite clear a lot of resentment had to boil under the surface in Kazakhstan for this to happen. And the swift "help" of the alliance is no surprise. It's been Russian policy to squash rebellions that could give their own people ideas quickly and forcefully for over a 100 years. (Coming in and defeating freshly independent Hungary in 1849, jumps to mind, not to mention 1956 or 1968).
Yeah, I see where you're coming from and I share some of your thoughts.
I'd disagree on a couple of points, though.
First, Putin doesn't need to "prevent his own people from having ideas." All we need to do is look at Georgia and Ukraine to see the result of these "peaceful protests": civil war, poverty, mass emigration, broken country with powerless government. So the Russians have been well vaccinated against wanting to overthrow their own government.
https://youtu.be/_4f_2bpiTR8
(Video is in Russian, sorry, but the visuals are telling).
As such, the Security operation is a purely anti-terrorist one.
Yeah, but what you are doing I think is comparing the same system in collapsed states vs a not-yet collapsed state with the same system.
Most people are quite ok indeed to make their peace with autocratic regimes (which often turn out to be kleptocracies especially in the East where that sort of feudalism has a long history) in exchange of relative stability, not too overt regime meddling in their daily lives, and assuredly getting back some scraps of the meat stolen from them. Especially if the only way to get rid of said regime is via violence. That definitely was the unsaid compromise between regime and people in post-1956 Hungary, seems to be the same unsaid deal in Russia, and I am quite convinced neither Ukrainians nor Kazakhs have less tolerance for having humiliating feudal overlords than Russians and Hungarians do.
For such strong revolutions/unrest you need that unsaid deal to break down, usually by the economic aspect (stability of subsistence) failing. That's nothing new, that's how peasant rebellions in the middle ages happened as well.
There are no non-violent ways left open in these countries (Kazakhstan, Russia, and I'd assume the other members of the intervening alliance) for regime change, so the only question is what will be the boiling point where people feel like they can risk protesting and pushing for regime change by violence.
Even if Russia is stable at the moment, the Kazakhstan way of getting rid of a hated regime cannot be shown as viable. I am sure there are "geopolitical" reasons for Russia intervening as well (oligarchs must have business interests there which would be up to redistribution if the revolution succeeded), but as I said Russia stepping in to maintain legitimacy of their own regime is just such a historically standard SOP for them, it's hard not to see it into this one.
EDIT: Timmy said largely the same thing just better. :)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2022, 07:07:05 AM
So because revolutions are messy and violent, people should just never rebel against the government?
People don't rebel because they're bored. They rebel because there are systematic problems in society that cannot be solved while working within the system.
Do revolutions often fail to fix those systematic probelms? Yes, but saying that becasue of that people should nrver try and give up to accept their shitty lot in life is nihilistic in the extreme.
[/quote]
Do you honestly believe what's happening in Kazakhstan now is a "revolution"? :)
My country (Russia) has had more than a fair share of revolutions. We know what happens every time: a hostile force such as communists or nationalists intercepts the agenda. Life ALWAYS worsens after a revolution. It's just a fact... at least for my country. So we've had enough.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 06:35:40 AMYeah, I see where you're coming from and I share some of your thoughts.
I'd disagree on a couple of points, though.
First, Putin doesn't need to "prevent his own people from having ideas." All we need to do is look at Georgia and Ukraine to see the result of these "peaceful protests": civil war, poverty, mass emigration, broken country with powerless government. So the Russians have been well vaccinated against wanting to overthrow their own government.
Although, from what I've read, the big fear/thing Putin and his circle want to prevent is a situation where they are facing their own colour revolution. For example, if the election results have to be very noticeably falsified and that provokes mass protests (and they've had some tasters) because there is a body of the discontented with the system in Russia.
I think the Putin wanting to stop people form having ideas has probably two sides which are whether they can improve living standards again which is the big issue because it's stagnated for the last few years. The other is how they manage the party system of an opposition that is legitimate enough to be credible, but not enough to represent a real threat - my understanding is the perception of that has declined in recent years.
But I don't think that's linked to this type of intervention - or the one in Belarus or the one in Syria - I think those are driven by an autocratic state that is close to Russia being pushed. Russia has then been able to intervene in quite a low-cost way to buttress that regime, which ties them closer to Russia and increases its influence - possibly at the expense of internal legitimacy which acts to drive them even closer to Russia. In the long run I'd suggest this might end up pushing those states away from Russia because they're associated with propping up what are seen as illegitimate regimes - see Ukraine.
QuoteSecond, while the protests in Kazakhstan did start peacefully, they escalated to murderous violence almost overnight. You see, the local government has accepted the initial demands to lower the gas prices and even resigned. So the peaceful protesters (without quotation marks) have disbanded. What came in their stead were the well armed militants.
Here's a typical story of a well-meaning protester. She's a beauty blogger and she owns a jewellery store. When the protests began, she supported them with her reputation, drove the protesters around in her car, brought food and water to them. In "fucking gratitude" (her words), the militants looted her store, burned and destroyed all the businesses around. She says "the city is fucked." She's now understandably bitter:
https://youtu.be/_4f_2bpiTR8
(Video is in Russian, sorry, but the visuals are telling).
As such, the Security operation is a purely anti-terrorist one.
Although I think that is a common narrative around all protests that either challenge or get rid of state/police power. That typical story for example was one we also saw in BLM protests (as is the idea which I'm not sure about of it moving from well-meaning peaceful protesters to organised groups) - all of that is stuff we saw especially in the right-wing media in the US.
I think the two complications is that there have also been over 20 deaths among protesters and thousands have been detained (I believe three thousand was the last estimate) - I'm not sure of the timing on that but deaths and mass detention can be something that changes the mood of a protests like a switch. The other thing is I wonder if there is a bit of a class element here - these are not and have never been student protests from what I've read. From my understanding they started with miners and oil workers who are - bluntly - probably a little bit more robust and willing to fight the police than students, but also more likely to be organised and have their own networks either through unions or work. My instinct would be that any protest that's led by workers like that is more likely to have violence and confrontation than, say, student/middle class protests.
QuoteFor such strong revolutions/unrest you need that unsaid deal to break down, usually by the economic aspect (stability of subsistence) failing. That's nothing new, that's how peasant rebellions in the middle ages happened as well.
Also the French revolution, 1848, the 1905 and 1979 revolutions in Iran and arguably the Arab Spring. There are loads of protests/revolutionary moments prompted by food prices especially but also fuel, sustenance etc. There's areas of the world where the main thing the state provides is subsidies so that their people can have enough food, fuel etc.
I don't think it's inevitable but I think it is a really important factor - and in the last year as the economy bounces back from covid we're seeing global inflation, spikes in eneregy costs and, I believe, for many staples the highest food prices in decades. So it wouldn't surprise me if we see more protests or possible revolutions elsewhere in the world. They might take a different form than in Kazakhstan but I'd be surprised if this is the last outbreak in 2022.
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2022, 07:27:53 AM
Yeah, but what you are doing I think is comparing the same system in collapsed states vs a not-yet collapsed state with the same system.
Most people are quite ok indeed to make their peace with autocratic regimes (which often turn out to be kleptocracies especially in the East where that sort of feudalism has a long history) in exchange of relative stability, not too overt regime meddling in their daily lives, and assuredly getting back some scraps of the meat stolen from them. Especially if the only way to get rid of said regime is via violence. That definitely was the unsaid compromise between regime and people in post-1956 Hungary, seems to be the same unsaid deal in Russia, and I am quite convinced neither Ukrainians nor Kazakhs have less tolerance for having humiliating feudal overlords than Russians and Hungarians do.
For such strong revolutions/unrest you need that unsaid deal to break down, usually by the economic aspect (stability of subsistence) failing. That's nothing new, that's how peasant rebellions in the middle ages happened as well.
There are no non-violent ways left open in these countries (Kazakhstan, Russia, and I'd assume the other members of the intervening alliance) for regime change, so the only question is what will be the boiling point where people feel like they can risk protesting and pushing for regime change by violence.
Even if Russia is stable at the moment, the Kazakhstan way of getting rid of a hated regime cannot be shown as viable. I am sure there are "geopolitical" reasons for Russia intervening as well (oligarchs must have business interests there which would be up to redistribution if the revolution succeeded), but as I said Russia stepping in to maintain legitimacy of their own regime is just such a historically standard SOP for them, it's hard not to see it into this one.
EDIT: Timmy said largely the same thing just better. :)
I would suggest that what's happening now in Kazakhstan is not a "revolution against a hated regime", but an internal strife between three Kazakh Hordes (Zhuz's) fuelled by external militant forces who are explicitly anti-Russian.
The legitimate agenda of the original protests has been discarded and forgotten. Now it's an anti-terrorist operation against armed insurgents, not all of them local.
The South, traditionally, is a weak underbelly of Russia's security. To call this (unsuccessful) takeover attempt a revolution against the current regime... it amuses me :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2022, 08:27:38 AM
... lots of good content - removed for brevity...
I agree with a lot of what you say.
I'll just add that the gun violence seems to originate from the insurgents, in Kazakhstan's case. They killed at least 18 policemen and wounded several hundred. The losses from looting are estimated to be US$ 100 million - not much for a European country or for the US, but a lot for Kazakhstan.
Real gunfights took place in the cities. Some of the murdered policemen have been beheaded, some were "finished off" with wooden spears.
It's no surprise that dozens of insurgents have been also shot dead. Would a Western country react differently?
Gaijin, so as I understand what you are claiming is that the civilian protesters largely concluded it was mission completed when the gas subsidies were restored and went home, but armed tribe militias reinforced by foreign agents remained on the streets to stage a coup?
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2022, 08:47:48 AM
Gaijin, so as I understand what you are claiming is that the civilian protesters largely concluded it was mission completed when the gas subsidies were restored and went home, but armed tribe militias reinforced by foreign agents remained on the streets to stage a coup?
That's one possible scenario, yes. I believe it's the most likely one, but I could be wrong.
We don't have enough info to conclude anything yet.
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2022, 08:47:48 AM
Gaijin, so as I understand what you are claiming is that the civilian protesters largely concluded it was mission completed when the gas subsidies were restored and went home, but armed tribe militias reinforced by foreign agents remained on the streets to stage a coup?
The opposition press in Russia is reporting that the violence is basically an intra-elite fight. There are protests which has caused unrest. But the violence is basically between remnants and supporters of Nazarbayev and his family who were being removed from positions of power (and also rent-seeking) v the state led by his successor. It had been a peaceful transition and Nazarbayev has been removed from his life position but has been getting sidelined for a while - that's what, allegedly, is causing the violence and the confused response from the security forces. No idea if that's true.
Again this and Gaijin's analysis makes me think it's more not less of a revolutionary situation - what's more normal than protests and anger at a regime being used by armed elites to clean house, or for the most well-armed, disciplined (and often radical) group to rise to the top?
Edit: And reports that Nazarbayev and most of his family have now left the country - which would possibly seem to link to the opposition reporting in Russia. And a bit of a sign that no matter how much Putin might like you (and Nazarbayev's family members are on the board of Gazprom) he'd rather stability/support the state once you've left office - which might have consequences elsewhere.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 08:52:05 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2022, 08:47:48 AM
Gaijin, so as I understand what you are claiming is that the civilian protesters largely concluded it was mission completed when the gas subsidies were restored and went home, but armed tribe militias reinforced by foreign agents remained on the streets to stage a coup?
That's one possible scenario, yes. I believe it's the most likely one, but I could be wrong.
We don't have enough info to conclude anything yet.
What evidence is there of foreign militants?
Quote from: Zoupa on January 07, 2022, 09:09:34 AM
What evidence is there of foreign militants?
Currently it's an assumption based on beheadings.
I guess we'll know at least a portion of truth when the investigations conclude.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2022, 08:59:23 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2022, 08:47:48 AM
Gaijin, so as I understand what you are claiming is that the civilian protesters largely concluded it was mission completed when the gas subsidies were restored and went home, but armed tribe militias reinforced by foreign agents remained on the streets to stage a coup?
The opposition press in Russia is reporting that the violence is basically an intra-elite fight. There are protests which has caused unrest. But the violence is basically between remnants and supporters of Nazarbayev and his family who were being removed from positions of power (and also rent-seeking) v the state led by his successor. It had been a peaceful transition and Nazarbayev has been removed from his life position but has been getting sidelined for a while - that's what, allegedly, is causing the violence and the confused response from the security forces. No idea if that's true.
Again this and Gaijin's analysis makes me think it's more not less of a revolutionary situation - what's more normal than protests and anger at a regime being used by armed elites to clean house, or for the most well-armed, disciplined (and often radical) group to rise to the top?
Edit: And reports that Nazarbayev and most of his family have now left the country - which would possibly seem to link to the opposition reporting in Russia. And a bit of a sign that no matter how much Putin might like you (and Nazarbayev's family members are on the board of Gazprom) he'd rather stability/support the state once you've left office - which might have consequences elsewhere.
Fair enough. Seeing pro-democracy revolutions into every popular uprising I am definitely against. But as I tried to explain before, I am convinced that economic failure by the regime had to contribute to the unrest and you need significant unrest to see these kind of protests in a country like that. This could not have been a case of a content stable country flipped into such chaos at a press of a button by some contender for the top post.
If Nazarbayev has fled it would support the point that there's a powerbloc which have stepped in to support and benefit from the unrest though - I doubt the regime would fall apart this quickly from a decentralised uprising.
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2022, 09:16:31 AM
Fair enough. Seeing pro-democracy revolutions into every popular uprising I am definitely against. But as I tried to explain before, I am convinced that economic failure by the regime had to contribute to the unrest and you need significant unrest to see these kind of protests in a country like that. This could not have been a case of a content stable country flipped into such chaos at a press of a button by some contender for the top post.
If Nazarbayev has fled it would support the point that there's a powerbloc which have stepped in to support and benefit from the unrest though - I doubt the regime would fall apart this quickly from a decentralised uprising.
Yes, it appears Nazarbaev has fled. We'll know more later.
It also appears the original organisers of these protests have lost control. Here's the video, allegedly by one of these leaders, recorded one day before his arrest.
In this video, he says things like "people, what are you doing? Why are you killing others? The policemen are simple Kazakhs like you and me, why are you killing our brothers? Why are you looting and raping our women? These are not the protests we wanted!" And so on. My translation is approximate, as he switches from Russian to Kazakh:
https://t.me/SergeyKolyasnikov/20361
What also surprised me is the amount of gear Russia is shipping over there. Here's just one batch:
https://youtu.be/x9i7Quh3mMc
It's like they're repelling an invasion.
(Edited for the correct video)
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 09:12:57 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 07, 2022, 09:09:34 AM
What evidence is there of foreign militants?
Currently it's an assumption based on beheadings.
I guess we'll know at least a portion of truth when the investigations conclude.
Who would be doing these truth seeking investigations?
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 03:08:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2022, 07:35:46 PM
Thanks, Radio Sputnik?
Newsweek, for example:
https://www.newsweek.com/police-officer-beheaded-kazakhstan-russia-protests-violence-almaty-1666378%3famp=1
They are reporting 1 policeman beheaded, local news report up to 3. So I took 2.
It's violent there. Nothing peaceful about that botched coup attempt.
I think your subsequent posts and the below more than justify my retort.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 06, 2022, 06:58:10 PM
Nord Stream 2 could help normalise the prices, but for political reasons it's been stalled by our European partners.
If only the evil Westerners would not politicize gas delivery!
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2022, 09:16:31 AM
Fair enough. Seeing pro-democracy revolutions into every popular uprising I am definitely against. But as I tried to explain before, I am convinced that economic failure by the regime had to contribute to the unrest and you need significant unrest to see these kind of protests in a country like that. This could not have been a case of a content stable country flipped into such chaos at a press of a button by some contender for the top post.
Oh absolutely and I think there is definitely homegrown protests and demands - but it strikes me as plausible that the reason it seemed to escalate so quickly and the role of the security forces was very confused is because there was an intra-elite struggle and someone tried to take advantage of the chaos caused by protests to clean house/settle scores.
QuoteIf Nazarbayev has fled it would support the point that there's a powerbloc which have stepped in to support and benefit from the unrest though - I doubt the regime would fall apart this quickly from a decentralised uprising.
Just as a quick flag on the British angle. Nazarbayev would no doubt be able to flee to one of his properties in London - I believe the City, in its standard role as amoral facilitator of looting, has helped Kazakh leaders and oligarchs build up a huge £500 million neatly laundered set of assets in the rest of the world. And of course Tony Blair was for several years after his premiership paid by Nazarbayev to offer consultancy (including on PR) on human rights.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2022, 11:07:11 AM
And of course Tony Blair was for several years after his premiership paid by Nazarbayev to offer consultancy (including on PR) on human rights.
Ugh, sounds like a horrible job. I'm sure it paid well, but it really kills your motivation when your boss doesn't really believe in your work product.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2022, 10:24:10 AM
Who would be doing these truth seeking investigations?
The law enforcement, of course. Who else?
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 11:29:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2022, 10:24:10 AM
Who would be doing these truth seeking investigations?
The law enforcement, of course. Who else?
Nobody else. I am just amused at the idea that there is going to be some "truth seeking" investigation.
It will be as truthful as RT reporting on how that jetliner was full of dummies.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2022, 11:39:19 AM
Nobody else. I am just amused at the idea that there is going to be some "truth seeking" investigation.
It will be as truthful as RT reporting on how that jetliner was full of dummies.
My rule #1 is to never watch the mainstream mass media. In any country :) Well, I do make an exception for Japan to watch their wacky programs.
But the truth tends to come out, eventually. We'll see.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 08:28:02 AM
I would suggest that what's happening now in Kazakhstan is not a "revolution against a hated regime", but an internal strife between three Kazakh Hordes (Zhuz's) fuelled by external militant forces who are explicitly anti-Russian.
What is the source of the "external militant forces who are explicitly anti-Russian"? Is this being blamed on the West? Muslims?
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2022, 11:51:34 AM
What is the source of the "external militant forces who are explicitly anti-Russian"? Is this being blamed on the West? Muslims?
After a quick scan of the Russian media, I see 2 main theories related to the "foreign" influence:
- West (US/UK) attempted to destabilise the vulnerable Russian borders in the south ahead of the Jan 10 Geneva meeting.
- One of the competing oligarchs has brought in militants with experience of fighting in Syria and Iraq. Mind you, "foreign" doesn't have to be anything else than Kyrgyz, Uzbek, or Russian for example (we have more than our fair share of home-grown terrorists.)
The idea that the West has the resources, assets and capabilities to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia is absurd.
Quote from: Zanza on January 07, 2022, 01:07:52 PM
The idea that the West has the resources, assets and capabilities to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia is absurd.
I think Russian propaganda has figured out a while ago that making lies plausible is a waste of resources that could better be spent spreading more lies.
Quote from: DGuller on January 07, 2022, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 07, 2022, 01:07:52 PM
The idea that the West has the resources, assets and capabilities to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia is absurd.
I think Russian propaganda has figured out a while ago that making lies plausible is a waste of resources that could better be spent spreading more lies.
I just hope we can get some truth seeking investigations to get to the bottom of it.
Quote from: DGuller on January 07, 2022, 01:16:20 PM
I think Russian propaganda has figured out a while ago that making lies plausible is a waste of resources that could better be spent spreading more lies.
:lol: Funny because true.
:( On second thought, maybe not so funny.
Quote from: Zanza on January 07, 2022, 01:07:52 PM
The idea that the West has the resources, assets and capabilities to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia is absurd.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3063/RAND_RR3063.pdf
It's all out in the open access. See page 6 for the contents.
An interesting read.
That's a think tank research paper, not public policy.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 07:16:01 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 07, 2022, 01:07:52 PM
The idea that the West has the resources, assets and capabilities to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia is absurd.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3063/RAND_RR3063.pdf
It's all out in the open access. See page 6 for the contents.
An interesting read.
These are all recommendations, not operations. None of them propose trying "to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia." It's interesting that you try to fly this document as support for your argument.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 09:36:47 AM
It's like they're repelling an invasion.
Close. They are an invasion.
We have enough to worry about with China, I cannot imagine we are scheming ways to fuck with Russia. But hey we might not be very smart, I don't know.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 08:10:51 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2022, 07:07:05 AM
So because revolutions are messy and violent, people should just never rebel against the government?
People don't rebel because they're bored. They rebel because there are systematic problems in society that cannot be solved while working within the system.
Do revolutions often fail to fix those systematic probelms? Yes, but saying that becasue of that people should nrver try and give up to accept their shitty lot in life is nihilistic in the extreme.
Do you honestly believe what's happening in Kazakhstan now is a "revolution"? :)
My country (Russia) has had more than a fair share of revolutions. We know what happens every time: a hostile force such as communists or nationalists intercepts the agenda. Life ALWAYS worsens after a revolution. It's just a fact... at least for my country. So we've had enough.
It's an attempt at a revolution sure. Revolution don't require a modern ideology like liberalism or communism. There can be theocratic revolutions, tribal uprisings, etc. Coherent ideologies are not required, simply mass participation by enough of the population to take it beyond level of court infighting with the aim of tearing down the powers that be and replacing them.
I think that the French Revolution is a textbook example of a revolution that got out of hand, what with the terror and the quarter century of great power warfare that followed and the country was still better off after all of that.
Even the Russian Revolution, with a terrible communist regime that killed millions of its own people was arguably a net positive, because I don't see that the Czarist regime that they replaced would have had any chance in defeating the Nazi invasion and preventing the ensuing genocide of the Russian people.
Hitler would have kept the pact with a tsarist Russia.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 07, 2022, 10:50:02 PM
Hitler would have kept the pact with a tsarist Russia.
Tsarist Russia would never have made that pact with Hitler.
Why do you say that?
The old conservative/monarchist wing in Germany got behind him.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2022, 08:55:11 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 09:36:47 AM
It's like they're repelling an invasion.
Close. They are an invasion.
They're on their allied territory, on official request from their ally's leadership.
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2022, 08:37:04 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 07:16:01 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 07, 2022, 01:07:52 PM
The idea that the West has the resources, assets and capabilities to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia is absurd.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3063/RAND_RR3063.pdf
It's all out in the open access. See page 6 for the contents.
An interesting read.
These are all recommendations, not operations. None of them propose trying "to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia." It's interesting that you try to fly this document as support for your argument.
Sure, of course.
Chapter 4, Measure 5: Reduce Russian Influence in Central Asia (page 121).
It's all part of the old Big Game. The British Empire, then the US, have actively pursued this policy for centuries. Of course, Russia pursues the mirror strategy just as actively. Why deny the obvious?
This Game will never end... just a part of life.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that's just one possible scenario. One out of many.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2022, 09:25:53 PM
It's an attempt at a revolution sure. Revolution don't require a modern ideology like liberalism or communism. There can be theocratic revolutions, tribal uprisings, etc. Coherent ideologies are not required, simply mass participation by enough of the population to take it beyond level of court infighting with the aim of tearing down the powers that be and replacing them.
I think that the French Revolution is a textbook example of a revolution that got out of hand, what with the terror and the quarter century of great power warfare that followed and the country was still better off after all of that.
Even the Russian Revolution, with a terrible communist regime that killed millions of its own people was arguably a net positive, because I don't see that the Czarist regime that they replaced would have had any chance in defeating the Nazi invasion and preventing the ensuing genocide of the Russian people.
Very interesting.
Yep also believe the Communist revolution had the only positive of mobilising the old, crumbling Russian Empire to a state where it could defeat the Nazis.
Still... a horrible thing to happen. Tens of millions of people dead, empire chopped up into hostile nation-states... basically, on par with the Mongol invasion, in terms of throwing Russia back into the dark ages.
Anyway, what's happening in Kazakhstan isn't a revolution, as it doesn't meet any definitions of a true revolution. Just an unsuccessful diversion, IMHO.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 08, 2022, 02:59:15 AM
Anyway, all I'm saying is that's just one possible scenario. One out of many.
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/64102723.jpg)
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 08, 2022, 02:59:15 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2022, 08:37:04 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 07:16:01 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 07, 2022, 01:07:52 PM
The idea that the West has the resources, assets and capabilities to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia is absurd.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3063/RAND_RR3063.pdf
It's all out in the open access. See page 6 for the contents.
An interesting read.
These are all recommendations, not operations. None of them propose trying "to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia." It's interesting that you try to fly this document as support for your argument.
Sure, of course.
Chapter 4, Measure 5: Reduce Russian Influence in Central Asia (page 121).
It's all part of the old Big Game. The British Empire, then the US, have actively pursued this policy for centuries. Of course, Russia pursues the mirror strategy just as actively. Why deny the obvious?
This Game will never end... just a part of life.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that's just one possible scenario. One out of many.
He's right. This is a super hawkish private think tank. By nature its always going to be encouraging America to be aggressive internationally.
That it says America should be seeking to undermine Russian influence in these ways I'd say is evidence America ISN'T doing this rather than evidence it is.
I love how you all are seriously arguing with a Russian conspiracy theorist.
But you repeat yourself.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 08, 2022, 04:29:11 AM
I love how you all are seriously arguing with a Russian conspiracy theorist.
I obviously disagree with him but it also cannot be denied that he has a closer understanding of the main actor (Russia) and probably the area of the world. I fondly remember, for example, how Sheilbh and a couple of others here considered Erdogan's initial attacks on secular laws as a proof he was a modern liberal, and thought I was wrong to identify that as the action of an opposite kind of politician. :D
More importantly, right or wrong I think Gaijin's view of the event and also his overall resignation to the so called benefits of Putin's quasi-feudal autocracy must be shared by a lot of other people. I know they are in Hungary. So I don't think it benefits me or him to just yell at him instead of trying to explain why I think he is wrong.
Quote from: Tamas on January 08, 2022, 04:38:35 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 08, 2022, 04:29:11 AM
I love how you all are seriously arguing with a Russian conspiracy theorist.
I obviously disagree with him but it also cannot be denied that he has a closer understanding of the main actor (Russia) and probably the area of the world. I fondly remember, for example, how Sheilbh and a couple of others here considered Erdogan's initial attacks on secular laws as a proof he was a modern liberal, and thought I was wrong to identify that as the action of an opposite kind of politician. :D
More importantly, right or wrong I think Gaijin's view of the event and also his overall resignation to the so called benefits of Putin's quasi-feudal autocracy must be shared by a lot of other people. I know they are in Hungary. So I don't think it benefits me or him to just yell at him instead of trying to explain why I think he is wrong.
So like how Mono was a window into China and it was valuable to show him how he was wrong.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/12/30/russias-excess-death-toll-hits-930k-a75964
Saw this in a covid thread. 929k excess deaths since the beginning of the pandemic through December in Russia. Insane number given the overall population 144 million.
Quote from: Tamas on January 08, 2022, 04:38:35 AM
I obviously disagree with him but it also cannot be denied that he has a closer understanding of the main actor (Russia) and probably the area of the world. I fondly remember, for example, how Sheilbh and a couple of others here considered Erdogan's initial attacks on secular laws as a proof he was a modern liberal, and thought I was wrong to identify that as the action of an opposite kind of politician. :D
I never said he was a liberal - but I wouldn't say that to my worst enemy, though those were liberalising laws - I said he was a democratic Islamist or a Muslim democrat. And I think that's still broadly true for his first two terms that were generally very good and positive (same goes for Putin). The people I was arguing against were generally taking the view that there was something inherent in Islam that made it incompatible with democracy unless they impose very strict secular rules and game the system (which is about as democratic as Erdogan is now) - which I still fundamentally disagree with.
But after the first two terms I always said he was becoming more authoritarian especially after he moved to a Presidential system, but that his authoritarianism was in the Putin/illiberall democracy mould rather than something to do with Islam (which was normally the point of view I was arguing against). There is nothing about Erdogan's system right now that is because of his Islamism as opposed to the same factors of corruption, crony capitalism etc that drives Putin. The defining feature of Erdogan's regims is not it's Islamic characteristics.
And again I think the 2023 election is going to be very interesting because Erdogan now has a consistent disapproval rating of about 15-20%, while the AKP are still the most popular party their coalition partner is below the threshold and the two or three main opposition parties are collectively at about 50%. It's opening up what's, from my understanding, Putin's nightmare scenario of a result that means you either lose power or there has to be very obviously falsified results which has, elsewhere, provoked protests and "colour revolutions".
QuoteIt's all part of the old Big Game. The British Empire, then the US, have actively pursued this policy for centuries. Of course, Russia pursues the mirror strategy just as actively. Why deny the obvious?
Isn't it more or less over though in Central Asia? Where could the US operate from?
Turkey's a player in their own right so not likely to provide a base for meddling Americans, Iran and Afghanistan are not options, I don't think the US is really an ally with Pakistan any more, which leaves China. I think it's now probably more of a game between the Chinese and the Russians for influence, though sometimes (as in Kazakhstan right now) their interests will align.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2022, 05:29:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 08, 2022, 04:38:35 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 08, 2022, 04:29:11 AM
I love how you all are seriously arguing with a Russian conspiracy theorist.
I obviously disagree with him but it also cannot be denied that he has a closer understanding of the main actor (Russia) and probably the area of the world. I fondly remember, for example, how Sheilbh and a couple of others here considered Erdogan's initial attacks on secular laws as a proof he was a modern liberal, and thought I was wrong to identify that as the action of an opposite kind of politician. :D
More importantly, right or wrong I think Gaijin's view of the event and also his overall resignation to the so called benefits of Putin's quasi-feudal autocracy must be shared by a lot of other people. I know they are in Hungary. So I don't think it benefits me or him to just yell at him instead of trying to explain why I think he is wrong.
So like how Mono was a window into China and it was valuable to show him how he was wrong.
Gaijin hasn't even got close to Mono's vile, don't be unfair. we see Russia everywhere he sees the US everywhere, it balances out.
Quote from: Tamas on January 08, 2022, 08:59:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2022, 05:29:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 08, 2022, 04:38:35 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 08, 2022, 04:29:11 AM
I love how you all are seriously arguing with a Russian conspiracy theorist.
I obviously disagree with him but it also cannot be denied that he has a closer understanding of the main actor (Russia) and probably the area of the world. I fondly remember, for example, how Sheilbh and a couple of others here considered Erdogan's initial attacks on secular laws as a proof he was a modern liberal, and thought I was wrong to identify that as the action of an opposite kind of politician. :D
More importantly, right or wrong I think Gaijin's view of the event and also his overall resignation to the so called benefits of Putin's quasi-feudal autocracy must be shared by a lot of other people. I know they are in Hungary. So I don't think it benefits me or him to just yell at him instead of trying to explain why I think he is wrong.
So like how Mono was a window into China and it was valuable to show him how he was wrong.
Gaijin hasn't even got close to Mono's vile, don't be unfair. we see Russia everywhere he sees the US everywhere, it balances out.
:wacko:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 08, 2022, 12:23:59 AM
Why do you say that?
The old conservative/monarchist wing in Germany got behind him.
Because Tsarist Russia was allied with France, to prevent exactly the scenario that eventuated: Germany defeats France, and then attacks Russia.
Hitler would certainly have attacked Russia after defeating France. That's what Hitler was all about: the continuation of the thousand-year-old German
Drang Nach Osten.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 08, 2022, 02:59:15 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2022, 08:37:04 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 07, 2022, 07:16:01 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 07, 2022, 01:07:52 PM
The idea that the West has the resources, assets and capabilities to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia is absurd.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3063/RAND_RR3063.pdf
It's all out in the open access. See page 6 for the contents.
An interesting read.
These are all recommendations, not operations. None of them propose trying "to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia." It's interesting that you try to fly this document as support for your argument.
Sure, of course.
Chapter 4, Measure 5: Reduce Russian Influence in Central Asia (page 121).
It's all part of the old Big Game. The British Empire, then the US, have actively pursued this policy for centuries. Of course, Russia pursues the mirror strategy just as actively. Why deny the obvious?
This Game will never end... just a part of life.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that's just one possible scenario. One out of many.
:huh: Did you read the section you want to use as evidence that " the West has the resources, assets and capabilities to stage ... violent conflict in Central Asia?"
QuoteConclusion
Reducing Russian influence in Central Asia would be very difficult and could prove costly, and Russia's influence might be reduced there in the long term without this measure. China will continue to expand there through its Belt and Road Initiative, and Japan and India have also engaged with the region, all of which could reduce Russia's dominance.
The main reason for increasing U.S. engagement in the region would be to benefit the United States: gaining modest help in implementing U.S. foreign policy goals, creating new opportunities for U.S. businesses, and channeling China's outward efforts in directions amenable to the United States. Without great cost, however, increased engagement would
be unlikely to extend Russia much economically, and backlash would need to be guarded against.
The conclusion is that "the Game," as you call it, is not worth playing. The Russian conspiracy theory that they are victims of "the Game" will never end... just a part of life.
Quote from: Tyr on January 08, 2022, 04:24:50 AM
He's right. This is a super hawkish private think tank. By nature its always going to be encouraging America to be aggressive internationally.
That it says America should be seeking to undermine Russian influence in these ways I'd say is evidence America ISN'T doing this rather than evidence it is.
This is an interesting take, thank you :)
Quote from: Tamas on January 08, 2022, 08:59:55 AM
Gaijin hasn't even got close to Mono's vile, don't be unfair. we see Russia everywhere he sees the US everywhere, it balances out.
:)
I like the US. I like Russia, too. And China is one of my fav countries.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2022, 11:17:34 AM
The conclusion is that "the Game," as you call it, is not worth playing. The Russian conspiracy theory that they are victims of "the Game" will never end... just a part of life.
Yep, this theory is very popular in Russia. I don't think it's going to change.
Sorry I'm not engaging in an intelligent debate on this topic. Last day of vacation... I'm just binging out on French horror flicks, unable to engage my brain...
Meanwhile, in an interesting turn of events, Ukrainian (!) Security Forces prevented a Khasakh opposition member, based in Kiev, from coordinating the protests back in Kazakhstan. During the "conversation," the guy lost a few teeth. Link to the Ukrainian site, where the journalist sounds unsure how to report this, lol:
https://hromadske.ua/ru/amp/posts/kazahskie-aktivisty-v-ukraine-zayavili-chto-k-nim-prishli-sotrudniki-sbu-tam-obuyasnili-eto-proverka-v-ramkah-zakona
The government providing free dental work? And they say Communism is dead in Eastern Europe.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 08, 2022, 02:52:54 PM
Yep, this theory is very popular in Russia. I don't think it's going to change.
Sorry I'm not engaging in an intelligent debate on this topic. Last day of vacation... I'm just binging out on French horror flicks, unable to engage my brain...
You are doing fine, as far as I am concerned. I think you are reaching in some of the arguments, but the tone is pleasant and I enjoyed engaging with you. Stick around.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2022, 06:26:11 PM
The government providing free dental work? And they say Communism is dead in Eastern Europe.
:D
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2022, 07:52:45 PM
You are doing fine, as far as I am concerned. I think you are reaching in some of the arguments, but the tone is pleasant and I enjoyed engaging with you. Stick around.
:cheers:
Well, the government is reporting 164 dead in clashes. I guess that is no surprise since they ordered security forces to simply shoot first and ask questions later.
I am sure they are all terrorists though, so no worries.
Putin's comment somewhere that Russian troops are in Kazakhstan only temporarily made me think, as it reminded me of how the "temporarily stationed" nature of Soviet troops in Hungary became a decades-long running joke. If we assume people are right that he is looking to reestablish the Russian Empire (I am skeptical as to the priority of that), maybe that's one of his angle here? Now he may have all the influence he needs to built a client dukedom in Kazakhstan.
I don't think it's necessarily about re-establishing the Russian Empire either :lol:
I think the interesting thing is from what I've read Nazarbayev was one of Putin's favourite neighbouring rulers so it's interesting that even if you were best pals Russia would rather stability with the existing regime than necessarily back old, loyall clients - though I'm sure Nazarbayev's daughter will carry on on the board of GazProm and if Nazarbayev has left he'll live comfortably in Moscow. The other interesting angle is China because China's become Kazakhstan biggest trade partner, they have a lot of pipelines running through Kazakhstan and their influence had been growing - China has broadly backed the Russian actions and "restoring stability" as a priority. It's interesting that they're comfortable with Russia taking the lead and building more power in Kazakhstan and clearly don't feel threatened by that, or didn't feel they should be the ones to help there.
But I think that is exactly right that Putin is willing to back supportive regimes hold on to power with Russian force, in a way that erodes the local legitimacy of that regime which ties it even closer to Russia. I think we've seen that in Belarus, Syria and arguably Armenia (who now rely on Russian protection) and Azerbaijan (who now have Russian peacekeepers on their territory). With the possible exception of Syria these have been relatively low cost interventions by Russia but have closely tied those states to Moscow. A bit like the growing mercenary/quasi-state presence in Africa that is challenging the French in "their" Francafrique, it's low cost and delivering a decent return (from Russia's perspective).
I wonder where China fits in this. Obviously they're all for shooting protesters, but are they enthusiastic about Putin getting closer to Kazakhstan? My understanding is that China itself had interests in it.
I think China is currently turig inwards again, not that interested with Belt and Road etc. anymore as they have realized they can just buy influence and don't need more heavy-handed tactics - unlike Putin.
Denmark is apparently sending a frigate and four fighter jets to Lithuania to patrol and mark the sovereignty of the Baltic countries, as part of an increase in NATO's presence there.
I have to say that I enjoy how the allies are framing their current response... working hard to deescalate the situation by imposing massive sanctions - within hours - if Russia invades.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-us-relations-deterrence-measures-against-russia-1.6309449
The current negotiations in Geneva are not even about Ukraine.
The fact that the western mass media keep peddling the same old story about this "imminent invasion" and "massive sanctions" is telling.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 10, 2022, 04:48:08 PM
The current negotiations in Geneva are not even about Ukraine.
The fact that the western mass media keep peddling the same old story about this "imminent invasion" and "massive sanctions" is telling.
The fact that Russia's sympathizers continue to ignore the obvious threat posed by Russian military buildups on the border with Ukraine is telling.
The current negotiations in Geneva are about trying to keep the Russians from stumbling into a shooting war as Putin flails about trying to find "security." The current "crisis" (if that is what it is, rather than Putin play-acting for his domestic audience) is 100% Putin's doing. Issuing absurd demands isn't the way to gain anyone's respect, though it can gain attention.
Regardless of how "absurd" you personally believe the Russian demands are, they're not about Ukraine.
They're about the imperative need for all countries to follow the UN Charter.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 10, 2022, 05:09:06 PM
Regardless of how "absurd" you personally believe the Russian demands are, they're not about Ukraine.
They're about the imperative need for all countries to follow the UN Charter.
I am not really following. Last Russian demand I read was to make NATO remove their troops from the former Soviet vassal states. That's a demand custom-made to be rejected by the other party.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 10, 2022, 04:48:08 PM
The current negotiations in Geneva are not even about Ukraine.
No? What are they about?
QuoteThe fact that the western mass media keep peddling the same old story about this "imminent invasion" and "massive sanctions" is telling.
How is it telling?
For the record, though, that's not just what our media is peddling us. That's what our governments are clearly stating as well.
It's a pretty simple situation from our perspective:
1. Russia masses troops on Ukrainian border.
2. Russia makes a series of unreasonable demands about Western engagement with Ukraine (and many other places).
Seems pretty straightforward, really. What are the alternate readings? What do people in Russia believe is happening?
If it turns out that Western governments misread the situation and this was just a curious misunderstanding, then the talks of massive sanctions are missing the point... but are ultimately harmless because obviously Russia is not going to invade Ukraine (anymore than it already has, of course) and the sanctions won't be applied.
But if the idea of an attack has been downgraded to "same old story", that's a good sign :)
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 10, 2022, 05:09:06 PM
They're about the imperative need for all countries to follow the UN Charter.
Eh?
Sure, article 2 mentions the UN but the remaining articles read like this:
QuoteArticle 3
The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.
Article 4
The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.
Article 5
The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.
The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.
The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms to prevent dangerous military activities on and over the high seas, including agreeing on the maximum approach distance between warships and aircraft.
Article 6
The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.
Article 7
The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.
The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.
Article 8
The Treaty shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the last written notification on the completion by the Parties of their domestic procedures necessary for its entry into force.
Done in two originals, each in English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.
https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en
That has nothing to do with following any UN charters and everything to do with Russia demanding the ability to use force to impose and maintain hegemony in what it considers it's rightful sphere of influence without worrying about the West reacting.
The Economist puts the probability of Russia invading Ukraine at 43%. I was surprised.
I'm taking Gaijin du Moscu's dismissal of the potential invasion being "the same old thing" as a reason to downgrade it by 23 percentage points. So I'm rating the likelihood as 20%.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 10, 2022, 04:48:08 PM
The current negotiations in Geneva are not even about Ukraine.
The fact that the western mass media keep peddling the same old story about this "imminent invasion" and "massive sanctions" is telling.
Telling of what? I mean if nothing happens who the fuck cares? Everybody will move on to the next clickbait du jour and forget all about it in a few hours if it comes to nothing.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 10, 2022, 05:09:06 PM
Regardless of how "absurd" you personally believe the Russian demands are, they're not about Ukraine.
They're about the imperative need for all countries to follow the UN Charter.
No, they are about Ukraine, and they are absurd and designed to be rejected out of hand. They are not about the need for Russia to follow the UN charter and withdraw from Crimea and the Donbas.
Quote from: Tamas on January 10, 2022, 05:15:15 PM
I am not really following. Last Russian demand I read was to make NATO remove their troops from the former Soviet vassal states. That's a demand custom-made to be rejected by the other party.
Yes, I agree.
Now that the negotiations are over, I'm curious about what Russia will actually do.
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2022, 06:08:41 PM
Telling of what? I mean if nothing happens who the fuck cares? Everybody will move on to the next clickbait du jour and forget all about it in a few hours if it comes to nothing.
"Telling" of the mass media working on the same old agenda, while Russia has defined its demands much broader than that.
While scanning the English- and French-speaking mass media yesterday, I was surprised to see the Ukraine mantra repeated over and over again.
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2022, 05:59:35 PM
I'm taking Gaijin du Moscu's dismissal of the potential invasion being "the same old thing" as a reason to downgrade it by 23 percentage points. So I'm rating the likelihood as 20%.
:)
The only realistic scenario for invasion, IMHO, is to prevent NATO from deploying a new generation of lethal weapons on that territory, such as super-sonic missiles (when available).
But then again, the Baltic countries are full members of NATO, and the missile approach time from there to Moscow is even shorter.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 11, 2022, 05:21:12 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2022, 05:59:35 PM
I'm taking Gaijin du Moscu's dismissal of the potential invasion being "the same old thing" as a reason to downgrade it by 23 percentage points. So I'm rating the likelihood as 20%.
:)
The only realistic scenario for invasion, IMHO, is to prevent NATO from deploying a new generation of lethal weapons on that territory, such as super-sonic missiles (when available).
But then again, the Baltic countries are full members of NATO, and the missile approach time from there to Moscow is even shorter.
The problem of course is that in some cases sabre-rattling done as bluffs can escalate into actual shooting and offensives. It is quite fascinating that you, who probably have considerably more ready access to non-Russian news than most people in Russia, still have the read of the Russian troop buildup as defense against some active NATO threat. Which from where I am sitting sounds silly.
To me it seems Western governments would be perfectly happy to leave Russia alone and make profit from laundering Russian oligarch money in peace. The general populace most certainly don't give a rat's ass about Russia apart from worrying they might force NATO treaty obligations none of them really want to be kept.
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2022, 05:54:02 AM
The problem of course is that in some cases sabre-rattling done as bluffs can escalate into actual shooting and offensives. It is quite fascinating that you, who probably have considerably more ready access to non-Russian news than most people in Russia, still have the read of the Russian troop buildup as defense against some active NATO threat. Which from where I am sitting sounds silly.
To me it seems Western governments would be perfectly happy to leave Russia alone and make profit from laundering Russian oligarch money in peace. The general populace most certainly don't give a rat's ass about Russia apart from worrying they might force NATO treaty obligations none of them really want to be kept.
It's just a matter of perspective. Our valiant secret service agents are the other man's despicable spies :) We are all in "defensive alliances" against each other, and the troops presence in Europe and Russia is always "defensive."
At any rate, we don't know what's been agreed on yesterday in Geneva, and we can only wait and see what transpires next.
Sure, but I find it far less probable that the West have designs on extending military influence and control over Ukraine aggressively than Russia. Making sure Ukraine remains in chaos and it remains a buffer that keeps sinking Russian resources? Sure. But working on the goal of stationing NATO troops/missiles on Ukrainian soil? Come on. Why? What is there to be gained?
And it is just very transparent BS that the above would have reached such an imminent stage that stationing Russian troops on the Ukrainian border is necessary.
You can safely dismiss the views of people whose foundational concept of information accrual is to start with an attack on the legitimacy of the "mass media". That is just authoritarianism 101. The fact that it isn't even logically a meaningful statement (indeed it is a logical error of categorization) to say "the mass media" should be rather telling.
GdM, if you reject the "mass media" as a source of information, what is the alternative? Where do you get your information that is so much superior, and how do you know it is so much superior? For that matter, how do you know your information isn't actually part of that same category, since the category itself is so badly defined?
The best part is really the claim that Putin is all about protecting the UN Charter. THAT is why he took over the Crimea and has been sending Russian troops and equipment into Ukraine!
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 10, 2022, 05:09:06 PM
Regardless of how "absurd" you personally believe the Russian demands are, they're not about Ukraine.
They're about the imperative need for all countries to follow the UN Charter.
Let's follow this logic out. It's not clear to me how (e.g.) NATO enlargement violates the UN Charter but for the sake of argument I will accept the premise that Russia views significant NATO deployment on or near its borders as threatening and seeks meaningful assurances for its own security. Of course those principles go both ways. The implication of this concern is not a unilateral demand vs NATO but a proposal for a full-blown demilitarized zone on both sides of the border that both sides are bound to honor.
Similarly, reciprocity as to security assurances and respect for the principles of the UN Charter would require at a minimum:
1) Permanent withdrawal of all security forces, adjuncts, "little green men," and security resources from Ukraine and a cessation of support for armed separatist in the country.
2) Permanent withdrawal from Crimea and its restoration to Ukrainian sovereignty.
3) Dismantling of all cyberwarfare operations against NATO members.
4) Ceasing all exterior operations involving attacks and assaults on the lives of individuals on NATO sovereign territory.
5) With respect to Nord Stream, meaningful assurances that gas shipments will not be used coercively, e.g. by creating a substantial escrow fund from sale proceeds that could be defaulted.
If Russia is willing to consider these measures to provide reciprocal security for all pursuant to the principles of Charter, then their proposals should be considered seriously. If they aren't, then they can't be surprised about getting the back of the hand.
If we are being honest, the motivation here has little to do with the principles of the UN Charter. It has everything to do with Russia's consistent insistence on regarding the "prisonhouse" of the old Tsarist and Soviet empires as an irreducible minimum of geopolitical domination to which Russia has an eternal entitlement.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 11, 2022, 05:01:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2022, 06:08:41 PM
Telling of what? I mean if nothing happens who the fuck cares? Everybody will move on to the next clickbait du jour and forget all about it in a few hours if it comes to nothing.
"Telling" of the mass media working on the same old agenda, while Russia has defined its demands much broader than that.
While scanning the English- and French-speaking mass media yesterday, I was surprised to see the Ukraine mantra repeated over and over again.
Their agenda is to make profits, as a group they have no sinister agenda.
I don't know. If Russia is good and noble then I find it heartening we have nothing to worry about. May they live in eternal peace and harmony with their good friends in Ukraine.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 11, 2022, 06:26:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2022, 05:54:02 AM
The problem of course is that in some cases sabre-rattling done as bluffs can escalate into actual shooting and offensives. It is quite fascinating that you, who probably have considerably more ready access to non-Russian news than most people in Russia, still have the read of the Russian troop buildup as defense against some active NATO threat. Which from where I am sitting sounds silly.
To me it seems Western governments would be perfectly happy to leave Russia alone and make profit from laundering Russian oligarch money in peace. The general populace most certainly don't give a rat's ass about Russia apart from worrying they might force NATO treaty obligations none of them really want to be kept.
It's just a matter of perspective. Our valiant secret service agents are the other man's despicable spies :) We are all in "defensive alliances" against each other, and the troops presence in Europe and Russia is always "defensive."
At any rate, we don't know what's been agreed on yesterday in Geneva, and we can only wait and see what transpires next.
Hey man we wanted Russia in the alliance. NATO is an organization that is an artifact with no clear reason to exist anymore except that all the members are more comfortable with it still existing. It is not directed against anybody really.
As far as NATO having troops in Europe I mean most of our members are European countries. Where else would their fucking troops be? If they weren't in NATO I bet they would still have troops in their own country.
Quote from: Berkut on January 11, 2022, 08:35:46 AM
The best part is really the claim that Putin is all about protecting the UN Charter. THAT is why he took over the Crimea and has been sending Russian troops and equipment into Ukraine!
Russia guaranteed the borders of Ukraine in exchange for them destroying nukes. If they are interested in no "lethal weapons" being deployed in neighboring territories their past actions seem to suggest that only a fool would not have lethal weapons to defend themselves if they border Russia. Correct me if I am wrong there.
If I am Ukraine I would now regard destroying my nukes as a grave strategic error. Is that really the kind of thinking you want your neighbors to have? Hey I don't want to tell Russia how to run their own country but that strikes me as common sense.
Anyway Russia continuing to waste its resources on all these conflicts outside its borders while it suffers internally seems great for Russia's enemies. I think they are fucking morons and they should be focused on building their own country. I mean look at all the problems the US has had with all its foreign adventures. Learn from our errors.
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2022, 07:52:37 AM
Sure, but I find it far less probable that the West have designs on extending military influence and control over Ukraine aggressively than Russia. Making sure Ukraine remains in chaos and it remains a buffer that keeps sinking Russian resources? Sure. But working on the goal of stationing NATO troops/missiles on Ukrainian soil? Come on. Why? What is there to be gained?
And it is just very transparent BS that the above would have reached such an imminent stage that stationing Russian troops on the Ukrainian border is necessary.
:lmfao:
You do realise you're making pretty much the exact mirror argument to Russia, don't you?
How can anyone find it unlikely that Russia is interested in extending influence over Ukraine, given it's literally annexed part of Ukraine?
Of course Russia is interested in extending a level of influence over that unfortunate country.
My earlier point was that it's a relatively minor matter at this stage, in the scale of things.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 11, 2022, 12:36:37 PM
Of course Russia is interested in extending a level of influence over that unfortunate country.
My earlier point was that it's a relatively minor matter at this stage, in the scale of things.
Ah... yeah, if you're saying that Russia's concerns are broader and Ukraine is just one aspect - a flashpoint at this time - that makes sense. I think that's fairly clear.
I think, conversely, however the Western perspective does not really consider things in the same cold war continuum. It's not about having a strategy to contain or hamper Russia. It's about sovereign countries - and their populations - maintaining their rights. If Ukraine or Belorussia or Kazakhstan or whoever wants to get into bed with Russia, great! Get into bed with Russia. If they don't - and that includes the people rather than individual dictators - then Russia really ought not to use military force.
I appreciate that this can still be seen as an overarching anti-Russian strategy (because Putin is pretty committed to subverting any popular opinions that don't align with his own, and is happy to prop up governments that lack a popular mandate of any kind).
So for the West it really is about Ukraine, because that's the country that is getting abused by Russia the most egregiously.
And while the Eastern marches of the West obviously has serious negative experiences with Russia and takes any threats very seriously (and, in the case of places like Hungary - are happy to play along with Russia), overall the West does not see Russia as a peer competitor (not a peer, not really a competitor) which perhaps forms part of the problem from Russia's perspective.
IMO, of course.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 11, 2022, 12:36:37 PM
Of course Russia is interested in extending a level of influence over that unfortunate country.
My earlier point was that it's a relatively minor matter at this stage, in the scale of things.
I thought your earlier point was that Russia really, really cares about the UN Charter above all else?
How does that square with your admittance that Russia wants destroy the sovereignty of Ukraine, which of course is in fact a violation of that Charter?
Quote from: Berkut on January 11, 2022, 01:03:01 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 11, 2022, 12:36:37 PM
Of course Russia is interested in extending a level of influence over that unfortunate country.
My earlier point was that it's a relatively minor matter at this stage, in the scale of things.
I thought your earlier point was that Russia really, really cares about the UN Charter above all else?
How does that square with your admittance that Russia wants destroy the sovereignty of Ukraine, which of course is in fact a violation of that Charter?
Just minor destruction though.
Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2022, 12:49:12 PMI think, conversely, however the Western perspective does not really consider things in the same cold war continuum. It's not about having a strategy to contain or hamper Russia. It's about sovereign countries - and their populations - maintaining their rights. If Ukraine or Belorussia or Kazakhstan or whoever wants to get into bed with Russia, great! Get into bed with Russia. If they don't - and that includes the people rather than individual dictators - then Russia really ought not to use military force.
I appreciate that this can still be seen as an overarching anti-Russian strategy (because Putin is pretty committed to subverting any popular opinions that don't align with his own, and is happy to prop up governments that lack a popular mandate of any kind).
I think part of it for Russia though is distinctly post-cold war. From my understanding there were no legal guarantees or treaties on this (which is why they're being asked for now) but it's pretty clear from Western and Russian records that there were non-binding, verbal, leader-to-leader assurances to Russia that NATO would not expand eastwards. It was paprt of the deal to allow German unification: Russia wouldn't kick up a fuss and in exchanges NATO wouldn't move east.
It's fair to say that over the course of the 90s and 00s the West broke those promises pretty comprehesnively and I think that's part of the context for Russian paranoia around Ukraine, Georgia or whoever else joining NATO.
And I think Putin's perspective on Belarus or Kazakhstan or Ukraine isn't necessarily Soviet or Tsarist or anything like that - I think it's just the latest in a very long line of Russian leaders feeling vulnerable because of the size of their border, so the way to solve that vulnerability is to move the border forward in some way so it is further from Russia proper (or in Putin's case, through states that are tied to Moscow). Given that I wonder if it is that minor - but I think the consistent thing is Russia choosing a "hard" approach that alienates people in these countries leading to situations like Ukraine when a perhaps a "softer" approach would have led to more Russia-aligned governments and peoples?
Having said that my view is still that Ukraine had a revolution with Euromaidan protests trying to associate with the EU (not NATO). They, of all countries involved at the minute, show no sign of wanting to talk or compromise with Russia and it is their right to defend themselves - and it's our right to supply them if we want to. Which is what I support doing because I think we should help Ukraine defend its sovereignty and its territory.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 11, 2022, 12:19:36 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2022, 07:52:37 AM
Sure, but I find it far less probable that the West have designs on extending military influence and control over Ukraine aggressively than Russia. Making sure Ukraine remains in chaos and it remains a buffer that keeps sinking Russian resources? Sure. But working on the goal of stationing NATO troops/missiles on Ukrainian soil? Come on. Why? What is there to be gained?
And it is just very transparent BS that the above would have reached such an imminent stage that stationing Russian troops on the Ukrainian border is necessary.
:lmfao:
You do realise you're making pretty much the exact mirror argument to Russia, don't you?
That doesn't mean anything in general, since just because both sides make the mirror arguments doesn't mean that the two arguments are equally valid. It particularly doesn't mean anything when it comes to Russia, since projecting their intentions onto others is their go-to gaslighting tactic.
Yeah that's a reasonable analysis Sheilbh.
My local Danish news is arguing that Putin has won the first round simply by getting the meeting and the conversation on his chosen topic. I don't know if I agree, but sure.
Another point that I hadn't realized so far - apparently Finland has been pretty clear that they're likely to apply for NATO membership if Russia invades Ukraine. Sweden is might consider NATO in that case as well, according to the article I'm reading (though this is more speculative, I think). That's something Putin would probably like to avoid.
Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2022, 01:55:56 PM
Another point that I hadn't realized so far - apparently Finland has been pretty clear that they're likely to apply for NATO membership if Russia invades Ukraine. Sweden is making similar indications according to the article I'm reading. That's something Putin would probably like to avoid.
Yeah - there is a European angle on this too because of the mutual defence obligation in Article 42 of the Lisbon treaty. Finland have been trying to clarify what it means for as long as the treaty's been around with little success - I think France has responded. From a French analyst on this point:
QuoteFrançois Heisbourg
@FHeisbourg
Indeed. The Finnish president @niinisto has been raising the issue for years, most recently in his New Years message, including pointed language about the EU's limited role. One can't say that Brussels has responded in a satisfactory manner.
QuoteBen Judah
@b_judah
I agree. @EmmanuelMacron and @OlafScholz should travel with @vonderleyen, @CharlesMichel and @JosepBorrellF to Helsinki to allay any fears and state that an attack on one EU member state is an attack on all, as ironclad if not more thanks to Article 42.7 as the NATO Article 5.
As I say I think there's a real opportunity here for Scholz and Europe in general to reassure the Baltic states - and now Finland and Sweden in relation to European/non-NATO obligations
I think part of the issue is the mutual defence obligations is drafted very vaguely (in part because it was one of the changes following Ireland's no vote because Irish neutrality is in the constitution) so has so far been interpreted as mainly relating to hybrid attacks rather than actual territorial defence - that's the point Finland's been trying to clarify.
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2022, 11:17:31 AM
Their agenda is to make profits, as a group they have no sinister agenda.
Are you talking about Putin and the rest of the Russian Mafia, or western mass media?
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2022, 01:54:10 PM
That doesn't mean anything in general, since just because both sides make the mirror arguments doesn't mean that the two arguments are equally valid. It particularly doesn't mean anything when it comes to Russia, since projecting their intentions onto others is their go-to gaslighting tactic.
True on the validity (ignoring your jab at Russia).
I'm very far from "validating" any arguments in this age-old debate. We've all chosen our own version of truth based on a whole set of factors that make sense to each of us individually. My own humble conclusion is there's no universal truth, which is why I have very little interest in discussing y'all's opinions of why my country is such a horrific monster :)
But it still amuses me when I read almost the exact arguments on the Russian forums and here, of course serving absolute opposite opinions.
Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2022, 12:49:12 PM
Ah... yeah, if you're saying that Russia's concerns are broader and Ukraine is just one aspect - a flashpoint at this time - that makes sense. I think that's fairly clear.
I think, conversely, however the Western perspective does not really consider things in the same cold war continuum. It's not about having a strategy to contain or hamper Russia. It's about sovereign countries - and their populations - maintaining their rights. If Ukraine or Belorussia or Kazakhstan or whoever wants to get into bed with Russia, great! Get into bed with Russia. If they don't - and that includes the people rather than individual dictators - then Russia really ought not to use military force.
I appreciate that this can still be seen as an overarching anti-Russian strategy (because Putin is pretty committed to subverting any popular opinions that don't align with his own, and is happy to prop up governments that lack a popular mandate of any kind).
So for the West it really is about Ukraine, because that's the country that is getting abused by Russia the most egregiously.
And while the Eastern marches of the West obviously has serious negative experiences with Russia and takes any threats very seriously (and, in the case of places like Hungary - are happy to play along with Russia), overall the West does not see Russia as a peer competitor (not a peer, not really a competitor) which perhaps forms part of the problem from Russia's perspective.
IMO, of course.
Makes sense to me.
The point of who is abusing Ukraine most egregiously is debatable (I would argue it's their own government, most of the time for the last 30 years), and I don't want to start the discussion on the 2014 coup and the roles of many external actors in that.
At this stage though, Russia's interests are, once again, global.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 03:50:02 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2022, 01:54:10 PM
That doesn't mean anything in general, since just because both sides make the mirror arguments doesn't mean that the two arguments are equally valid. It particularly doesn't mean anything when it comes to Russia, since projecting their intentions onto others is their go-to gaslighting tactic.
True on the validity (ignoring your jab at Russia).
...We've all chosen our own version of truth based on a whole set of factors that make sense to each of us individually. My own humble conclusion is there's no universal truth, ....
Case study for the success of the authoritarian attack on the integrity of the "mainstream media".
This is why I react strongly to otherwise moderate, reasonable people prattling on about the bias of the "mainstream media" and how it is out to screw the right/conservatives.
It is not an accident. This is not something that happened as an unforseen consequence of the media's shortcomings. It is and was a concerted and careful attack on the credibility of the media in general, with a very specific goal in mind, and Gaijan is kind enough to offer himself up as a case study in the actual outcome.
There isn't any "truth" at all. It is all lies, so why not pick the lie you like and treasure it?
A multiverse of truths.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 03:57:46 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2022, 12:49:12 PM
Ah... yeah, if you're saying that Russia's concerns are broader and Ukraine is just one aspect - a flashpoint at this time - that makes sense. I think that's fairly clear.
I think, conversely, however the Western perspective does not really consider things in the same cold war continuum. It's not about having a strategy to contain or hamper Russia. It's about sovereign countries - and their populations - maintaining their rights. If Ukraine or Belorussia or Kazakhstan or whoever wants to get into bed with Russia, great! Get into bed with Russia. If they don't - and that includes the people rather than individual dictators - then Russia really ought not to use military force.
I appreciate that this can still be seen as an overarching anti-Russian strategy (because Putin is pretty committed to subverting any popular opinions that don't align with his own, and is happy to prop up governments that lack a popular mandate of any kind).
So for the West it really is about Ukraine, because that's the country that is getting abused by Russia the most egregiously.
And while the Eastern marches of the West obviously has serious negative experiences with Russia and takes any threats very seriously (and, in the case of places like Hungary - are happy to play along with Russia), overall the West does not see Russia as a peer competitor (not a peer, not really a competitor) which perhaps forms part of the problem from Russia's perspective.
IMO, of course.
Makes sense to me.
The point of who is abusing Ukraine most egregiously is debatable (I would argue it's their own government, most of the time for the last 30 years), and I don't want to start the discussion on the 2014 coup and the roles of many external actors in that.
At this stage though, Russia's interests are, once again, global.
The point of who is abusing Ukraine the most isn't the point under discussion. By definition, if we are talking about sovereignty, then Ukraine abusing itself is Ukraine's problem.
You are justifying the straight up violation of the very UN Charter you just claimed to be your over-riding concern by saying that Russia is justified in using violence and military action against another sovereign power because they simply don't like the government of Ukraine.
You cannot have it both ways. The irrationality in your argument is completely contained within your own argument, it is not predicated on any data that can be dismissed as bias.
"... saying that Russia is justified in using violence and military action against another sovereign power because they simply don't like the government of Ukraine..."
Sorry, where did I say this?
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2022, 09:53:01 AM
A multiverse of truths.
As none of us in this thread has first-hand knowledge of every fact, and we all form our opinions based on the sources we choose to trust and see as credible — yes, in result, we have a multiverse of truths.
It's been this way since the beginning of time.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 11:03:17 AMAs none of us in this thread has first-hand knowledge of every fact, and we all form our opinions based on the sources we choose to trust and see as credible — yes, in result, we have a multiverse of truths.
It's been this way since the beginning of time.
And also there's a difference between facts and truth. There are facts - there are things that happen or don't.
But the interpretation and analysis and how those facts tie together is always contested - that why we read history books. I don't think any of us are capable of getting the first cut right enough to say it's truth.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2022, 11:06:13 AM
And also there's a difference between facts and truth. There are facts - there are things that happen or don't.
But the interpretation and analysis and how those facts tie together is always contested - that why we read history books. I don't think any of us are capable of getting the first cut right enough to say it's truth.
Completely agreed :)
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 10:58:24 AM
"... saying that Russia is justified in using violence and military action against another sovereign power because they simply don't like the government of Ukraine..."
Sorry, where did I say this?
When you brought up the "The point of who is abusing Ukraine most egregiously is debatable (I would argue it's their own government, most of the time for the last 30 years)" in response to the discussion around Russias violent military intervention into the Ukraine, and their threats to do so again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2022, 11:06:13 AM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 11:03:17 AMAs none of us in this thread has first-hand knowledge of every fact, and we all form our opinions based on the sources we choose to trust and see as credible — yes, in result, we have a multiverse of truths.
It's been this way since the beginning of time.
And also there's a difference between facts and truth. There are facts - there are things that happen or don't.
But the interpretation and analysis and how those facts tie together is always contested - that why we read history books. I don't think any of us are capable of getting the first cut right enough to say it's truth.
Good propaganda is based around blurring the lines between fact and truth so you can simply turn around and wave away inconvenient facts. Like is being done right here, right now.
I am just fascinated at watching how authoritarian propaganda works so effectively in real time, right in front of us.
And not even by those who are completely invested in it, but by those who are not, and are supporting it anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 09:50:06 AM
Case study for the success of the authoritarian attack on the integrity of the "mainstream media".
This is why I react strongly to otherwise moderate, reasonable people prattling on about the bias of the "mainstream media" and how it is out to screw the right/conservatives.
It is not an accident. This is not something that happened as an unforseen consequence of the media's shortcomings. It is and was a concerted and careful attack on the credibility of the media in general, with a very specific goal in mind, and Gaijan is kind enough to offer himself up as a case study in the actual outcome.
There isn't any "truth" at all. It is all lies, so why not pick the lie you like and treasure it?
Every President-for-Life like Putin squeals in glee when they encounter evidence that people are buying into the lie that, since there is no absolute objective truth, all forms of less-than-complete-truth are equal.
Every wannabe President-for-Life like Trump thanks the real things for helping make autocracy sound more viable.
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 11:29:06 AM
When you brought up the "The point of who is abusing Ukraine most egregiously is debatable (I would argue it's their own government, most of the time for the last 30 years)" in response to the discussion around Russias violent military intervention into the Ukraine, and their threats to do so again.
Funny how you saw in my words what you did.
Looks like a bias, don't you think?
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 11:40:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 11:29:06 AM
When you brought up the "The point of who is abusing Ukraine most egregiously is debatable (I would argue it's their own government, most of the time for the last 30 years)" in response to the discussion around Russias violent military intervention into the Ukraine, and their threats to do so again.
Funny how you saw in my words what you did.
Looks like a bias, don't you think?
No, it looks like honesty.
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 11:40:51 AM
No, it looks like honesty.
I'm sure you honestly believe it's true, Berkut.
But I really can't argue with the voices in your head. Sorry.
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 11:33:28 AM
I am just fascinated at watching how authoritarian propaganda works so effectively in real time, right in front of us.
And not even by those who are completely invested in it, but by those who are not, and are supporting it anyway.
It's long lost the fascination for me. I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far: we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting. Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike. Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.
What would fascinate me is a solution to this. I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.
Meanwhile, as expected, NATO has officially rejected the Russian demands:
https://www.google.ch/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/nato-russia-high-level-talks-ukraine-tensions-simmer-82217096
(Very few articles in English yet, so just taking the first search result).
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2022, 11:56:56 AM
It's long lost the fascination for me. I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far: we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting. Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike. Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.
What would fascinate me is a solution to this. I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.
This could be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe there could be a solution to this any time soon. The human mind itself is wired to develop biases by millennia of evolution.
It would take a truly advanced society to be resistant to propaganda. In the current realities, where the absolute majority of information sources are ideologically charged, I simply don't see this happening.
I could be wrong.
But this is where my relativistic fatalism comes from.
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2022, 11:56:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 11:33:28 AM
I am just fascinated at watching how authoritarian propaganda works so effectively in real time, right in front of us.
And not even by those who are completely invested in it, but by those who are not, and are supporting it anyway.
It's long lost the fascination for me. I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far: we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting. Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike. Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.
What would fascinate me is a solution to this. I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If people want a good society they have all the necessary tools for it. If they don't... well then they don't.
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2022, 12:41:31 PM
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If people want a good society they have all the necessary tools for it. If they don't... well then they don't.
I don't think it's anywhere near that simple. We do know that there are malevolent people out there who want to ensure that some societies are not good societies, and they prey on the vulnerabilities of the people living in societies that they want to sabotage. We also know that people are what they are, the vulnerabilities are part of the package.
You have to build societies around people as they are, not around the people you wish they were. It's just bad engineering practice to not account for the realities of your users.
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2022, 12:52:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2022, 12:41:31 PM
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If people want a good society they have all the necessary tools for it. If they don't... well then they don't.
I don't think it's anywhere near that simple. We do know that there are malevolent people out there who want to ensure that some societies are not good societies, and they prey on the vulnerabilities of the people living in societies that they want to sabotage. We also know that people are what they are, the vulnerabilities are part of the package.
You have to build societies around people as they are, not around the people you wish they were. It's just bad engineering practice to not account for the realities of your users.
I have no desire to build a society that goes against the will of the people.
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2022, 12:52:24 PMI don't think it's anywhere near that simple. We do know that there are malevolent people out there who want to ensure that some societies are not good societies, and they prey on the vulnerabilities of the people living in societies that they want to sabotage. We also know that people are what they are, the vulnerabilities are part of the package.
You have to build societies around people as they are, not around the people you wish they were. It's just bad engineering practice to not account for the realities of your users.
I think the succeess or not of "propaganda" just comes in waves and it's just tied to media/communication innovation. I think it's most successful when it's relatively new and when society at large isn't - to nick a covid phrase - immunised to that media and form of communication.
And I put it as "propaganda" because I think good leaders are also doing this. Whether you think of FDR and Churchill who were among the most succcessful communicators by radio up to that point when it was the new form of mass communication, or JFK and Reagan with TV - or more modern example I remember reading breathlessly excited takes in 2008 on how Obama was innovatively using Facebook and social media data to micro-target voters etc. The same technology can also be used by bad actors and if they're good at it, they'll also do well. And obviously it can also just be used quite well by people who you disagree with but aren't necessarily bad actors.
I don't think it'a about truth or even a consensus view I think it's about societies becoming used to certain technological innovations: printing press, radio, film, TV, social media. Once we are accustomed to them we spot the tricks and it's more difficult to innovate and get your message across and believed. We become more critical consumers. When it's new, we don't have any immunity.
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2022, 12:58:03 PM
I have no desire to build a society that goes against the will of the people.
I don't believe in the supremacy of free will, that seems like a religious dogma that ignores the reality of humans. By that logic, we shouldn't combat drug or alcohol abuse in society: people who don't want to use drugs won't use them.
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2022, 12:41:31 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2022, 11:56:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 11:33:28 AM
I am just fascinated at watching how authoritarian propaganda works so effectively in real time, right in front of us.
And not even by those who are completely invested in it, but by those who are not, and are supporting it anyway.
It's long lost the fascination for me. I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far: we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting. Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike. Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.
What would fascinate me is a solution to this. I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If people want a good society they have all the necessary tools for it. If they don't... well then they don't.
"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her fuck a tree." My great uncle told me that. I don't know what it means but I say it every time I get a chance to see if it registers.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 12:36:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2022, 11:56:56 AM
It's long lost the fascination for me. I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far: we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting. Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike. Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.
What would fascinate me is a solution to this. I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.
This could be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe there could be a solution to this any time soon. The human mind itself is wired to develop biases by millennia of evolution.
That is an excuse, and it is an excuse for yourself. Humans are products of evolution, but that evolution also created a critical brain capable if discernment, self analysis, and objectivity. Some people are better at that then others, and it is a skill that can be trained as well, as long as their is the will to do so.
Evolution did not create humans who can by and large dunk a basketball in a 10 foot hoop, which is why very few humans can do that. That doesn't mean that nobody can, nor does it mean that we cannot use our brains to get better at it, or overcome our biological biases by recognizing them and actively working against them in a conscious, self critical manner.
You as an individual are not doomed to have to just accept Putin's bullshit at face value because you tell yourself that his bullshit is just as "true" as the "mainstream western media's" bullshit.
And I sure as hell am not obligated to pretend that your "truth" has value just because you value it.
Quote
It would take a truly advanced society to be resistant to propaganda. In the current realities, where the absolute majority of information sources are ideologically charged, I simply don't see this happening.
It would start with a society valuing actual truth and objective respect for facts, science, and reason.
And this is not binary - it i clear that there are in fact societies that are more resistant to propanganda then others. Again, just because no society is perfectly resistant is not reason to not value being more resistant.
And it is also clear that the societies that are more resistant are those that are more open, more transparent, and less constrained by authoritarians limiting and attacking the credibility of the free press.
Quote
I could be wrong.
But this is where my relativistic fatalism comes from.
I don't believe you. I think it comes from the need to see "your team" as reasonable, when objective reason tells you that that is just not so.
All societies are susceptible to disinformation and propaganda. That doesn't mean we have to throw our hands up and despair at wondering who to believe, Churchill or Hitler? Stalin or Roosevelt? Mussolini or Daladier? Putin or Obama? Trump or....anyone?
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2022, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2022, 12:58:03 PM
I have no desire to build a society that goes against the will of the people.
I don't believe in the supremacy of free will, that seems like a religious dogma that ignores the reality of humans. By that logic, we shouldn't combat drug or alcohol abuse in society: people who don't want to use drugs won't use them.
I don't know how "supremacy of free will" relates to the discussion. And I certainly don't think we should combat alcohol or drug abuse if the people wishes otherwise.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2022, 01:01:39 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2022, 12:52:24 PMI don't think it's anywhere near that simple. We do know that there are malevolent people out there who want to ensure that some societies are not good societies, and they prey on the vulnerabilities of the people living in societies that they want to sabotage. We also know that people are what they are, the vulnerabilities are part of the package.
You have to build societies around people as they are, not around the people you wish they were. It's just bad engineering practice to not account for the realities of your users.
I think the succeess or not of "propaganda" just comes in waves and it's just tied to media/communication innovation. I think it's most successful when it's relatively new and when society at large isn't - to nick a covid phrase - immunised to that media and form of communication.
And I put it as "propaganda" because I think good leaders are also doing this. Whether you think of FDR and Churchill who were among the most succcessful communicators by radio up to that point when it was the new form of mass communication, or JFK and Reagan with TV - or more modern example I remember reading breathlessly excited takes in 2008 on how Obama was innovatively using Facebook and social media data to micro-target voters etc. The same technology can also be used by bad actors and if they're good at it, they'll also do well. And obviously it can also just be used quite well by people who you disagree with but aren't necessarily bad actors.
What I don't understand is why you say this, but then turn around and refuse to acknowledge that there is in fact a difference between how different groups and societies deal with this problem, and agree with the authoritarians that well, everyone has their own "truth" so we might as well accept that one is as good as another.
Both Hitler *and* Churchill and Roosevelt were masters of their mediums of communication. That doesn't mean we have to just accept that each were equally valid in the content of what they communicated. We can recognize that Churchill and Roosevelt were politicians perfectly capable of being dishonest, misleading, or even outright lying at times, while also recognizing that Hitler was operating at an entirely different level with a very different respect for basic truth, and what his goals were as he used the medium to achieve them.
Roosevelt might have been a damn dirty lying politician, but he actually believed things, and acted accordingly. He believed that the best way for a better society was for a free press, as an example. He then went about trying to "win" at the contest of how to use that free press to gain power and control, including at times manipulating it, or even in extremis actually restricting it in wartime.
That is fundamentally different from Hitler recognizing that the best way to get and maintain power and control is through the destruction of the free press, and bending the press to being just another tool of the State. The Nazi's started that project, before he was in power, with a concerted attack on the integrity of the "mainstream media". The Nazis claimed it was all controlled by the Jews, and hence was all biased lies. This was a narrative that sold to even those who would not consider themselves Nazi's, and helped them achieve the actual power where they could then brutally suppress the media in a much more straightforward fashion. You can see the echoes of that same process in Putin's attack on the Russian press that has culminated in what is there today - no free press to speak of at all.
We don't have to sit here are nod sagely and say "Yeah, well, those Nazis! They had their truth, and Churchill had his! And the non-Nazi germans (many millions of whom would pay with their lives for Nazi ideology), why, they had their own "truth" and who can say which is really true?".
That is horseshit. And pretending that Putin and Russia Times today are somehow just another "truth" in a competing see of bullshit is playing right back into that same old, proven strategy on how to empower authoritarianism.
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 01:19:14 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 12:36:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2022, 11:56:56 AM
It's long lost the fascination for me. I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far: we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting. Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike. Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.
What would fascinate me is a solution to this. I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.
This could be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe there could be a solution to this any time soon. The human mind itself is wired to develop biases by millennia of evolution.
That is an excuse, and it is an excuse for yourself. Humans are products of evolution, but that evolution also created a critical brain capable if discernment, self analysis, and objectivity. Some people are better at that then others, and it is a skill that can be trained as well, as long as their is the will to do so.
Evolution did not create humans who can by and large dunk a basketball in a 10 foot hoop, which is why very few humans can do that. That doesn't mean that nobody can, nor does it mean that we cannot use our brains to get better at it, or overcome our biological biases by recognizing them and actively working against them in a conscious, self critical manner.
You as an individual are not doomed to have to just accept Putin's bullshit at face value because you tell yourself that his bullshit is just as "true" as the "mainstream western media's" bullshit.
And I sure as hell am not obligated to pretend that your "truth" has value just because you value it.
Quote
It would take a truly advanced society to be resistant to propaganda. In the current realities, where the absolute majority of information sources are ideologically charged, I simply don't see this happening.
It would start with a society valuing actual truth and objective respect for facts, science, and reason.
And this is not binary - it i clear that there are in fact societies that are more resistant to propanganda then others. Again, just because no society is perfectly resistant is not reason to not value being more resistant.
And it is also clear that the societies that are more resistant are those that are more open, more transparent, and less constrained by authoritarians limiting and attacking the credibility of the free press.
Quote
I could be wrong.
But this is where my relativistic fatalism comes from.
I don't believe you. I think it comes from the need to see "your team" as reasonable, when objective reason tells you that that is just not so.
All societies are susceptible to disinformation and propaganda. That doesn't mean we have to throw our hands up and despair at wondering who to believe, Churchill or Hitler? Stalin or Roosevelt? Mussolini or Daladier? Putin or Obama? Trump or....anyone?
Look. If we take the case of Ukraine, then:
- I have family in both countries
- My mom is Russian, my dad Ukrainian; since my childhood I've been to many places both in Russia and Ukraine
- I visited both countries multiple times just before the events started unfolding in 2013
- I can easily read materials in Russian, Ukrainian, English, French, Spanish, and I've read and watched gigabytes of material on this conflict from all sides
- I talked to dozens of people from both sides of the conflict
As you can see, this particular conflict is very close to me. It has cut through my very family. I couldn't even talk about it for many years as it has drained me of all emotion.
And yet, I'm extremely cautious concluding what actually went on. If fact, my assumptions have changed several times over the last 8 years, sometimes dramatically. I still don't fully understand what happened to the two countries I love.
And we have you, with all respect, who seems to be perfectly clear on which side to put the blame. At least, this is what I assume from what your comments.
As a rough sketch I think it's: 1) about institutions; 2) about public sentiment; and 3) self-reinforcing.
You need to build and maintain institutions (media, education, political processes on national and local levels, and so on) to believe that good governance and fair processes are desirable, possible, and necessary and to hold constituent parts accountable. It springs from all components, and it's necessary to continually do the work to keep the project viable.
I believe fatalism and cynicism past a certain point is actively corrosive to freedom and good governance as it saps the ability to keep the projects viable.
But it is possible, as seen at various times in various places. And it's also possible to completely undermine and destroy it, as seen elsewhere.
I think the key elements are 1) some levels of media standards (both mass media and social media) - this is of course delicate, because the other side is corrosive media control; 2) controlling capital's influence on and access to politics; and 3) broad public education that includes strong civics.
On an indivdual level, I believe the best contributions we can make (other than those who are committed to be activists, of course), is to insist on good standards, support constructive practices, and reject cynicism where possible. This is exhausting and on the level of individual ants moving grains of sand.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2022, 01:25:55 PM
And I think Putin's perspective on Belarus or Kazakhstan or Ukraine isn't necessarily Soviet or Tsarist or anything like that - I think it's just the latest in a very long line of Russian leaders feeling vulnerable because of the size of their border, so the way to solve that vulnerability is to move the border forward in some way so it is further from Russia proper (or in Putin's case, through states that are tied to Moscow).
I find that hard to believe - we are long way from the Napoleonic Europe of 1812 or the militarized Europes of 1914 and 1940. Russia simply doesn't face a realistic offensive conventional military threat of any kind in Europe. And I find it interesting that on Russia's vast and even less defensible eastern borders - where they face acute conventional vulnerability - the approach has been placatory.
I would apply Occam's razor and conclude that it is what it looks like - old fashioned realpolitik and competition over geopolitical influence. And there is nothing necessarily wrong about that so long as the game is played responsibly. Historical experience suggests that crude ultimatums are a less than optimal way to proceed.
Of course, Russia is free to say that they perceive NATO expansion and the color revolutions as betrayals of implicit understandings and demand redress, just as others are free to point to the forceful annexation of Crimea in violation of treaty commitments and international law and the aggressive cyberwarfare attacks on other nations as betrayals by Russia and do the same.
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 01:36:06 PM
What I don't understand is why you say this, but then turn around and refuse to acknowledge that there is in fact a difference between how different groups and societies deal with this problem, and agree with the authoritarians that well, everyone has their own "truth" so we might as well accept that one is as good as another.
I don't think that's what I'm saying at all.
My view is that there are facts and actions and realities - those are true or not. There is then interpretation of what causes those. I don't think there is truth in that - though, obviously, there are clearly wrong interpretations which I think we can pretty comprehensively dismiss as untrue. But there's lots of edge cases and it absolutely depends on where you look at it from, what your priorities are, plus it's really difficult to assign or guess at motivations - and how much does any of it matter against material factors.
For example that's my take on social media and Facebook, I don't think it's that the people who run them are bad or even indifferent - in fact I don't think they matter, I think the system they have created forms that behaviour (and would do that even if you parachuted in an ethically unimpeachable person to run it) because that is what produces the best economic results.
Separately I think propaganda's success or not is basically a function of new technology. I think that's why we're susceptible or not. I don't think it's to do with the virtue of people or anything like that, it's again in my view primarily material and drive by how accustomed we are to messaging and attempts at manipulation in different forms of media.
I don't think "truth" is a helpful frame to look at politics through and I think it's a bit of a dead end. I think it is far better to make the moral, ethical and political argument for what you're pushing for than to try and litigate it.
If anything I think it's linked to my biggest worry about "the West" (in the broadest sense) which is that it is becoming so ossified in process and form. It is fetishing the formal aspects of liberal democracy and the West more than the actual core, which is being hollowed out (and not just by the bad guys). I'm not convinced at the minute that we can respond or adapt to facts like climate change, to new facts like the rise of China or to our own failures (of which there have been plenty) in the last 20 years.
I don't think it's cynical or fatalist because I think we can solve it - but I think it is probably a bit of a fight.
QuoteWe don't have to sit here are nod sagely and say "Yeah, well, those Nazis! They had their truth, and Churchill had his! And the non-Nazi germans (many millions of whom would pay with their lives for Nazi ideology), why, they had their own "truth" and who can say which is really true?".
That is horseshit. And pretending that Putin and Russia Times today are somehow just another "truth" in a competing see of bullshit is playing right back into that same old, proven strategy on how to empower authoritarianism.
Where have I said any of that though? I've posted repeatedly what my take is on Putin and Ukraine and Russia. Where is that take saying this?
There is still opposition media in Russia, incidentally.
QuoteYou need to build and maintain institutions (media, education, political processes on national and local levels, and so on) to believe that good governance and fair processes are desirable, possible, and necessary and to hold constituent parts accountable. It springs from all components, and it's necessary to continually do the work to keep the project viable.
Yeah - I think trust and trustworthiness is key and once insititutions lose it it's really difficult to win back, just look at the Catholic Church and child sexual abuse.
The past twenty years - Iraq, the financial crisis, covid - have not been good for lots of institutions in the West. It is not enough to say "trust the institutions" when I'm not sure they've proven themselves worthy of trust in quite some time. Institutions need to earn trustworthiness and I think a lot of them could with starting from scratch.
I always think of the moment in the South Carolina debate with Trump which loads of commentators thought might be a disaster for him and enraged many never Trumpers, when there was a question on Iraq and he was the only one on the stage who said "Iraq was a disaster and Bush made us less safe". I don't think he won it then, but I kind of do - because actually in a way he was the only one telling the truth. The rest of them for deference to the party and the former president had to pretend that that was wrong and the Iraq war had been a success.
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2022, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2022, 12:58:03 PM
I have no desire to build a society that goes against the will of the people.
I don't believe in the supremacy of free will, that seems like a religious dogma that ignores the reality of humans. By that logic, we shouldn't combat drug or alcohol abuse in society: people who don't want to use drugs won't use them.
Bad example, the war on drugs was bad public policy.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 01:43:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 01:19:14 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 12:36:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2022, 11:56:56 AM
It's long lost the fascination for me. I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far: we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting. Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike. Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.
What would fascinate me is a solution to this. I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.
This could be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe there could be a solution to this any time soon. The human mind itself is wired to develop biases by millennia of evolution.
That is an excuse, and it is an excuse for yourself. Humans are products of evolution, but that evolution also created a critical brain capable if discernment, self analysis, and objectivity. Some people are better at that then others, and it is a skill that can be trained as well, as long as their is the will to do so.
Evolution did not create humans who can by and large dunk a basketball in a 10 foot hoop, which is why very few humans can do that. That doesn't mean that nobody can, nor does it mean that we cannot use our brains to get better at it, or overcome our biological biases by recognizing them and actively working against them in a conscious, self critical manner.
You as an individual are not doomed to have to just accept Putin's bullshit at face value because you tell yourself that his bullshit is just as "true" as the "mainstream western media's" bullshit.
And I sure as hell am not obligated to pretend that your "truth" has value just because you value it.
Quote
It would take a truly advanced society to be resistant to propaganda. In the current realities, where the absolute majority of information sources are ideologically charged, I simply don't see this happening.
It would start with a society valuing actual truth and objective respect for facts, science, and reason.
And this is not binary - it i clear that there are in fact societies that are more resistant to propanganda then others. Again, just because no society is perfectly resistant is not reason to not value being more resistant.
And it is also clear that the societies that are more resistant are those that are more open, more transparent, and less constrained by authoritarians limiting and attacking the credibility of the free press.
Quote
I could be wrong.
But this is where my relativistic fatalism comes from.
I don't believe you. I think it comes from the need to see "your team" as reasonable, when objective reason tells you that that is just not so.
All societies are susceptible to disinformation and propaganda. That doesn't mean we have to throw our hands up and despair at wondering who to believe, Churchill or Hitler? Stalin or Roosevelt? Mussolini or Daladier? Putin or Obama? Trump or....anyone?
Look. If we take the case of Ukraine, then:
- I have family in both countries
- My mom is Russian, my dad Ukrainian; since my childhood I've been to many places both in Russia and Ukraine
- I visited both countries multiple times just before the events started unfolding in 2013
- I can easily read materials in Russian, Ukrainian, English, French, Spanish, and I've read and watched gigabytes of material on this conflict from all sides
- I talked to dozens of people from both sides of the conflict
As you can see, this particular conflict is very close to me. It has cut through my very family. I couldn't even talk about it for many years as it has drained me of all emotion.
And yet, I'm extremely cautious concluding what actually went on. If fact, my assumptions have changed several times over the last 8 years, sometimes dramatically. I still don't fully understand what happened to the two countries I love.
And we have you, with all respect, who seems to be perfectly clear on which side to put the blame. At least, this is what I assume from what your comments.
No, I have never said anyting at all that suggests I know where to put the blame.
My argument has nothing to do with "blame", only to do with rejecting the claim that we cannot possibly look at current, here and now actions of Putin and call it what it is - a bunch of authoritarian horseshit. People are having very specific conversations with you, and it seems to me like the moment you start getting into detail discussion on just how ridiculous these (and yours) claims are around pretty basic concepts like sovereignity and use of military force in other countries, you retreat into vague conversations about the nature of "truth".
*You* said this was about respecting the UN Charter. You then hand waved off how Russia massing troops on the border of Ukraine and threatening to invade is somehow perfectly ok, we should just understand Russia's global need for influence because who can say what truth is? I don't have to "blame" anyone for the mess in the Ukraine to notice that Russia sending troops in the Crimea is most definitely NOT kosher under the terms of the UN Charter! I don't have to take a side, or "know" how to explain and assign blame over all to notice that Russia gicing a bunch of dumbshits a SAM that they then use to blow away a few hundred civilians in an airliner is probably not a great outcome.
Maybe you are actually too close to it - maybe you cannot see the forest for the trees.
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2022, 02:00:43 PM
As a rough sketch I think it's: 1) about institutions; 2) about public sentiment; and 3) self-reinforcing.
You need to build and maintain institutions (media, education, political processes on national and local levels, and so on) to believe that good governance and fair processes are desirable, possible, and necessary and to hold constituent parts accountable. It springs from all components, and it's necessary to continually do the work to keep the project viable.
I believe fatalism and cynicism past a certain point is actively corrosive to freedom and good governance as it saps the ability to keep the projects viable.
But it is possible, as seen at various times in various places. And it's also possible to completely undermine and destroy it, as seen elsewhere.
I think the key elements are 1) some levels of media standards (both mass media and social media) - this is of course delicate, because the other side is corrosive media control; 2) controlling capital's influence on and access to politics; and 3) broad public education that includes strong civics.
On an indivdual level, I believe the best contributions we can make (other than those who are committed to be activists, of course), is to insist on good standards, support constructive practices, and reject cynicism where possible. This is exhausting and on the level of individual ants moving grains of sand.
Agreed on all of this.
I freaking *hate* these kind of broad based, cynical "observations" around impossible to quantify or prove generalities like "the mainstream media is biased against <insert martyr here>". They have no utility other then to engender cynicism for the furtherance of the war against objectivity and reason. Their terms are not even defined in any meaningful way, and there is nothing to be done by anyone to change the perception once it has taken hold.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2022, 02:17:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 01:36:06 PM
What I don't understand is why you say this, but then turn around and refuse to acknowledge that there is in fact a difference between how different groups and societies deal with this problem, and agree with the authoritarians that well, everyone has their own "truth" so we might as well accept that one is as good as another.
I don't think that's what I'm saying at all.
You say that, but time and time again, someone like Gaijan shows up, and starts saying things like "All truth is relative, so my truth is as good as any" when his truth is regurgitating RT talking points, and *your* response is to agree with him - at least he thinks you are agreeing with him, and it sure looks that way to me as well.
Quote
My view is that there are facts and actions and realities - those are true or not. There is then interpretation of what causes those. I don't think there is truth in that - though, obviously, there are clearly wrong interpretations which I think we can pretty comprehensively dismiss as untrue. But there's lots of edge cases and it absolutely depends on where you look at it from, what your priorities are, plus it's really difficult to assign or guess at motivations - and how much does any of it matter against material factors.
All that is correct, I think. But that, again, doesn't mean that just because everyone has their own interpretation, that any interpretation is as valid as any other.
Objective fact is great, but that doesn't mean that all non-objective opinion is equally valid., There are good arguments in support of a position, and bad ones, and honest one and dishonest ones.
Quote
<snip good stuff I agree with>
I don't think it's cynical or fatalist because I think we can solve it - but I think it is probably a bit of a fight.
I don't think that is at all how you come across. I think you come across as empowering those who in fact don't think it can be won, and in fact the climate deniers have just as valid a claim to truth as the climate alarmists, because, hey, it's all "true", so what's the difference?
If there is a problem in the West with dealing with this, I think it is because there are a lot of people in the West who approach it in the same fashion that you do, and give too much weight to arguments that are clearly bullshit.
Quote
QuoteWe don't have to sit here are nod sagely and say "Yeah, well, those Nazis! They had their truth, and Churchill had his! And the non-Nazi germans (many millions of whom would pay with their lives for Nazi ideology), why, they had their own "truth" and who can say which is really true?".
That is horseshit. And pretending that Putin and Russia Times today are somehow just another "truth" in a competing see of bullshit is playing right back into that same old, proven strategy on how to empower authoritarianism.
Where have I said any of that though? I've posted repeatedly what my take is on Putin and Ukraine and Russia. Where is that take saying this?
I thought you just said exactly that. GdM said that all truth is relative, and hence its fine to accept Putin's take on what is happening, because the western media is all biased, blah blah blah, and you agreed with him that his views were in fact just more "truth".
Quote
There is still opposition media in Russia, incidentally.
Sure there is, that can be kind of useful to authoritarian regimes.
There is no free press in Russia though. Keeping a few "opposition" voices around so you can pretend like there is an actual free press is not a free press.
Quote
QuoteYou need to build and maintain institutions (media, education, political processes on national and local levels, and so on) to believe that good governance and fair processes are desirable, possible, and necessary and to hold constituent parts accountable. It springs from all components, and it's necessary to continually do the work to keep the project viable.
Yeah - I think trust and trustworthiness is key and once insititutions lose it it's really difficult to win back, just look at the Catholic Church and child sexual abuse.
The past twenty years - Iraq, the financial crisis, covid - have not been good for lots of institutions in the West. It is not enough to say "trust the institutions" when I'm not sure they've proven themselves worthy of trust in quite some time. Institutions need to earn trustworthiness and I think a lot of them could with starting from scratch.
No argument from me, and note that I've never actually said "trust the institutions". I think the press has done a terrible job (not so much their fault as the fault of society to recognize and manage the incentives that drive the press economy), and has fairly lost a lot of credibility.
But...that doesn't somehow make other, even less trustworthy institutions somehow MORE trustworthy. The NYT fucking up some story doesn't make RT credible. CNN blowing the coverage on some story doesn't make Fox somehow a better alternative.
Quote
I always think of the moment in the South Carolina debate with Trump which loads of commentators thought might be a disaster for him and enraged many never Trumpers, when there was a question on Iraq and he was the only one on the stage who said "Iraq was a disaster and Bush made us less safe". I don't think he won it then, but I kind of do - because actually in a way he was the only one telling the truth. The rest of them for deference to the party and the former president had to pretend that that was wrong and the Iraq war had been a success.
And a bunch of people being full of shit about Iraq doesn't make Trump somehow something other then a lying sack of shit.
This is *exactly* what I mean. Trump says one thing "true" amongst a sea of lies and bullshit. And it is obvious the only reason he is saying it is not because he values its truth, but because he recognizes that it is something he can use to stick it to his opponents. He would have said the opposite if that would have worked better.
His followers then ignore the sea of lies, and say "See, Trump is the only one being honest!!!!!" when any objective analysis makes it clear he is radically less worthy of trust then any of the alternatives.
That is bad enough, but then those who are NOT his followers (like yourself) turn around and parrot the same thing! "See, look how Trump told the truth and all those others lied!". Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 02:33:08 PM
No, I have never said anyting at all that suggests I know where to put the blame.
My argument has nothing to do with "blame", only to do with rejecting the claim that we cannot possibly look at current, here and now actions of Putin and call it what it is - a bunch of authoritarian horseshit. People are having very specific conversations with you, and it seems to me like the moment you start getting into detail discussion on just how ridiculous these (and yours) claims are around pretty basic concepts like sovereignity and use of military force in other countries, you retreat into vague conversations about the nature of "truth".
*You* said this was about respecting the UN Charter. You then hand waved off how Russia massing troops on the border of Ukraine and threatening to invade is somehow perfectly ok, we should just because who can say what truth is? I don't have to "blame" anyone for the mess in the Ukraine to notice that Russia sending troops in the Crimea is most definitely NOT kosher under the terms of the UN Charter! I don't have to take a side, or "know" how to explain and assign blame over all to notice that Russia gicing a bunch of dumbshits a SAM that they then use to blow away a few hundred civilians in an airliner is probably not a great outcome.
Maybe you are actually too close to it - maybe you cannot see the forest for the trees.
I think the problem with our conversation is that you seem to assume I'm driving a certain agenda or opinion.
I'm not. I'm making an observation that Russia is driving a global agenda related to the UN Charter and global security, while the West seems to be focused on Ukraine alone. It's a neutral observation. I'm not asking you to "understand" Russia, or accept its agenda, or anything of the kind. I haven't even mentioned Putin once, I think.
What appears to you as hand-waving off Russia's perceived invasion threat to Ukraine, is simply my lack of desire to engage on this subject. I can't address it in a few brief posts, I'll have to expand to explain my complicated opinion on this, and I don't believe it's relevant to the discussion or interesting to anyone here.
I have no idea what Russia's end game is on this. As it's my own country, I'm puzzled and concerned.
I think you have a "complicated" opinion on this because there is no way to reconcile the claim that "Russia is driving a global agenda related to the UN Charter" with the actual reality that they invaded another sovereign country with their military.
There isn't anything at all complicated about that.
You don't seem to have a coherent position. You just said, in the same post, that "Russia is driving a global agenda related to the UN Charter" and "I have no idea what Russia's end game is on this".
If you have no idea what their end game is, then how can you state so definitely that "Russia is driving a global agenda related to the UN Charter and global security"?
And no, that is NOT at all a neutral observation. Anymore then sagely noting that Hitler really is just concerned about living room for his people is a neutral observation. Saying something is neutral in the face of blatant posturing and naked aggression doesn't make it neutral.
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 03:25:24 PM
I think you have a "complicated" opinion on this because there is no way to reconcile the claim that "Russia is driving a global agenda related to the UN Charter" with the actual reality that they invaded another sovereign country with their military.
There isn't anything at all complicated about that.
You don't seem to have a coherent position. You just said, in the same post, that "Russia is driving a global agenda related to the UN Charter" and "I have no idea what Russia's end game is on this".
If you have no idea what their end game is, then how can you state so definitely that "Russia is driving a global agenda related to the UN Charter and global security"?
And no, that is NOT at all a neutral observation. Anymore then sagely noting that Hitler really is just concerned about living room for his people is a neutral observation. Saying something is neutral in the face of blatant posturing and naked aggression doesn't make it neutral.
In my country, we say that whoever brings up Hitler first, loses the argument :)
Anyway. I am observing what Russia is doing now, and at the same time I don't understand its end game. This isn't an incoherent position. It's open-ended.
It was 100% clear from the start that the US and NATO will reject the Russian list of demands. Still, Russia went about it with maximum publicity. This puzzles me.
Unlike you, I don't have the world figured out, Berkut (joke).
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 03:33:19 PM
In my country, we say that whoever brings up Hitler first, loses the argument :)
Seems like a problematic criteria if you view arguments as a tool to get to the truth rather than as a game with rules to be won. Maybe truth wouldn't be so hard to get at if you didn't view arguments as a game? Just throwing this out there.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 03:33:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 03:25:24 PM
I think you have a "complicated" opinion on this because there is no way to reconcile the claim that "Russia is driving a global agenda related to the UN Charter" with the actual reality that they invaded another sovereign country with their military.
There isn't anything at all complicated about that.
You don't seem to have a coherent position. You just said, in the same post, that "Russia is driving a global agenda related to the UN Charter" and "I have no idea what Russia's end game is on this".
If you have no idea what their end game is, then how can you state so definitely that "Russia is driving a global agenda related to the UN Charter and global security"?
And no, that is NOT at all a neutral observation. Anymore then sagely noting that Hitler really is just concerned about living room for his people is a neutral observation. Saying something is neutral in the face of blatant posturing and naked aggression doesn't make it neutral.
In my country, we say that whoever brings up Hitler first, loses the argument :)
Anyway. I am observing what Russia is doing now, and at the same time I don't understand its end game. This isn't an incoherent position. It's open-ended.
It was 100% clear from the start that the US and NATO will reject the Russian list of demands. Still, Russia went about it with maximum publicity. This puzzles me.
Unlike you, I don't have the world figured out, Berkut (joke).
Unlike you, I don't presume to know what other people have figured out. :P
I just try to define process and objective standards for how to argue and think in a way to get closer to something like useful truth as having great value, as opposed to just coming up with ways to confirm my cherished assumptions.
Quote from: DGuller on January 12, 2022, 03:44:40 PM
Seems like a problematic criteria if you view arguments as a tool to get to the truth rather than as a game with rules to be won. Maybe truth wouldn't be so hard to get at if you didn't view arguments as a game? Just throwing this out there.
Maybe :)
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 03:56:44 PM
Unlike you, I don't presume to know what other people have figured out. :P
I just try to define process and objective standards for how to argue and think in a way to get closer to something like useful truth as having great value, as opposed to just coming up with ways to confirm my cherished assumptions.
Fair.
I'm very uncertain about my assumptions right now, to be honest. I really don't know what to expect next, as there's no "handrail" from the past similar experiences for me to hold as a reference point...
Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2022, 02:53:32 PMYou say that, but time and time again, someone like Gaijan shows up, and starts saying things like "All truth is relative, so my truth is as good as any" when his truth is regurgitating RT talking points, and *your* response is to agree with him - at least he thinks you are agreeing with him, and it sure looks that way to me as well.
That's not how I've been reading Gaijin - I've put my view on Ukraine repeatedly. His is different. I don't think mine is necessarily true but it's how I read the facts.
And in terms of what is going on - I have no idea. I think it's probably coercive diplomacy and not the build up to an invasion, I think it's probably about NATO and Russia's perceived grievances (which I think are not entirely unfair and mainly driven by weakness and fear - and a sense of time running out) but I think it could also be a build-up to an invasion and have tried to sketch (leaning heavily on a Russian expert's take) why I think that might be the case. But I don't know - and I think the truth is that it may be all of them and even Putin doesn't know, yet and that he may have forced this but is going to be pretty reactive.
In terms of what the West should do - I think we should support Ukraine through training, arms supplies etc because Ukraine shows no sign of wanting to compromise (if it is about them and not NATO/the West)
On the truth it's not that all truth is relative, but that it's plural.
QuoteAll that is correct, I think. But that, again, doesn't mean that just because everyone has their own interpretation, that any interpretation is as valid as any other.
Objective fact is great, but that doesn't mean that all non-objective opinion is equally valid., There are good arguments in support of a position, and bad ones, and honest one and dishonest ones.
I don't disagree with any of that but I don't think that's what I've been saying - I don't think those follow at all.
QuoteI thought you just said exactly that. GdM said that all truth is relative, and hence its fine to accept Putin's take on what is happening, because the western media is all biased, blah blah blah, and you agreed with him that his views were in fact just more "truth".
I think all media is biased. There's obviously different biases for different publications and you just adjust for them when you read. I know what I'm getting from the Guardian or the Telegraph, which both have pretty clear editorial lines, and I read accordingly. That doesn't mean they're making stuff up or not telling the truth about facts - it's just what stories they're choosing to tell and how they tell them.
I think there are also universal biases - I think journalists, because it's their job, will look for the story: what is the better story and what is interesting. That may be different than what is important. I also think a lot of the media has a bias towards status quo-ism - I think this came up a lot with "normalising" Trump - and struggle to report on some circumstances.
And once I notice it I can't get away from this but I really struggle with foreign correspondents where you get the sense that they don't just have an issue with Putin's government, or Xi's government but with Russia or China (I think the NYT is pretty bad on this front). That their cynicism or contempt for the regimes they're reporting on bleeds through into how they're viewing the country. My favourite Russia reporter is the BBC Steve Rozenberg and, in part, it's because you can tell that he really loves Russia despite reporting on Putin - and I think he's a very good reporter too, see the interview with Lukashenko.
QuoteSure there is, that can be kind of useful to authoritarian regimes.
There is no free press in Russia though. Keeping a few "opposition" voices around so you can pretend like there is an actual free press is not a free press.
Yeah but that is a distinction with the Hitler comparison. Similarly, from everything I have read, Putin and his people are concerned about the 2024 election and that they will have to very obviously falsify results (which might prompt a "colour revolution" movement). The public polls for Putin are not great so I can only imagine what the private ones say - again a concern the great totalitarians did not face.
QuoteNo argument from me, and note that I've never actually said "trust the institutions". I think the press has done a terrible job (not so much their fault as the fault of society to recognize and manage the incentives that drive the press economy), and has fairly lost a lot of credibility.
But...that doesn't somehow make other, even less trustworthy institutions somehow MORE trustworthy. The NYT fucking up some story doesn't make RT credible. CNN blowing the coverage on some story doesn't make Fox somehow a better alternative.
No but that's not what I was saying - I think my point is more that the NYT, say, needs to act as if it needs earn trust through its reporting rather than continuing with a magisterial, voice from nowhere, paper of record attitude. Again it's like the Catholic Church - too many institutions are running the Benedict XVI style and not Francis.
You know it reminds me of Michael Gove's line during the Brexit referendum that "I think the people in this country have had enough of experts", which became a tag line of everything that was wrong about Brexit - but even in that is part of the problem. People only repeat the first half of his sentence - because he then said "enough of experts with organisations with acronyms saying 'they know what is best' and getting things consistently wrong."
I think that's the way you see that defensiveness and "trust the institutions" in an example. The driver for this and people have lost trust is the "know what's best and getting things consistently wrong" bit, what too many people hear is just the "people have had enough of experts bit".
QuoteAnd a bunch of people being full of shit about Iraq doesn't make Trump somehow something other then a lying sack of shit.
This is *exactly* what I mean. Trump says one thing "true" amongst a sea of lies and bullshit. And it is obvious the only reason he is saying it is not because he values its truth, but because he recognizes that it is something he can use to stick it to his opponents. He would have said the opposite if that would have worked better.
His followers then ignore the sea of lies, and say "See, Trump is the only one being honest!!!!!" when any objective analysis makes it clear he is radically less worthy of trust then any of the alternatives.
That is bad enough, but then those who are NOT his followers (like yourself) turn around and parrot the same thing! "See, look how Trump told the truth and all those others lied!". Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!
No - my point isn't more truthful.
This is my wider point on the worry for the West in general. You had a bunch of people who want to protect the institutions they're part of (and benefit from), you've got shibboleths of what you can and can't say in that world. And that might be fine if those institutions are working really well - but generally it leads to a corruption and just utter lack of accountability.
Away from the US we can see this in the UK really clearly - Iraq, where we lost militarily then politically; the crash, that overwhelmingly our core industry because of our regulatory failings; Brexit which right or wrong has been handled disastrously and is a huge diplomatic failure; covid, where the actual plan developed by scientific experts for dealing with a pandemic assumed about 200,000 deaths because a core assumption was that we couldn't do a lockdown or any other NPI to stop the spread of a disease. Those are huge consistent failures across multiple governments of different parties led by different Prime Ministers and I don't think they're just because of bad politicians. I think there's no accountability. I don't think politicians or generals or bankers or civil servants have suffered any consequences for repeated failures - normally, at worst, they're moved sideways. I think it goes for the UK, but I think it goes for the West in general as well. We'll all have different combinations of failures - Iraq, crash, covid, Eurozone crisis etc. And too often the people who failed in the past will be working on our response to climate change or the rise of China and we'll be surprised when they fail again.
And if you have that situation and you're a democracy, then people will notice and when some guy comes up and says "they fucked up - why would you trust them again" that's likely to be a pretty successful message because he'll be the only one in the room saying the really obviously true thing.
Edit: And just to be clear - with the failure - I don't think it's the personnel issue. It's same with my Zuckerberg and Facebook point - I think it is the systems that will produce bad outcomes because in my view we've allowed them to become ossified and stuck with process and forms basically from the moment of post-Cold War success despite the world changing. So you could parachute the best people in the world into them and you'd get the same bad results and the same failures.
A very interesting perspective, Sheilbh. Just wanted to mention I enjoyed reading it — many things to think about...
Edit: if I said that ALL truth is relative, then I've expressed myself poorly. Of course many truths are universal. The Earth isn't flat, after all (regardless of what Terry Pratchett's books may suggest).
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 03:33:19 PM
It was 100% clear from the start that the US and NATO will reject the Russian list of demands. Still, Russia went about it with maximum publicity. This puzzles me.
I agree with this. I don't know enough about domestic and internal politics in Russia to guess at whether that is a factor here.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2022, 10:01:51 AM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 03:33:19 PM
It was 100% clear from the start that the US and NATO will reject the Russian list of demands. Still, Russia went about it with maximum publicity. This puzzles me.
I agree with this. I don't know enough about domestic and internal politics in Russia to guess at whether that is a factor here.
Based on historical example that seemed like a clear case of fabricating a casus belli to me, and the first time I thought for real Russia would attack. Who knows what goes on in the background. Maybe they just wanted the aggro, maybe they have danced back from it at the last moment, maybe they just want to strengthen the CB with more failed talks as proof of "Western agression".
Shelf, I think the only bone I really have to pick with you is that I do think some of the problems the West is having *right now* have to do with cultural factors.
Yes, our institutions have done a shitty job and damaged their own credibility. But....is that really any different now then any other time? Really? I am not sure that is really the case in general.
I think a big part of our problem is, frankly, exactly the attitude you are espousing. This kind of moral relativism in the detail, where we get into this minutia of analysis on the NYTs coverage of some story they fucked up, and lash ourselves and wail about how terrible it all is, while the bad actors use that same angst to basically say "....yep! See! Everyone knows the NYT is trash and biased! Tucker Carlson says...." and we are handing them the ammo to shoot ourselves with, and we seem to lack the will or interest in taking any kind of stand on principle or just state outright that despite its flaws and opportunity for improvement, our system is in fact better than the alternatives, and we should be willing to fight for it it rhetorically and physically if necessary.
Instead, you spend your time bitching about how screwed up OUR systems are, and the Tucker Carlsons eat that up and spew it back out, and the sea of people in the middle see one side willing to take a stand for their ideas, and the other side can't seem to even believe in their own principles, and is too busy self-flagellating to actually disagree in principle with someone who is literally standing in front of them telling them that really, it's not so unreasonable for Russia to threaten to fucking nuke Europe if the West doesn't do exactly as they are told.
I think we have systemic problems for sure, driven by technology and a unwillingness of those in power to relax their grip on it in response to those changes in tech and social norms. Maybe that alone is enough to doom us. But this cultural malaise of navel gazing at how terrible it is that the NYT is too preachy while the "alternative media" that gains its traction from a bunch of people bitching about how biased the mainstream media is against conservatives and so lets just go listen to Tucker is at least as dangerous.
Note: Saying the media is biased is a non-statement. It is tautologically true and largely meaningless in the context of a useful discussion. Of course they are biased - everyone is biased, and you should understand that going in to any evaluation of literally anything. But that is used as a stand in for "some particular media I don't like has it out for us, and hence they are in fact lying about what is happening, and therefore I can reasonably ignore all the media and just listen to what Vlad or Tucker or Youtube or whatever tells me!" And that is how this is being used in the actual world, and you can see that happening right here, in this very thread. That is what I find fascinating.
That was just a long winded way of saying the truth is complicated, but deceit is simple. A lie can run around the world three time before the truth gets out of bed in the morning.
Quote from: Tamas on January 13, 2022, 10:22:05 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2022, 10:01:51 AM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 12, 2022, 03:33:19 PM
It was 100% clear from the start that the US and NATO will reject the Russian list of demands. Still, Russia went about it with maximum publicity. This puzzles me.
I agree with this. I don't know enough about domestic and internal politics in Russia to guess at whether that is a factor here.
Based on historical example that seemed like a clear case of fabricating a casus belli to me, and the first time I thought for real Russia would attack. Who knows what goes on in the background. Maybe they just wanted the aggro, maybe they have danced back from it at the last moment, maybe they just want to strengthen the CB with more failed talks as proof of "Western agression".
This is where I'm also puzzled for a few reasons.
If they wanted a manufacture to justify invading Ukraine - why would expand your list of grievances to include wider, long-standing ones about NATO and the West? In 2014 the invasion was very quick and unexpected as it took place during the Sochi Olympics when the world's eyes were on Russia - why now is it taking place over months and with very obvious build up? Similarly if you want a CB then making it about the West and Russia's long-standing grievances seems odd - why not manufacture an incident in Ukraine (which doesn't seem beyond the ken of Russia) or trick Ukraine into thinking they can settle the Donbass then roll in as a peacekeeper/on "humanitarian" grounds (the Georgia 2008 playbook)?
Those questions are all why I think it is more likely about the West more generally and it is coercive diplomacy. But I don't know because as GdM and others have said the behaviour on that front is also question-begging. It's very unclear - which is why I slightly do wonder if it is just Putin trying to force the agenda, isn't sure what they'll do next and is going to mainly be reactive now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2022, 10:41:19 AM
This is where I'm also puzzled for a few reasons.
If they wanted a manufacture to justify invading Ukraine - why would expand your list of grievances to include wider, long-standing ones about NATO and the West? In 2014 the invasion was very quick and unexpected as it took place during the Sochi Olympics when the world's eyes were on Russia - why now is it taking place over months and with very obvious build up? Similarly if you want a CB then making it about the West and Russia's long-standing grievances seems odd - why not manufacture an incident in Ukraine (which doesn't seem beyond the ken of Russia) or trick Ukraine into thinking they can settle the Donbass then roll in as a peacekeeper/on "humanitarian" grounds (the Georgia 2008 playbook)?
Those questions are all why I think it is more likely about the West more generally and it is coercive diplomacy. But I don't know because as GdM and others have said the behaviour on that front is also question-begging. It's very unclear - which is why I slightly do wonder if it is just Putin trying to force the agenda, isn't sure what they'll do next and is going to mainly be reactive now.
Why would Russia invade Ukraine, in the first place? What possible strategic objective would make this necessary?
Russia has already secured its old military base in Crimea. It has made the gas pipeline through Ukraine irrelevant, so it can't be held hostage by this ancient, outdated infrastructure. What else is there to justify a full scale invasion? I can't think of anything at all.
In Georgia, it was a response (assessed as disproportionate) to the Georgian aggression. This isn't a Russian "truth" but the conclusion by a EU-backed commission:
https://www.google.ch/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSTRE58T4MO20090930
I honestly rule out this invasion threat at this stage. Too much to lose for unclear gains.
My wild ideas are that this list of public demands has something to do either with Russia's role in the US-China confrontation, or with Russia's own play at coercive diplomacy, as you say.
The good news is that after the latest round of NATO-Russia negotiations, both parties seem to want to continue discussions. We'll see.
Quote from: Berkut on January 13, 2022, 10:30:02 AMShelf, I think the only bone I really have to pick with you is that I do think some of the problems the West is having *right now* have to do with cultural factors.
Yes, our institutions have done a shitty job and damaged their own credibility. But....is that really any different now then any other time? Really? I am not sure that is really the case in general.
I think a big part of our problem is, frankly, exactly the attitude you are espousing. This kind of moral relativism in the detail, where we get into this minutia of analysis on the NYTs coverage of some story they fucked up, and lash ourselves and wail about how terrible it all is, while the bad actors use that same angst to basically say "....yep! See! Everyone knows the NYT is trash and biased! Tucker Carlson says...." and we are handing them the ammo to shoot ourselves with, and we seem to lack the will or interest in taking any kind of stand on principle or just state outright that despite its flaws and opportunity for improvement, our system is in fact better than the alternatives, and we should be willing to fight for it it rhetorically and physically if necessary.
Instead, you spend your time bitching about how screwed up OUR systems are, and the Tucker Carlsons eat that up and spew it back out, and the sea of people in the middle see one side willing to take a stand for their ideas, and the other side can't seem to even believe in their own principles, and is too busy self-flagellating to actually disagree in principle with someone who is literally standing in front of them telling them that really, it's not so unreasonable for Russia to threaten to fucking nuke Europe if the West doesn't do exactly as they are told.
I think we have systemic problems for sure, driven by technology and a unwillingness of those in power to relax their grip on it in response to those changes in tech and social norms. Maybe that alone is enough to doom us. But this cultural malaise of navel gazing at how terrible it is that the NYT is too preachy while the "alternative media" that gains its traction from a bunch of people bitching about how biased the mainstream media is against conservatives and so lets just go listen to Tucker is at least as dangerous.
Note: Saying the media is biased is a non-statement. It is tautologically true and largely meaningless in the context of a useful discussion. Of course they are biased - everyone is biased, and you should understand that going in to any evaluation of literally anything. But that is used as a stand in for "some particular media I don't like has it out for us, and hence they are in fact lying about what is happening, and therefore I can reasonably ignore all the media and just listen to what Vlad or Tucker or Youtube or whatever tells me!" And that is how this is being used in the actual world, and you can see that happening right here, in this very thread. That is what I find fascinating.
That was just a long winded way of saying the truth is complicated, but deceit is simple. A lie can run around the world three time before the truth gets out of bed in the morning.
So I think that I would take almost the opposite view :lol: :P
I think our problems are structural and systemic rather than cultural. I think the culture and the "post-truth" and populism, are symptoms (maybe morbid symptoms) of problems rather than their cause - they are downstream.
My own view is that the problem is driven by an alienation from politics and the political. I think that is partly the fault of hiving off policy decisions to technocrats and the administrative state, reducing the scope over which people feel they can democratically control in a straightforward way. As I listed, I think there have also been huge examples of institutional failure without consequence which makes people feel that actually there is a class of people making those decisions who primarily protect each other - as we watch W be canonised into cuddly ex-President rather than a profound failure who has at least one failed war, the biggest crash since the Depression and who authorised the use of torture. There are other aspects, but I don't think the alienation from politics is unjustified.
Because of that I don't think the problem is somehow epistemic and that we can solve the issues in Western democracies - especially the US - with fact-checking. In fact, I think that re-inforces the forces that are driving alienation. Especially if we are litigating quite nuanced and technical points - I think this has been a big issue with covid and "follow the science" as we've moved from a fairly clear picture of what covid was and what that meant in the summer of 2020. Now we're in a situation where it's about balancing risks and uncertainties which we're not good at communicating and I think too many people get caught out because they go for the "noble lie" when in my view they should talk about uncertainty and risk and treat the public like adults who are given awesome responsibility to shape our society in a democracy, rather than just a stakeholder to be managed.
Or the credentialism that often goes with where we first state our expertise or personal experience that justifies our voice on what is or is not right - I'm as guilty of this as anyone, I really remember getting very annoyed at Caprice (a glamour model) arguing with a doctor during the first wave when Caprice was pushing for lockdown and the doctor was following our experts at the time in saying we needed to not do that. Because Caprice was right - similarly the tech bro who did that Medium post debating with a professor of epidemiology from the LSTHM - to me it felt like the worst bits of "debates" about climate or the economic impact of Brexit where you have one side that's got the knowledge and expertise but the other has the media nous. As I say - as it turned out the experts were wrong, I was wrong and the former page 3 model was absolutely correct :lol:
I think this is also what is driving the issues around "identity politics" and all of that because I think people still want to be political but they've been alienated from the democratic process, huge sections of policy is managed by consensus or technocrats and shouldn't be challenged but that political instinct still exists. So instead of being about what we do and what we should do, it is moved into politics around meaning. Both the meaning of identity within the world but also the meaning of truth - I think they're two sides of the same coin. Both, in my view, are trying to provide a route out of our current end of end of history funk, but actually re-inforce it inadvertantly.
I think what matters is re-invigorating democracy as an agent of change and people being able to control society (and markets) around them by acting together - and the solution is in making politics central to that again rather than what is true or false, or who we are. I think that's the key and the most important thing not the culture because I think democratic institutions and material facts produce a democratic culture, and given our culture right now I think we should probably ask what caused that.
Generally I agree with Berkut and not Sheilbh, but:
I agree with this:
QuoteI think what matters is re-invigorating democracy as an agent of change and people being able to control society (and markets) around them by acting together
But I don't think this follows from it:
Quote- and the solution is in making politics central to that again rather than what is true or false,
Maybe you mean something different but I think the problems you are describing come in large specifically from a reluctance to declare things true or false, focusing on that, and then standing your ground on those. Berkut outlined how any uncertain person can see one side (the far right) being (well, projecting being) absolutely sure on the world its problems and the solutions to those problems, and the other being all "well yeah I mean I think this is true but there are many possible interpretations and I would hate to run the risk of disagreeing with you strongly as you are entitled to your opinion about the sky's colour".
There are truths progressives and moderates can rally behind. e.g. You can list the many faults small and big as long as you like, but liberal democracy has consistently been proven to be the superior form of government to the various other experiments, when it comes to stability, and the personal freedom as well as living standards of its citizens. Abortive attempts by some societies at this form of government is a bad reflection on a society's readiness for this form of government NOT the form of government itself.
If we know we live under better circumstances than a feudal shithole like Russia (or Hungary), or a dystopian hellhole like China, we should be brave and proud to say so. Even and especially if we see a lot of issues with our own system of government and can list endless issues that appear to be threatening it. In part because if those issues do not exist (or more realistically, hidden/suppressed) in the other forms government that's because they are not allowed to ever develop and come out into the open, causing worse dysfunctionality. e.g. Russia and China don't have anti-vaxxers gaining in numbers and taking to the streets, because they would have their heads bashed in. That doesn't mean the same idiotic sentiment isn't widespread there, just look at the Russian vaccination numbers.
Quote from: Berkut on January 13, 2022, 10:30:02 AM
Yes, our institutions have done a shitty job and damaged their own credibility. But....is that really any different now then any other time? Really? I am not sure that is really the case in general.
Has the destruction of democratic institutions within the US become normalized to the point that you have forgotten what functional liberal democratic institutions look like?
Quote from: Tamas on January 13, 2022, 11:36:13 AMMaybe you mean something different but I think the problems you are describing come in large specifically from a reluctance to declare things true or false, focusing on that, and then standing your ground on those. Berkut outlined how any uncertain person can see one side (the far right) being (well, projecting being) absolutely sure on the world its problems and the solutions to those problems, and the other being all "well yeah I mean I think this is true but there are many possible interpretations and I would hate to run the risk of disagreeing with you strongly as you are entitled to your opinion about the sky's colour".
So there's a couple of things - one is I treat Languish as if I'm with friends and everyone's pretty smart and what I value are the different perspectives. Which I think about and try and see how they sit with how I'm seeing things. I think that's different from general public discourse. If we had someone who was an out-and-out anti-vaxx conspiracy, I just wouldn't engage. But we don't. I think that's part of it.
It's not a reluctance. It's that I think there's a fetishisation of "truth" going on - especially in liberal/centrist circles in the West as the way of explaining everything. I don't think it's the central issue, I think focusing on it is counter-productive and I don't think democracy is going to be saved by more fact-checking. I think part of that is because liberal/centrists were quite dominant during the end of history phase - when most big political issues were "settled". There was broad consensus on the general direction of travel on most of the big issues that twentieth century politics revolved around. That is under attack. My explanation is that it's because the period of liberal dominance didn't work for everyone, that it ended in an economic disaster - and that the challenge and solution is too make things work for people again and re-engage them with democracy. I think that will ineivtably mean political arguments and voting on issues that had been considered "settled" which may not develop in the way liberals would like.
I think it's wrong but self-exculpatory for people who supported that consensus to believe that what's wrong now is that people are more susceptible to dishnoesty or that there are more dishonest and ruthless people around rather than that there were gaps in their system, that bits of it failed, that people were let down and alienated from democracy. I don't think that's true. I think in past periods - and there have been some - the reason this "post-truth" stuff wasn't widespread in other periods isn't because people were better informed, or better morally. I think it's a combination of technology and alienation/trust - not truth - around the political system. It honestly just feels very ancien regime yearning for the old certainties.
To go back to Berk's Hitler example - for me the key in Hitler's rise is not the attacks on the free press but the fact that only one political party (the SPD) genuinely believed in the Weimar system, the Weimar system (not least because of that) failed to deliver for many people and the constant street violence/fear of communism. The thing I find worrying about the GOP isn't the dishonesty but that I'm not sure they believe in the democratic system anymore, which I think is the bigger, more fundamental issue.
QuoteThere are truths progressives and moderates can rally behind. e.g. You can list the many faults small and big as long as you like, but liberal democracy has consistently been proven to be the superior form of government to the various other experiments, when it comes to stability, and the personal freedom as well as living standards of its citizens. Abortive attempts by some societies at this form of government is a bad reflection on a society's readiness for this form of government NOT the form of government itself.
If we know we live under better circumstances than a feudal shithole like Russia (or Hungary), or a dystopian hellhole like China, we should be brave and proud to say so. Even and especially if we see a lot of issues with our own system of government and can list endless issues that appear to be threatening it. In part because if those issues do not exist (or more realistically, hidden/suppressed) in the other forms government that's because they are not allowed to ever develop and come out into the open, causing worse dysfunctionality. e.g. Russia and China don't have anti-vaxxers gaining in numbers and taking to the streets, because they would have their heads bashed in. That doesn't mean the same idiotic sentiment isn't widespread there, just look at the Russian vaccination numbers.
That's fine - I think it is a better system and I wished we lived in a world where the main things that mattered were stability, personal freedom and living standards. But we don't. I think we live in a world where power (hard and soft) and state capacity still matter.
My point on the way we view China and Russia is on the "our system works better" point - is that to me that just seems hubristic and really dangerous. Putin has been incredibly successful measured against what he was trying to achieve in the last 21 years; China has been incredibly successful against what they were trying to achieve in the last 40 years. I don't think the West has been particularly successful since the end of the cold war and I don't think it has any great achievements in that period to point to (I would have said eastward expansion of the EU but it's a bit of a mixed bag now :lol: :(). So, like the NYT or the Catholic Church, we can just assume our position and magisterial command is going to endure based on recent history - it all needs to be earned again (and earned every generation I think) which goes back to whether our system is working.
Thanks for illustrating my point Sheilbh. :P
If you think the system Putin built and the opportunities he missed is a success but the world the West built since the Cold War is lacklustre in comparison we may be too far away in point of view to discuss further. And don't get me started on the great successful China achievement of letting in Western capital while maintaining their boots on their own citizen's faces.
Whatever economical success these countries can show off it is DESPITE the political systems they built, not because of them.
Meanwhile, Russia goes even more shrill:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/13/russia-says-talks-with-nato-over-ukraine-are-hitting-a-dead-end
QuoteRussia has refused to rule out a military deployment to Cuba and Venezuela if talks with the west on European security and Ukraine fail to go its way, while warning the latest discussions with Nato were hitting a dead end.
In an apparent attempt to up the ante with the Biden administration, Sergei Ryabkov, who led Russia's delegation in a meeting with the US on Monday, told Russian television he could neither confirm nor exclude sending military assets to Cuba and Venezuela if talks fail. Asked about these steps, he said "it all depends on the actions by our US counterparts".
Tamas, I don't think the issues of the West is that what we have is lacklustre compared to what Putin has. It's that it's lacklustre compared to what we could have, compared to what our ideals (such as they are) tell us we should be.
I agree with Sheilbh on the fetishisation of "truth". It's not that truth doesn't matter - of course it does - but it's that so much of the discourse centres around determining what reading of a complex subject is "true" and once that is done, everything else is just supposed to follow - including solutions and changes in people's behaviour. And the if the solutions and behaviour changes aren't forthcoming, it's because people are either being idiots or pernicious, or because they failed to see the light. So we better double down on establishing "the truth". And it's not really working.
IMO it's rather similar to how folks further on the left often will focus on determining "who's the real victim" and assume once that's been established solutions and behaviour changes will follow easily... and if they don't it's because people are either idiots or pernicious.
In both cases the dynamic looks to me like "once we win the argument to our satisfaction (which we inevitably will), then the world will move in the right direction... and if it doesn't, that's proof that the world has failed us." And I don't think that particularly helps improving anything and - I suspect that it is often directly counterproductive.
It's not that the truth doesn't matter (or that it doesn't matter who's truly been victimized). It does. But finding out the answer to either question is insufficient while it's often being treated as the only argument that matters.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 13, 2022, 11:07:51 AM
In Georgia, it was a response (assessed as disproportionate) to the Georgian aggression. This isn't a Russian "truth" but the conclusion by a EU-backed commission:
The "Georgian agression" was directed at separatists within their own borders.
Quote from: ShelfMy point on the way we view China and Russia is on the "our system works better" point - is that to me that just seems hubristic and really dangerous. Putin has been incredibly successful measured against what he was trying to achieve in the last 21 years; China has been incredibly successful against what they were trying to achieve in the last 40 years.
Tamas is very much right. If we count the end of the Cold War as being in 1990, then global life expectancy since then has risen by 8 years. That is 13%. That is very traceable to increases in standards of living that is the outcome of the Western liberal polity and free markets.
Child mortality has dropped by 67% in India and Brazil, and a similar amount in the rest of the developing world, again, as a result of the triumph of Western medicine, technology, and the free market. That didn't happen because China was able to put down those racals in Hong Kong, or because Putin was able to successfully make sure he could brutalize Georgia.
I can go on and on and on about just how much the global conditions for most people have improved *dramatically* in the last 30 years.
Hell, since 1990 the number of countries classified broadly as "autocracies" versus "democracies" has switched!
QuoteThe majority of the world's countries are now democracies. The chart here depicts the slow rise of the number of democracies over the last two centuries.
The end of World War I led to the birth of many democracies. However, during the 1930s, many of these young democracies then reverted to being autocratic.
After World War II, the number of democracies began growing again. But it was the fall of the Iron Curtain circa 1989 that led to a more dramatic increase in the number of democracies.
In 1990 there were 111 countries that were defined as an autocratic, and 57 democracies. Today the numbers are 80 and 99.
https://ourworldindata.org/democracy
This is *exactly* what I mean. We stare out our navels thinking about how fucked up we are, and don't bother to recognize that our system works fucking astoundingly well when you look at actual information, data, and bjective measures.
You look at Russia stomping on their neighbors and China growing their own economy and you have bought into THEIR message that they are kicking ass and the West is languishing! Why? What data do you have that Russia and Putin are all that awesome other then what Putin says? The data doesn't suggest it at all!
They have succeeded in what they wanted to succeed at? So what? Do we have to accept that what they want is actually good for, well....anyone? In the case of Russia it is pretty clear it isn't even good for Russian beyond their sense of the shallowest of nationalistic pride. Their standard of living still sucks, they are less free, corruption is terrible (and yes, by that I mean a lot worse then the west, again, the data show this), inequality is terrible.
Your unwillingness to say "our system works better" when the data shows that it does in fact actually work a LOT BETTER is a good part of the problem. Because the alternative to OUR system they are putting forth is not a better version of OUR system, it is THEIR system. And their system would fucking suck for nearly everyone.
They are certainly not worried about the "hubris" of saying their system is better.
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2022, 03:10:22 PM
Tamas, I don't think the issues of the West is that what we have is lacklustre compared to what Putin has. It's that it's lacklustre compared to what we could have, compared to what our ideals (such as they are) tell us we should be.
I agree with Sheilbh on the fetishisation of "truth". It's not that truth doesn't matter - of course it does - but it's that so much of the discourse centres around determining what reading of a complex subject is "true" and once that is done, everything else is just supposed to follow - including solutions and changes in people's behaviour. And the if the solutions and behaviour changes aren't forthcoming, it's because people are either being idiots or pernicious, or because they failed to see the light. So we better double down on establishing "the truth". And it's not really working.
IMO it's rather similar to how folks further on the left often will focus on determining "who's the real victim" and assume once that's been established solutions and behaviour changes will follow easily... and if they don't it's because people are either idiots or pernicious.
In both cases the dynamic looks to me like "once we win the argument to our satisfaction (which we inevitably will), then the world will move in the right direction... and if it doesn't, that's proof that the world has failed us." And I don't think that particularly helps improving anything and - I suspect that it is often directly counterproductive.
It's not that the truth doesn't matter (or that it doesn't matter who's truly been victimized). It does. But finding out the answer to either question is insufficient while it's often being treated as the only argument that matters.
The fight we are having now though is between our system and "their" system, which is some flavor of authoritarian autocracy.
There is no debate that a better version of our system would be better, that goes without saying.
We are sadly losing out not to ourselves, but to those who are using our angst over not meeting our own aspirations for what we could be (and should be) to present an alternative that is a demonstrably worse then the worst possible version of our system.
I do not agree that the problem is that people think truth is the only argument that matters. I don't look at my position in that manner at all.
I think the truth is a necessary, but insufficient, condition to success. It seems to me that Shelf thinks it is neither sufficient or necessary, and hence is willing to go along with people like GdM who just wave away the truth as all relative, and hence effectively meaningless.
Or at the least are willing to treat it as such from a practical manner, which is the only way I can see how you get to a place where you are willing to just accept that someone who says "The western media is all biased so I ignore it" is still engaged in reasonable discourse. Or "that argument is just the same thing Russia says, so it is basically the same".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2022, 03:17:05 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 13, 2022, 11:07:51 AM
In Georgia, it was a response (assessed as disproportionate) to the Georgian aggression. This isn't a Russian "truth" but the conclusion by a EU-backed commission:
The "Georgian agression" was directed at separatists within their own borders.
I'm not going to argue opinions. I've linked to the internationally recognised, EU-chartered report.
Berk - I think the basic issue is that we both think the other is underestimating the threat of authoritarianism as a model and authoritarian regimes, just in different ways :lol:
To you I sound like, at best, a useful idiot if not an active supporters of authoritarian regimes - and that's the real risk in your view.
To me you sound like an Edwardian Brit looking back on a period of great and growing material prosperity and interconnectedness (and, until recently, the peak of globalisation), or Churchill in 1945 thinking we can just go back to the status quo ante (which did, after all, just win) - and that's the real risk in my view.
I don't understand that at all since I've never once suggested that I am looking back at anything as a desirable place "to go back to".
Indeed, my entire stance on the point that the West, in direct contrast to your claim that they've basically done nothing since the Cold War is that the West has accomplished a LOT since the cold war ended, and we should keep on doing the amazing things (and do them even better).
This is very much a forward thinking view.
And no, I do not think at all that you are an active supporter of authoritarianism. But I definitely think that there are people who are actively in opposition to authoritarianism who cannot seem to see how their reactionary embrace of conservatism is empowering authoritarianism (oh woe is us! the mainstream media is so pro-liberals/anti-conservative!) from te right, or their angst-ridden navel gazing at the horrors of the western liberal philosophy from the left (down with the colonial powers and their capitalist pig systems!) seems to make them incapable of recognizing that they are losing the fight (and sometimes actually encouraging and empowering) those who are very much fighting to destroy western liberalism. And it isn't to replace it with better western liberalism, but actual authoritarianism.
To belabor my analogy some more, it is like watching Churchill and Chamberlain fighting with each other over control of the the UK, and then seeing Hitler wander over and say "Yeah, your country is so screwed up! I agree with you guys that the UK is a disaster! I think I will just bomb it to rubble...." and having Churchill say "Well, you know, he has a point...you did screw up the country..."
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 13, 2022, 11:07:51 AMWhy would Russia invade Ukraine, in the first place? What possible strategic objective would make this necessary?
Russia has already secured its old military base in Crimea. It has made the gas pipeline through Ukraine irrelevant, so it can't be held hostage by this ancient, outdated infrastructure. What else is there to justify a full scale invasion? I can't think of anything at all.
[...]
I honestly rule out this invasion threat at this stage. Too much to lose for unclear gains.
On a rational level the only thing I can possibly think of is if there was a concern that Ukraine was getting its act together, pulling the East with it and orienting to the West. I'm not sure any of those are true.
So the only possible reason I can think of - and to be clear I don't think this is what's happening - is Putin's ego. That time is running out on him, on Russia's (current) economic model, possibly on this period of European weakness (though I wouldn't bet on that one), on the US's focus being distracted/primarily on the Pacific and on China not, yet, being able to exert decisive influence. If he'd left the stage in 2008 I think globally he'd be spoken of as an enormous world leader - but he hung around and so now he isn't just the guy who presided over the recovery from the 90s, but also over the stagnation of the 2010s. Plus the risk that people get tired of him and he has to outright falsify results. So faced with that combination the temptation for one last roll of the dice and possible chance to cement his place for more than stagnation and eventual decline. I think it hangs together - but I don't think it's what's happening.
QuoteIn Georgia, it was a response (assessed as disproportionate) to the Georgian aggression. This isn't a Russian "truth" but the conclusion by a EU-backed commission:
https://www.google.ch/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSTRE58T4MO20090930
Yeah - that's what I mean. I think if Russia wanted to invade Ukraine (just for a permanent presence in the East) the easiest way would surely be to lure the Ukrainians into Luhansk and then go in as a "peacekeeper".
QuoteMy wild ideas are that this list of public demands has something to do either with Russia's role in the US-China confrontation, or with Russia's own play at coercive diplomacy, as you say.
The Russia-China angle is really interesting and I've no idea what I think. At the most provocative I think about Adam Tooze's point that for all the talk of China's stated challenge to American hegemony, Putin's speech at the first was the first comprehensive state challenge to that. And there's a bit of me that wonders if there's a UK-US angle of Russia realising its relative decline, but is instead becoming an ally with the rising power not based purely on convenience or economic power or coercion but on a shared ideological view - in this case challenging American hegemony while for the British it was getting the American's to build it (and, ideally, step into our shoes please).
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2022, 04:52:49 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 13, 2022, 11:07:51 AMWhy would Russia invade Ukraine, in the first place? What possible strategic objective would make this necessary?
Russia has already secured its old military base in Crimea. It has made the gas pipeline through Ukraine irrelevant, so it can't be held hostage by this ancient, outdated infrastructure. What else is there to justify a full scale invasion? I can't think of anything at all.
[...]
I honestly rule out this invasion threat at this stage. Too much to lose for unclear gains.
On a rational level the only thing I can possibly think of is if there was a concern that Ukraine was getting its act together, pulling the East with it and orienting to the West. I'm not sure any of those are true.
So the only possible reason I can think of - and to be clear I don't think this is what's happening - is Putin's ego. That time is running out on him, on Russia's (current) economic model, possibly on this period of European weakness (though I wouldn't bet on that one), on the US's focus being distracted/primarily on the Pacific and on China not, yet, being able to exert decisive influence. If he'd left the stage in 2008 I think globally he'd be spoken of as an enormous world leader - but he hung around and so now he isn't just the guy who presided over the recovery from the 90s, but also over the stagnation of the 2010s. Plus the risk that people get tired of him and he has to outright falsify results. So faced with that combination the temptation for one last roll of the dice and possible chance to cement his place for more than stagnation and eventual decline. I think it hangs together - but I don't think it's what's happening.
QuoteIn Georgia, it was a response (assessed as disproportionate) to the Georgian aggression. This isn't a Russian "truth" but the conclusion by a EU-backed commission:
https://www.google.ch/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSTRE58T4MO20090930
Yeah - that's what I mean.
<boggle>
Quote from: Berkut on January 13, 2022, 04:50:00 PM
I don't understand that at all since I've never once suggested that I am looking back at anything as a desirable place "to go back to".
Indeed, my entire stance on the point that the West, in direct contrast to your claim that they've basically done nothing since the Cold War is that the West has accomplished a LOT since the cold war ended, and we should keep on doing the amazing things (and do them even better).
This is very much a forward thinking view.
And no, I do not think at all that you are an active supporter of authoritarianism. But I definitely think that there are people who are actively in opposition to authoritarianism who cannot seem to see how their reactionary embrace of conservatism is empowering authoritarianism (oh woe is us! the mainstream media is so pro-liberals/anti-conservative!) from te right, or their angst-ridden navel gazing at the horrors of the western liberal philosophy from the left (down with the colonial powers and their capitalist pig systems!) seems to make them incapable of recognizing that they are losing the fight (and sometimes actually encouraging and empowering) those who are very much fighting to destroy western liberalism. And it isn't to replace it with better western liberalism, but actual authoritarianism.
To belabor my analogy some more, it is like watching Churchill and Chamberlain fighting with each other over control of the the UK, and then seeing Hitler wander over and say "Yeah, your country is so screwed up! I agree with you guys that the UK is a disaster! I think I will just bomb it to rubble...." and having Churchill say "Well, you know, he has a point...you did screw up the country..."
I'm not looking back - I just thing we've done really well in the last 30 years if people would just look at the data :P
In terms of policy objectives - from where I'm sitting the West (or parts of it) have failed in two wars, failed to manage the financial system/global economic system they built, failed to manage a public health crisis and have failed to defend their own democratic values. Either that's because of bad leaders or because the institutions/systems aren't working as they should. In my view it's the latter - they're not fit for purpose for the 20th century any more than the liberal order of the 1930s was no longer fit for purpose in the post-war era.
I don't think it's navel-gazing I think it's justified. As I said before - I don't think it's a coincidence that the cold war was also the peak of social democracy, that re-built states on utterly new models from the liberal past and brought in new organisations with powers like the unions. That doesn't mean we go back to some imagined social democratic utopia - what we need is something new, but we need to capture that bold imagination and innovation. Not even because of competition with China - but because of the recent failures on their own terms.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 13, 2022, 04:20:47 PM
the Georgian aggression.
Those wolverines had it coming. :sleep:
We know how to handle Georgian aggression
(https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/338-0607213344-Burning-of-Atlanta.jpg)
You guys do realise that I'm quoting an independent investigation, and you know there had been a bloody civil war in Georgia in the 90s? Which is why the UN-sanctioned peace keeping force was there.
I was actually there in Georgia in the 1990s and I witnessed a small part of that civil war. It was a confusing mess. My unit was delivering food and water to small Georgian villages in the mountains where only women and children remained. One of the most powerful moments in my life was when those Georgian women fed us with the very food we brought. They couldn't let us go without giving something in return.
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2022, 06:01:44 PM
We know how to handle Georgian aggression
(https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/338-0607213344-Burning-of-Atlanta.jpg)
Nice job, Tex.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 13, 2022, 06:25:57 PM
Nice job, Tex.
Ok so maybe 'we' was a bad choice of pronouns there :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2022, 05:18:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 13, 2022, 04:50:00 PM
I don't understand that at all since I've never once suggested that I am looking back at anything as a desirable place "to go back to".
Indeed, my entire stance on the point that the West, in direct contrast to your claim that they've basically done nothing since the Cold War is that the West has accomplished a LOT since the cold war ended, and we should keep on doing the amazing things (and do them even better).
This is very much a forward thinking view.
And no, I do not think at all that you are an active supporter of authoritarianism. But I definitely think that there are people who are actively in opposition to authoritarianism who cannot seem to see how their reactionary embrace of conservatism is empowering authoritarianism (oh woe is us! the mainstream media is so pro-liberals/anti-conservative!) from te right, or their angst-ridden navel gazing at the horrors of the western liberal philosophy from the left (down with the colonial powers and their capitalist pig systems!) seems to make them incapable of recognizing that they are losing the fight (and sometimes actually encouraging and empowering) those who are very much fighting to destroy western liberalism. And it isn't to replace it with better western liberalism, but actual authoritarianism.
To belabor my analogy some more, it is like watching Churchill and Chamberlain fighting with each other over control of the the UK, and then seeing Hitler wander over and say "Yeah, your country is so screwed up! I agree with you guys that the UK is a disaster! I think I will just bomb it to rubble...." and having Churchill say "Well, you know, he has a point...you did screw up the country..."
I'm not looking back - I just thing we've done really well in the last 30 years if people would just look at the data :P
Of come on, now you are just being obtuse.
You claimed that the West has failed to do anything since the Cold War, in contrast to how awesome Russia and China have claimed to be doing.
When I counter by pointing out actual data on what has actually happened since the end of the Cold War, you accuse me of "looking back" as if I am some kind of luddite, "Back in my day...." type? How the hell else can someone respond to a claim (a false claim based on fact) about what has happened in the past?
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 13, 2022, 06:13:10 PM
You guys do realise that I'm quoting an independent investigation, and you know there had been a bloody civil war in Georgia in the 90s? Which is why the UN-sanctioned peace keeping force was there.
I do not. Your link's conclusion was that "Georgia started the fighting." You said "Georgian agression." That's not a quote, that's spin.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 13, 2022, 06:13:10 PM
You guys do realise that I'm quoting an independent investigation, and you know there had been a bloody civil war in Georgia in the 90s? Which is why the UN-sanctioned peace keeping force was there.
I was actually there in Georgia in the 1990s and I witnessed a small part of that civil war. It was a confusing mess. My unit was delivering food and water to small Georgian villages in the mountains where only women and children remained. One of the most powerful moments in my life was when those Georgian women fed us with the very food we brought. They couldn't let us go without giving something in return.
If we are to be completely fair, we should mention that Russians were not just neutral observers in that war. They were on the side of anyone who was against Georgia, which included the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 13, 2022, 04:20:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2022, 03:17:05 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 13, 2022, 11:07:51 AM
In Georgia, it was a response (assessed as disproportionate) to the Georgian aggression. This isn't a Russian "truth" but the conclusion by a EU-backed commission:
The "Georgian agression" was directed at separatists within their own borders.
I'm not going to argue opinions. I've linked to the internationally recognised, EU-chartered report.
The report you cite does not claim that Georgia was the aggressor, merely that its actions triggered the war (rather than a new Russian invasion, as Georgia claimed). Countries acting to suppress rebellion are not generally considered the aggressors. Countries that support breakaway states are considered aggressive. Russia would certainly consider a Georgian that moved troops into Chechnia in support of a rebellion to be the aggressor.
Anyone here have access to the full article?
https://worldview.stratfor.com/situation-report/russia-ukraine-russian-forces-redeploy-westward-european-security-talks-falter
QuoteRussia, Ukraine: Russian Forces Redeploy Westward as European Security Talks Falter
MIN READJan 12, 2022 | 20:20 GMT
Echelons and equipment from all four armies of Russia's Eastern Military District are being transported west from the Russian Far East, presumably to areas near the Ukrainian and Belarusian borders,
Why would Russia invade Ukraine? Because Putin lives in his own fantasy world, where the Soviet Union did nothing wrong and its disintegration was the greatest catastrophe in history, and where Ukrainians are not an actual separate people but just Russians with a funny accent. Some people keep assuming that Putin is a rational actor, when there are plenty of indications (based on what Putin himself has said) that he's not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2022, 08:09:59 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 13, 2022, 06:13:10 PM
You guys do realise that I'm quoting an independent investigation, and you know there had been a bloody civil war in Georgia in the 90s? Which is why the UN-sanctioned peace keeping force was there.
I do not. Your link's conclusion was that "Georgia started the fighting." You said "Georgian agression." That's not a quote, that's spin.
Interesting. A quote:
"In the Mission's view, it was Georgia which triggered off the war when it attacked Tskhinvali (in South Ossetia) with heavy artillery on the night of 7 to 8 August 2008," said Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, who led the investigation.
Isn't the statement "attack with heavy artillery" a synonym to the word "aggression?"
I understand the emotional connotations, but calling it a spin? Not sure.
Isn't an attack with heavy artillery an act of aggression?
Quote from: Solmyr on January 14, 2022, 02:22:37 AM
Why would Russia invade Ukraine? Because Putin lives in his own fantasy world, where the Soviet Union did nothing wrong and its disintegration was the greatest catastrophe in history, and where Ukrainians are not an actual separate people but just Russians with a funny accent. Some people keep assuming that Putin is a rational actor, when there are plenty of indications (based on what Putin himself has said) that he's not.
I'm sorry, but if this is the level of western strategy planning, we're in trouble.
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2022, 09:03:22 PM
If we are to be completely fair, we should mention that Russians were not just neutral observers in that war. They were on the side of anyone who was against Georgia, which included the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia.
In my example, I as a member of the Russian army was delivering food (humanitarian aid) to Georgian villages. You may discard my personal experience as irrelevant, or assume I'm lying for whatever reason.
Also, to quote the Swiss diplomat Tagliavini: "None of the explanations given by the Georgian authorities in order to provide some form of legal justification for the attack lend it a valid explanation."
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2022, 11:12:56 PM
The report you cite does not claim that Georgia was the aggressor, merely that its actions triggered the war (rather than a new Russian invasion, as Georgia claimed). Countries acting to suppress rebellion are not generally considered the aggressors. Countries that support breakaway states are considered aggressive. Russia would certainly consider a Georgian that moved troops into Chechnia in support of a rebellion to be the aggressor.
As I mentioned before, in my world an attack with heavy artillery is an act on aggression. Also in my version of the truth, killing international peace keepers deployed in accordance with official agreements is a crime.
You may see things differently.
The Chechnya's example doesn't work as it didn't have an international peace keeping force positioned along an official demarcation line.
The conflict in Georgia began in the 1990s right after the fall of the USSR, and Georgia had agreed to the peacekeeping force being there.
Of note: In a twist of poetic justice, Saakashvili who ordered this attack is now in a Georgian prison.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2022, 11:28:56 PM
Anyone here have access to the full article?
https://worldview.stratfor.com/situation-report/russia-ukraine-russian-forces-redeploy-westward-european-security-talks-falter
QuoteRussia, Ukraine: Russian Forces Redeploy Westward as European Security Talks Falter
MIN READJan 12, 2022 | 20:20 GMT
Echelons and equipment from all four armies of Russia's Eastern Military District are being transported west from the Russian Far East, presumably to areas near the Ukrainian and Belarusian borders,
They will be protecting Kiev from Ukrainian aggression.
Especially as the NATO offensive continues in its buildup:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/14/ukraine-massive-cyber-attack-government-websites-suspected-russian-hackers
My bet:
After a few weeks of sabre-rattling from all sides, Russia won't invade Ukraine and NATO will pat itself on the back for preventing an impending aggression which wasn't planned.
Everyone happy.
(https://imgshare.io/images/2022/01/14/07CE95A1-D7BE-4E00-91D6-C9B4E1C27488.jpg)
You may have seen it... and sorry if this offends someone's sensitivity... I just mean this as a silly political satire.
Russians increasing activity in the baltics
https://apnews.com/article/europe-russia-sweden-baltic-sea-3fe414014136ed6d26519faee497cbe3
US intelligence says Russia has inserted operatives into Eastern Ukraine with the aim of creating a false flag attack that will justify an attack
US intelligence indicates Russia preparing operation to justify invasion of Ukraine
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/us-intelligence-russia-false-flag/index.html
I guess if that's how it plays out then it's less subtle than we've assumed. Putin really is saying (and means) "you've put me in a corner, if you don't give me some concessions I'll do something drastic" and - if the false flag operatives lead to an actual invasion - it'll be "they started it (but look what you made me do)."
If that's what is happening there are two questions for me:
1. The big one, obviously, how it'll play out. Presumably the Ukrainians will fight, the West will level massive sanctions at Ukraine, Finland may apply to NATO and so on.
2. The things that shaped this genuine belief to the degree it seems reasonable for Putin to act like this. Is it ideological? Is there some internal element in Russia that makes this the most reasonable action? Something else?
Is there any reason to think Putin's position (or how he perceives it) has been weakened internally? What else this whole show (not to mention a possible war) could be good for him apart from shoring up his support?
I'll go back to my theory that it's not so much that something changed recently, but rather Putin sees an opening for a goal that has long been on his to-do list. He probably had designs on seizing Ukraine one way or another for the entirety of his tenure, but sometimes you just have to wait for an opening to materialize before you can make your move. The plan for seizing Crimea was probably in the works for many years as well, but obviously you couldn't execute it while Yanokovich was in power (and you wouldn't need to execute it if Yanokovich or the like continued being in power).
How long can the Russians keep a massive army on a war footing in the middle of winter? Also invading Ukraine would turn little brother into an implacable foe, cementing the very situation (extremely hostile Ukraine) Putin's supposedly trying to prevent. :hmm: At best he gets some assurances from NATO about not admitting Ukraine, at worst the Russians slaughter the Ukrainians and get left with a godawful multi-generational mess right on their doorstep.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2022, 09:59:35 AM
US intelligence says Russia has inserted operatives into Eastern Ukraine with the aim of creating a false flag attack that will justify an attack
US intelligence indicates Russia preparing operation to justify invasion of Ukraine
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/us-intelligence-russia-false-flag/index.html
Funny that Russians are saying the opposite. They're expecting a false flag chemical attack in eastern Ukraine to justify a NATO casus belli against Russia.
I do hope the intelligence services of both countries are collaborating these days to prevent a disaster.
Quotea NATO casus belli against Russia.
But you surely must see this is nonense? A Russian attack on Ukraine would not mean nuclear armageddon, so it is far, far, far more feasible than a NATO attack on Russia.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2022, 09:59:35 AM
US intelligence says Russia has inserted operatives into Eastern Ukraine with the aim of creating a false flag attack that will justify an attack
US intelligence indicates Russia preparing operation to justify invasion of Ukraine
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/us-intelligence-russia-false-flag/index.html
Russia commentary in the US is a joke.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 11:50:29 AM
Funny that Russians are saying the opposite. They're expecting a false flag chemical attack in eastern Ukraine to justify a NATO casus belli against Russia.
Nothing funny about it. As I said before, which you interpreted as a shot at Russia but is in fact just a factual observation, Russia mirrors accusations as a default gaslighting tactic, about anything and everything.
Ukrainians are accusing Russians of being behind the snipers that shot 100 protesters in 2014? Russia will accuse the protesters of sending snipers as a false flag operation. It doesn't have to be plausible (yeah, protesters sure have easy access to all the high points to put snipers on so that they could shoot their own), the point is to muddy the discourse so that black and white facts become "he said, she said". It works well enough, so why stray from the winning formula?
On secret service collab between Russia and the US: on a tip off from their US colleagues, the Russian law enforcement has arrested a 14-men Russian hacker group REvil. A satisfying video at the link:
https://m.tvzvezda.ru/news/2022114169-KH0Zz.html
The police found wads of cash (over a million in USD), tons of crypto, 20 elite cars etc. The group had been targeting foreigners, mostly Americans.
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2022, 12:02:55 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 11:50:29 AM
Funny that Russians are saying the opposite. They're expecting a false flag chemical attack in eastern Ukraine to justify a NATO casus belli against Russia.
Nothing funny about it. As I said before, which you interpreted as a shot at Russia but is in fact just a factual observation, Russia mirrors accusations as a default gaslighting tactic, about anything and everything.
Ukrainians are accusing Russians of being behind the snipers that shot 100 protesters in 2014? Russia will accuse the protesters of sending snipers as a false flag operation. It doesn't have to be plausible (yeah, protesters sure have easy access to all the high points to put snipers on so that they could shoot their own), the point is to muddy the discourse so that black and white facts become "he said, she said". It works well enough, so why stray from the winning formula?
"Funny" is a figure of speech. I find nothing funny about the current situation.
On mirroring accusations... it goes both ways. You choose to see one side of it, I choose the other. We can talk for many pages funding credible examples illustrating both points of view.
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2022, 12:00:10 PM
Quotea NATO casus belli against Russia.
But you surely must see this is nonense? A Russian attack on Ukraine would not mean nuclear armageddon, so it is far, far, far more feasible than a NATO attack on Russia.
The entire situation is nonsensical.
I still don't see why Russia would invade Ukraine. Apart from Russia being a comic book villain who needs no motivation to act, I just don't see why it would happen.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 03:09:15 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 14, 2022, 02:22:37 AM
Why would Russia invade Ukraine? Because Putin lives in his own fantasy world, where the Soviet Union did nothing wrong and its disintegration was the greatest catastrophe in history, and where Ukrainians are not an actual separate people but just Russians with a funny accent. Some people keep assuming that Putin is a rational actor, when there are plenty of indications (based on what Putin himself has said) that he's not.
I'm sorry, but if this is the level of western strategy planning, we're in trouble.
Oh is Finland a western country and do its citizens speak for western strategic planning now? I am never quite clear on where Finland stands in the whole Eastern Euros vs Western Euros thing.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 12:10:34 PM
The entire situation is nonsensical.
It sure as shit is.
QuoteI still don't see why Russia would invade Ukraine. Apart from Russia being a comic book villain who needs no motivation to act, I just don't see why it would happen.
As for why Russia would want to invade Ukraine beats the fuck out of me. Seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do. But hey they have already done it once in defiance of their own sworn oath to honor Ukraine's borders and in a way that seems to me to encourage nuclear proliferation so who knows what dumbass shit Russia might do in the future?
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 12:08:15 PM
On mirroring accusations... it goes both ways. You choose to see one side of it, I choose the other. We can talk for many pages funding credible examples illustrating both points of view.
Thank you for proving my point.
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2022, 12:14:25 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 12:08:15 PM
On mirroring accusations... it goes both ways. You choose to see one side of it, I choose the other. We can talk for many pages funding credible examples illustrating both points of view.
Thank you for proving my point.
And you proving mine.
Both sides have zero trust to each other. This exact point of the West mirroring Russian accusations (and projecting its intentions onto Russia) is very popular in Russia these days.
Some day, this mutual demonisation must stop.
I guess Gaijin de Moscu is one of the secret Russian operatives working in social media to further Russian propaganda. Funny how he suddenly re-appeared recently. I wonder why...
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 12:18:58 PM
And you proving mine.
Both sides have zero trust to each other. This exact point of the West mirroring Russian accusations (and projecting its intentions onto Russia) is very popular in Russia these days.
Some day, this mutual demonisation must stop.
Sure, "mutual". :rolleyes: "Nazis and Jews should stop this mutual demonization". I've actually had the same thought as PJL just now.
Quote from: PJL on January 14, 2022, 12:20:55 PM
I guess Gaijin de Moscu is one of the secret Russian operatives working in social media to further Russian propaganda. Funny how he suddenly re-appeared recently. I wonder why...
Damn. We are getting paranoid in our old age.
And hey even if he is, so what? What harm can he do here?
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2022, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: PJL on January 14, 2022, 12:20:55 PM
I guess Gaijin de Moscu is one of the secret Russian operatives working in social media to further Russian propaganda. Funny how he suddenly re-appeared recently. I wonder why...
Damn. We are getting paranoid in our old age.
And hey even if he is, so what? What harm can he do here?
Not much, other than time & energy being wasted in trying to counter his posts. I suggest we treat him like we should any troll, by ignoring him.
Quote from: PJL on January 14, 2022, 12:48:11 PM
Not much, other than time & energy being wasted in trying to counter his posts. I suggest we treat him like we should any troll, by ignoring him.
Agreed.
I am sure Languish warrants a dedicated Russian agent. :lol:
I'm waiting for my honeytrap.
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2022, 12:02:55 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 11:50:29 AM
Funny that Russians are saying the opposite. They're expecting a false flag chemical attack in eastern Ukraine to justify a NATO casus belli against Russia.
Nothing funny about it. As I said before, which you interpreted as a shot at Russia but is in fact just a factual observation, Russia mirrors accusations as a default gaslighting tactic, about anything and everything.
Ukrainians are accusing Russians of being behind the snipers that shot 100 protesters in 2014? Russia will accuse the protesters of sending snipers as a false flag operation. It doesn't have to be plausible (yeah, protesters sure have easy access to all the high points to put snipers on so that they could shoot their own), the point is to muddy the discourse so that black and white facts become "he said, she said". It works well enough, so why stray from the winning formula?
As I said earlier, is is fascinating to watch it happen right in front of our eyes, with people dutifully falling into the assigned roles right here and now.
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2022, 12:52:28 PM
I am sure Languish warrants a dedicated Russian agent. :lol:
Obviously we are being a little paranoid, but at the same time we don't know the exact details of how the professional trolls operate. It wouldn't surprise me at all that it works like a multilevel marketing scheme, where trolls just hit up all their social media spaces where they have an established presence, even if some of those spaces are not that large. None of these spaces in isolation amount to much, but when you take X number of trolls and multiply it by Y number of small social media spaces where they have a credible presence, and provide them with Z number of general talking points to to start with and then adapt to individual contexts, you can have quite an effective propaganda campaign. The US intelligence did indicate an elevated level of online propaganda being deployed to justify an aggression against Ukraine.
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2022, 12:52:28 PM
I am sure Languish warrants a dedicated Russian agent. :lol:
RUSSIA IS INVADING LANGUISH!!!!11111
Look it makes perfect sense Gaijin would have a more Russian view of things, him being Russian and all even if he doesn't live there full time or whatever.
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2022, 01:01:41 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2022, 12:52:28 PM
I am sure Languish warrants a dedicated Russian agent. :lol:
RUSSIA IS INVADING LANGUISH!!!!11111
Look it makes perfect sense Gaijin would have a more Russian view of things, him being Russian and all even if he doesn't live there full time or whatever.
Indeed.
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2022, 12:12:22 PM
Oh is Finland a western country and do its citizens speak for western strategic planning now? I am never quite clear on where Finland stands in the whole Eastern Euros vs Western Euros thing.
Finland is a Western country. It's a Western country that has had to be extra careful because it's right next to Russia - but in terms of governance, values, economy, standard of living, and so on it's 100% Western.
Quote from: PJL on January 14, 2022, 12:20:55 PM
I guess Gaijin de Moscu is one of the secret Russian operatives working in social media to further Russian propaganda. Funny how he suddenly re-appeared recently. I wonder why...
:rolleyes:
Quote from: PJL on January 14, 2022, 12:48:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2022, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: PJL on January 14, 2022, 12:20:55 PM
I guess Gaijin de Moscu is one of the secret Russian operatives working in social media to further Russian propaganda. Funny how he suddenly re-appeared recently. I wonder why...
Damn. We are getting paranoid in our old age.
And hey even if he is, so what? What harm can he do here?
Not much, other than time & energy being wasted in trying to counter his posts. I suggest we treat him like we should any troll, by ignoring him.
Then don't respond to him.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 12:18:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2022, 12:14:25 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 12:08:15 PM
On mirroring accusations... it goes both ways. You choose to see one side of it, I choose the other. We can talk for many pages funding credible examples illustrating both points of view.
Thank you for proving my point.
And you proving mine.
Both sides have zero trust to each other. This exact point of the West mirroring Russian accusations (and projecting its intentions onto Russia) is very popular in Russia these days.
Some day, this mutual demonisation must stop.
Most of the time we don't even think about Russia apart from when Russia starts acting wild. Reminds me of this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmnftiu.cc%2Fblog%2Fimages%2Fwar.108.gif&hash=e96bab486bab7fe480eb19ed75f10307e5002c47)
There is a hint of genuine belief in that delusion, Russians have always genuinely believed that Americans are constantly thinking about them. I think realizing that Americans truly don't give a shit about them unless they make themselves a nuisance is probably too much of an ego hit for them.
However, that genuine delusion has been professionally propagandized, and many Russians believe that CNN is actively conducting a campaign against Russia. Why CNN? Probably because the propaganda officials creating the talking points have been greatly impressed during their formative years by CNN's reputation in 1990ies, when many Russians were watching it to see the Russian tanks firing at the Parliament building, and they don't realize what an irrelevant joke it has become since then.
Quote from: PJL on January 14, 2022, 12:20:55 PM
I guess Gaijin de Moscu is one of the secret Russian operatives working in social media to further Russian propaganda. Funny how he suddenly re-appeared recently. I wonder why...
:D
Quote from: PJL on January 14, 2022, 12:20:55 PM
I guess Gaijin de Moscu is one of the secret Russian operatives working in social media to further Russian propaganda. Funny how he suddenly re-appeared recently. I wonder why...
Imagine someone getting paid to troll Languish. :lol:
Quote from: Maladict on January 14, 2022, 02:01:36 PM
Imagine someone getting paid to troll Languish. :lol:
:D
Or the Paradox forums where many posters here (including me) come from... all the way back from 2002.
I do miss a lot of the "old" personalities. Tim, Count de Money, Korea, many others... hope they're all well.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 02:08:57 PM
Quote from: Maladict on January 14, 2022, 02:01:36 PM
Imagine someone getting paid to troll Languish. :lol:
:D
Or the Paradox forums where many posters here (including me) come from... all the way back from 2002.
I do miss a lot of the "old" personalities. Tim, Count de Money, Korea, many others... hope they're all well.
Jimmy Olsen is Tim.
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2022, 02:18:11 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 02:08:57 PM
Quote from: Maladict on January 14, 2022, 02:01:36 PM
Imagine someone getting paid to troll Languish. :lol:
:D
Or the Paradox forums where many posters here (including me) come from... all the way back from 2002.
I do miss a lot of the "old" personalities. Tim, Count de Money, Korea, many others... hope they're all well.
Jimmy Olsen is Tim.
Oh, thank you! Didn't realise it.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 02:08:57 PM
Quote from: Maladict on January 14, 2022, 02:01:36 PM
Imagine someone getting paid to troll Languish. :lol:
:D
Or the Paradox forums where many posters here (including me) come from... all the way back from 2002.
I do miss a lot of the "old" personalities. Tim, Count de Money, Korea, many others... hope they're all well.
Careful, you will now be accused of being a deep cover mole.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2022, 02:20:55 PM
Careful, you will now be accused of being a deep cover mole.
Oh bummer. At this rate, the Major will have some "upskilling discussions" with me...
I do think the "Oh you are just the mirror!" thing is kind of, well, amusing.
The reality is that Russia would never even cross American's minds if it wasn't for, well, Russia. It's just another country out there. Absent their rather incredible belligerence, they would not warrant any more attention then India or Argentina or Italy. Probably less.
This idea that American foreign thought and policy is centered on some nefarious plot to "get Russia" is kind of bemusing. If Russia wasn't so busy demanding to be noticed and invading their neighbors, nobody would care. Which maybe is the real problem.
As far as whether Gaijin is a Russian troll, that seems unlikely. Too obvious. Although I would probably find his viewpoint a lot more explicable if that were the case.
Well certainly some of our projects could look like they were encroaching on Russia, like the whole 'Expand the EU and NATO to ALL of Europe!" Thing we were trying to do from about 1992 until 2005 or so. Obviously that happening was great for US interests but since Russia didn't end up wanting to get on that project it does kind of look like we were boxing them in. But that was not the intention, it was rather to establish security in Europe in a way that suited our interests. But hey isn't that kind of thing how all Great Power conflicts usually go? One country's seemingly reasonable security arrangements look like naked aggression to the other.
The main difference between Russian actions and US actions is at least we were trying to get the other countries to sign up voluntarily. Though why there is still a conflict I am not clear on...we are not really pushing the expanded NATO and EU thing anymore.
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2022, 01:32:36 PM
There is a hint of genuine belief in that delusion, Russians have always genuinely believed that Americans are constantly thinking about them. I think realizing that Americans truly don't give a shit about them unless they make themselves a nuisance is probably too much of an ego hit for them.
It's pretty universal I think. People generally assume the rest of the world is more aware and more interested in the things that are important where they are from. Danish people assume people care about the Danish system much more than people do. Americans from all sorts of places assume that things in their state capitals or whatever is something that matters elsewhere, and so on. New Yorkers think the rest of the world care much more about the things that happen in New York than people actually do. People typically have an inflated view of how they are seen in the rest of the world.
Basically what I'm saying is that you're right, but that lots of other folks have similar delusions of grandeur... though Russians of course have a fairly Russian flavoured version of it.
QuoteHowever, that genuine delusion has been professionally propagandized, and many Russians believe that CNN is actively conducting a campaign against Russia. Why CNN? Probably because the propaganda officials creating the talking points have been greatly impressed during their formative years by CNN's reputation in 1990ies, when many Russians were watching it to see the Russian tanks firing at the Parliament building, and they don't realize what an irrelevant joke it has become since then.
Makes sense.
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2022, 03:38:17 PM
Well certainly some of our projects could look like they were encroaching on Russia, like the whole 'Expand the EU and NATO to ALL of Europe!" Thing we were trying to do from about 1992 until 2005 or so. Obviously that happening was great for US interests but since Russia didn't end up wanting to get on that project it does kind of look like we were boxing them in. But that was not the intention, it was rather to establish security in Europe in a way that suited our interests. But hey isn't that kind of thing how all Great Power conflicts usually go? One country's seemingly reasonable security arrangements look like naked aggression to the other.
The main difference between Russian actions and US actions is at least we were trying to get the other countries to sign up voluntarily. Though why there is still a conflict I am not clear on...we are not really pushing the expanded NATO and EU thing anymore.
I think the only way you can look at the expansion of NATO as "threatening" to Russia is if you insist on looking at Russian security from the eyes of the mid 20th century.
And while it is reasonable to look and note that historically, Russia was invaded twice from the West (well...once really, but from Russians perspective...) in the space of two generations....well, does anyone actually buy that as a credible threat, NOW?
I don't believe, quite frankly. I don't believe that even Russians look at NATO and think for a second that there is any real possibility or interest in the West to invade Russia ala 1941. The idea is just frankly ridiculous, and has been for a good 60 years.
Now, I do think they will say that that is their concern. The encroaching NATO! NATO troops in the Baltics! Our security is threatened!
But they don't actually believe it, just like Tucker Carlson doesn't *actually* believe the Jan. 6th insurrectionist where FBI plants. It's just a fig leaf, since saying they don't want the Baltics in NATO because they like bullying them, and having them join NATO makes that a lot harder isn't such a great justification for their outrage.
Gaijan doesn't actually believe that Russian security is threatened at all by Georgia, or Ukraine, or the Baltics, or even NATO, and neither does Putin.
What IS threatened by an independent Ukraine or an independent Georgia, or Baltic states in NATO is Russia's ability to threaten its neighbors and dominate what they see as the "Russian" sphere.
Quote from: Berkut on January 14, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
I don't believe, quite frankly. I don't believe that even Russians look at NATO and think for a second that there is any real possibility or interest in the West to invade Russia ala 1941. The idea is just frankly ridiculous and has been for a good 60 years.
Not sure I agree with you on that. For some 'Russia' includes a lot more than what it is now. Some of them would argue that NATO has already encroached upon Russia by accepting the Baltic States into their organisation for example.
QuoteUkraine hit by 'massive' cyber-attack on government websites
Suspected Russian hackers leave message warning: 'Ukrainians ... be afraid and expect worse'
Ukraine has been hit by a "massive" cyber-attack, with the websites of several government departments including the ministry of foreign affairs and the education ministry knocked out.
Officials said it was too early to draw any conclusions but they pointed to a "long record" of Russian cyber assaults against Ukraine, with the attack coming after security talks between Moscow and the US and its allies this week ended in stalemate.
Suspected Russian hackers left a message on the foreign ministry website, according to reports. It said: "Ukrainians! ... All information about you has become public. Be afraid and expect worse. It's your past, present and future."
The message reproduced the Ukrainian flag and map crossed out. It mentioned the Ukrainian insurgent army, or UPA, which fought against the Soviet Union during the second world war. There was also a reference to "historical land".
In a message to the Guardian, the foreign ministry's spokesperson, Oleg Nikolenko, said: "As a result of a massive cyber-attack, the website of the ministry of foreign affairs and other government agencies are temporarily down."
He added: "Our specialists have already started restoring the work of IT systems and the cyber-police has opened an investigation."
Nato's secretary general Jens Stoltenberg and Josep Borrell, the EU's top diplomat, condemned the attacks. Borrell said the EU's political and security committee and cyber units would meet to decide how to respond and to support Kyiv.
"We are going to mobilise all our resources to help Ukraine to tackle this. Sadly, we knew it could happen," he said. He added: "It's difficult to say [who is behind it]. I can't blame anybody as I have no proof. But we can imagine."
Stoltenberg said Nato and Ukraine would in the coming days sign an agreement on enhanced cyber cooperation. Kyiv would get access to Nato's malware information sharing platform, he said.
Sweden's foreign minister, Ann Linde, said the west must stand up to any Russian aggression. "We have to be very firm in our messages to Russia, that if there are attacks against Ukraine, we will be very harsh and very strong and robust in our response," she said. Sweden stood in solidarity with Kyiv, she added.
On Thursday, Russian envoys sounded a bleak note after discussions this week with the OSCE in Vienna, as well as Nato and the US. Sergei Ryabkov, who led Russia's delegation, said talks had hit a dead end.
The Kremlin has demanded an assurance Ukraine and Georgia will never join Nato. It wants Nato to remove troops and equipment from its member states in eastern Europe, and to return deployment to 1997 levels, before Nato expanded.
On Friday Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow would not wait indefinitely for a response. "We have run out of patience," he said at a news conference. "The west has been driven by hubris and has exacerbated tensions in violation of its obligations and common sense."
Russia has mobilised 100,000 troops on the border with Ukraine and sent in military hardware. Its defence ministry announced that further equipment would be relocated from the east of the country as part of what it said was an "exercise".
Meanwhile, Moscow said it had carried out a special operation against the ransomware group REvil following a request from the US. The FSB spy agency which Vladimir Putin used to run said it had detained and charged the group's members.
The US embassy in Moscow had no immediate comment. But the move appears to be part of carrot and stick operation following the latest cyber-attack on Ukraine, designed to wrong-foot the Americans. Thus far, the Kremlin has made little effort to curb hacks on western targets by Russia-based cyber-criminals.
Ukraine has been repeatedly targeted since 2014, when Moscow annexed Crimea and kickstarted a war in the eastern Donbas region. About 288,000 cyber-attacks took place in the first 10 months of 2021, according to official figures, with 397,000 in 2020.
The attacks have also been directed at critical infrastructure. In winter 2015 suspected Russian hackers took out parts of the country's power grid, which led to almost a quarter of a million Ukrainians losing power and heat. A repeat attack happened in 2016.
In 2017, suspected Russian hackers unleashed the NotPetya virus, causing mayhem. Banks, newspapers and leading companies were targeted.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJCk7erXIAAylVH?format=jpg&name=small)
Curiously enough, the message appears to have been written in Russian, Ukranian and Polish. I also wonder about the crossed out pig's head. :hmm:
Probably a reference to salo, a slab of fat from a pig, which is a stereotypical Ukrainian food that Russians refer to when mocking Ukrainians.
No pigs, no vector graphics, no storm clouds. Seems harsh.
Quote from: PJL on January 14, 2022, 04:54:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 14, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
I don't believe, quite frankly. I don't believe that even Russians look at NATO and think for a second that there is any real possibility or interest in the West to invade Russia ala 1941. The idea is just frankly ridiculous and has been for a good 60 years.
Not sure I agree with you on that. For some 'Russia' includes a lot more than what it is now. Some of them would argue that NATO has already encroached upon Russia by accepting the Baltic States into their organisation for example.
I think that's my argument.
I guess if you define Ukraine as Russia then it's isn't aggression at all to invade them.
QuoteOn the streets of Ukraine, there was growing resignation to the prospect of renewed fighting. Kyiv resident Ruslan Kavatsyuk, 39, said he saw the cyberattack as a "positive," since it would stiffen the resolve of the Ukrainian public.
"It reminds us that we live during military times, that Russia is an enemy who will kill us physically," he said.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-hacking-government-websites-1.6314821
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2022, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: PJL on January 14, 2022, 12:20:55 PM
I guess Gaijin de Moscu is one of the secret Russian operatives working in social media to further Russian propaganda. Funny how he suddenly re-appeared recently. I wonder why...
Damn. We are getting paranoid in our old age.
And hey even if he is, so what? What harm can he do here?
Languish is very important to Western strategic planning, you know.
Quote from: Berkut on January 14, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
I think the only way you can look at the expansion of NATO as "threatening" to Russia is if you insist on looking at Russian security from the eyes of the mid 20th century.
And while it is reasonable to look and note that historically, Russia was invaded twice from the West (well...once really, but from Russians perspective...) in the space of two generations....well, does anyone actually buy that as a credible threat, NOW?
People raised during the Cold War are currently running Russia. So yes, they totally do think like that.
Quote from: Berkut on January 14, 2022, 02:42:23 PM
This idea that American foreign thought and policy is centered on some nefarious plot to "get Russia" is kind of bemusing.
Yes please, do leave us alone. Stop funding the colour revolutions around our borders, stop moving your military bases to our borders, stop meddling with our economic projects such as the Nord Streams, and so on.
Just... leave us alone.
Edit: now that I think about it, I may have just summarised the latest Russian demands :)
I'm sure the Ukrainians would say the same thing with the Russians.
Many of them. But not all of them.
According to the recent survey by the Kiev International Sociological Institute published in December 2021, 49% of Ukrainians don't want a border or customs control with Russia, while wanting to remain independent:
https://www.google.ch/amp/s/interfax.com.ua/news/general/786607-amp.html
In Russia, 51% don't want a controlled border with Ukraine while wanting both countries to be independent from one another.
And that's after decades of anti-Russian and anti-Ukrainian propaganda, the events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, blocking the Russian mass media in Ukraine, and so on.
But I'm a Russian troll, right, PJL? Am I a troll when I quote Ukrainian sources, too?
The two don't go together.
I want open borders and zero customs with France. I don't want France to rule Britain.
Gaijin I think where the (intentionally or not) dishonest aspect of "just leave Russia alone" comes up for me is that what falls under "not leaving Russia alone" is integrating parts of the former Russian empire into the western military and economic fabric, such as the Baltic States Poland etc. I wouldn't even put Ukraine here, I don't think any sane person would want to rush into anything with that giant mess, which it was long before the foreign Western mercenaries shot into the crowd in Kiev, or whatever the accepted Russian consensus on that one.
If Russians feel like NATO troops in NATO countries like the Baltic States or Poland are infringing on Russia's security, then there are only two possible explanation to that: they either think NATO is actively working toward an invasion of Russia (which I cannot believe anyone but the most lunatic seriously believe), or, as mentioned before, this is experienced as the taking away of what should be under Russia or at least Russian influence.
But since the countries in question do not feel like that the slightest (I know there are Russian minorities but Russians ain't the only ones in that situation, and others manage to live with it), the rest of the world and NATO especially rightly ignore whatever half-defined designs or feelings Russia and Russians have on those countries.
Quote from: Tyr on January 15, 2022, 06:56:32 AM
The two don't go together.
I want open borders and zero customs with France. I don't want France to rule Britain.
That's exactly what the survey says and what I said. Half of the populations in both countries want open borders while remaining independent.
With all the drama about Russia invading Ukraine for the last 8 years, I'd have thought more people would want at least something as basic as a border control?
The survey goes on to state that 52% of population in Eastern Ukraine has a positive attitude towards Russia (26% in the Western Ukraine, 49% in the South). Again, I'd have expected a much lower % to be positive, especially in the East. My understanding is that the separatist areas have been excluded, and the survey was conducted via phone i.e. not anonymously.
In this thread, some major generalisations have been made. The reality on the ground is much more complicated.
Quote from: Tamas on January 15, 2022, 07:05:07 AM
Gaijin I think where the (intentionally or not) dishonest aspect of "just leave Russia alone" comes up for me is that what falls under "not leaving Russia alone" is integrating parts of the former Russian empire into the western military and economic fabric, such as the Baltic States Poland etc. I wouldn't even put Ukraine here, I don't think any sane person would want to rush into anything with that giant mess, which it was long before the foreign Western mercenaries shot into the crowd in Kiev, or whatever the accepted Russian consensus on that one.
If Russians feel like NATO troops in NATO countries like the Baltic States or Poland are infringing on Russia's security, then there are only two possible explanation to that: they either think NATO is actively working toward an invasion of Russia (which I cannot believe anyone but the most lunatic seriously believe), or, as mentioned before, this is experienced as the taking away of what should be under Russia or at least Russian influence.
But since the countries in question do not feel like that the slightest (I know there are Russian minorities but Russians ain't the only ones in that situation, and others manage to live with it), the rest of the world and NATO especially rightly ignore whatever half-defined designs or feelings Russia and Russians have on those countries.
Tamas, this entire hullabaloo with Ukraine began with the unconstitutional event where one oligarch group from Donetsk (the "pro-Russian"Yanukovuch) was replaced, via a violent coup, with another oligarch group linked to Dnipro (the "pro-Western" current government).
There has been a lot of direct Western involvement into that coup, open and well-documented. It has directly disrupted the peaceful coexistence of both countries.
And now yes, we're all pointing our fingers at Russia.
Seriously, all we wanted was to be left alone. Looking at the list of Russian demands, looks like the country has had enough.
I have no idea what will happen now.
Also, until this disaster in 2013-2014, the opinion surveys showed that 90% of Ukrainians had positive attitude towards Russia. The economic, cultural, and social ties seemed unbreakable. The Ukrainians kept voting for "pro-Russian" presidents who were then removed via colour revolutions in 2004 and in 2014 — because the anti-Russian forces stood no chance whatsoever to come to power via democratic means.
Who financed these colour revolutions? Was it Russia, seriously? Why would it?
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 15, 2022, 07:16:53 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 15, 2022, 07:05:07 AM
Gaijin I think where the (intentionally or not) dishonest aspect of "just leave Russia alone" comes up for me is that what falls under "not leaving Russia alone" is integrating parts of the former Russian empire into the western military and economic fabric, such as the Baltic States Poland etc. I wouldn't even put Ukraine here, I don't think any sane person would want to rush into anything with that giant mess, which it was long before the foreign Western mercenaries shot into the crowd in Kiev, or whatever the accepted Russian consensus on that one.
If Russians feel like NATO troops in NATO countries like the Baltic States or Poland are infringing on Russia's security, then there are only two possible explanation to that: they either think NATO is actively working toward an invasion of Russia (which I cannot believe anyone but the most lunatic seriously believe), or, as mentioned before, this is experienced as the taking away of what should be under Russia or at least Russian influence.
But since the countries in question do not feel like that the slightest (I know there are Russian minorities but Russians ain't the only ones in that situation, and others manage to live with it), the rest of the world and NATO especially rightly ignore whatever half-defined designs or feelings Russia and Russians have on those countries.
Tamas, this entire hullabaloo with Ukraine began with the unconstitutional event where one oligarch group from Donetsk (the "pro-Russian"Yanukovuch) was replaced, via a violent coup, with another oligarch group linked to Dnipro (the "pro-Western" current government).
There has been a lot of direct Western involvement into that coup, open and well-documented. It has directly disrupted the peaceful coexistence of both countries.
And now yes, we're all pointing our fingers at Russia.
Seriously, all we wanted was to be left alone. Looking at the list of Russian demands, looks like the country has had enough.
I have no idea what will happen now.
I guess this is the point where we'll agree to disagree. Based on my own personal as well as my country's historical experience (be it Russian occupation or the similar kind of regimes built) I am never going to believe the bog-standard "we are stearing up shit in self-defense" narrative which you are unwilling to let go of.
I am utterly baffled by the "country has had enough" point, It's astonishing to think that Russians feel they are being suffocated by the West so much that they need to resort to military action and risk thermonuclear war. If that's indeed the case then clearly there is no hope for Western discourse and diplomacy to cut through internal Russian propaganda and Putin's need for external enemies.
Russia wants to be left alone. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2022, 08:07:21 AM
Russia wants to be left alone. :lol:
It is ridiculous but I guess I can see it from the point of view of the individual stuck with Russian media. e.g. if you listen to Hungarian pro-government press (i.e. everything but one TV station and like 3 webpages), the world what you see and hear is where Hungary is under constant and tremendous pressure from the EU to give up its heritage, let millions upon millions of migrants in, and, lately, to allow sex change surgery on little children. People are made to feel, in a very purposeful manner, like they are under siege, only the present government able to protect them.
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2022, 08:07:21 AM
Russia wants to be left alone. :lol:
I think they do. Unfortunately that usually seems to mean being behind a cordon of "friendly" countries and territories who act as buffer and remain firmly in their sphere of influence, whether they like it or not.
Quote from: Tamas on January 15, 2022, 07:50:28 AM
I guess this is the point where we'll agree to disagree. Based on my own personal as well as my country's historical experience (be it Russian occupation or the similar kind of regimes built) I am never going to believe the bog-standard "we are stearing up shit in self-defense" narrative which you are unwilling to let go of.
I am utterly baffled by the "country has had enough" point, It's astonishing to think that Russians feel they are being suffocated by the West so much that they need to resort to military action and risk thermonuclear war. If that's indeed the case then clearly there is no hope for Western discourse and diplomacy to cut through internal Russian propaganda and Putin's need for external enemies.
The Russians perceived the violent coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected, Russia-allied Yanukovich as a Western attack on its ally and on their national interests.
Be as utterly baffled as you want.
Anyway, it's a pointless conversation.
Our governments are practically at war; I don't see how we'll reconcile our positions.
Quote from: Syt on January 15, 2022, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2022, 08:07:21 AM
Russia wants to be left alone. :lol:
I think they do. Unfortunately that usually seems to mean being behind a cordon of "friendly" countries and territories who act as buffer and remain firmly in their sphere of influence, whether they like it or not.
Only with the West, Syt. Our eastern border is mostly unprotected.
I wonder why :)
Quote from: Syt on January 15, 2022, 08:15:55 AMI think they do. Unfortunately that usually seems to mean being behind a cordon of "friendly" countries and territories who act as buffer and remain firmly in their sphere of influence, whether they like it or not.
Agreed. - at least for Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus. I think what happens between/with Russia and China in Central Asia and whether it stays relatively cooperative or becomes competitive is going to be quite important.
I think Lawrence Freedman's take on the talks from his substack is pretty interesting:
QuoteHas diplomacy with Russia failed this week?
Lawrence Freedman
Jan 14
Has diplomacy with Russia failed this week?
This week's diplomacy has – unsurprisingly – not led to much of an obvious change in the current standoff between NATO and Russia. As expected the Russians demanded that the US close the door on the future expansion of the alliance, and as expected the Americans said that this was not possible. As expected the Americans offered discussions on a variety of arms control and confidence-building measures, and as expected the Russians showed no more than polite interest and demanded that everyone focus on their core agenda.
No More Talks
If anything the closing event – yesterday's meeting of the 57members of the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) - was more downbeat than Monday's bilateral between the US and Russia, and Wednesday's gathering of the NATO-Russia Council. Ukraine only got its chance to speak at the OSCE. It pointed out that there were 106,000 troops and 1,500 tanks near its border. As it called for a 'verified withdrawal' of these forces there were other reports of more Russian units joining them.
Eight hours of the bilateral conversation and a few hours each in the larger sessions were never going to produce new agreements. Wendy Sherman, the US Deputy Secretary of State, called them 'discussions' rather than 'negotiations'. The question was always whether they would lead to a proper negotiating forum to be set up where teams of experts could work out the technicalities of new agreements on such matters as missile deployment or large-scale exercises.
NATO has expressed its readiness for talks for such talks: Russia now says there is no point although it has not quite closed the door. The problem for the Russians with discussions on what are for them the secondary measures is not only that they bypass their main demands but also impose reciprocal obligations. Their aim is not to accept restrictions on their behaviour but to reduce NATO's strength and reach.
The Financial Times quotes Vladimir Putin's spokesperson as saying the talks had been 'unsuccessful' despite 'positive elements' on the more peripheral issues. Moscow's current position is that it is waiting for a formal response to the draft treaty language they had submitted last December, which the US has yet to provide. But they know from everything that has been said that they are not going to be satisfied with the response. Russia's OSCE Ambassador, explained his country's position on Twitter:
'If we don't hear constructive response to our proposals within reasonable timeframe & aggressive behaviour towards Russia continues, we'll have to take necessary measures to ensure strategic balance and eliminate unacceptable threats to our national security.'
There have been warnings that 'all necessary means' will be taken, with dark references to their 'severe and unpredictable consequences'.
Yet at the same time Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has insisted that there are no plans to invade Ukraine. As he couldn't say much else this assurance has been dismissed by those who hear only the beat of the war drums, though it was a point he went out of his way to make. But then if we can disregard this statement why do we have to take more seriously other statements that point in a more belligerent direction? Are the two sets inconsistent? There is a lot to be unpacked here. Do the proposed 'necessary measures', which have been described as 'military-technical' have to mean a new invasion of Ukraine?
Diplomacy and Deterrence
There is a natural assumption that the purpose of diplomacy is to negotiate agreements that will avoid war, so if there is not even a process that offers the prospect of a deal then that must mean war. By insisting that diplomacy has been exhausted the Russians are almost bound not to escalate in some way.
At the same time we have to keep in mind that there is a performative aspect to these occasions. Russia has left no doubt that it objects to efforts to 'contain' Russia and that a substantial NATO push into Ukraine, including a formal offer of membership, would be tantamount to a casus belli. Few believe it is prepared to go to war because it is upset with the past three decades of Western policy but the possibility that it might do so if it thought that Ukraine was about to be integrated into NATO is credible. After all it used force in Georgia in 2008 on a similar basis.
This has actually been understood by NATO for some time, and explains why attitudes within the alliance have been cautious on this matter, and why, whatever Moscow says, it is unlikely that the US has plans to deploy long-range offensive systems in Ukraine. It is a fair question, and one that has been asked by western critics of NATO's hard line, that if this is the case why not make a formal agreement with Russia to remove the tentative offer of membership, first made in 2008, in return for Russia withdrawing its forces and stop making threats?
The official answer is that there is a matter of principle. Ukraine is an independent sovereign state and entitled to arrange its security affairs as it sees fit, just as NATO members are entitled to welcome any country they wish into their ranks. More importantly, however, Russia has already annexed part of Ukraine and has been stirring up trouble throughout Ukraine, mainly by directing and assisting separatist groups in its eastern provinces. Until Russia stops this interference it cannot expect new treaties limiting Ukraine's options. Nonetheless the Russians have used the past week to put down a marker that reminds NATO of the risks that would be faced should the alliance decide to expedite Ukraine's membership. So arguably one purpose of the current drama is to deter Ukraine, along with NATO, from taking any offensive initiatives.
That interpretation is consistent with Russia's language, although they are sufficiently ambiguous to allow for more disturbing interpretations – which is presumably the intention. Thus far neither the United States nor its allies have been ready to make any concessions or really take its draft treaty at all seriously. Putin may calculate that the next stage requires that he intensifies the sense of crisis and urgency in the hope that this will encourage the more faint-hearted among the allies to start moving towards the Russian position, and agitate for a promise not to enlarge the alliance further.
To add to the sense of menace the Russians might also look to boosting its military presence close to Ukraine on a more permanent basis, or deploying longer-range and deadlier weapons in the vicinity. These could still be considered 'military-technical' measures and would be seen as escalations but would still fall short of actual war.
There have even been suggestions, how seriously is unclear, that military deployments in Cuba or Venezuela might be appropriate responses. Approaching the 60th anniversary of the missile crisis, one might note an awkward precedent.
Back to Minsk
In the end we are still left with the question at the heart of this crisis – the future of the conflict in Ukraine. One discussion that did not get so much publicity this week took place Tuesday in Kyiv between the Ukrainian government and senior German and French diplomats. Germany and France formed the Normandy group that negotiated, with Ukraine and Russia, the Minsk accords of September 2014 (slightly revised in February 2015).
These were supposed to establish a road map for a resolution of the conflict, requiring the Russians to withdraw all support for their enclaves and agree to a new constitutional arrangement which would give those in Eastern Ukraine more control over the government's policy. This might make it harder for Kyiv in the future to move towards joining NATO and also the EU (it is often forgotten in the preoccupation with NATO that Russia first stepped up the pressure on Ukraine in 2013 to stop it signing an Association Agreement with the EU). The Ukrainians are reporting that the Russians are amenable to more talks in the Normandy format. If so that offers one way forward. It is hard to be optimistic that about a Russian withdrawal but there are still issues connected with past cease-fire agreements to be discussed, such as exchange of prisoners and opening up of checkpoints.
These situations have their own dynamics so it would be unwise to preclude anything at the moment, but it is important to emphasise that despite Russia's warnings and movement of forces its military options remain not only dangerous but full of potential pitfalls, as I argued in Monday's post. For the moment the next step is up to Putin.
Of course the Ukrainians are developing their own medium and long-range missiles - so aside from Russia's (I think incorrect) fear of NATO placing missiles in Ukraine, I don't know what happens when Ukraine has a missile with a bloody big Ukrainian flag on it.
One other issue of re-focusing on Minsk is there is that it envisages basically a highly decentralised Ukraine (at least in relation to the eastern regions), the most Kyiv is willing to consider is some form of federation which doesn't the Russians and implementation of something that would satisfy Russia is seen as unacceptable by, say, nationalists in Ukraine. Squaring that circle is a challenge even if Russia is happy to go back to those talks.
It is striking that Russia is open to returning to the Normandy format and negotiations with Ukraine, France and Germany, while Ukraine is proposing a further round of talks between Ukraine, Russia and the US.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 15, 2022, 02:23:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2022, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: PJL on January 14, 2022, 12:20:55 PM
I guess Gaijin de Moscu is one of the secret Russian operatives working in social media to further Russian propaganda. Funny how he suddenly re-appeared recently. I wonder why...
Damn. We are getting paranoid in our old age.
And hey even if he is, so what? What harm can he do here?
Languish is very important to Western strategic planning, you know.
Languish is very important, just like millions Facebook walls and the like. I guarantee you that if Russia does invade Ukraine, there are going to be voices all over the place that seemed to organically came to the conclusion that we have no business interfering with Russia, even before FoxNews starts parroting that message. Russia realizes that if it does invade Ukraine, the most important battlefield is the propaganda battlefield: the popular support for getting involved must be nuked as early as possible as heavily as possible. Russia has also realized for a while how to do propaganda at a grassroots level.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 15, 2022, 02:26:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 14, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
I think the only way you can look at the expansion of NATO as "threatening" to Russia is if you insist on looking at Russian security from the eyes of the mid 20th century.
And while it is reasonable to look and note that historically, Russia was invaded twice from the West (well...once really, but from Russians perspective...) in the space of two generations....well, does anyone actually buy that as a credible threat, NOW?
People raised during the Cold War are currently running Russia. So yes, they totally do think like that.
I don't believe it. Hell, I don't actually think even Soviet Cold Warriors thought there was ever a credible threat of NATO sending tanks into the USSR.
It was about their ability to send tank into the West, not "defense" against attack. That was just the excuse. And you can tell from the force makeup that that was the case.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 15, 2022, 09:20:57 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 15, 2022, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2022, 08:07:21 AM
Russia wants to be left alone. :lol:
I think they do. Unfortunately that usually seems to mean being behind a cordon of "friendly" countries and territories who act as buffer and remain firmly in their sphere of influence, whether they like it or not.
Only with the West, Syt. Our eastern border is mostly unprotected.
I wonder why :)
It is a good question because I think you have had more border skirmishes with China than with NATO, so far.
I guess it comes back to "Russia" meaning a very different geographical area for Russians than to the rest of the world.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 15, 2022, 09:20:57 AM
Only with the West, Syt. Our eastern border is mostly unprotected.
I wonder why :)
The West's maniacal plan to put 90% of the Russian population west of the Urals and within a thousand or so miles of a dozen European capitals is finally coming to fruition!
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 15, 2022, 04:36:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 14, 2022, 02:42:23 PM
This idea that American foreign thought and policy is centered on some nefarious plot to "get Russia" is kind of bemusing.
Yes please, do leave us alone. Stop funding the colour revolutions around our borders, stop moving your military bases to our borders, stop meddling with our economic projects such as the Nord Streams, and so on.
Just... leave us alone.
Edit: now that I think about it, I may have just summarised the latest Russian demands :)
But all these involve third parties. Ukraine is not Russia so a revolution in Ukraine leaves Russia alone. Lithuania is not in Russia so a base in Lithuania leaves Russia alone. Nordstream is a pipeline so it's very nature is extra-territorial. All these demands corresponding to a desire for a sphere of influence not the isolationist "Just leave me alone".
Our eastern AND western borders are unprotected for the same reason. There is no profit in war against the Deep Ones. :cthulu:
On the colour revolutions... I guess the Russian narrative is that they were created and funded by Western powers in an attempt to draw the affected countries out of Russia's sphere and into the West's?
Because the narrative I'm familiar with is that broad sectors of the populations attempted to hold the elites - who governed the country and captured most of the wealths through undemocratic manipulation - to account.
I'm guessing that the official Russian point of view is "that's what they want you to think, but obviously it's not true"?
I honestly have very little in depth knowledge of the colour revolutions. To what degree did the West encourage or drive the colour revolutions vs to what degree were they genuinely popular and internal to the countries in which they happened?
And I heard it was the arch-communist George Soros who did it.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 12:08:15 PM
"Funny" is a figure of speech. I find nothing funny about the current situation.
On mirroring accusations... it goes both ways. You choose to see one side of it, I choose the other. We can talk for many pages funding credible examples illustrating both points of view.
Indeed, the entire purpose of the Russian mirroring tactic is to allow you to comfortably see the Russian side of things. One would figure that someone as experienced and traveled as you would understand what NATO actually is, but it seems one would figure wrong.
It would be less embarrassing if you just blamed the CIA, like everyone did in the old days. It has more street cred as a boogieman than NATO does.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 15, 2022, 09:20:57 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 15, 2022, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2022, 08:07:21 AM
Russia wants to be left alone. :lol:
I think they do. Unfortunately that usually seems to mean being behind a cordon of "friendly" countries and territories who act as buffer and remain firmly in their sphere of influence, whether they like it or not.
Only with the West, Syt. Our eastern border is mostly unprotected.
I wonder why :)
Because Russia already has the friendliest and most controlled of buffers in the east in the form of siberia?
Then there's the whole European plain thing
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukraine-syria/413248/
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 15, 2022, 04:36:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 14, 2022, 02:42:23 PM
This idea that American foreign thought and policy is centered on some nefarious plot to "get Russia" is kind of bemusing.
Yes please, do leave us alone. Stop funding the colour revolutions around our borders, stop moving your military bases to our borders, stop meddling with our economic projects such as the Nord Streams, and so on.
Just... leave us alone.
Edit: now that I think about it, I may have just summarised the latest Russian demands :)
Wouldn't know how to start or stop funding revolutions that even if I wanted to. The color revolutions were forever ago and who exactly we would fund to do that I have no idea. How does one fund a revolution? Are we talking about donating to political parties who are friendly to Western nations?
I certainly am not interested in any new military bases either near or far from Russia's borders.
As for Nord Stream: STOP INTERFERING WITH PIPELINES THAT CROSS YOUR TERRITORY WESTERNERS AND ARE INTENDED TO SELL YOU NATURAL GAS!!!!111 Um...what kind of idiotic demand is that? Why shouldn't westerners be involved in where and from whom they purchase natural gas from? Is Russia demanding the West not be sovereign in its own territory? Or is Germany not part of the west here? I have no idea. What kind of dictatorial power over the West is required before Russia is being "left alone" if not interfering with projects that directly involve their own territory and domestic policies is a requirement?
Leaving Russia alone suddenly seems impossible, unless you refuse to do any business at all with Russia. :lol:
Also I should probably point out Europe is quite small. The distance between Russia and the West is therefore very small. Heck if Finland is part of the West then it is no distance at all. Demanding we leave you alone and stay far far away when we live next door is going to be hard to accomplish.
Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2022, 11:22:03 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 15, 2022, 02:26:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 14, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
I think the only way you can look at the expansion of NATO as "threatening" to Russia is if you insist on looking at Russian security from the eyes of the mid 20th century.
And while it is reasonable to look and note that historically, Russia was invaded twice from the West (well...once really, but from Russians perspective...) in the space of two generations....well, does anyone actually buy that as a credible threat, NOW?
People raised during the Cold War are currently running Russia. So yes, they totally do think like that.
I don't believe it. Hell, I don't actually think even Soviet Cold Warriors thought there was ever a credible threat of NATO sending tanks into the USSR.
It was about their ability to send tank into the West, not "defense" against attack. That was just the excuse. And you can tell from the force makeup that that was the case.
What I mean is that these people's entire world view is based on confrontation between Russia and the West. So expecting them to not view NATO as the Enemy is wishful thinking.
Quote from: grumbler on January 15, 2022, 01:10:50 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 12:08:15 PM
"Funny" is a figure of speech. I find nothing funny about the current situation.
On mirroring accusations... it goes both ways. You choose to see one side of it, I choose the other. We can talk for many pages funding credible examples illustrating both points of view.
Indeed, the entire purpose of the Russian mirroring tactic is to allow you to comfortably see the Russian side of things. One would figure that someone as experienced and traveled as you would understand what NATO actually is, but it seems one would figure wrong.
It would be less embarrassing if you just blamed the CIA, like everyone did in the old days. It has more street cred as a boogieman than NATO does.
On mirroring.
The Russian minister of defense has warned about the possible provocation as early as December 20, 2021:
https://www.interfax.ru/russia/811647
"It's been established with full certainty that over 120 employees of US private military companies are present in Avdeevka and Priasovsk of Donetsk Region. They're setting up firing positions inside residential housing and in socially import objects, training Ukrainian special forces and radical groups for military action... To perform a provocation, reservoirs with unidentified chemical components have been delivered to Avdeevka and Krasny Liman."
As you can see, his information is specific and stated briefly and clearly.
The US has claimed the Russians are preparing a false flag attack mid-Jan, a few days ago:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/us-intelligence-russia-false-flag/index.html?utm_content=2022-01-14T14%3A58%3A30&utm_source=twcnnbrk&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social
The US info is vague, with no specifics on the numbers, locations, type of action, and so on.
So... who is mirroring whom? :)
Quote from: Tamas on January 15, 2022, 11:58:34 AM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 15, 2022, 09:20:57 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 15, 2022, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2022, 08:07:21 AM
Russia wants to be left alone. :lol:
I think they do. Unfortunately that usually seems to mean being behind a cordon of "friendly" countries and territories who act as buffer and remain firmly in their sphere of influence, whether they like it or not.
Only with the West, Syt. Our eastern border is mostly unprotected.
I wonder why :)
It is a good question because I think you have had more border skirmishes with China than with NATO, so far.
I guess it comes back to "Russia" meaning a very different geographical area for Russians than to the rest of the world.
We don't expect any threat whatsoever from China.
And anyway, Ukraine wasn't a "buffer state" before the 2014 coup. It was our ally and partner.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 16, 2022, 04:53:58 AM
We don't expect any threat whatsoever from China.
Why would China threaten its vassal state?
Just listened to a short brief on Russia by a defense researcher specialized on Russia. A week or so ago there was a large annual defense conference with participants from all relevant parts of Swedish society and she held the short brief there, in Swedish.
Apparently, and this has been obvious for me at least for 15 years or so and probably most of you, Russia is trying to re-establish the Tsarist and Soviet spheres of influence and that Putin wants to have a Vienna 1815 or Yalta style conference where great power spheres can be decided and defined. Russia is after the old Soviet border and also complete control on the Baltic region, meaning Sweden and Finland finlandised.
All that is very obvious and have been obvious for at least the last decade or two. The problem, according to the researcher, is that they haven't been taken seriously by western politicians. No-one has listened and no-one has believed them.
All of this makes me furious over the idiotic way Sweden has been run since 2006-8 or so. By then it was obvious where Russia was going and that we would end up with a revanchist Russia trying to dominate its neighbours. So what the conservative government did was to decrease defense spending and go to fully professional defense. Sweden had by then gone from an army of 850.000 men and an air force with hundreds of planes to almost nothing in slightly more than a decade. Completely eroding any chance of standing up to Russia militarily, we became a joke.
As time went on and more and more warning bells about Russia went off they opened the floodgates and took in about 100.000 immigrants each years, costing about 100 billion SEK annually where the defense budget continued to decrease to about 40 billion SEK. Those numbers should at a minimum have been reversed. The leftists reversed the trend after '14 and increased defense budgets, but far far far too little far too late.
Nowadays the defense budget has doubled since 2014, about 80 billion sek and military service re-established, Sweden is arming up. Slowly. The last time Sweden started to arm up after deep defense cuts was in 1936 or so which meant that we were ready for WWII in 1948 or thereabouts. It is complete and utter incompetence of historic proportions. It's two generations of politicians that have behaved as if the world is full of care bears and a friendly letter and a hug can dissuade bullies. And this despite the obvious and clear parallels to the interbellum years. Or the fact that Russia has been Sweden's main enemy for 400 years or so, and whilst their power has waned sometimes they always come back.
And from what I can gather most of Europe (except Finland of course, neighbouring the bear and perhaps UK/France) has done even worse, Germany in particular has had its head up its arse since Kohl. More focus on schools and health care and no focus at all on how we secure our wealthy and free societies. And the people have cheered on and voted for those idiots.
Nowadays Europe can do nothing to stop a belligerent Russia and it is by choice. Sanctions have little effect if a great power chooses to don't care about them.
Just my Sunday morning incoherent rant.
I think as well as the defence side, which I agree with, there is also the economic side.
The challenge for the US is that they don't really trade with Russia. Adam Tooze spoke about this that in terms of an export market for the US, Russia is about the same level as Ecuador. It's not a massive import partner either. So the direct leverage that US sanctions would have is pretty weak.
On the other hand about 40% of Europe's gas comes from Russia so it is key and I think it has larger other trade to. So for any sanctions to be meaningful it depends on the US being able to cajole the Europeans - but they need the gas, especially at a time of very high prices and a spike in global demand. You could look at things like trying to freeze Russia out of the US payments system, or sanction companies who allow the re-export of US goods or parts or IP to Russia - but again the cost will basically be borne by US allies, so they need buy in from them.
But on defence - there was a really striking interview by the head of the French air force recently (and obviously he would say this to get budget increases) but he pointed out how contested space and airspace around Europe is. He had a startling stat about the number of confrontations between European fighters and others around the edges of Europe's airspace in the last few years. I think we have behaved as if we're America - bordered by Canada and Mexico (which I think means America doesn't always get the fear/paranoia of borders and can be a bit over-confident). Even aside from Russia I think there's a strong argument that Europe's neighbourhood - from Algeria and Libya through the Middle East and Caucasus up to Russia is one of the most unstable broad regions in the world where there's numerous potential flashpoints and conflicts which would have a direct impact on Europe, if only in terms of migration (Libya as an open route, Syria etc). But I don't think that's reflected in European policy.
Yes, economics is important and another measure of how far up in la-la land our politicians have been. Schröder and Merkel, one by agreeing to gas deals and the other by decommissioning nuclear have made Germany totally dependant on Russia. It's naivety of gigantic proportions.
There were early examples of gas conflicts between the Ukraine and Russia where Russia clearly showed that they will use gas politically. And still Germany made itself reliant on Russia, it's borderline treasonous (perhaps not borderline in Schröders case) and at least utter incompetence. And for 20 years. It should have at least been reversed when Russia turned belligerent in 2006 or so. Nord stream should never have been built and it was bloody obvious for everyone at the time, the warnings were everywhere. This is not a case of hindsight, it was obvious at the time.
Amusing :Embarrass: Swedish example on that. There's a small port on Gotland called Slite that is civilian but have been used by the Swedish navy since forever. When Nord stream started to build it was no longer used by the military and they had sold all of their property there. The Russians wanted to lease the land and build it up as a support dock for gas pipe construction and the commune of Gotland said "Yes please, money in is good and since everyone is a care bear why not the Russians?"
The military said no, it is a bad idea. The Russians can use it as a staging point for invasion in a strategic and sensitive location, do not lease out to them.
So the commune appealed and it ended up with the government and since nothing illegal was going on they couldn't stop the lease and it went ahead.
I think it was stopped at a later stage and today that probably wouldn't happen (the government would probably stop it, make new laws if necessary, the local politicians are probably still retards), but still, a small example of politicians behaving stupid. It is as if they are incapable of understanding that there are organisations that don't play by our rules.
Reminds me about a book I read on the German invasion of Norway. In the end the author discussed the cause of the war and why it went so badly for the Norwegians.
His conclusion was that Norway had decreased defense spending since the great war and the low readiness of the Norwegian defense resulted in the loss to the Germans. The invasion was probably not strong enough to overcome a prepared and ready and strong Norwegian defense supported by the allies.
The low defense spending was a result of pacifist policies from the politicians and that that was something that the voters rewarded and that thus, in the end, it was the people itself that was responsible. They could have chosen different politics. Kind of like Greece in the decades preceding the economic crisis, they could, and should have voted differently, but didn't. What was coming was obvious to everyone (well, perhaps more obvious in Greece than Norway) and everyone chose to ignore it.
That's kind of how it has been since '89. Hawkish politics have been totally ignored in most of western Europe and politicians have been rewarded at the polls for spending on welfare rather than weapons.
Quote from: Threviel on January 16, 2022, 07:04:17 AM
And from what I can gather most of Europe (except Finland of course, neighbouring the bear and perhaps UK/France) has done even worse, Germany in particular has had its head up its arse since Kohl. More focus on schools and health care and no focus at all on how we secure our wealthy and free societies. And the people have cheered on and voted for those idiots.
Tbf, if Russian voters had done the same - or were allowed to do the same - this thread wouldn't exist and we'd all be better off - Russians included. I'm not hitting back at you, just generally lamenting on the absurdity of the situation.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 16, 2022, 06:20:03 AM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 16, 2022, 04:53:58 AM
We don't expect any threat whatsoever from China.
Why would China threaten its vassal state?
:D
Thank you for the laugh.
Meanwhile, the Russian peacekeepers are withdrawing from Kazakhstan.
Another colour revolution prevented.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 16, 2022, 04:47:27 AM
On mirroring.
The Russian minister of defense has warned about the possible provocation as early as December 20, 2021:
https://www.interfax.ru/russia/811647
"It's been established with full certainty that over 120 employees of US private military companies are present in Avdeevka and Priasovsk of Donetsk Region. They're setting up firing positions inside residential housing and in socially import objects, training Ukrainian special forces and radical groups for military action... To perform a provocation, reservoirs with unidentified chemical components have been delivered to Avdeevka and Krasny Liman."
As you can see, his information is specific and stated briefly and clearly.
The US has claimed the Russians are preparing a false flag attack mid-Jan, a few days ago:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/us-intelligence-russia-false-flag/index.html?utm_content=2022-01-14T14%3A58%3A30&utm_source=twcnnbrk&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social
The US info is vague, with no specifics on the numbers, locations, type of action, and so on.
So... who is mirroring whom? :)
It's easy to know the details of the operations that you're making up yourself, that's true, and you don't even have to worry about burning real sources (because none exist). Mirroring doesn't have to be reactive, you could be preemptively accusing others of planning to do something that you're planning to do yourself. Mirroring and projecting go together.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 16, 2022, 02:14:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2022, 11:22:03 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 15, 2022, 02:26:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 14, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
I think the only way you can look at the expansion of NATO as "threatening" to Russia is if you insist on looking at Russian security from the eyes of the mid 20th century.
And while it is reasonable to look and note that historically, Russia was invaded twice from the West (well...once really, but from Russians perspective...) in the space of two generations....well, does anyone actually buy that as a credible threat, NOW?
People raised during the Cold War are currently running Russia. So yes, they totally do think like that.
I don't believe it. Hell, I don't actually think even Soviet Cold Warriors thought there was ever a credible threat of NATO sending tanks into the USSR.
It was about their ability to send tank into the West, not "defense" against attack. That was just the excuse. And you can tell from the force makeup that that was the case.
What I mean is that these people's entire world view is based on confrontation between Russia and the West. So expecting them to not view NATO as the Enemy is wishful thinking.
That is not at all my point.
My point is that I don't believe they see any credible threat that the West is going to actually attack Russia. Their "security" is not actually at risk at all, and they know that, and have known that for a very, very long time.
They pretend like they have some kind of worry about about NATO attacking Russia ala June 6th, 1941. They have no such concern.
We are their enemy because we don't want to let them bully and attack their neighbours, not because they actually have any fear that Russia will be attacked.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 16, 2022, 04:47:27 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 15, 2022, 01:10:50 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 14, 2022, 12:08:15 PM
"Funny" is a figure of speech. I find nothing funny about the current situation.
On mirroring accusations... it goes both ways. You choose to see one side of it, I choose the other. We can talk for many pages funding credible examples illustrating both points of view.
Indeed, the entire purpose of the Russian mirroring tactic is to allow you to comfortably see the Russian side of things. One would figure that someone as experienced and traveled as you would understand what NATO actually is, but it seems one would figure wrong.
It would be less embarrassing if you just blamed the CIA, like everyone did in the old days. It has more street cred as a boogieman than NATO does.
On mirroring.
The Russian minister of defense has warned about the possible provocation as early as December 20, 2021:
https://www.interfax.ru/russia/811647 (https://www.interfax.ru/russia/811647)
"It's been established with full certainty that over 120 employees of US private military companies are present in Avdeevka and Priasovsk of Donetsk Region. They're setting up firing positions inside residential housing and in socially import objects, training Ukrainian special forces and radical groups for military action... To perform a provocation, reservoirs with unidentified chemical components have been delivered to Avdeevka and Krasny Liman."
As you can see, his information is specific and stated briefly and clearly.
The US has claimed the Russians are preparing a false flag attack mid-Jan, a few days ago:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/us-intelligence-russia-false-flag/index.html?utm_content=2022-01-14T14%3A58%3A30&utm_source=twcnnbrk&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social (https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/us-intelligence-russia-false-flag/index.html?utm_content=2022-01-14T14%3A58%3A30&utm_source=twcnnbrk&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social)
The US info is vague, with no specifics on the numbers, locations, type of action, and so on.
So... who is mirroring whom? :)
that there are special forces of US, Canada, and other NATO countries in Ukraine is no secret. Your country has invaded a significant chunk of Ukraine, you know? And you will tell us that Russia has nothing to do with the pro-russian seperatist faction of eastern Ukraine? It does not give them weapon, intelligence, or any kind of training?
This is not provocation?
You say you want Russia to be left alone, but what you really want is to have a sphere of influence over neighbouring countries and all over the world where there are puppet governments. Intervening in Syria to slaughter civilian protesters was not isolationism.
You want to rebuild you own empire but you don't want any interference from others. It doesn't exactly work that way, you know?
Russia push its neighbours into western arms because it tries to destabilize them repeatedly and subvert local democracy to its own interest. Then it complains these countries want to join NATO and NATO accepts them.
Oh, and about that specific mirroring issue you mention... How is it the Russian ministry of defence can establish a very clear line like that, knowing what will do what and when? :)
Ask yourself some question before repeating Putin's propaganda.
Russia is building itself an excuse to invade Ukraine and trying its best to make it sure it goes unchallenge. For now, Russia can't compete with NATO. In a decade, things might be different. Russia knows it. I'm not sure all of NATO is aware.
Tell you want. Stop supporting dictators all around the word, stop interfering in neighbouring countries, than NATO and the US will leave you alone. They might even help you, like they did after the fall of the USSR.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 16, 2022, 04:53:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 15, 2022, 11:58:34 AM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 15, 2022, 09:20:57 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 15, 2022, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2022, 08:07:21 AM
Russia wants to be left alone. :lol:
I think they do. Unfortunately that usually seems to mean being behind a cordon of "friendly" countries and territories who act as buffer and remain firmly in their sphere of influence, whether they like it or not.
Only with the West, Syt. Our eastern border is mostly unprotected.
I wonder why :)
It is a good question because I think you have had more border skirmishes with China than with NATO, so far.
I guess it comes back to "Russia" meaning a very different geographical area for Russians than to the rest of the world.
We don't expect any threat whatsoever from China.
And anyway, Ukraine wasn't a "buffer state" before the 2014 coup. It was our ally and partner.
Russia and the USSR have always relied on buffer states in the West, Ukraine was no different.
Putin maintained a corrupt puppet in Ukraine and even invaded part of a sovereign country because he didn't like the new regime's open attitude toward Europe. That "ally" was ousted after he tried basically selling the country to Russia. Is it really a surprise he's now living in Russia?
You can't be serious about all that propaganda shit.
Stop interfering and attacking your neighbors and the West will leave you alone.
They won't even lift a finger when you jail homosexuals and political opponents to Putin.
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2022, 01:28:55 PM
Russia push its neighbours into western arms because it tries to destabilize them repeatedly and subvert local democracy to its own interest. Then it complains these countries want to join NATO and NATO accepts them.
the way Russia/USSR treated Eastern Europe between 1939 and 1989 pretty much guaranteed that everyone one who could would join NATO asap. The way Russia treated other countries after 2005 pretty much guarantees that those that can join NATO but haven't done so yet will try to do so asap.
Maybe Russia should have taken a leaf from the German playbook: show genuine contrition for the atrocities committed. Who knows what would have happened in that case? But no, instead the country went around being a bully, but without the massive reserve of diplomatic credit the US had.
Russia and its leaders have had the same obsession since Ivan and Putin is no different. We learned this in middle school:
- Secure the plain
- Get access to year-round ports
Hence Crimea, hence Syria, and now hence Ukraine. History has repeatedly underlined the importance of securing the northern european plain for Russia. Poles, Swedes, Napoleon, Germans (twice).
I'm not saying the EU should let Russia have free reign in Ukraine, but Putin is not acting any different from any other Russian leader. Russia is cursed by geography.
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2022, 01:37:33 PM
Putin maintained a corrupt puppet in Ukraine and even invaded part of a sovereign country because he didn't like the new regime's open attitude toward Europe. That "ally" was ousted after he tried basically selling the country to Russia. Is it really a surprise he's now living in Russia?
You can't be serious about all that propaganda shit.
Stop interfering and attacking your neighbors and the West will leave you alone.
They won't even lift a finger when you jail homosexuals and political opponents to Putin.
Ukraine people voted Yanukovich in. He was democratically elected. It's a fact, even if you don't like it.
The 2014 coup removed the democratically elected president of Ukraine and kicked off all the issues we've been discussing ad nauseum. Just because someone doesn't like the government of another country, they aren't entitled to interfere. I agree with Berkut on this 100%.
Yanukovich was "ousted", as you put it, because he asked for a time-out before signing the agreements with the EU.
The reason for his pause was the need to understand how the new agreements would work in the context of tax-free movement of goods agreements he had with the CIS countries. Literally, that was it. It was absolutely solvable.
But no, he had to be "ousted." Is it because it's okay to ignore Russia's economic interests?
And now we have what we have.
Il a été sorti de la par ce que c'était un politicien corrompu qui détournait des milliards... On ne peut pas ignorer le role du peuple ukrainien en 2014. Avec ou sans influence de l'Ouest, étant élu démocratiquement ou pas, Yanukovich a été trop loin, et son départ n'était qu'une question de temps.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 16, 2022, 03:11:15 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2022, 01:28:55 PM
Russia push its neighbours into western arms because it tries to destabilize them repeatedly and subvert local democracy to its own interest. Then it complains these countries want to join NATO and NATO accepts them.
the way Russia/USSR treated Eastern Europe between 1939 and 1989 pretty much guaranteed that everyone one who could would join NATO asap. The way Russia treated other countries after 2005 pretty much guarantees that those that can join NATO but haven't done so yet will try to do so asap.
Maybe Russia should have taken a leaf from the German playbook: show genuine contrition for the atrocities committed. Who knows what would have happened in that case? But no, instead the country went around being a bully, but without the massive reserve of diplomatic credit the US had.
I agree with you. I despise the communism and what it did to both Russia, Eastern Europe, and a lot of the world.
(Apart of the USSR leading the country to destroy the Nazis, that is. But I don't think we needed communism for that).
Russia actually started recognising the communist crimes — for example, in 2010 our parliament apologised for Katyn. Putin volunteered to join NATO in 2000, and he talked about open-border Europe "from Lisbon to Vladivostok." But it has all now stopped.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 16, 2022, 03:29:02 PM
Il a été sorti de la par ce que c'était un politicien corrompu qui détournait des milliards... On ne peut pas ignorer le role du peuple ukrainien en 2014. Avec ou sans influence de l'Ouest, étant élu démocratiquement ou pas, Yanukovich a été trop loin, et son départ n'était qu'une question de temps.
C'était aux ukrainiens de décider démocratiquement.
La prochaine élection était imminente, de toute façon.
Jag har en väldigt stor baguette.
Again I'm not super versed in recent events in Ukraine...
Sounds like Gaijin du Moscu has a version of events where the people of Ukraine elected Yanukovich, and then Western agents engineered his ouster to pull Ukraine away from Russia?
Meanwhile, the West understands events to have been that Yanukovich was undermining democratic processes to hang on to power until a popular uprising restored democracy?
Something like that?
Quote from: Zoupa on January 16, 2022, 03:21:09 PM
Russia and its leaders have had the same obsession since Ivan and Putin is no different. We learned this in middle school:
- Secure the plain
- Get access to year-round ports
Hence Crimea, hence Syria, and now hence Ukraine. History has repeatedly underlined the importance of securing the northern european plain for Russia. Poles, Swedes, Napoleon, Germans (twice).
I'm not saying the EU should let Russia have free reign in Ukraine, but Putin is not acting any different from any other Russian leader. Russia is cursed by geography.
Yeah - I agree. And I think the paranoia/fear is real and was real all the way through the Cold War. It is almost impossible to overstate even if it seems to us - especially with the benefit of hindsight - ridiculous (such as Stalin's genuine and constant fear of a Polish invasion in the 20s and early 30s.
Invade or be invaded, have friendly regimes nearby or bolster those forces. It's Holy Alliance, it's the Warswaw Pact - it's geography. Just as much as the most important about the UK is that it is an island nation, and about the US that it has two very benign neighbours.
QuoteThe 2014 coup removed the democratically elected president of Ukraine and kicked off all the issues we've been discussing ad nauseum. Just because someone doesn't like the government of another country, they aren't entitled to interfere. I agree with Berkut on this 100%.
Yanukovich was "ousted", as you put it, because he asked for a time-out before signing the agreements with the EU.
The reason for his pause was the need to understand how the new agreements would work in the context of tax-free movement of goods agreements he had with the CIS countries. Literally, that was it. It was absolutely solvable.
But no, he had to be "ousted." Is it because it's okay to ignore Russia's economic interests?
I'd put it differently. The EU, Russia and. I think the IMF, were all bidding for Ukraine with a range of competing financial to help Ukraine out after the crisis. Yanukovych gave the impresion he was going down the route of the EU route but then because I think it looked a little too demanding so he swung back to the Russian deal which was more generous.
I think this overlaid onto divides within Ukraine and in particular for young, Western (Ukrainian) and Ukrainian nationalists who were keen, for different reasons, to align with Europe and the West. So what was just going for the highest by Yanukovych was, to them, a betrayal. They launch protests. Yanukovych for whatever reason uses force for a time but decides he doesn't want to any further/can't hold/there's a possibility security forces might not follow orders. The West is very quick to recognise/view this as a revolution.
So Putin moves to grab what he can rather than be faced with a fait accompli - now my own take is that actually Ukraine would have carried on bouncing from pro-European to pro-Russian and those divisions would not have resolved themselves any time soon. But by invading, Ukraine's now far more pro-Europe, pro-West to the extent that I think the last polling I saw had 60% of Ukrainians want to join NATO (including 40% in Eastern Ukraine - I don't think that happens without the Russian invasion. I think it was probably counter-productive.
Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2022, 03:37:56 PM
Again I'm not super versed in recent events in Ukraine...
Sounds like Gaijin du Moscu has a version of events where the people of Ukraine elected Yanukovich, and then Western agents engineered his ouster to pull Ukraine away from Russia?
Meanwhile, the West understands events to have been that Yanukovich was undermining democratic processes to hang on to power until a popular uprising restored democracy?
Something like that?
Which democratic processes was he undermining?
If anything, the elections in Ukraine worked well, unlike in Russia.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 16, 2022, 03:40:02 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2022, 03:37:56 PM
Again I'm not super versed in recent events in Ukraine...
Sounds like Gaijin du Moscu has a version of events where the people of Ukraine elected Yanukovich, and then Western agents engineered his ouster to pull Ukraine away from Russia?
Meanwhile, the West understands events to have been that Yanukovich was undermining democratic processes to hang on to power until a popular uprising restored democracy?
Something like that?
Which democratic processes was he undermining?
If anything, the elections in Ukraine worked well, unlike in Russia.
I don't know... I was guessing - I just told you I didn't follow events so I was asking for a precis :)
Sheilbh's summary makes sense to me.
So basically the question is to what degree the protests in Ukraine were something Ukrainians did on their own, or whether it was engineered by Western interests?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2022, 03:38:24 PM
I'd put it differently. The EU, Russia and. I think the IMF, were all bidding for Ukraine with a range of competing financial to help Ukraine out after the crisis. Yanukovych gave the impresion he was going down the route of the EU route but then because I think it looked a little too demanding so he swung back to the Russian deal which was more generous.
I think this overlaid onto divides within Ukraine and in particular for young, Western (Ukrainian) and Ukrainian nationalists who were keen, for different reasons, to align with Europe and the West. So what was just going for the highest by Yanukovych was, to them, a betrayal. They launch protests. Yanukovych for whatever reason uses force for a time but decides he doesn't want to any further/can't hold/there's a possibility security forces might not follow orders. The West is very quick to recognise/view this as a revolution.
So Putin moves to grab what he can rather than be faced with a fait accompli - now my own take is that actually Ukraine would have carried on bouncing from pro-European to pro-Russian and those divisions would not have resolved themselves any time soon. But by invading, Ukraine's now far more pro-Europe, pro-West to the extent that I think the last polling I saw had 60% of Ukrainians want to join NATO (including 40% in Eastern Ukraine - I don't think that happens without the Russian invasion. I think it was probably counter-productive.
Thank you for a much more balanced view without the tiring ideological component.
We can go into details about the role of the western governments and Russia in those events. Maybe later, as there's a lot of material we'll need to address.
Overall, what this discussion shows to me is how far we've moved away from each other on this topic :)
Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2022, 03:37:56 PM
Meanwhile, the West understands events to have been that Yanukovich was undermining democratic processes to hang on to power until a popular uprising restored democracy?
Something like that?
I don't think there was any undermining the democratic process - at least no more than is standard for Ukrainian President.
There were protests over leaning to the EU agreement and then pulling back by Ukrainians who for different reasons felt very passionately about that (Ukrainian nationalists because it's anti-Russian, and some young more educated passionately pro-European Ukrainians). I don't think it was a violation of any democratic process or anything like that. I'm not sure that it would have been any different if, instead of Yanukovych, Tymoshenko had been elected - I think it probably would have been the same fairly corrupt process of trying to get a bidding war going between Russia and the EU.
As I say I think the problem was that Ukrainian politics as normal actually mapped across a fault line, so inadvertantly set off massive protests that they initially tried to restrict and squash down but then stopped pretty quickly. The West were very quick (within the first week of three months of protests) to see them as basically a revolution say there should be no attempt at repression and I think backing their demands perhaps, especially within Europe, because this was Euromaidan - there were EU flags everywhere.
Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2022, 03:42:16 PM
I don't know... I was guessing - I just told you I didn't follow events so I was asking for a precis :)
Sheilbh's summary makes sense to me.
So basically the question is to what degree the protests in Ukraine were something Ukrainians did on their own, or whether it was engineered by Western interests?
Oh, I see, sorry. Makes sense.
Yes, everyone was meddling in Ukraine in 2013 — Russia, EU, and US. A lot of documentary, photo and video evidence of that meddling exists. I'm too emotionally exhausted to go dig it up right now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2022, 03:46:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2022, 03:37:56 PM
Meanwhile, the West understands events to have been that Yanukovich was undermining democratic processes to hang on to power until a popular uprising restored democracy?
Something like that?
I don't think there was any undermining the democratic process - at least no more than is standard for Ukrainian President.
There were protests over leaning to the EU agreement and then pulling back by Ukrainians who for different reasons felt very passionately about that (Ukrainian nationalists because it's anti-Russian, and some young more educated passionately pro-European Ukrainians). I don't think it was a violation of any democratic process or anything like that. I'm not sure that it would have been any different if, instead of Yanukovych, Tymoshenko had been elected - I think it probably would have been the same fairly corrupt process of trying to get a bidding war going between Russia and the EU.
As I say I think the problem was that Ukrainian politics as normal actually mapped across a fault line, so inadvertantly set off massive protests that they initially tried to restrict and squash down but then stopped pretty quickly. The West were very quick (within the first week of three months of protests) to see them as basically a revolution say there should be no attempt at repression and I think backing their demands perhaps, especially within Europe, because this was Euromaidan - there were EU flags everywhere.
Agreed. There's more to it, but at this level I agree with you 100%.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 16, 2022, 03:45:44 PM
Overall, what this discussion shows to me is how far we've moved away from each other on this topic :)
Yeah - I think, though, that it has also moved Ukraine away on this topic.
I mentioned before but I've been to Ukraine a couple of times in recent years - and the process of memorialisation is fascinating to see. Both of Euromaidan where the graffiti and the posters of the protesters on the Independence Monument are preserved more or less and there are markers that look on their way to becoming permanent of both the protesters who were killed and the site of the snipers.
In the context of the war you have these ersatz war memorials in every town I went to (admittedly not to Eastern Ukraine) where it's nothing more than a laminated photo of both protesters and soldiers from that town/village who have been killed on a board in the town square. It is really striking but I think even if Ukrainian national identity was weak before 2014, I think it has now been solidified or is in the process of being created.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2022, 03:55:44 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 16, 2022, 03:45:44 PM
Overall, what this discussion shows to me is how far we've moved away from each other on this topic :)
Yeah - I think, though, that it has also moved Ukraine away on this topic.
I mentioned before but I've been to Ukraine a couple of times in recent years - and the process of memorialisation is fascinating to see. Both of Euromaidan where the graffiti and the posters of the protesters on the Independence Monument are preserved more or less and there are markers that look on their way to becoming permanent of both the protesters who were killed and the site of the snipers.
In the context of the war you have these ersatz war memorials in every town I went to (admittedly not to Eastern Ukraine) where it's nothing more than a laminated photo of both protesters and soldiers from that town/village who have been killed on a board in the town square. It is really striking but I think even if Ukrainian national identity was weak before 2014, I think it has now been solidified or is in the process of being created.
Yeah, I've been to Ukraine many times.
Let's not forget that the "unknown snipers" shot both at protesters and the Berkut police. 13 policemen were killed and 200 were wounded. 106 protesters were killed, mostly by those snipers.
Here's just one image to show the atmosphere of those "protests:"
(https://imgshare.io/images/2022/01/16/4598ACD9-BE59-44CF-B716-8C467DECF59B.jpg)
My personal vibe I get from your posts Gaijin is that you don't seem to consider protests/revolution as legitimate. Do you not think grassroots movements are possible?
We can argue about collateral damage to security forces and property and nobody wants that of course, but uprisings have happened throughout history and they usually always have legitimate concerns to redress.
When regular people take to the streets and risk life and limb, it means shit's real bad basically. Every natural instinct tells us to avoid danger and hope the shitty stuff just passes you by. Going against that takes a lot.
The fundamental divide, and why many Russians side with Putin despite knowing full well he's an authoritarian bully, is this: differing views of what Ukraine actually is.
People in the west tend to see Ukraine as a sovereign nation, with all the same rights other sovereign nations have; they tend to see Ukrainians as a separate ethnic-nationality.
Many I have talked to in Russia just don't see it that way. They see Ukraine as, basically, a breakaway bit of Russia, and Ukrainians as essentially Russians. To them, Ukraine is only a country with particular borders because of accidents of Soviet-era administration. Hence, taking "back" bits of what was Ukraine is no violation of sovereignty, and neither is forcing Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence.
If Ukrainians feel like being a different nation, or imagine that they are a separate ethnic nationality, that must perforce be because they have been propagandized by "the West", which hates all things Russian, and has for centuries in various ways been undermining Russia. Russians will point to the fact that many Ukrainians speak more Russian than Ukrainian, that both Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage based on the Kievian Rus, that Ukraine was only rarely a separate nation, that it's very name meant "borderlands" (it used to be called "the" Ukraine), etc.
Thing is that many Russians genuinely believe this, even if they strongly dislike Putin. No amount of historical crimes committed against Ukrainians by Russia affects this analysis - for example, if Stalin had millions of Ukrainians starved age killed, well he had millions of Russians starved and killed as well ...
I think this perception is the fundamental problem. Putin can tap into a genuine feeling on the part of many Russians. It's an excellent distraction from his pillaging of the Russian economy, his government's wretched performance during the pandemic, and many other sources of domestic discontent.
I still want to know how he squares his claim that this is all about Putins deep and abiding concern and respect for the UN Charter with his cheerleading Russian forces in the Crimea?
One of the ironies of history is that at least part of the reason Ukraine has an independent existence post USSR is that they maintained the fiction that Ukraine (and even more implausibly, Belorussia) were independent states so they could grab two more (worthless) General Assembly seats.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2022, 09:34:23 PM
One of the ironies of history is that at least part of the reason Ukraine has an independent existence post USSR is that they maintained the fiction that Ukraine (and even more implausibly, Belorussia) were independent states so they could grab two more (worthless) General Assembly seats.
Yep, that's true. Stalin somehow managed to push this through, IIRC.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 16, 2022, 04:35:31 PM
My personal vibe I get from your posts Gaijin is that you don't seem to consider protests/revolution as legitimate. Do you not think grassroots movements are possible?
We can argue about collateral damage to security forces and property and nobody wants that of course, but uprisings have happened throughout history and they usually always have legitimate concerns to redress.
When regular people take to the streets and risk life and limb, it means shit's real bad basically. Every natural instinct tells us to avoid danger and hope the shitty stuff just passes you by. Going against that takes a lot.
From what I know, that Maidan was not legitimate. It was a violent, unconstitutional coup.
Would it have been constitutional if the trumpist protesters burned down the US Capitol and installed Trump back into power?
Same here.
Anyway, Ukraine is a permanent Maidan these days. The "Ukrainian Truth" reports on the return of Poroshenko (wanted for high treason) to Ukraine, take a look at the pics:
https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/01/17/7320605/index.amp
Groundhog Day all over again. The crowd is chanting "Zelya out" (meaning the now-pres Zelensky), they call him a "dick-tator", etc.
The circus must go on.
Delicious!
Maiden was not legitimate, and Ukraine is "permanent Maiden these days".
You can see the propaganda justification for violence happening right in front of us, in real time.
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2022, 03:30:42 AM
Delicious!
Maiden was not legitimate, and Ukraine is "permanent Maiden these days".
You can see the propaganda justification for violence happening right in front of us, in real time.
No that's your assumption. I said specifically the 2014 Maidan was not legitimate.
I see all these non-stop maidans as a permanent circus in the country I used to love, but no longer recognise. Poor, poor people over there, caught in this ongoing disaster.
Edit: also, I've always maintained that Russia won't invade this country, so why would I "justify" the invasion I don't believe will happen? That's
your talking point, not mine. Which is why I didn't even think about.
Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2022, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 16, 2022, 02:14:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2022, 11:22:03 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 15, 2022, 02:26:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 14, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
I think the only way you can look at the expansion of NATO as "threatening" to Russia is if you insist on looking at Russian security from the eyes of the mid 20th century.
And while it is reasonable to look and note that historically, Russia was invaded twice from the West (well...once really, but from Russians perspective...) in the space of two generations....well, does anyone actually buy that as a credible threat, NOW?
People raised during the Cold War are currently running Russia. So yes, they totally do think like that.
I don't believe it. Hell, I don't actually think even Soviet Cold Warriors thought there was ever a credible threat of NATO sending tanks into the USSR.
It was about their ability to send tank into the West, not "defense" against attack. That was just the excuse. And you can tell from the force makeup that that was the case.
What I mean is that these people's entire world view is based on confrontation between Russia and the West. So expecting them to not view NATO as the Enemy is wishful thinking.
That is not at all my point.
My point is that I don't believe they see any credible threat that the West is going to actually attack Russia. Their "security" is not actually at risk at all, and they know that, and have known that for a very, very long time.
They pretend like they have some kind of worry about about NATO attacking Russia ala June 6th, 1941. They have no such concern.
We are their enemy because we don't want to let them bully and attack their neighbours, not because they actually have any fear that Russia will be attacked.
Well, I think there are signs that Russian leadership is starting to believe its own propaganda, and I'm not the only one thinking that (there are Russian commentators who write more in-depth analysis of that). But from the West's point of view it doesn't matter too much, since we couldn't give in to Russian demands either way.
Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2022, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 16, 2022, 02:14:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2022, 11:22:03 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 15, 2022, 02:26:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 14, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
I think the only way you can look at the expansion of NATO as "threatening" to Russia is if you insist on looking at Russian security from the eyes of the mid 20th century.
And while it is reasonable to look and note that historically, Russia was invaded twice from the West (well...once really, but from Russians perspective...) in the space of two generations....well, does anyone actually buy that as a credible threat, NOW?
People raised during the Cold War are currently running Russia. So yes, they totally do think like that.
I don't believe it. Hell, I don't actually think even Soviet Cold Warriors thought there was ever a credible threat of NATO sending tanks into the USSR.
It was about their ability to send tank into the West, not "defense" against attack. That was just the excuse. And you can tell from the force makeup that that was the case.
What I mean is that these people's entire world view is based on confrontation between Russia and the West. So expecting them to not view NATO as the Enemy is wishful thinking.
That is not at all my point.
My point is that I don't believe they see any credible threat that the West is going to actually attack Russia. Their "security" is not actually at risk at all, and they know that, and have known that for a very, very long time.
They pretend like they have some kind of worry about about NATO attacking Russia ala June 6th, 1941. They have no such concern.
We are their enemy because we don't want to let them bully and attack their neighbours, not because they actually have any fear that Russia will be attacked.
Eh... the USSR panicked over Able Archer and thought it was the preparation for WWIII. So, clearly at some points in time the Soviets were truly concerned about this.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2022, 05:06:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2022, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 16, 2022, 02:14:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2022, 11:22:03 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 15, 2022, 02:26:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 14, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
I think the only way you can look at the expansion of NATO as "threatening" to Russia is if you insist on looking at Russian security from the eyes of the mid 20th century.
And while it is reasonable to look and note that historically, Russia was invaded twice from the West (well...once really, but from Russians perspective...) in the space of two generations....well, does anyone actually buy that as a credible threat, NOW?
People raised during the Cold War are currently running Russia. So yes, they totally do think like that.
I don't believe it. Hell, I don't actually think even Soviet Cold Warriors thought there was ever a credible threat of NATO sending tanks into the USSR.
It was about their ability to send tank into the West, not "defense" against attack. That was just the excuse. And you can tell from the force makeup that that was the case.
What I mean is that these people's entire world view is based on confrontation between Russia and the West. So expecting them to not view NATO as the Enemy is wishful thinking.
That is not at all my point.
My point is that I don't believe they see any credible threat that the West is going to actually attack Russia. Their "security" is not actually at risk at all, and they know that, and have known that for a very, very long time.
They pretend like they have some kind of worry about about NATO attacking Russia ala June 6th, 1941. They have no such concern.
We are their enemy because we don't want to let them bully and attack their neighbours, not because they actually have any fear that Russia will be attacked.
Eh... the USSR panicked over Able Archer and thought it was the preparation for WWIII. So, clearly at some points in time the Soviets were truly concerned about this.
I think they are concerned about a nuclear attack - they would be crazy not to.
That isn't what I am talking about though.
The idea that the West would, under any conceivable circumstances, invade Russia is ridiculous, and they know that as well as we do.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 17, 2022, 04:54:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2022, 12:39:07 PM
That is not at all my point.
My point is that I don't believe they see any credible threat that the West is going to actually attack Russia. Their "security" is not actually at risk at all, and they know that, and have known that for a very, very long time.
They pretend like they have some kind of worry about about NATO attacking Russia ala June 6th, 1941. They have no such concern.
We are their enemy because we don't want to let them bully and attack their neighbours, not because they actually have any fear that Russia will be attacked.
Well, I think there are signs that Russian leadership is starting to believe its own propaganda, and I'm not the only one thinking that (there are Russian commentators who write more in-depth analysis of that). But from the West's point of view it doesn't matter too much, since we couldn't give in to Russian demands either way.
I think it is important, and does matter. And I think the West mostly does know, and acts accordingly.
Just like it is important to not spend too much time arguing about whether or not the election was actually stolen from Trump. The people you are arguing with don't actually believe it either. So A) Don't waste much time arguing about it, and B) Recognize that you are dealing with someone who is not actually discussing real matters in good faith, and C) If you find someone who really DOES believe that, realize that they are almost certainly not very bright, and have bought into pure propaganda.
Quote from: Malthus on January 16, 2022, 07:40:59 PM
The fundamental divide, and why many Russians side with Putin despite knowing full well he's an authoritarian bully, is this: differing views of what Ukraine actually is.
People in the west tend to see Ukraine as a sovereign nation, with all the same rights other sovereign nations have; they tend to see Ukrainians as a separate ethnic-nationality.
Many I have talked to in Russia just don't see it that way. They see Ukraine as, basically, a breakaway bit of Russia, and Ukrainians as essentially Russians. To them, Ukraine is only a country with particular borders because of accidents of Soviet-era administration. Hence, taking "back" bits of what was Ukraine is no violation of sovereignty, and neither is forcing Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence.
If Ukrainians feel like being a different nation, or imagine that they are a separate ethnic nationality, that must perforce be because they have been propagandized by "the West", which hates all things Russian, and has for centuries in various ways been undermining Russia. Russians will point to the fact that many Ukrainians speak more Russian than Ukrainian, that both Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage based on the Kievian Rus, that Ukraine was only rarely a separate nation, that it's very name meant "borderlands" (it used to be called "the" Ukraine), etc.
Thing is that many Russians genuinely believe this, even if they strongly dislike Putin. No amount of historical crimes committed against Ukrainians by Russia affects this analysis - for example, if Stalin had millions of Ukrainians starved age killed, well he had millions of Russians starved and killed as well ...
I think this perception is the fundamental problem. Putin can tap into a genuine feeling on the part of many Russians. It's an excellent distraction from his pillaging of the Russian economy, his government's wretched performance during the pandemic, and many other sources of domestic discontent.
Good point about the ambiguity of what the Ukraine is Malthus. When my maternal Ukrainian great grandparents immigrated it was not from a country known as the Ukraine. It was from the Austria-Hungarian empire.
One disagreement with you though - the Ukrainians were not just another victim of bad policy. While farm collectives were certainly bad policy - the effect on the Ukrainian population was made deliberately worse. Here is a good book if you wish to learn more.
QuoteIn Red Famine , Anne Applebaum argues that more than three million of those dead were Ukrainians who perished not because they were accidental victims of a bad policy but because the state deliberately set out to kill them. Applebaum proves what has long been suspected: after a series of rebellions unsettled the province, Stalin set out to destroy the Ukrainian peasantry. The state sealed the republic's borders and seized all available food. Starvation set in rapidly, and people ate anything: grass, tree bark, dogs, corpses. In some cases, they killed one another for food. Devastating and definitive, Red Famine captures the horror of ordinary people struggling to survive extraordinary evil. Today, Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, has placed Ukrainian independence in its sights once more.
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/red-famine-stalins-war-on-ukraine-1921-1933_anne-applebaum/18236351/item/29644886/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI46m9_qu59QIVyxmtBh2KGgNNEAQYAiABEgIcIvD_BwE#idiq=29644886&edition=13523863
Red Famine is a nice book. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2022, 12:54:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 16, 2022, 07:40:59 PM
The fundamental divide, and why many Russians side with Putin despite knowing full well he's an authoritarian bully, is this: differing views of what Ukraine actually is.
People in the west tend to see Ukraine as a sovereign nation, with all the same rights other sovereign nations have; they tend to see Ukrainians as a separate ethnic-nationality.
Many I have talked to in Russia just don't see it that way. They see Ukraine as, basically, a breakaway bit of Russia, and Ukrainians as essentially Russians. To them, Ukraine is only a country with particular borders because of accidents of Soviet-era administration. Hence, taking "back" bits of what was Ukraine is no violation of sovereignty, and neither is forcing Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence.
If Ukrainians feel like being a different nation, or imagine that they are a separate ethnic nationality, that must perforce be because they have been propagandized by "the West", which hates all things Russian, and has for centuries in various ways been undermining Russia. Russians will point to the fact that many Ukrainians speak more Russian than Ukrainian, that both Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage based on the Kievian Rus, that Ukraine was only rarely a separate nation, that it's very name meant "borderlands" (it used to be called "the" Ukraine), etc.
Thing is that many Russians genuinely believe this, even if they strongly dislike Putin. No amount of historical crimes committed against Ukrainians by Russia affects this analysis - for example, if Stalin had millions of Ukrainians starved age killed, well he had millions of Russians starved and killed as well ...
I think this perception is the fundamental problem. Putin can tap into a genuine feeling on the part of many Russians. It's an excellent distraction from his pillaging of the Russian economy, his government's wretched performance during the pandemic, and many other sources of domestic discontent.
Good point about the ambiguity of what the Ukraine is Malthus. When my maternal Ukrainian great grandparents immigrated it was not from a country known as the Ukraine. It was from the Austria-Hungarian empire.
One disagreement with you though - the Ukrainians were not just another victim of bad policy. While farm collectives were certainly bad policy - the effect on the Ukrainian population was made deliberately worse. Here is a good book if you wish to learn more.
QuoteIn Red Famine , Anne Applebaum argues that more than three million of those dead were Ukrainians who perished not because they were accidental victims of a bad policy but because the state deliberately set out to kill them. Applebaum proves what has long been suspected: after a series of rebellions unsettled the province, Stalin set out to destroy the Ukrainian peasantry. The state sealed the republic's borders and seized all available food. Starvation set in rapidly, and people ate anything: grass, tree bark, dogs, corpses. In some cases, they killed one another for food. Devastating and definitive, Red Famine captures the horror of ordinary people struggling to survive extraordinary evil. Today, Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, has placed Ukrainian independence in its sights once more.
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/red-famine-stalins-war-on-ukraine-1921-1933_anne-applebaum/18236351/item/29644886/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI46m9_qu59QIVyxmtBh2KGgNNEAQYAiABEgIcIvD_BwE#idiq=29644886&edition=13523863
SO basically Ukraine had color revolutions, and Russia went in and suppressed them. How is this a bad thing? Isn't that what the UN Charter says should happen?
I am sure we could have a EU comittee look at this and note that the famine was triggered by Ukrainian peasants bitching and moaning, so it was their own fault.
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2022, 09:01:12 AM
I think they are concerned about a nuclear attack - they would be crazy not to.
That isn't what I am talking about though.
The idea that the West would, under any conceivable circumstances, invade Russia is ridiculous, and they know that as well as we do.
Here is a piece which is a bit more nuanced that explains the fear the Soviets had. It is lengthy so I have pulled some quotes.
QuoteThe historical baggage of the relationships between NATO and Russia and between the West and Russia cannot simply be ignored. And not all our disagreements are simply based on misunderstandings. Some of them are of a fundamental nature and, hence, will not disappear quickly.
QuoteIn Russian historical memory, there were five major invasions when 'the West' sent its military to 'destroy' Russia: the Polish occupation of the Kremlin in the early 17th century, the Swedish attack in the early 18th century, the Napoleon invasion of 1812, and two wars with Germany in the first half of the 20th century. In each case, the very existence of the Russian state was threatened. In this way, suspicion and fear of the West developed in the Russian mentality, even before the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.
QuoteNATO was immediately perceived by the Soviet leaders as the enemy – an 'aggressive tool of American imperialism.' Moscow took seriously the declarations about the 'roll-back of communism.' The US nuclear monopoly allowed the Pentagon to prepare for a preventive nuclear attack on the USSR. The Soviet planners, therefore, relied on the Soviet Union's huge conventional forces, which did not have a match in Central Europe.
QuoteThe admission of West Germany into NATO alarmed the Soviet leaders. In two world wars, Russians had come to recognize the awesome might of the German army and they viewed the Bundeswehr as a continuation of the Wehrmacht. The USSR responded to West Germany's admission by creating the Warsaw Pact organization, thus consolidating its control over Eastern Europe and mobilizing its resources to oppose NATO
Much more in link if you or others are interested.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2022, 12:54:14 PM
QuoteIn Red Famine , Anne Applebaum argues that more than three million of those dead were Ukrainians who perished not because they were accidental victims of a bad policy but because the state deliberately set out to kill them. Applebaum proves what has long been suspected: after a series of rebellions unsettled the province, Stalin set out to destroy the Ukrainian peasantry. The state sealed the republic's borders and seized all available food. Starvation set in rapidly, and people ate anything: grass, tree bark, dogs, corpses. In some cases, they killed one another for food. Devastating and definitive, Red Famine captures the horror of ordinary people struggling to survive extraordinary evil. Today, Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, has placed Ukrainian independence in its sights once more.
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/red-famine-stalins-war-on-ukraine-1921-1933_anne-applebaum/18236351/item/29644886/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI46m9_qu59QIVyxmtBh2KGgNNEAQYAiABEgIcIvD_BwE#idiq=29644886&edition=13523863
I think this is a bit disputed though.
Stephen Kotkin's take in book two of his Stalin biography gives an interesting account of this - he argues against a deliberate Holodomor. More that it was the inevitable result of Stalin's policies and decisions (and notes that actually proportionally the areas that were worst hit by collectivisation and de-kulakisation were Central Asia because it destroyed the pastoral economy that still hadn't recovered by the time Brezhnev came to power). For him it's a bit more like a Soviet Great Leap Forward in the combination of an absolutely catastrophic policy, aggressively policed, misreported to the centre and backed by a voluntarist mentality that with enough will they could produce a gigantic harvest the next year.
Obviously that's nothing to Ukrainian historical memory which is that it was very much a deliberate genocide - and that memory matters more.
Oh, yes certainly there is dispute. I just wanted to point out it is not as simplistic as Malthus put it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2022, 01:09:20 PM
Oh, yes certainly there is dispute. I just wanted to point out it is not as simplistic as Malthus put it.
Fair - and I think the famine and impact in Central Asia is something that I think is really missing in the story about the Great Famine. Because I'd never even heard of it before I read Kotkin's book but I think the death rate in Kazakhstan, for example, was around 25-30%. It's a huge tragedy and I think there's a couple of books on it now, but surprisingly unknown.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2022, 12:54:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 16, 2022, 07:40:59 PM
The fundamental divide, and why many Russians side with Putin despite knowing full well he's an authoritarian bully, is this: differing views of what Ukraine actually is.
People in the west tend to see Ukraine as a sovereign nation, with all the same rights other sovereign nations have; they tend to see Ukrainians as a separate ethnic-nationality.
Many I have talked to in Russia just don't see it that way. They see Ukraine as, basically, a breakaway bit of Russia, and Ukrainians as essentially Russians. To them, Ukraine is only a country with particular borders because of accidents of Soviet-era administration. Hence, taking "back" bits of what was Ukraine is no violation of sovereignty, and neither is forcing Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence.
If Ukrainians feel like being a different nation, or imagine that they are a separate ethnic nationality, that must perforce be because they have been propagandized by "the West", which hates all things Russian, and has for centuries in various ways been undermining Russia. Russians will point to the fact that many Ukrainians speak more Russian than Ukrainian, that both Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage based on the Kievian Rus, that Ukraine was only rarely a separate nation, that it's very name meant "borderlands" (it used to be called "the" Ukraine), etc.
Thing is that many Russians genuinely believe this, even if they strongly dislike Putin. No amount of historical crimes committed against Ukrainians by Russia affects this analysis - for example, if Stalin had millions of Ukrainians starved age killed, well he had millions of Russians starved and killed as well ...
I think this perception is the fundamental problem. Putin can tap into a genuine feeling on the part of many Russians. It's an excellent distraction from his pillaging of the Russian economy, his government's wretched performance during the pandemic, and many other sources of domestic discontent.
Good point about the ambiguity of what the Ukraine is Malthus. When my maternal Ukrainian great grandparents immigrated it was not from a country known as the Ukraine. It was from the Austria-Hungarian empire.
One disagreement with you though - the Ukrainians were not just another victim of bad policy. While farm collectives were certainly bad policy - the effect on the Ukrainian population was made deliberately worse. Here is a good book if you wish to learn more.
QuoteIn Red Famine , Anne Applebaum argues that more than three million of those dead were Ukrainians who perished not because they were accidental victims of a bad policy but because the state deliberately set out to kill them. Applebaum proves what has long been suspected: after a series of rebellions unsettled the province, Stalin set out to destroy the Ukrainian peasantry. The state sealed the republic's borders and seized all available food. Starvation set in rapidly, and people ate anything: grass, tree bark, dogs, corpses. In some cases, they killed one another for food. Devastating and definitive, Red Famine captures the horror of ordinary people struggling to survive extraordinary evil. Today, Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, has placed Ukrainian independence in its sights once more.
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/red-famine-stalins-war-on-ukraine-1921-1933_anne-applebaum/18236351/item/29644886/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI46m9_qu59QIVyxmtBh2KGgNNEAQYAiABEgIcIvD_BwE#idiq=29644886&edition=13523863
I definitely agree! I was merely pointing out how **Russians** view the matter. Not how **I** view the matter.
I've actually read *Red Famine* and my own views are more in line with those of my wife, who is Ukrainian, and whose maternal grandparents survived the Holodomor.
To clarify: many Russians I have discussed the matter with believe Ukrainians ought to hold no legimitate beef with Russia over past atrocities by Soviet or Tsarist leaders, because in these Russian minds, they are not crimes committed by Russia against Ukraine, but by various imperial leaders against "Russians" located in Ukraine and also elsewhere in "Russia".
Ukrainians, on the other hand, tend to feel these are in fact crimes often committed deliberately to squash Ukrainian nationalism by "Russian" leaders.
I myself believe the Ukrainians have the better argument.
Quote from: Malthus on January 17, 2022, 01:20:36 PM
I definitely agree! I was merely pointing out how **Russians** view the matter. Not how **I** view the matter.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2022, 01:06:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2022, 09:01:12 AM
I think they are concerned about a nuclear attack - they would be crazy not to.
That isn't what I am talking about though.
The idea that the West would, under any conceivable circumstances, invade Russia is ridiculous, and they know that as well as we do.
Here is a piece which is a bit more nuanced that explains the fear the Soviets had. It is lengthy so I have pulled some quotes.
QuoteThe historical baggage of the relationships between NATO and Russia and between the West and Russia cannot simply be ignored. And not all our disagreements are simply based on misunderstandings. Some of them are of a fundamental nature and, hence, will not disappear quickly.
QuoteIn Russian historical memory, there were five major invasions when 'the West' sent its military to 'destroy' Russia: the Polish occupation of the Kremlin in the early 17th century, the Swedish attack in the early 18th century, the Napoleon invasion of 1812, and two wars with Germany in the first half of the 20th century. In each case, the very existence of the Russian state was threatened. In this way, suspicion and fear of the West developed in the Russian mentality, even before the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.
QuoteNATO was immediately perceived by the Soviet leaders as the enemy – an 'aggressive tool of American imperialism.' Moscow took seriously the declarations about the 'roll-back of communism.' The US nuclear monopoly allowed the Pentagon to prepare for a preventive nuclear attack on the USSR. The Soviet planners, therefore, relied on the Soviet Union's huge conventional forces, which did not have a match in Central Europe.
QuoteThe admission of West Germany into NATO alarmed the Soviet leaders. In two world wars, Russians had come to recognize the awesome might of the German army and they viewed the Bundeswehr as a continuation of the Wehrmacht. The USSR responded to West Germany's admission by creating the Warsaw Pact organization, thus consolidating its control over Eastern Europe and mobilizing its resources to oppose NATO
Much more in link if you or others are interested.
Yeah, but they did in fact create a massive conventional army that dwarfed any NATO conventional forces, and again, the idea of NATO invading the USSR was ridiculous. Yes, I know you can find lots of Russians going on about Poland in the 17th century, but they don't belive anymore than we do - that in fact today, Putin is actually worried about NATO invading Russia because Poland did it three centuries ago.
You can find all kind of talk from Tucker Carlson about how the election was stolen as well. That doesn't mean he actually believes it, anymore then Putin believes that they need a Ukrainian buffer state to protect them from ravening hordes of Leopard tanks (both of them, presumably) sweeping across the Don.
Yeah, if you read through past the first quote you would have seen that the article talks about the Russian build up. You keep repeating your view that it is ridiculous for anyone to think NATO would attempt to invade. But you are ignoring entirely what the Soviets actually thought and the concerns they actually had.
Solmyr made an excellent point that the people running Russia now came of age during the height of the cold war and are likely very much informed by those views.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2022, 02:01:09 PM
Yeah, if you read through past the first quote you would have seen that the article talks about the Russian build up. You keep repeating your view that it is ridiculous for anyone to think NATO would attempt to invade. But you are ignoring entirely what the Soviets actually thought and the concerns they actually had.
Solmyr made an excellent point that the people running Russia now came of age during the height of the cold war and are likely very much informed by those views.
I am not ignoring it, I am saying I don't believe it, just like I don't believe that Tucker Carlson really believes the election was stolen, and I don't believe that the GOP really thinks there are caravans of illegals invading America.
Again, I am NOT ignoring it - my entire point is that what they SAY they think and what they actually think are not the same thing.
Nor do I think that the people running the USSR thought that NATO was going to invade. That was their justification for creating a gigantic army so THEY could invade. They were certainly concerned at NATO trying to dispute their ability to project power, and were concerned about a nuclear exchange as well.
But the "OMG TEH AMERIKANS AND GERMANS ARE GOING TO INVADE!"? Bullshit. You would have to be a moron to look at the forces involved and think that was ever a real threat, and you would have to be a moron to think so now. And they are not morons.
Putin does not want to keep Ukraine out of NATO because NATO in the Ukraine is a threat to Russian territorial integrity. He wants to keep NATO out of Ukraine because NATO in Ukraine is a threat to his ability to violate Ukraines territorial integrity.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 16, 2022, 03:40:02 PM
Which democratic processes was he undermining?
If anything, the elections in Ukraine worked well, unlike in Russia.
The democratic process by which the democratically elected Parliament impeached him and then, when he fled rather than face the impeachment proceedings, removed him from office, following which he appealed to Russia to overthrow the democratically elected parliament. The vote to remove him was 328-to-0 with 122 abstentions. That's democracy working when a democratically-elected president tries to rule by fiat and is deposed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2022, 02:01:09 PM
Yeah, if you read through past the first quote you would have seen that the article talks about the Russian build up. You keep repeating your view that it is ridiculous for anyone to think NATO would attempt to invade. But you are ignoring entirely what the Soviets actually thought and the concerns they actually had.
Solmyr made an excellent point that the people running Russia now came of age during the height of the cold war and are likely very much informed by those views.
Yeah - as I say I actually think Putin's view on Russian "security" is the same as has always driven Russia as Zoups put it. It's maybe a little cold war but also partly just a very long-standing fear because of Russia's geography.
I also think it's really key to try to understand the extent of the paranoia and fear in the leadership of the USSR - from the very start - because it drove their policy to a huge extent. I sort of go to the other extreme of Berk, I think it's the only way to make sense of the cold war and Soviet Union.
I think the Soviet Union/Tsarist restorationist angle on Putin is overstated, however.
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2022, 02:07:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2022, 02:01:09 PM
Yeah, if you read through past the first quote you would have seen that the article talks about the Russian build up. You keep repeating your view that it is ridiculous for anyone to think NATO would attempt to invade. But you are ignoring entirely what the Soviets actually thought and the concerns they actually had.
Solmyr made an excellent point that the people running Russia now came of age during the height of the cold war and are likely very much informed by those views.
I am not ignoring it, I am saying I don't believe it, just like I don't believe that Tucker Carlson really believes the election was stolen, and I don't believe that the GOP really thinks there are caravans of illegals invading America.
Again, I am NOT ignoring it - my entire point is that what they SAY they think and what they actually think are not the same thing.
Nor do I think that the people running the USSR thought that NATO was going to invade. That was their justification for creating a gigantic army so THEY could invade. They were certainly concerned at NATO trying to dispute their ability to project power, and were concerned about a nuclear exchange as well.
But the "OMG TEH AMERIKANS AND GERMANS ARE GOING TO INVADE!"? Bullshit. You would have to be a moron to look at the forces involved and think that was ever a real threat, and you would have to be a moron to think so now. And they are not morons.
Putin does not want to keep Ukraine out of NATO because NATO in the Ukraine is a threat to Russian territorial integrity. He wants to keep NATO out of Ukraine because NATO in Ukraine is a threat to his ability to violate Ukraines territorial integrity.
Great, you don't believe it so no one did. The world doesn't really work that way Berkut. No matter how much you think it should.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2022, 02:09:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2022, 02:01:09 PM
Yeah, if you read through past the first quote you would have seen that the article talks about the Russian build up. You keep repeating your view that it is ridiculous for anyone to think NATO would attempt to invade. But you are ignoring entirely what the Soviets actually thought and the concerns they actually had.
Solmyr made an excellent point that the people running Russia now came of age during the height of the cold war and are likely very much informed by those views.
Yeah - as I say I actually think Putin's view on Russian "security" is the same as has always driven Russia as Zoups put it. It's maybe a little cold war but also partly just a very long-standing fear because of Russia's geography.
I also think it's really key to try to understand the extent of the paranoia and fear in the leadership of the USSR - from the very start - because it drove their policy to a huge extent. I sort of go to the other extreme of Berk, I think it's the only way to make sense of the cold war and Soviet Union.
I think the Soviet Union/Tsarist restorationist angle on Putin is overstated, however.
I don't think it is hard to udnerstand the Cold War and the USSR at all.
They wanted to spread communism and their power as far as they could. The West was in their way. Hence the cold war.
You don't need to actually believe some fair tale about the West's imminent invasion of the USSR to explain their actions at all - indeed, their actions become much less explicable if you really believed that their overriding concern was stopping another invasion of the USSR after 1960 or so. Once the Soviets had nukes, the deterrent to invasion was never going to be a few more tank divisions.
And today? Pfshaw. It's beyond silly. There is no way Putin believes that the West is going to invade Russia. He is way to smart to believe something to obviously idiotic. It doesn't make any sense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2022, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2022, 02:07:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2022, 02:01:09 PM
Yeah, if you read through past the first quote you would have seen that the article talks about the Russian build up. You keep repeating your view that it is ridiculous for anyone to think NATO would attempt to invade. But you are ignoring entirely what the Soviets actually thought and the concerns they actually had.
Solmyr made an excellent point that the people running Russia now came of age during the height of the cold war and are likely very much informed by those views.
I am not ignoring it, I am saying I don't believe it, just like I don't believe that Tucker Carlson really believes the election was stolen, and I don't believe that the GOP really thinks there are caravans of illegals invading America.
Again, I am NOT ignoring it - my entire point is that what they SAY they think and what they actually think are not the same thing.
Nor do I think that the people running the USSR thought that NATO was going to invade. That was their justification for creating a gigantic army so THEY could invade. They were certainly concerned at NATO trying to dispute their ability to project power, and were concerned about a nuclear exchange as well.
But the "OMG TEH AMERIKANS AND GERMANS ARE GOING TO INVADE!"? Bullshit. You would have to be a moron to look at the forces involved and think that was ever a real threat, and you would have to be a moron to think so now. And they are not morons.
Putin does not want to keep Ukraine out of NATO because NATO in the Ukraine is a threat to Russian territorial integrity. He wants to keep NATO out of Ukraine because NATO in Ukraine is a threat to his ability to violate Ukraines territorial integrity.
Great, you don't believe it so no one did. The world doesn't really work that way Berkut. No matter how much you think it should.
I am not claiming the world works that way, but thank for yet another CC strawman.
I am saying what I think is true. I am saying that because you said I was ignoring "what they actually thought". And no, I am NOT ignoring it, I am saying that just because they SAY that is what they think, that doesn't mean that is actually what they think, and providing reasons for why I think they were not being honest about their views.
I am quite sure at no point did I argue that they didn't believe it because I don't believe it.
Do you think Tucker Carlson believes that the elections was stolen from Trump? He says he believes it, so we MUST accept that he does in fact believe it....right? Even if that makes no sense?
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 17, 2022, 03:25:51 AM
From what I know, that Maidan was not legitimate. It was a violent, unconstitutional coup.
The constitutional changes by the Russian puppet were illegal, many judges had been forced to retire before the vote, others pressured to vote in favour.
Hence why the people finally had enough and rebelled, with all the corruption and croniism going around.
Quote
Same here.
No, they are totally different situations. One was based on the myth that the election was stolen, the other was based on serious accusations that the President was a traitorous scumbag paid by Putin.
The rejection of the Euro-deal in favour of a bailout by Russia was just the last straw.
Quote
The circus must go on.
With some help from a friendly neighbor :)
Quote from: viper37 on January 17, 2022, 02:47:24 PM
With some help from a friendly neighbor :)
You think it was Russia's plan for Ukraine to charge Poroshenko with high treason (apparently the new president blames the earlier president for working for Russia) and for Poroshenko to return to Kiev today, amidst all the geopolitical hysteria?
:)
Pourquoi pas! Anything goes at this stage, lol.
(My views differ from those expressed in your post, but have no desire to engage... sorry... I have no more energy for Ukraine).
You know, it's information like this one below which may eventually turn me into a cynic. Because from a cynical point of view, it might look like Europe is giving Russia a "discount" off the promised "sanctions from hell" for the presumed Ukraine invasion scheduled for the next week or two.
"We won't disconnect you from SWIFT... we won't stop buying your gas... and we'll make sure you'll be able to receive our money."
https://app.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/ukraine-krise-swift-sanktionen-vom-tisch-eu-und-usa-ruecken-vom-ausschluss-russlands-aus-globalem-finanzsystem-ab/27982580.html?ticket=ST-287372-C1dtLHdpz4BY7chbadrJ-ap3
QuoteEurope and the USA defuse the Western sanctions threats against Moscow: The idea of disconnecting Russian banks from the payment service provider Swift and thus de fact from global financial flows is not pursued further. The Handelsblatt learned this from government sources. Instead, targeted economic penalties are being prepared against the largest Russian banks.
Americans and Europeans have been discussing for weeks how to react in the event of a Russian military operation against Ukraine. The EU threatens the Kremlin with "massive consequences", but has not yet specified them.
Excluding Russia from the Swift system across the board is too delicate for the negotiators. The move could lead to destabilization of the financial markets in the short term and promote the development of an alternative, no longer Western-dominated payment infrastructure in the medium term.
The talks between Europeans and the USA are now aimed at shaping sanctions against major Russian banks. Germany insists on exceptions so that the payment of gas and oil imports from Russia remains possible.
By the way, Mr. Trump used to introduce sanctions against Russia like clockwork, almost every month. 48 months of presidency — 40 items of sanctions.
I can't recall any sanctions by Mr. Biden since last June, maybe. I could be wrong.
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2022, 09:01:12 AM
I think they are concerned about a nuclear attack - they would be crazy not to.
That isn't what I am talking about though.
The idea that the West would, under any conceivable circumstances, invade Russia is ridiculous, and they know that as well as we do.
If you think nuclear war is on the table, than surely everything else is as well.
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2022, 09:04:38 AM
Just like it is important to not spend too much time arguing about whether or not the election was actually stolen from Trump. The people you are arguing with don't actually believe it either.
I completely disagree. People believe complete nonsense earnestly all the time. Either they're stupid and gullible from the get go or they repeat the lie so often they come to believe it. The later can happen to otherwise reasonable and intelligent people.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2022, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2022, 09:01:12 AM
I think they are concerned about a nuclear attack - they would be crazy not to.
That isn't what I am talking about though.
The idea that the West would, under any conceivable circumstances, invade Russia is ridiculous, and they know that as well as we do.
If you think nuclear war is on the table, than surely everything else is as well.
Sorry, I just now saw this point about invading Russia, so I'll add a comment here. Hope you don't mind.
I suspect that were we talking in the blessed 80s, someone would have said that "The idea that the West would, under any conceivable circumstances, invade the USSR is ridiculous." And yet, today — 40 years later — we have NATO military bases on the territory that used to be USSR, and NATO military infrastructure in Ukraine.
Did the West "invade" the USSR? Not in the same sense as the Axis invaded it in 1941 or the Napoleon's coalition invaded it in 1812. Yet, the result is more permanent.
What Russia is trying to prevent with its latest actions is having NATO troops stationed in Moscow 40 years later.
NATO is now in Kiev, one of our historical capitals, the spiritual center of our civilisation. I'm just stating facts, the actual outcomes, without any ideological colouring.
Hardly anyone plans expansion these days in the same terms as 100 years ago. Doesn't mean that the said expansion isn't happening.
Russia's persecution complex is tiresome.
Quote from: The Brain on January 18, 2022, 03:46:24 AM
Russia's persecution complex is tiresome.
Survival complex, I'd say. You may also call it "besieged tower" complex.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 18, 2022, 03:49:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 18, 2022, 03:46:24 AM
Russia's persecution complex is tiresome.
Survival complex, I'd say. You may also call it "besieged tower" complex.
Nah, I prefer the truth.
Ok so the problem IS that we are talking past each other. For us "Russia" is the current borders of the state of Russia. For you and imagine most Russians "Russia" is the full extent of the Russian Empire (or USSR if you prefer the changed flag version).
It's ok, I know how that is, Hungary went through the same phase and it took utter and complete destruction of our homeland for most (far from all) people to let go of the idea. So I don't expect it will change much for Russians either in the next 100 years.
But also obviously the rest of the world shouldn't just sign off on peoples who want to be independent going back under the very unpleasant Russian thumb. This was tried with Germany and it failed quite completely.
I love how Berkut believes that Putin is this totally smart, logical, rational guy who only acts based on real facts that he somehow has complete access to. When in fact Putin is living in a bunker which none of his officials have access to unless they undergo a two week quarantine first, and does not use smartphones or the internet.
So now that Gaijin has cemented my earlier fears that Russia may be in the same national psyche place that Germany was in the 1930s, what are the odds that the Belorussian-Russian training maneuvers announced are in fact preparation for a pincer move toward Kiev?
Also to file under the question "Is Germany a Russian vassal state now?", the UK meticulously avoided German airspace when delivering AT missiles to Ukraine:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJU1NFVXwAUFI0R?format=jpg&name=small)
Flak is often heavy over Berlin.
Quote from: Tamas on January 18, 2022, 05:16:38 AM
Also to file under the question "Is Germany a Russian vassal state now?", the UK meticulously avoided German airspace when delivering AT missiles to Ukraine:
Apparently more flights today - it looks like back-to-back flights of anti-tank and other weapons/trainers who are also being deployed to the Ukrainian military. We also signed a big deal/loan on helping the Ukrainian navy rebuild and have now supplied one of the two minesweepers (decommissioned from the Royal Navy) we're sending - I think that was a fair bit ahead of schedule/moved very quickly.
I think the government's stance is right - and I liked the article by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of Defence:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/an-article-by-the-defence-secretary-on-the-situation-in-ukraine
I've seen it being picked up and getting a lot of attention online by politicians and journalists in Ukraine and Eastern Europe as a very good piece. It seems like Ukrainian and othe Eastern European politicians/journalists in Poland, the Baltics etc noticing what the UK's doing right now in making an argument about this, but also rushing to ship in material support. I've said before but over the last three months there's been Royal Navy port calls in the Baltic and Ukraine, there's been visits by the Foreign and Defence Secretaries to Kyiv, Warsaw, the Baltic states and Finland - it all looks pretty coordinated (and, especially for this government, competent) at trying to send a message to those allies and Ukraine, but also to the Kremlin.
Also striking is that it's an area of more or less consensus in the UK - so the shadow Foreign and Defence Secretaries were just on a trip to Ukraine. The Labour response to the government's statement on Ukraine last night was broadly supportive with some practical questions - a world away from where we'd be with Corbyn as leader.
The missing piece is properly cracking down on money-laundering/facilitating corruption which is essential. Tom Tugendhat has done a big piece on this and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is launching an investigation into it so hopefully that leads to some reform as I think everyone recognises it's a problem.
But in "meanwhile in Germany" news - from the Guardian's Berlin correspondent:
QuotePhilip Oltermann
@philipoltermann
A taster of the debate on Russia-Ukraine in Germany: Matthias Platzeck, former Brandenburg state premier and chair of the German-Russian Forum, says on German TV that Russia and Germany "have to become more reliant on each other ... to make the peace more secure".
Find someone who looks at you the way Germany and Russia look at Poland. :wistful:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2022, 06:24:51 AM
.....
The missing piece is properly cracking down on money-laundering/facilitating corruption which is essential. Tom Tugendhat has done a big piece on this and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is launching an investigation into it so hopefully that leads to some reform as I think everyone recognises it's a problem.
...
I thought about this a couple of days ago having watched a piece on Ukrainian militia/homeguard volunteers training in a Kiev park/woodland area, they had nice brand new modern rifles with scopes, rails and so forth, whereas the earlier item I saw about Ukrainian troops on the Donbass frontline showed them making do with well used AK47/AKMs. :hmm:
Will the good weapons get through to where they're needed?
Worth pointing out the MoD is downplaying what's implied by that flight-patch and denying any of that:
QuoteShashank Joshi
@shashj
UK ministry of defence plays down German airspace issue. They tell me: "Germany have not denied access to its airspace as the UK did not submit a request, there has been no dispute between the UK & Germany on this issue". (I am no clearer on why UK did not submit a request).
Still, I am worried because Russia does seem to hold Germany by its gas-fueled balls. It also has a Trojan horse within NATO in the form of Hungary.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2022, 08:03:12 AM
Worth pointing out the MoD is downplaying what's implied by that flight-patch and denying any of that:
QuoteShashank Joshi
@shashj
UK ministry of defence plays down German airspace issue. They tell me: "Germany have not denied access to its airspace as the UK did not submit a request, there has been no dispute between the UK & Germany on this issue". (I am no clearer on why UK did not submit a request).
Answering a different question than the relevant one is never sus. :D
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 18, 2022, 03:33:31 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2022, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2022, 09:01:12 AM
I think they are concerned about a nuclear attack - they would be crazy not to.
That isn't what I am talking about though.
The idea that the West would, under any conceivable circumstances, invade Russia is ridiculous, and they know that as well as we do.
If you think nuclear war is on the table, than surely everything else is as well.
Sorry, I just now saw this point about invading Russia, so I'll add a comment here. Hope you don't mind.
I suspect that were we talking in the blessed 80s, someone would have said that "The idea that the West would, under any conceivable circumstances, invade the USSR is ridiculous." And yet, today — 40 years later — we have NATO military bases on the territory that used to be USSR, and NATO military infrastructure in Ukraine.
Did the West "invade" the USSR? Not in the same sense as the Axis invaded it in 1941 or the Napoleon's coalition invaded it in 1812. Yet, the result is more permanent.
What Russia is trying to prevent with its latest actions is having NATO troops stationed in Moscow 40 years later.
NATO is now in Kiev, one of our historical capitals, the spiritual center of our civilisation. I'm just stating facts, the actual outcomes, without any ideological colouring.
Hardly anyone plans expansion these days in the same terms as 100 years ago. Doesn't mean that the said expansion isn't happening.
That is a rather fucked up and twisted way to look at things. But utterly and completely misses my point.
I was saying that Russia and the USSR used the imagined threat of military invasion to justify their own military expansion. That they don't at all actually fear NATO invading Russia, but what they do fear is NATO hampering THEIR ability to invade their neighbors militarily (as they in fact have done).
Saying that NATO has in fact expanded doesn't address my point in any way at all. It can be true, under your tortured imagination (and in direct contravention to your previously stated claim that Russia is motivated by their concerns for other countries sovereignity and the UN Charter), that NATO has expanded but that doesn't address my claim that their fear of actual invasion is made up - in fact, it reinforces my argument. Appreciate the help.
Also, btw, NATO is not in Kiev. Ukraine is not part of NATO. I thought you were all about "facts"? Is "OMG NATO IS IN KIEV!" one of those "truths" where it doesn't actually matter if it is true, as long as you feel like it is true?
You know trouble is here when someone refers to another nation, one with which they are in fact engaged in various types of hostilities, as the "spiritual centre of our civilization".
This reinforces the point I was making before: all of this talk of the rights and wrongs of this or that action has no effect on Russian opinion, because that is based on an emotional and ethno-nationalist set of motivations: to "reunite" the "Russian people", whether they want to be reunited or not.
From this Russian perspective, whether the Ukrainian government was democratically elected or not is irrelevant. Sure, they will argue that it isn't, but ultimately they do not care - the Ukrainian government is "illegitimate" because it is not Russian, and in their minds, it is the inevitable destiny of Ukraine to be what it always "should" be: part of Russia. Thus, Ukraine not wanting to be part of Russia (and indeed flirting with being part of the West) is seen as essentially treachery against historical destiny. The talk about Russian fears of invasion is really a smokescreen for a much more potent emotional response, about "reunifying" mother Russia.
The parallels with the German "Heim ins reich" is pretty powerful - with this twist: in this scenario, every Ukrainian is considered basically "volksdeutsche", whether they believe it or not; and second, Ukraine used to be part of what amounts to the Russian empire.
I agree Malthus, and that circle right back into my point about the grossly over-emphasized perceived risk of western "invasion".
You here this over and over again, and not just from Russians, but from sage westerners telling us how we have to understand Russia's security concerns in the context of Napoleon burning down Moscow and the German trenches sealing in Leningrad's population and watching them starve to death.
That is NOT "Hey, Lithuania joined NATO!". And trying to evoke the emotion of 20-30 million dead Russians to justify the response to Poland wanting to join NATO is fundamentally dishonest, *unless* you actually believe that Poland joining NATO increases the odds of there being some kind of actual repeat of June 6th, 1941. And not in some vague geopolitical sense, but in actual M1 Abrams and Leopards and Apache helicopters shooting at brave Russian soldiers desperately defending the Motherland from the invading hordes. You *have* to create the image of NATO as an *offensive* threat to justify the "right" of Moscow to ignore its neighbors sovereignity to stop them from joining NATO. If NATO is truly just defensive, and NATO being in Ukraine is not offensive threat to Russia, then that is a much harder to sell domestically and globally.
This is the standard propaganda trick of defining terms one way when you want to create an emotional response, then turning around and claiming you mean something completely different when asked to actual defend your actions in the real world and practical realities. This is done over and over and over again. It is propaganda 101.
Nobody with any actual power believes for a moment there is any risk of NATO tanks invading Russia. But they will most certainly evoke the image of the Grand Army burning into Russia and Nazi's rounding up and butchering civilians to justify their desire to have a military capable of invading and annexing the Crimea or crushing any efforts of Ukraine to show any kind of true sovereignty.
Hey did you know Croatia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro recently joined NATO? I had no idea. Well at least none of those countries border to Russia. We have so many Albanian Bunkers to wage war against Russia with now.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2022, 12:18:31 PM
Hey did you know Croatia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro recently joined NATO? I had no idea. Well at least none of those countries border to Russia. We have so many Albanian Bunkers to wage war against Russia with now.
hmm, didn't know that either. Serbia is gonna run a sequel and start WW3 aren't they?
Quote from: Solmyr on January 18, 2022, 05:10:19 AM
I love how Berkut believes that Putin is this totally smart, logical, rational guy who only acts based on real facts that he somehow has complete access to. When in fact Putin is living in a bunker which none of his officials have access to unless they undergo a two week quarantine first, and does not use smartphones or the internet.
The second sentence does not contradict the first. Arguably, it bolsters it.
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 12:10:51 PM
But they will most certainly evoke the image of the Grand Army burning into Russia
Actually, it was the Russian who did the burning themselves. They usually don't need help to burn part of their country. The parts that belong to the Motherland, but aren't filled with self-identifying 'ethnic' Russians.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2022, 12:18:31 PM
Hey did you know Croatia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro recently joined NATO? I had no idea. Well at least none of those countries border to Russia. We have so many Albanian Bunkers to wage war against Russia with now.
It's actually to have a better shot at Turkey the moment they dare leave NATO. We'll teach them a lesson they'll never forget, and the Greeks will finally have their revenge for Manzikert!
NATO is all about agression and coercion, as we all know, since its founding. All of its members joined the pact after being forced in it by British-US military might.
Honestly, I never understood those who defend Russia by claiming NATO provoked them and isolated them by extending close to their borders. There's nothing that would have prevented Russia from opening talks to join a reformed NATO and establish an era of peace and prosperity. Many overtures were made to Russia since the 90s.
They just couldn't stand the intervention in Serbia, no matter their crimes, attacking their fellow Slavic Orthodox was just a crime against humanity on par with the Nazi atrocities in Russia.
How is all this talk about Russians not living in Russia in any way at all different from the exact same argument made about Germans in Austria and the Sudetenland?
GdM mentioned earlier that Putin once said Russia should join NATO.
Hell yeah! I am all for it! That would be awesome.
Here is the thing though. If you join NATO, if you join more broadly the coalition of nations that we call the "liberal West" there are some fundamental things that have to be true.
You have to accept that using military force to resolve a dispute is, mostly, no longer on the table, *especially within the order itself*. When the game of influencing who Ukraine wants to align with doesn't go your way, you don't get to use violence to settle the argument. When you think the Crimea really ought to be part of your country, you don't get to simply take it if the political debate doesn't end how you like, IF you want to be part of the internal liberal order that is characterized by NATO and the EU.
It's like we are all in a debating group, but one of the members pulls out a knife and stabs someone when they lose the debate. You don't get to do that and still be part of the club, nor do you even get to *threaten* to do that in order to try to scare the other debaters into letting you win.
It's not like Russia is some unique flower with different historical precedents. They think Ukraine should be part of Russia? Too fucking bad. The Germans thought Austria should be part of Germany, and plenty probably still do. The Brits thought Normandy was part of Britain for a long time, and the French can make historical claim to damn near everything in Western Europe at some time or another. How many French speakers are in Switzerland? That way lies madness and chaos, because it is never, ever going to be resolved. For every Russian who thinks Ukrainians are really Russians, there are apparently a bunch of Ukrainians who think they are Ukrainian, and NOT Russian.
Get over it already. That is what this is fundamentally about. The world has moved on from regional powers defining their spheres of influence based on force and violence. That doesn't mean we aren't doing it in other ways, but those other ways have their own rules to play by, and you don't get to fall back on the violence thing when you don't get what you hoped for by those other rules. That is why Putin would never actually join NATO. By doing so, he would be giving up his ability to simply invade Georgia when they don't properly act like good little Russian vassals. He doesn't want what used to be the Soviet or Russian sphere of influence to actually be sovereign. He wants them to be vassals.
It is really pretty simple. He wants to go back to the 19th century model of how nations interact with one another, so that Russia can be the giant fish in the little pond, rather then just one of many medium sized fish in a much larger pond.
Quote from: viper37 on January 18, 2022, 12:30:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2022, 12:18:31 PM
Hey did you know Croatia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro recently joined NATO? I had no idea. Well at least none of those countries border to Russia. We have so many Albanian Bunkers to wage war against Russia with now.
It's actually to have a better shot at Turkey the moment they dare leave NATO. We'll teach them a lesson they'll never forget, and the Greeks will finally have their revenge for Manzikert!
NATO is all about agression and coercion, as we all know, since its founding. All of its members joined the pact after being forced in it by British-US military might.
Honestly, I never understood those who defend Russia by claiming NATO provoked them and isolated them by extending close to their borders. There's nothing that would have prevented Russia from opening talks to join a reformed NATO and establish an era of peace and prosperity. Many overtures were made to Russia since the 90s.
They just couldn't stand the intervention in Serbia, no matter their crimes, attacking their fellow Slavic Orthodox was just a crime against humanity on par with the Nazi atrocities in Russia.
Your memory is not that great. the cooperation agreements between Russia and NATO ended over the invasion of Crimea.
In the 1990s we desperately wanted Russia in the NATO club. I mean if the USSR had won the Cold War I bet the Union of Socialist North American States would have joined the Warsaw Pact.
But all that hope for the future of the 1990s is long past now. Now we all sit around waiting around to see which of the many doom trains rushing down the tracks at us will hit us first.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2022, 12:18:31 PM
Hey did you know Croatia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro recently joined NATO? I had no idea. Well at least none of those countries border to Russia. We have so many Albanian Bunkers to wage war against Russia with now.
North Macedonia, please. No-one wants to accidentally re-start the world's most tedious, pointless and bafflingly long-running international dispute :o :ph34r:
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 12:39:45 PM
You have to accept that using military force to resolve a dispute is, mostly, no longer on the table, *especially within the order itself*. When the game of influencing who Ukraine wants to align with doesn't go your way, you don't get to use violence to settle the argument. When you think the Crimea really ought to be part of your country, you don't get to simply take it if the political debate doesn't end how you like, IF you want to be part of the internal liberal order that is characterized by NATO and the EU.
(https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0053_defense_comparison-full.gif)
I guess all that weaponry is purely defensive, being bordered by the warmongering Canada and Mexico.
The US and other NATO countries do use force to further their national objectives, and have done so repeatedly ever since its inception. I don't think that's even disputed.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2022, 12:50:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2022, 12:18:31 PM
Hey did you know Croatia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro recently joined NATO? I had no idea. Well at least none of those countries border to Russia. We have so many Albanian Bunkers to wage war against Russia with now.
North Macedonia, please. No-one wants to accidentally re-start the world's most tedious, pointless and bafflingly long-running international dispute :o :ph34r:
I thought about it but was sure some Languish nerd would do it for me. :P
Yeah and I would rather we stop doing that.
But have we or any NATO country done so against Russia or even in Eastern Europe? The only exceptions even in Europe I can think of is that damn fool thing in the Balkans in the 1990s and even that was a dark comedy rather than a fearful show of force. Yeah so the US is going to do counter-productive and stupid blockades of Cuba and Venezuela and invade Afghanistan and Iraq but only one of those things was done by NATO.
And at the time Russia's response was more 'Afghanistan eh? Good luck with that" rather than shaking in fear at this anti-Russian aggression IIRC.
Russia's nukes ensure that even if NATO was evil we would never mess with it. I bet Ukraine wishes they had kept theirs. The US typically only bullies little countries that are unlikely to put up much of a fight and with only the small exception of France, the rest of the NATO countries are unlikely to even do that.
And I guess it goes without saying that the reason for our military spending is domestic politics and economic interests. A terrible legacy of WWII and the Cold War we just cannot shake off.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2022, 12:54:59 PM
Yeah and I would rather we stop doing that.
But have we or any NATO country done so against Russia or even in Eastern Europe? The only exceptions even in Europe I can think of is that damn fool thing in the Balkans in the 1990s and even that was a dark comedy rather than a fearful show of force. Yeah so the US is going to do counter-productive and stupid blockades of Cuba and Venezuela and invade Afghanistan and Iraq but only one of those things was done by NATO.
Bosnia, Kosovo, support in Afghanistan, Libya - off the top of my head.
I think the argument that NATO is a purely defensive organisation works better in the cold war - though even then it was partly designed (at least from a British/European perspective) primarily to keep the US in Europe. The big fear was that the US would withdraw into isolationism again so, certainly from London, NATO was a strategy to stop that happening (and we also wanted the US to step into our shoes in places like Greece).
In the 90s and the early 00s I think there's a debate about the role of NATO and what it's "for" in the world. I think the view - to an extent pushed by Blair - was basically that it was there to enforce the will of the "international community" and things like "responsibility to protect". It is worth noting that Blair's concept of the "international community" was not the same as the UN because that would give Russia and China a veto. So it was NATO as the tool or perhaps just a cover for the decisions taken by Western leaders - basically do we want to do this generally (or is it Iraq) and will the US do it. There were critics of that approach at the time who thought that NATO was being distracted/misused, but I think it reflects an organisation looking for purpose during that unipolar moment.
Since then in 2007 Putin gave his Munich speech which absolutely laid out the Russian objection to the "Western liberal order" and intent to try to overturn or create space for its opponents - I think this has since been expanded by China who are echoing a lot of that but also focusing more on the world's ecoonomic "order". Arguably Western leaders should have taken that speeh more seriously and thought about what it would mean for Europe and that NATO might, once again, be needed as a defensive alliance which is where I think we are now.
At the same time as that you have the 2008 Bucharest declaration - and I think this reflects the West and Bush at its most deluded in my view. There'd been colour revolutions. Despite Iraq I think there was an overly strong belief in "progress" and that it was all just an inevitable march which Putin (then alone) might grouch about. So the Bush administration with support from the UK and others pressured more reluctant, defence-minded countries into supporting the statement that Georgia and Ukraine would join NATO.
Then the Georgia conflict happens. Yanukovych comes back, there's Maidan and the Russian invasion. I think those expose that while NATO might be a defensive alliance there was practical desire or view that NATO should actually defend Georgia or Ukraine - would we really go to WW3 or risk a war with Russia over Georgia and Ukraine? Which I think gets how confused the purpose of NATO had become, because if it's defensive you should only allow new members if you actually to defend them which wasn't the policy at the time - and it reflects that it's right as a matter of principle to say there are no spheres of influence and defend the sovereignty of Ukraine etc, but in reality there is and it's in Russia's. We can help support the government of Ukraine in defending its sovereignty etc - but it's not Poland or the Baltics and we didn't treat an invasion of UKraine in that way and we won't if one happens tomorrow.
Edit:
Quote
But have we or any NATO country done so against Russia or even in Eastern Europe? The only exceptions even in Europe I can think of is that damn fool thing in the Balkans in the 1990s and even that was a dark comedy rather than a fearful show of force. Yeah so the US is going to do counter-productive and stupid blockades of Cuba and Venezuela and invade Afghanistan and Iraq but only one of those things was done by NATO.
And at the time Russia's response was more 'Afghanistan eh? Good luck with that" rather than shaking in fear at this anti-Russian aggression IIRC.
Just on this point specifically about the 90s and Afghanistan - the economics matters here. In the late 90s Russia had to go to the UN to request food aid. That's how bad things were.
Now because the 2000 and 2010s were generally a very good time to be an oil and gas producer Russia not in that situation. Also, unlike most other states like that - and this is down to Putin - Russia used that wealth to build up enormous foreign reserves (I think only Japan has bigger) and to cauterise exposed bits of the economy to the US which is why Russia is generally in a position and has the headroom to be recklesss/more aggressive in foreign policy. If Russia was still in the position it was in the 90s and 00s we wouldn't hear about this.
QuoteBosnia, Kosovo, support in Afghanistan, Libya - off the top of my head.
Yeah Libya. Another embarrassing shitshow. Are you sure these pathetic and ineffectual military campaigns should give anybody with a pulse cause for concern?
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2022, 01:28:34 PM
Yeah Libya. Another embarrassing shitshow. Are you sure these pathetic and ineffectual military campaigns should give anybody with a pulse cause for concern?
The point is they are military campaigns. NATO was at its most active in terms of military campaigns after the cold war precisely because it stopped being purely defensive which, in the 90s and 00s, people felt was redundant in a post-cold war Europe.
At that point we do start using NATO to meet Western objectives - it's not just sitting there with huge tank divisions to stop the Warsaw Pact from invading.
I suppose but you have to admit it is a big of a joke. Those operations would have been carried out by the US NATO or no NATO and the extent that the alliance participated was just just whomever felt like showing up. That doesn't require an alliance. I have seen no evidence that NATO is some kind of military threat that is capable of big operations including the united force of its members. If NATO was disbanded tomorrow it would make no difference at all for those kinds of operations because at the end of the day the operations the US has the desire and capability of carrying out will be carried out. These have all been coalitions of the willing type deals whatever their branding. And last I checked the actual physical location of NATO had little impact on any of them and they have all been mostly air campaigns, and the one that wasn't, Afghanistan, is no where near NATO members. So whether or not Poland or some tiny insignificant Eastern European country like NORTHERN MACEDONIA is in the alliance doesn't really matter. If the United States went insane and decided it wanted to risk nuclear war by bombing Russia like Kosovo well what difference would it make if Lithuania is in NATO? None at all.
The things that Russia doesn't like: military bases and NATO members near its territory would still be a thing even if Libya was never bombed by "NATO".
Yeah, what could possibly go wrong if Germany and France are not in the same military alliance. :P
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 12:51:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 12:39:45 PM
You have to accept that using military force to resolve a dispute is, mostly, no longer on the table, *especially within the order itself*. When the game of influencing who Ukraine wants to align with doesn't go your way, you don't get to use violence to settle the argument. When you think the Crimea really ought to be part of your country, you don't get to simply take it if the political debate doesn't end how you like, IF you want to be part of the internal liberal order that is characterized by NATO and the EU.
(https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0053_defense_comparison-full.gif)
I guess all that weaponry is purely defensive, being bordered by the warmongering Canada and Mexico.
The US and other NATO countries do use force to further their national objectives, and have done so repeatedly ever since its inception. I don't think that's even disputed.
When was the last time a NATO country attacked another NATO country?
It isn't disputed, and isn't my point.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2022, 01:31:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2022, 01:28:34 PM
Yeah Libya. Another embarrassing shitshow. Are you sure these pathetic and ineffectual military campaigns should give anybody with a pulse cause for concern?
The point is they are military campaigns. NATO was at its most active in terms of military campaigns after the cold war precisely because it stopped being purely defensive which, in the 90s and 00s, people felt was redundant in a post-cold war Europe.
At that point we do start using NATO to meet Western objectives - it's not just sitting there with huge tank divisions to stop the Warsaw Pact from invading.
This is why the West is likely to fail. This goes right back to the previou argument about why liberalism will fail - the willingness of people within our own societies to engage in this kind of sophistry *against* ourselves.
The context of the debate is the claim that Russia should be worried about NATO fucking invading Russia, and you trot out the example of NATO trying to keep Libya from turning into an even larger shitshow then it was to counter the claim that NATO is not looking to INVADE RUSSIA????
Are you freaking kidding me Shelf?
Gaijan is arguing that Russia has a legitimate national security concern that NATO is going to send armored divisions driving on Moscow, and hence is justified in keeping this huge military that they just so happen to be massing on Ukraine's border (with the claim that it is apparently their to protect Russia) because they have to stop NATO from inflicting its will on poor Russia, and you respond with "Yep, they are right! Just look at what happened in Libya where NATO inflicted its will on Libya!"
Yeah, Libya is now a vassal puppet state of the NATO empire. Obviously. All those NATO armored division led by zombie Monty into Tripoli.
The west really is doomed if this is what the *defenders* of the western liberal ideal think is rational argument in the context of opposing Russian aggression into sovereign states. Shelf and Zoupa basically coming to the defense of Putin.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 12:51:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 12:39:45 PM
You have to accept that using military force to resolve a dispute is, mostly, no longer on the table, *especially within the order itself*. When the game of influencing who Ukraine wants to align with doesn't go your way, you don't get to use violence to settle the argument. When you think the Crimea really ought to be part of your country, you don't get to simply take it if the political debate doesn't end how you like, IF you want to be part of the internal liberal order that is characterized by NATO and the EU.
I guess all that weaponry is purely defensive, being bordered by the warmongering Canada and Mexico.
And actually Zoupa...yes, in point of fact, the vast majority of US military spending IS in fact defensive.
There is more to be defended, more to be valued, on our globe then just protecting our own borders.
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 02:21:33 PMThis is why the West is likely to fail. This goes right back to the previou argument about why liberalism will fail - the willingness of people within our own societies to engage in this kind of sophistry *against* ourselves.
The context of the debate is the claim that Russia should be worried about NATO fucking invading Russia, and you trot out the example of NATO trying to keep Libya from turning into an even larger shitshow then it was to counter the claim that NATO is not looking to INVADE RUSSIA????
Are you freaking kidding me Shelf?
The point we made was in response to your claim that NATO doesn't use force against other countries to resolve issues. That has been the purpose of the NATO since the cold war - there was lots of soul searching etc about what the point of NATO was and where it came out was as an active, armed tool of the international community. The shift was being talked about actively (and broadly as a good thing) by policy makers as a way of NATO maintaining relevance - we can't pretend that away just because it doesn't fit our current rhetoric.
Of course, that happened at a point when there was no serious challenge to Western/US hegemony because China was still too poor and Russia was on the edge of collapse. Now that no longer holds it's probably best to pivot back to a primarily defensive role - especially if the US is less interested in Europe.
QuoteGaijan is arguing that Russia has a legitimate concern that NATO is going to send armored divisions driving on Moscow, and hence is justified in keeping this huge military that they just so happen to be massing on Ukraine's border (with the claim that it is apparently their to protect Russia) because they have to stop NATO from inflicting its will on poor Russia, and you respond with "Yep, they are right! Just look at what happened in Libya!"
Yeah, Libya is now a vassal puppet state of the NATO empire. Obviously.
The west really is doomed if this is what the *defenders* of the western liberal ideal think is rational argument in the context of opposing Russian aggression into sovereign states. Shelf and Zoupa basically coming to the defense of Putin.
You can see what I think on Ukraine all through this thread including just a few posts up where I posted the Defence Secretary's (in my view very solid) article on Ukraine. I've said I think the UK's policy on this is absolutely right which is rushing arms and material to Ukraine, committing to helping them re-build their navy, helping train the military (I belive UK's trained over 20k Ukrainian soldiers since 2014) and supporting their right to defend their sovereignty. I also think it's really important - and helpful - that we re-emphasise ties with allies in the region (especially Poland and the Baltics - there was a joint UK-Poland-Ukraine meeting just today) and that we do our work domestically to shut down London's roll in facilitating money laundering from Russia and Ukraine. I think literally nothing we've spoken about is relevant to what policy we should have or what we should do.
At the same time I think at this stage we should still be open for talks - there's been Chief of the Defence Staff talks to his Russian equivalent, the Secretary of Defence has invited Shoigu for talks. I think it should still operate below the head of government/state level.
And we absolutely shouldn't make over-promises or declarations that we're not going to keep. Ukraine's not an ally, practically not going to become one and we're not going to go to war over this.
We are competitors with Russia - and with China for that matter. Of course they are concerned with our presence in bordering states - as we're concerned with missiles they places in their own territory in Kaliningrad, near the Baltics or in Belarus or Ukraine. Or, for example, if China starts posting military vessels on the Atlantic through the development in Equatorial Guinea.
Somewhat ironic that some are complaining about Ukraine being treated as an annex to Russia, typing about it within the 'State of affairs in Russia' thread, when we have a dedicated thread for the conflict here:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,11775.1750.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,11775.1750.html)
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 02:21:33 PM
The west really is doomed if this is what the *defenders* of the western liberal ideal think is rational argument in the context of opposing Russian aggression into sovereign states. Shelf and Zoupa basically coming to the defense of Putin.
If Western Liberal Democracy has become so weak as to not be able to withstand a more nuanced view than the one you espouse then yes, it is truly compromised.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2022, 02:42:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 02:21:33 PMThis is why the West is likely to fail. This goes right back to the previou argument about why liberalism will fail - the willingness of people within our own societies to engage in this kind of sophistry *against* ourselves.
The context of the debate is the claim that Russia should be worried about NATO fucking invading Russia, and you trot out the example of NATO trying to keep Libya from turning into an even larger shitshow then it was to counter the claim that NATO is not looking to INVADE RUSSIA????
Are you freaking kidding me Shelf?
The point we made was in response to your claim that NATO doesn't use force against other countries to resolve issues.
NOT what I said. What I said was that if Russia wanted to join NATO, they would have to give up the idea of using force against another NATO country to resolve a dispute. This was very clear in the context of the discussion.
I did not claim that no NATO member ever used force against anyone ever.
This is exactly what I mean.
Gaijan equated Poland ASKING to join NATO as being the same thing as NATO invading another country and conquering it. You didn't remark on THAT at all, just accepted it as a fair point.
But Berkut says something very specific, and you immediately jump in with the "Well, actually, you know, NATO does use force..." in a debate where the argument is over whether Russia has a legitimate reason to feel threatened that NATO might actually invade Russia some day.
There is this tolerance of utter sophistry from the authoritarian defenders, and this willingness to pick apart our own arguments that makes no damn sense. You know what I meant, and you know perfectly well (as did Zoupa) that I was not arguing that no NATO member has ever once used force against another country.
Quote
We are competitors with Russia - and with China for that matter. Of course they are concerned with our presence in bordering states - as we're concerned with missiles they places in their own territory in Kaliningrad, near the Baltics or in Belarus or Ukraine. Or, for example, if China starts posting military vessels on the Atlantic through the development in Equatorial Guinea.
I never argued that they should not be concerned. Not once.
My argument is that they should not (and in fact are not) concern themselves with this fiction of NATO troops invading Russia. It is utter bullshit.
They should most definitely be concerened with where Ukraine leans, and obviously they would rather it lean their way.
That has nothing to do with their claim that they are justified in using military force if that concern does not go the way they want. The only valid justification for invading Ukraine if Ukraine leans more to the West then they would like is if in fact there was a credible threat that a NATO aligned Ukraine could be used as a jumping off point for an actual invasion of Russia.
Them not playing the "Lets influence the Ukraine" game as well as they would like does not justify them attacking Ukraine otherwise. Yet that is exactly what they have done, and what they are not threating to do.
And you and people like you are their happy little allies.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 18, 2022, 02:50:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 02:21:33 PM
The west really is doomed if this is what the *defenders* of the western liberal ideal think is rational argument in the context of opposing Russian aggression into sovereign states. Shelf and Zoupa basically coming to the defense of Putin.
If Western Liberal Democracy has become so weak as to not be able to withstand a more nuanced view than the one you espouse then yes, it is truly compromised.
There is nothing nuanced about your views here. It is childishly assinine to compare invading the USSR or Russia with dropping some bombs on Libya in a desperate attempt to stop a civil war.
Not to mention just letting someone claim that Lithuania joining NATO of their own free will is the same as NATO just invading Lithuania and conquering them. That passes without comment, of course. Because you are just so concerned with nuance.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2022, 02:46:17 PM
Somewhat ironic that some are complaining about Ukraine being treated as an annex to Russia, typing about it within the 'State of affairs in Russia' thread, when we have a dedicated thread for the conflict here:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,11775.1750.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,11775.1750.html)
The Belo-Russian military exercise starts in February, that thread will become quite lively then I am afraid.
I feel like Belarus is a different deal than Ukraine. Belarus doesn't seem to mind being in the Russian camp but what do I know? I have never even met somebody from Belarus.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2022, 03:10:02 PM
I feel like Belarus is a different deal than Ukraine. Belarus doesn't seem to mind being in the Russian camp but what do I know? I have never even met somebody from Belarus.
Belarus is a Russian vassal. I meant they may very well use the pretext of the maneuvers to descend down on Kiev from Belarus.
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 02:57:46 PMNOT what I said. What I said was that if Russia wanted to join NATO, they would have to give up the idea of using force against another NATO country to resolve a dispute. This was very clear in the context of the discussion.
I did not claim that no NATO member ever used force against anyone ever.
This is exactly what I mean.
Gaijan equated Poland ASKING to join NATO as being the same thing as NATO invading another country and conquering it. You didn't remark on THAT at all, just accepted it as a fair point.
Me not commenting on a post is not the same as silently assenting :P
I was responding to Valmy's comment because I think there's an overly cuddly take on Western defence spending and military action here. We absolutely did use NATO for those purposes.
QuoteBut Berkut says something very specific, and you immediately jump in with the "Well, actually, you know, NATO does use force..." in a debate where the argument is over whether Russia has a legitimate reason to feel threatened that NATO might actually invade Russia some day.
There is this tolerance of utter sophistry from the authoritarian defenders, and this willingness to pick apart our own arguments that makes no damn sense. You know what I meant, and you know perfectly well (as did Zoupa) that I was not arguing that no NATO member has ever once used force against another country.
I don't think it matters whether or not Russia has a "legitimate reason" to feel threatened - I don't even know what that means.
All of Russian history is marked by a fear of invasion and insecurity of borders - which is where it comes from: fear and insecurity. There's examples all through Russian history of the choice being understood as "invade or be invaded". I think that still shapes - and probably will shape forever - Russian thinking. That, to me, is the context in which Putin is operating - more specifically I think there is also the broken promises the West made to Russia about NATO not expanding eastward that's driving all the stuff around "legal guarantees". Everything that Putin is saying now on this seems to broadly be what multiple Russian leaders across the last thirty years have said about NATO - the only difference is that Russia's now in a position to use force.
At the same time I think we are self-deluding. Russia's a competitor of course they're going to feel threatened, because we're not care bears. Similarly the international rules based order is not neutral - it was crafted by Western policy makers, particularly in the US over decades. Treating it like some neutral normative good that anyone can and should want to join is just not connected to reality. Russia and China in different ways and for different reasons point out the hypocrisies of that order (which is often a fair point because there are hypocrisies: it's human-made and about power - I've said before that it's interesting how popular Schmitt is in China) and want to dismantle it - or they want a seat at the rule-makers table equal to the US.
That's fine. I think it's broadly worth defending but I think we should be clear eyed about it - it is what we made it, we can change it and it isn't neutral. And, bluntly, there is no space for China or Russia to sit in the rules based order because - especially with China - they'd have to be a rule maker given their size and importance and I don't think we should or are able to support that (this is partly the challenge of finding a way of working together where we need to cooperate - like climate).
QuoteI never argued that they should not be concerned. Not once.
My argument is that they should not (and in fact are not) concern themselves with this fiction of NATO troops invading Russia. It is utter bullshit.
They should most definitely be concerened with where Ukraine leans, and obviously they would rather it lean their way.
That has nothing to do with their claim that they are justified in using military force if that concern does not go the way they want. The only valid justification for invading Ukraine if Ukraine leans more to the West then they would like is if in fact there was a credible threat that a NATO aligned Ukraine could be used as a jumping off point for an actual invasion of Russia.
Them not playing the "Lets influence the Ukraine" game as well as they would like does not justify them attacking Ukraine otherwise. Yet that is exactly what they have done, and what they are not threating to do.
And you and people like you are their happy little allies.
I've never said they are justified in using military force.
And I've set out above what I think we should be doing in terms of policy. The issues seems to be not that we disagree with whether Russia would be justified in invading, or what we should do (though I'm not sure what you've said on that ) but I'm saying that for the wrong reasons or with insufficient gusto.
Foreign Office and MoD officials have been told to be ready to move into "crisis mode" at short notice. Which is a worrying sign.
Edit: Incidentally I think Baerbock in Moscow was admirably clear - again I think that's the right level for talks at the minute. And it's helpful that this message was said contradicting what Lavrov said immediately beforehand and from the German foreign minister:
https://twitter.com/dw_politics/status/1483421928853581828?s=20
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 02:57:46 PM
.....
And you and people like you are their happy little allies.
:rolleyes:
That's my response to your cross mis-characterisation of Shelf's opinion.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2022, 03:10:02 PM
I feel like Belarus is a different deal than Ukraine. Belarus doesn't seem to mind being in the Russian camp but what do I know? I have never even met somebody from Belarus.
That's not a coincidence.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2022, 03:10:02 PM
I feel like Belarus is a different deal than Ukraine. Belarus doesn't seem to mind being in the Russian camp but what do I know? I have never even met somebody from Belarus.
I had a girlfriend from Belarus once. She had no issues with our countries being a Union State. It's convenient.
Had a Belarus girlfriend once too. She was the tallest woman I ever dated. It was like that Seinfeld episode where George wants to have sex with a giant. :D
Also Berkut I'm not gonna answer your heckles, mainly because Sheilbh responds much more eloquently and I'm 99% in agreement with what he wrote. Especially his description of the non-neutral aspect of western institutions/pacts/whathaveyou.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 04:36:15 PM
Especially his description of the non-neutral aspect of western institutions/pacts/whathaveyou.
I guess my critique of this claim is you seem to be appealing to some kind of vague non-specific Platonic ideal that has no basis in reality. I don't think any human institutions can be expected to meet those kinds of standards, as they will be different for each person.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2022, 04:39:36 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 04:36:15 PM
Especially his description of the non-neutral aspect of western institutions/pacts/whathaveyou.
I guess my critique of this claim is you seem to be appealing to some kind of vague non-specific Platonic ideal that has no basis in reality. I don't think any human institutions can be expected to meet those kinds of standards, as they will be different for each person.
Indeed. You should tell that to Berkut.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 18, 2022, 02:50:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 02:21:33 PM
The west really is doomed if this is what the *defenders* of the western liberal ideal think is rational argument in the context of opposing Russian aggression into sovereign states. Shelf and Zoupa basically coming to the defense of Putin.
If Western Liberal Democracy has become so weak as to not be able to withstand a more nuanced view than the one you espouse then yes, it is truly compromised.
let's hope the woke brigade doesn't gain power then...
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 04:32:57 PM
Had a Belarus girlfriend once too. She was the tallest woman I ever dated. It was like that Seinfeld episode where George wants to have sex with a giant. :D
There was that aspect also, true :)
Meanwhile, Nazarbaev (the ex-president of Kazakhstan) showed up on video, looking quite okay. The gist of his speech is "hey, I'm just a retiree, please follow our new leader."
https://youtu.be/K0ZSwtUV_bo
After days of "reports" in the mass media — escaped to the UK, escaped to Belarus, imprisoned, maybe (God forbid) dead... he's totally fine, didn't go anywhere.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 18, 2022, 04:59:14 PM
After days of "reports" in the mass media — escaped to the UK, escaped to Belarus, imprisoned, maybe (God forbid) dead... he's totally fine, didn't go anywhere.
:lmfao: You just love to throw around that phrase "mass media" as though it was describing something, don't you? Pretty much all of the MAGAts do the same, so you might want to adopt a different approach. No media is mass.
If you want to criticize a report by some media outlet, do so, but specify the report. Otherwise, you are just giving the equivalent of "Russians have been murdering Jews for hundreds of years."
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2022, 05:06:56 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 18, 2022, 04:59:14 PM
After days of "reports" in the mass media — escaped to the UK, escaped to Belarus, imprisoned, maybe (God forbid) dead... he's totally fine, didn't go anywhere.
:lmfao: You just love to throw around that phrase "mass media" as though it was describing something, don't you? Pretty much all of the MAGAts do the same, so you might want to adopt a different approach. No media is mass.
If you want to criticize a report by some media outlet, do so, but specify the report. Otherwise, you are just giving the equivalent of "Russians have been murdering Jews for hundreds of years."
I expected you or Berkut to jump on this :)
Sorry for this tiny bit of trolling. I'll behave.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 04:36:15 PM
Also Berkut I'm not gonna answer your heckles, mainly because Sheilbh responds much more eloquently and I'm 99% in agreement with what he wrote. Especially his description of the non-neutral aspect of western institutions/pacts/whathaveyou.
Of course that's the reason. The entire content of your critique of any debate is "How is the USA fucked up in this case?". If that means you defend Putin apoligism, it is a small price to pay.
And again, this is why the West is losing to authoritarians and we are watching it happen, right in front of us.
But hey, you can feel all smug, and that is what matters, right?
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 18, 2022, 05:10:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2022, 05:06:56 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 18, 2022, 04:59:14 PM
After days of "reports" in the mass media — escaped to the UK, escaped to Belarus, imprisoned, maybe (God forbid) dead... he's totally fine, didn't go anywhere.
:lmfao: You just love to throw around that phrase "mass media" as though it was describing something, don't you? Pretty much all of the MAGAts do the same, so you might want to adopt a different approach. No media is mass.
If you want to criticize a report by some media outlet, do so, but specify the report. Otherwise, you are just giving the equivalent of "Russians have been murdering Jews for hundreds of years."
I expected you or Berkut to jump on this :)
I am sure you were completely confident Shelf or Sheilbh or CC would not call you out, that is for sure.
Quote
Sorry for this tiny bit of trolling. I'll behave.
COngrats - you are a winner at "pretending" to advance the cause of authoritarianism. Well done.
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 05:39:45 PM
COngrats - you are a winner at "pretending" to advance the cause of authoritarianism. Well done.
Okay :D
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 05:38:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 04:36:15 PM
Also Berkut I'm not gonna answer your heckles, mainly because Sheilbh responds much more eloquently and I'm 99% in agreement with what he wrote. Especially his description of the non-neutral aspect of western institutions/pacts/whathaveyou.
Of course that's the reason. The entire content of your critique of any debate is "How is the USA fucked up in this case?". If that means you defend Putin apoligism, it is a small price to pay.
And again, this is why the West is losing to authoritarians and we are watching it happen, right in front of us.
But hey, you can feel all smug, and that is what matters, right?
Oh yeah, I'm the one being smug in this thread...
On some level I wish I could see the world like you, black and white, good and evil, and be so absolutely convinced I'm right about everything. You must sleep like a baby.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 05:47:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 05:38:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 04:36:15 PM
Also Berkut I'm not gonna answer your heckles, mainly because Sheilbh responds much more eloquently and I'm 99% in agreement with what he wrote. Especially his description of the non-neutral aspect of western institutions/pacts/whathaveyou.
Of course that's the reason. The entire content of your critique of any debate is "How is the USA fucked up in this case?". If that means you defend Putin apoligism, it is a small price to pay.
And again, this is why the West is losing to authoritarians and we are watching it happen, right in front of us.
But hey, you can feel all smug, and that is what matters, right?
Oh yeah, I'm the one being smug in this thread...
On some level I wish I could see the world like you, black and white, good and evil, and be so absolutely convinced I'm right about everything. You must sleep like a baby.
I am not convinced that I am right about much at all in fact. You seem to be absolutely certain about your oh so smug "its all grey anyway, so why not Putin? At least he isn't an American" approach.
I didn't say that. As usual, you either strawman or move the goalposts. Argue with yourself.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 06:38:36 PM
I didn't say that. As usual, you either strawman or move the goalposts. Argue with yourself.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 06:38:36 PM
I didn't say that. As usual, you either strawman or move the goalposts. Argue with yourself.
You didn't say that I thought the world was black and white, good and evil, and I was right about everything? Weird...
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 18, 2022, 12:46:47 PM
Your memory is not that great. the cooperation agreements between Russia and NATO ended over the invasion of Crimea.
NATO definately cut its ties with Russia after Crimea. But Russia, its govt and its people, began to distance themselves from the West after the Balkan wars, when we attacked Serbia, among others, to try and stop the genocides there.
That was entirely their choice.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 12:51:43 PM
I guess all that weaponry is purely defensive, being bordered by the warmongering Canada and Mexico.
half of these costs are for healthcare expenditures, where as elsewhere it's not in the defense budget ;) :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2022, 02:42:07 PM
We are competitors with Russia - and with China for that matter. Of course they are concerned with our presence in bordering states - as we're concerned with missiles they places in their own territory in Kaliningrad, near the Baltics or in Belarus or Ukraine. Or, for example, if China starts posting military vessels on the Atlantic through the development in Equatorial Guinea.
But China has threatened to invade Taiwan more than a few times. With the same reasoning as Russia's threats against Ukraine: they're our people, we don't recognize their sovereignty.
If China had recognized Taiwan has an independance country and had never made any threats about invasion, would the US have troops there? Afaik, there are no US military base in Taiwan or Bengladesh. But there are troops in South Korea, another country whose neighbour dispute its right to exist.
Russia has threatened to invade its neighbouring countries, those who could have joined NATO to protect themselves. Just like, in the past, France and West Germany were willing to participate in the alliance: there were real fears of Russian tanks rolling through Western Europe.
I see Russia and China as big bullies, and like all bullies, they hate it when they can no longer bully their weaker opponent.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 05:47:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 05:38:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 04:36:15 PM
Also Berkut I'm not gonna answer your heckles, mainly because Sheilbh responds much more eloquently and I'm 99% in agreement with what he wrote. Especially his description of the non-neutral aspect of western institutions/pacts/whathaveyou.
Of course that's the reason. The entire content of your critique of any debate is "How is the USA fucked up in this case?". If that means you defend Putin apoligism, it is a small price to pay.
And again, this is why the West is losing to authoritarians and we are watching it happen, right in front of us.
But hey, you can feel all smug, and that is what matters, right?
Oh yeah, I'm the one being smug in this thread...
On some level I wish I could see the world like you, black and white, good and evil, and be so absolutely convinced I'm right about everything. You must sleep like a baby.
I thought you were absolutely convinced you were right about everything...
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 05:38:18 PM
And again, this is why the West is losing to authoritarians and we are watching it happen, right in front of us.
we're losing because a lot of us do like authoritarian streaks in our own countries, provided they're from our side.
Look at the GOP supporters who support the Jan 6th coup attempt. Look at Zenmour's supports in France. At other radical parties in Europe.
Russia always had useful idiots, it's nothing really new here.
Also, a lot of extreme peacenickism, like just before 1936. Better sacrifice the small countries than wage war with a big power. Nuclear power, also, I might add. I don't know how Putin would react with NATO troops 20k from Moscow. Stalin would have nuked Berlin in 1941, had that been a possibility. Putins has that possibility now.
Anyway. Lots of people are willing to sacrifice Ukraine and a whole lot of other countries for the same reason Czechoslovakia was sacrificed prior to WII.
They are as blind as in the past, but they genuilely believe giving Putin what he wants will avert WWIII.
And when push comes to shove, I doubt a majority in Congress, not even by party line, would be willing to openly engaged Russia. Heck, it might be closer with Taiwan, but even there I doubt the US Congress would move against China in open warfare.
And if the US does not move, no one will. US needs to take the lead for other countries to follow.
The West isn't losing. We're doing fine.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2022, 10:04:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 18, 2022, 10:01:27 PM
The West isn't losing. We're doing fine.
We are?
The One Ring was destroyed and with it the forces of Mordor and the dark lord himself. King Aragorn II Elessar rules in Minas Tirith and we are experiencing a time of peace and great prosperity.
The Swedish Commander-in-Chief has gone public with a comment that if the west agrees to the Russian demands, he will not be able to do his job.
Meanwhile, the Swedish strategic reserve, the military force of last and first (it's also a rapid reaction force) resort have moved out to Gotland, increasing the presence there with 150 soldiers. The total strategic reserve is a company on 150 soldiers. :bleeding:
Heads should be rolling over this, but the journalists are mostly leftist airheads not understanding anything so no tough questions are being asked of the politicians.
Quote from: Jacob on January 18, 2022, 10:01:27 PM
The West isn't losing. We're doing fine.
(https://www.meme-arsenal.com/memes/435fd3ca55ca8385991d5db4050d712a.jpg)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gKjI-H-tR0y48z0FvXlf3Uzt4YA=/0x0:900x500/1220x813/filters:focal(378x178:522x322):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49493993/this-is-fine.0.jpg)
Great minds think alike? :unsure:
Swedish government representatives are talking about how we cannot even think of applying to Nato, since that might provoke the bear. The traditional Swedish policy of no military alliances stand strong and we should continue with that.
That policy was all nice when we had 850.000 men, hundreds of air planes and a proper navy. We were, de facto, the northern wing of Nato in the coming Soviet attack, it was expected of everyone that Sweden would safeguard Scandinavia. There was a steel gauntlet inside the velvet glove.
Nowadays there's a jelly gauntlet.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2022, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 05:47:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 05:38:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2022, 04:36:15 PM
Also Berkut I'm not gonna answer your heckles, mainly because Sheilbh responds much more eloquently and I'm 99% in agreement with what he wrote. Especially his description of the non-neutral aspect of western institutions/pacts/whathaveyou.
Of course that's the reason. The entire content of your critique of any debate is "How is the USA fucked up in this case?". If that means you defend Putin apoligism, it is a small price to pay.
And again, this is why the West is losing to authoritarians and we are watching it happen, right in front of us.
But hey, you can feel all smug, and that is what matters, right?
Oh yeah, I'm the one being smug in this thread...
On some level I wish I could see the world like you, black and white, good and evil, and be so absolutely convinced I'm right about everything. You must sleep like a baby.
I thought you were absolutely convinced you were right about everything...
Ok? I guess you thought wrong.
We discussed a potential meeting between Putin and the new German chancellor in this thread before. The new German foreign minister was in Moscow now and at least as per the report below did not do the Western alliance a disservice.
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-sergey-lavrov-germany-annalena-baerbock/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=a2acca3c92-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_01_19_04_51&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-a2acca3c92-190296737
QuoteGermany's Baerbock faces down top Russian diplomat Lavrov in Moscow
Berlin's new foreign minister challenges Russia to 'adhere to common rules.'
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov just might have met his match.
Standing next to Annalena Baerbock, his new German counterpart, at a news conference in Moscow on Tuesday, Lavrov, the éminence grise of world diplomacy, seemed, well, a bit gray, a bit grumbly, and a tad more tiresome than his usually fearsome self.
Lavrov, who next month will complete his 18th year as Russia's top diplomat, and shortly after will celebrate his 72nd birthday, used the news conference to reiterate Moscow's many gripes against Germany, the EU and the West in general.
Meanwhile, Baerbock, who was making her first visit to the Russian capital as foreign minister from the Green party in Germany's new governing coalition, maintained steely composure throughout the encounter as she accused Russia of refusing to adhere to common rules, and challenged Lavrov on the jailing of the political opposition leader Alexei Navalny, and the shuttering of Memorial, a venerable human rights organization.
If she was at all intimidated by her far more seasoned and senior host, Baerbock did not let on.
Her opening statement lasted nearly a minute longer than Lavrov's, and she closed her prepared remarks by delivering a bit of a lecture about the obligations of public officials to maintain peace and security for their citizens, an unmistakable poking at Russia for threatening further war against Ukraine.
"We, who bear political responsibility, have no more important duty than to protect our people — especially from war and violence," she said. "I am convinced that we can achieve this best through successful talks, not against each other but with each other."
It was just under a year ago that Lavrov used a similar news conference in Moscow to brutalize and humiliate the EU's foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, calling the EU an "unreliable partner" while they were standing together, and leaking news of the expulsion of three EU diplomats from Russia, catching Borrell completely off-guard.
On Tuesday, with the current tensions sharply raising the stakes, there could hardly have been a more striking contrast.
If a year ago, Borrell had seemed unsettled and off-balance, this time it was Lavrov who seemed a bit weary. Arriving at the lectern, he gave an audible sigh and flashed a forced smile before launching into a litany of familiar gripes.
He complained about the "unproductive politicization" of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline running from Russia to Germany, and about accusations of discrimination against the German-language affiliate of the Kremlin-owned RT television station, which was taken off the air in December after German authorities said it did not have a proper broadcasting license.
Lavrov decried the "anti-Russian line" of Brussels, accused the "Kyiv regime" of "sabotaging" the Minsk 2 peace accords, and insisted — rather unconvincingly — that Moscow was not in any way responsible for recent fears of a military attack on Ukraine, even though Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned personally of a "military-technical" response if the West does not meet Moscow's demands for security guarantees.
"We do not threaten anyone," Lavrov said at Tuesday's news conference. "But we hear threats against us."
Baerbock, who at 41 is more than 30 years Lavrov's junior, did not flinch. At some points, she appeared to suggest that the repetitiveness of Russia's demands was getting boring even as she maintained a tone of respect, and reiterated Germany's willingness to negotiate, as well as its desire to rev up the so-called Normandy Format meetings consisting of Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia aimed at implementing the Minsk 2 peace accords.
"Russia has demanded security guarantees, and this has just been made clear once again," she said. "We are ready for a serious dialogue on mutual agreements and steps that will bring more security to everyone in Europe. Security for the people in Riga, security for the people in Bucharest, security for the people in Berlin, security for the people in St. Petersburg."
Baerbock was also firm in insisting that Moscow was responsible for the recent security tensions and destabilization of relations.
"I came with a thick discussion folder," she said. "It is thick because there is a whole range of topics where we have major, sometimes fundamental, differences of opinion. But it is also thick because there are so many issues where we see opportunities for more cooperation."
At several points, she stressed that Germany was a trading nation that relied on stability to do business.
"We have an even more fundamental interest in maintaining the European peace order, in which equal and binding rules apply to all, and on which all could rely," she said. "There will be no security in our common house of Europe if there are not common rules on which all can always refer to and rely on — be it in the exchange of economy, be it in the exchange of culture, be it in friendships, be it in families or even in the exchange of our two countries."
In response to Lavrov's assertions that Russia was not threatening conflict, Baerbock noted that there were 100,000 Russian soldiers mobilized on the Ukrainian border "for no understandable reason."
"It's hard not to see this as a threat," she said.
During a question and answer session, Lavrov continued his drumbeat of complaints, accusing NATO of "double standards" by saying its troop deployments in Eastern Europe were no business of Russia's, while criticizing Russia's deployments of troops within its own borders.
But NATO's troop presence is minuscule compared to Russia's mobilization on the Ukraine border, and some of the alliance's deployments — 6,000 troops across four countries as part of a new "forward presence" — were initiated only in response to Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Lavrov also repeated his insistence that it was up to the West to address Moscow's security demands, which were laid out in two proposed treaties put forward to the U.S. and NATO last month. "We are now awaiting answers as we were promised to these proposals in order to continue negotiations," he said.
Baerbock did not repeat a common recent talking point of U.S. and NATO leaders — that some of Russia's demands, including a requested guarantee that Ukraine and Georgia will never join the alliance, are "non-starters."
Instead, she calmly gave succinct, pointed answers. And when Russian journalists used a final question to push the complaint of alleged discrimination against RT, she seized the last word. "In our country, freedom of the press means that there is no state interference in this area," Baerbock said. "We have a clear constitution, which prohibits state broadcasting in Germany, regardless of whether the state is called Germany, the U.S. or Russia."
With that, she gathered up her notes, put on her face mask, and walked toward Lavrov who appeared to expect some thanks or salutatory gesture. Instead, she strode past him with barely a glance, turned and went out the door.
Germany is constitutionally forbidden from having public media? :huh:
Quote from: The Larch on January 19, 2022, 07:58:49 AM
Germany is constitutionally forbidden from having public media? :huh:
The government may not influence the content of the public broadcasters and thir financing is independent from general taxation. The public broadcasters are similar to charter companies- established by law, but operating independently.
Russia Today is directly influenced by the Russian government.
Quote from: Zanza on January 19, 2022, 08:32:19 AM
Quote from: The Larch on January 19, 2022, 07:58:49 AM
Germany is constitutionally forbidden from having public media? :huh:
The government may not influence the content of the public broadcasters and thir financing is independent from general taxation. The public broadcasters are similar to charter companies- established by law, but operating independently.
Russia Today is directly influenced by the Russian government.
What Baerbock said was that the German constitution prohibits state broadcasting, which is much more radical than the checks and balances you mention to guarantee their neutrality. So is there state broadcasting in Germany or not?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2022, 03:16:24 PM
I don't think it matters whether or not Russia has a "legitimate reason" to feel threatened - I don't even know what that means.
Concretely, it means that if you mass over a hundred thousand troops on an international border, is it because you genuinely have a reasonable fear that if you don't, a foreign country or alliance is likely to invade your country. And it matters quite a bit, because if a large troop deployment like that is not motivated for defensive reasons, then people will naturally consider the alternative explanation.
QuoteAll of Russian history is marked by a fear of invasion and insecurity of borders - which is where it comes from: fear and insecurity. There's examples all through Russian history of the choice being understood as "invade or be invaded". I think that still shapes - and probably will shape forever - Russian thinking.
Please don't take this the wrong way, as I appreciate the thoughtfulness you put into your contributions here. But in my opinion, this is 100% bullshit. American history is marked by British invasions - the soldiers of the King were burning our capital around the time Nappy took his Moscow tour. Do Americans carry an atavistic hostility to QE2? No. France and Poland I am told had some rather difficult history with Germany in the past. I guess that means that a European wide treaty is out of the question . . .
Russian citizens do not spring from the womb with an innate and genetic sense of geopolitical insecurity and paranoia. To paraphrase Rogers and Hammerstein, you have to be carefully taught. Decades of life under a state propaganda regime that deploys history as tool to reinforce the message of fear and insecurity creates that mentality, one that is very convenient for whatever power that might be in charge in the given moment.
QuoteRussia's a competitor of course they're going to feel threatened, because we're not care bears.
But threatened in what way? The details matter because it determines the appropriateness and proportionality of the response.
The us had a contingency plan to invade Canada to protect itself from the uk up until the 30s. So yeah I think America's history might have clouded its view of the uk :P after that you got nukes and world power status o less of an issue :D
Speaking of Canada:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJbV4zjXMAQcThS?format=jpg&name=900x900)
From: https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassyC
Sure the US was so paranoid of a British invasion that up to 1898 (except for the Civil War era) it essentially had no regular army to speak of, other than a skeleton force.
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2022, 09:27:09 AM
The us had a contingency plan to invade Canada to protect itself from the uk up until the 30s. So yeah I think America's history might have clouded its view of the uk :P after that you got nukes and world power status o less of an issue :D
Russia has 100,000 troops on Ukraines border RIGHT NOW. They invaded Crimea just a couple years ago, and have been sending actual troops and weapons into Ukraine in a shadow war for the last several years.
Countering that reality with "The US has contingency plans for invading the UK"....what's the fucking point here? Are you really trying to argue that we should consider the threat of Russia in some way or fashion to being no more worrisome then the idea of the US invading Canada?
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 09:35:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2022, 09:27:09 AM
The us had a contingency plan to invade Canada to protect itself from the uk up until the 30s. So yeah I think America's history might have clouded its view of the uk :P after that you got nukes and world power status o less of an issue :D
Russia has 100,000 troops on Ukraines border RIGHT NOW. They invaded Crimea just a couple years ago, and have been sending actual troops and weapons into Ukraine in a shadow war for the last several years.
Countering that reality with "The US has contingency plans for invading the UK"....what's the fucking point here? Are you really trying to argue that we should consider the threat of Russia in some way or fashion to being no more worrisome then the idea of the US invading Canada?
My point was that America's history did cloud their view of the uk and they carried a " atavistic hostility" towards the uk a century and a half after their last conflict, counter to minsky's characterization. I didn't mention the Ukraine at all so unbunch your parties.
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2022, 09:38:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 09:35:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2022, 09:27:09 AM
The us had a contingency plan to invade Canada to protect itself from the uk up until the 30s. So yeah I think America's history might have clouded its view of the uk :P after that you got nukes and world power status o less of an issue :D
Russia has 100,000 troops on Ukraines border RIGHT NOW. They invaded Crimea just a couple years ago, and have been sending actual troops and weapons into Ukraine in a shadow war for the last several years.
Countering that reality with "The US has contingency plans for invading the UK"....what's the fucking point here? Are you really trying to argue that we should consider the threat of Russia in some way or fashion to being no more worrisome then the idea of the US invading Canada?
My point was that America's history did cloud their view of the uk and they carried a " atavistic hostility" towards the uk centuries after their last conflict, counter to minsky's characterization. I didn't mention the Ukraine at all so unbundling your parties.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Russia is the only country in the world with history that clouds their views. Hell, understanding your history doesn't cloud anything necessarily.
But the US does not have a contingency plan to invade Canada because of our history with the UK. We have one because there are people whose job it is to have a contingency plan for every possible contingency. Hence the name.
Minsky's point is that every country has history, but they don't all respond in the same way. And the claim being made is that Russia is somehow different and special and should be given exceptional consideration when it comes to their claims about how they feel so threatened they have no choice but to act like belligerent assholes are, well, bullshit.
Lots of countries have similar histories and seem to have gotten over their own clouds in a manner that allows them to play reasonable nicely with others. I bet Poland has a contingency plan to invade Germany....but they don't actually do it, or even threaten to do it.
War plan red, which was the name (IIRC) of the plan for war against Canada (and IIRC the UK) was a thought experiment, that's all.
War plan orange, the one for war with Japan was the one that was fleshed out properly.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 19, 2022, 09:22:05 AMConcretely, it means that if you mass over a hundred thousand troops on an international border, is it because you genuinely have a reasonable fear that if you don't, a foreign country or alliance is likely to invade your country. And it matters quite a bit, because if a large troop deployment like that is not motivated for defensive reasons, then people will naturally consider the alternative explanation.
I don't think there's any doubt the force is there as a threat - either just to force events, for an invasion or for coercive diplomacy.
But even if it wasn't I don't know that it would necessarily matter - Ukraine's a country the western alliance has a growing relationship with. So I can't imagine the circumstances where we'd be willing to throw that away and let them be pulled into a Russian sphere.
QuotePlease don't take this the wrong way, as I appreciate the thoughtfulness you put into your contributions here. But in my opinion, this is 100% bullshit. American history is marked by British invasions - the soldiers of the King were burning our capital around the time Nappy took his Moscow tour. Do Americans carry an atavistic hostility to QE2? No. France and Poland I am told had some rather difficult history with Germany in the past. I guess that means that a European wide treaty is out of the question . . .
:lol: No worries at all.
I think Russian fear and insecurity of invasions (rather than actual invasions) is a really important part of how Russian policy makers think and respond to things. In much the same way as I think it matters that the UK is an island, that the US has two very benign borders and the deep blue sea, that Germany is at the centre of the continent - I think geography matters, in shaping how you perceive the world and respond to it. I also think history matters in that - I think the century of humiliation is key and will continue to be fundamental to China's behaviour, similarly the colonial experience and other rising post-colonial powers like India and Nigeria. You mention Poland - I think it's impossible to look at Polish fears of Germany not taking their concerns seriously and prioritising the relationship with Russia and think that isn't at least partially driven by historical myths and fears of partition, as much as actual objection to NordStream II.
We might want to wish this stuff away and emerge into a brave Beneluxian reality - but I think you'll be going through the world blind, because I think this stuff is really important. And of course the European treaties happened in the context of a year zero in Europe and were a conscious leap for Europe to escape the gravitational pull of its geography and history. I don't think that's the norm, even if it is admirable especially from that first generation of leaders.
QuoteRussian citizens do not spring from the womb with an innate and genetic sense of geopolitical insecurity and paranoia. To paraphrase Rogers and Hammerstein, you have to be carefully taught. Decades of life under a state propaganda regime that deploys history as tool to reinforce the message of fear and insecurity creates that mentality, one that is very convenient for whatever power that might be in charge in the given moment.
Absolutely. But that goes for lots of cultural or social understandings of the world, it's no different than them.
QuoteBut threatened in what way? The details matter because it determines the appropriateness and proportionality of the response.
The threat of losing UKraine (which I think they already have through the invasion - so the threat of Ukraine beginning to work) and the threat of Ukraine being supplied with, or developing technology, especially missiles, that means Russia can't meddle anymore because the risk is too high.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 01:34:37 AM
Great minds think alike? :unsure:
We might even be reacting with insufficient resolve. We might - collectively - be less coherent than we'd prefer. We might, at some point in the future, lose; and at that point we may be able to trace the origins of that potential future loss to certain actions or conditions in this moment.
Certainly, there are things I'd like for us to do differently but... our populations are not dying in massive numbers from this conflict, our economies are not collapsing, our civil societies are not collapsing, our states are not subjected to unequal and humiliating treaties reshaping our societies. This is not what losing looks like.
To claim that we are losing is a massive overstatement, to put it mildly, and lacks perspective.
Are we at a critical juncture? Yeah, looks like it.
Is the outcome in doubt? The future is always uncertain, yes. We still hold most of the cards, however.
Are we losing? No.
We are winning. Cause we have tiger blood.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 11:38:18 AMWe might even be reacting with insufficient resolve. We might - collectively - be less coherent than we'd prefer. We might, at some point in the future, lose; and at that point we may be able to trace the origins of that potential future loss to certain actions or conditions in this moment.
I think the Western response to this has actually been pretty impressive, united and a huge amount of the credit for that goes to Biden and Washington who have coordinated, worked with and briefed allies to craft this response. I think it's possibly a little more coherent and united than Putin expected.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 11:38:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 01:34:37 AM
Great minds think alike? :unsure:
We might even be reacting with insufficient resolve. We might - collectively - be less coherent than we'd prefer. We might, at some point in the future, lose; and at that point we may be able to trace the origins of that potential future loss to certain actions or conditions in this moment.
Certainly, there are things I'd like for us to do differently but... our populations are not dying in massive numbers from this conflict, our economies are not collapsing, our civil societies are not collapsing, our states are not subjected to unequal and humiliating treaties reshaping our societies. This is not what losing looks like.
To claim that we are losing is a massive overstatement, to put it mildly, and lacks perspective.
Are we at a critical juncture? Yeah, looks like it.
Is the outcome in doubt? The future is always uncertain, yes. We still hold most of the cards, however.
Are we losing? No.
I'm coming from the point of view that US is essentially in a state of cold civil war, and that cold civil war can lead to some pretty catastrophic developments. If US falls to Trump again, or someone of his ilk, what is the West going to do in the face of Russian/Chinese aggression? I don't think that 150 Swedes without any tank destroyers are going to hold the line for the western civilization. Maybe we're not losing yet, but IMO we're in a very precarious situation with no clear path out of it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 10:42:58 AM
The threat of losing UKraine (which I think they already have through the invasion - so the threat of Ukraine beginning to work) and the threat of Ukraine being supplied with, or developing technology, especially missiles, that means Russia can't meddle anymore because the risk is too high.
But that is my point from the start!
They claim that the they are motivated not be the threat of not being allowed to meddle anymore, but rather by the threat that someone is going to actually invade Russia.
THAT is what I call bullshit on. They do not actually believe that there is ANY real threat that anyone is going to invade Russia.
There is objectively no such threat, and they know that there is no such threat.
What they are actually reacting to is just what you just said - that if they do not do something, their ability to "meddle" will be removed.
But it's hard to sell invading another country in response to a presumably sovereign nation deciding to align itself with someone else. So they craft this story that they are actually under a specific military threat, so a specific military response is justified. And it is utter bullshit.
And us sagely nodding and saying "Yes, yes, those poor Russians! Did you see what the Grand Army did back in 1812? You can certainly understand why they would need to invade Georgia and get nervous about NATO in Lithuania!" Bollocks.
I am not saying they should look on the West as their buddies and friends by any means. But the idea that they actually have real concerns about being invaded are bullshit. They do not, and what is more important - *they know they do not*.
Just like the GOP knows that the election was not actually stolen.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 11:57:16 AM
I'm coming from the point of view that US is essentially in a state of cold civil war, and that cold civil war can lead to some pretty catastrophic developments. If US falls to Trump again, or someone of his ilk, what is the West going to do in the face of Russian/Chinese aggression? I don't think that 150 Swedes without any tank destroyers are going to hold the line for the western civilization. Maybe we're not losing yet, but IMO we're in a very precarious situation with no clear path out of it.
Yeah that I can agree with. A Trump victory could be catastrophic in many ways, including here. And I agree the West, as a whole, is not in top trim and things could are precarious. But that's not the same as losing. Not yet. Things can get a lot worse.
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 12:08:29 PM
They claim that the they are motivated not be the threat of not being allowed to meddle anymore, but rather by the threat that someone is going to actually invade Russia.
THAT is what I call bullshit on. They do not actually believe that there is ANY real threat that anyone is going to invade Russia.
You can repeat this as much as you want, it doesn't make it true.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 12:30:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 11:57:16 AM
I'm coming from the point of view that US is essentially in a state of cold civil war, and that cold civil war can lead to some pretty catastrophic developments. If US falls to Trump again, or someone of his ilk, what is the West going to do in the face of Russian/Chinese aggression? I don't think that 150 Swedes without any tank destroyers are going to hold the line for the western civilization. Maybe we're not losing yet, but IMO we're in a very precarious situation with no clear path out of it.
Yeah that I can agree with. A Trump victory could be catastrophic in many ways, including here. And I agree the West, as a whole, is not in top trim and things could are precarious. But that's not the same as losing. Not yet. Things can get a lot worse.
We are not losing, for sure.
What I find frustrating is that when you look at the data, we are doing pretty damn great (absent the climate which may make it all moot anyway).
But we are definitely losing the war of ideas, or at least it feels that way.
And when supposed defender of the western ideals say stuff like "The West has done nothing but fail since the end of the cold war while Russia and China seem to be winning everywhere", I think that attitude is *exactly* why we are losing the war of ideas while winning the war of actual, measurable outcomes.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 12:52:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 12:08:29 PM
They claim that the they are motivated not be the threat of not being allowed to meddle anymore, but rather by the threat that someone is going to actually invade Russia.
THAT is what I call bullshit on. They do not actually believe that there is ANY real threat that anyone is going to invade Russia.
You can repeat this as much as you want, it doesn't make it true.
Thanks for that valuable contribution to the discourse, Vlad.
Insults and condescension. Thanks for your input. You're such a small man.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJeZlkCXwAQZq3Z?format=png&name=900x900)
We are not losing. We have already lost.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 12:30:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 11:57:16 AM
I'm coming from the point of view that US is essentially in a state of cold civil war, and that cold civil war can lead to some pretty catastrophic developments. If US falls to Trump again, or someone of his ilk, what is the West going to do in the face of Russian/Chinese aggression? I don't think that 150 Swedes without any tank destroyers are going to hold the line for the western civilization. Maybe we're not losing yet, but IMO we're in a very precarious situation with no clear path out of it.
Yeah that I can agree with. A Trump victory could be catastrophic in many ways, including here. And I agree the West, as a whole, is not in top trim and things could are precarious. But that's not the same as losing. Not yet. Things can get a lot worse.
I think stability of democracy factors into the definition of winning or losing. If you can't be confident that your democracy will hold, that's not merely precarious, that's already a loss. Anxiety about the future leads to a diminished experience of the present.
I'm not sure what is being argued.
Is the argument about the sincerity of Putin's belief that Russia is under physical threat of invasion by the legions of the West? Because that is certainly not true - Putin must know that the West has neither the resources, the motivation, nor the coordination to physically attack Russia on its own initiative (indeed, the opposite appears to be true - that Russia believes that the West lacks the material and will to do anything directly military in response to a Russian invasion of non-NATO countries).
Is the argument about what the average Russian believes? There are certainly plenty online who will claim to be average Russians who believe this. Whether they are, or are in fact either paid trolls, non-Russian useful idiots, or actual Russians, can be hard to tell. No doubt there are lots of Russians who believe this, but then there are lots of Americans who believe Trump won the election. In the modern world it is apparently not difficult to get a significant portion of the public to believe anything, no matter how fact-free, with enough propaganda - though one suspects the sincerity of their "belief" in tribal shibboleths.
I remember reading in *The True Believer* how followers of various forms of authoritarianism have no difficulty in "believing" things that are absurd and contradictory. These beliefs can appear quite sincere. Maybe it is even symptomatic of a "true belief" to believe the absurd, if required to by the great leader.
However, I have trouble buying that Putin actually and sincerely believes the nonsense he spews. He's supposed to be a chess master of manipulation, not a lucky rube like Trump.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 01:19:37 PM
I think stability of democracy factors into the definition of winning or losing. If you can't be confident that your democracy will hold, that's not merely precarious, that's already a loss. Anxiety about the future leads to a diminished experience of the present.
Concerns about the stability of (American) democracy are valid, IMO, but feeling anxiety != losing. Giving up prematurely may assuage anxiety by trading in uncertainty for certainty of defeat, but that doesn't make it correct nor the right thing to do.
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 12:58:15 PM
What I find frustrating is that when you look at the data, we are doing pretty damn great (absent the climate which may make it all moot anyway).
But we are definitely losing the war of ideas, or at least it feels that way.
And when supposed defender of the western ideals say stuff like "The West has done nothing but fail since the end of the cold war while Russia and China seem to be winning everywhere", I think that attitude is *exactly* why we are losing the war of ideas while winning the war of actual, measurable outcomes.
But I don't see the relevance of that data. You measure policy success based on the priorities and objectives were - and did it succeed. It would be nice and we'd be living in a far more pleasant world if, say, global infant mortality had been a state priority of Western governments over the last 30 years. But it hasn't. So I don't see how it's remotely relevant.
By contrast with Russia, Putin took over when Russia needed food aid from the UN. He set out to restore the Russian economy and improve living standards - which he did. And to restore Russia on the world stage - which he has. I mean even this, you know, the US has repeatedly stated that it wants to direct its focus to the Pacific and not be so involved in defending very rich allies - and yet for the last month or two Putin has the world revolving around Ukraine and what he'll do. I don't think it's sustainable for Russia because I don't think Putin has a growth model beyond oil and gas, similarly I'm not sure Erdogan has one beyond construction - for India and Hungary and Poland and other "illiberal democracies" I'm less sure.
China is even clearer - they have moved from a country with over 50% absolute poverty to less than 2% absolute poverty. From a low income to a middle income country in one generation. Because that's why African leaders, for example, find China compelling. Now they're talking about more shared prosperity (reducing inequality, getting rid of bubbles in the economy and investing in the "real" economy), decarbonisation and China "standing up" in the world so that's how we can see if they're succeeding.
And there's a policy I think the West needs an answer to: what's our development model? Where's our model that doesn't involve a period of rule by a military strongman for lifting a country out of poverty? It's easy to say that African leaders, for example, are tempted by the Chinese model because they want control and they can take a cut etc - and no doubt that's part of it - but I think the main reason is that China's gone from poor to middle income and they want that for their people. Again - where's our example? I think it should absolutely be a focus.
An example I think of an incredible achievement was Gordon Brown, one of his big focuses was child poverty and it fell all the time he was chancellor and when he was PM it continued to fall even after the crash which is very impressive - similarly his goal to hugely reduce debt for the developing world.
If you look at the big policy areas I think there have been too many failures for us to sit on our laurels and contemplate how wonderful our system is - rather than overhauling it because it has failed. Two wars, one global crash, ongoing climate crisis and growing social division/dissatisfaction with democracy (not just the US: France and Italy too have really alarming poll results for wanting an authoritarian saviour) - that's not a successful policy legacy against the stated objective of western leaders over the last three decades. Even the ones that haven't been catastrophes have been like, say, European strategic autonomy - a grand goal repeated many times and not one inch closer to being achieved.
Let's look at how the West does in preserving democracy and not dividing further, dealing with climate, addressing inequality, controlling big tech, plus the broader foreign policy/security issues that vary slightly by country - because those are the big issues western leaders have been talking about. Those are the issues we judge them on. Based on the record of the last thirty I'm not flushed with confidence - now that doesn't mean I think Russia or China would deal with them better, but they're not even in that conversation because they'll have different goals (though I think Chinese success on climate is essential for the world and it'll be interesting if they do manage to deal with some of the issues they've identified because there is more overlap there).
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 01:22:46 PM
However, I have trouble buying that Putin actually and sincerely believes the nonsense he spews. He's supposed to be a chess master of manipulation, not a lucky rube like Trump.
I don't believe it either, but I'm not that confident about it. Solmyr may have a point, Putin may be getting high on his own supply. One of the biggest occupational hazards of being a dictators is keeping your grip on reality, because with increased power and tenure there are fewer and fewer checks on confirmation bias.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 01:28:08 PMI don't believe it either, but I'm not that confident about it. Solmyr may have a point, Putin may be getting high on his own supply. One of the biggest occupational hazards of being a dictators is keeping your grip on reality, because with increased power and tenure there are fewer and fewer checks on confirmation bias.
You don't even need to be a dictator for that - there's a lot going on in British politics right now that I think is people getting high on their own supply.
The US and UK went from boring to laughable in less than a generation. Winning.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 12:58:15 PM
What I find frustrating is that when you look at the data, we are doing pretty damn great (absent the climate which may make it all moot anyway).
But we are definitely losing the war of ideas, or at least it feels that way.
And when supposed defender of the western ideals say stuff like "The West has done nothing but fail since the end of the cold war while Russia and China seem to be winning everywhere", I think that attitude is *exactly* why we are losing the war of ideas while winning the war of actual, measurable outcomes.
But I don't see the relevance of that data. You measure policy success based on the priorities and objectives were - and did it succeed. It would be nice and we'd be living in a far more pleasant world if, say, global infant mortality had been a state priority of Western governments over the last 30 years. But it hasn't. So I don't see how it's remotely relevant.
By contrast with Russia, Putin took over when Russia needed food aid from the UN. He set out to restore the Russian economy and improve living standards - which he did. And to restore Russia on the world stage - which he has. I mean even this, you know, the US has repeatedly stated that it wants to direct its focus to the Pacific and not be so involved in defending very rich allies - and yet for the last month or two Putin has the world revolving around Ukraine and what he'll do. I don't think it's sustainable for Russia because I don't think Putin has a growth model beyond oil and gas, similarly I'm not sure Erdogan has one beyond construction - for India and Hungary and Poland and other "illiberal democracies" I'm less sure.
China is even clearer - they have moved from a country with over 50% absolute poverty to less than 2% absolute poverty. From a low income to a middle income country in one generation. Because that's why African leaders, for example, find China compelling. Now they're talking about more shared prosperity (reducing inequality, getting rid of bubbles in the economy and investing in the "real" economy), decarbonisation and China "standing up" in the world so that's how we can see if they're succeeding.
And there's a policy I think the West needs an answer to: what's our development model? Where's our model that doesn't involve a period of rule by a military strongman for lifting a country out of poverty? It's easy to say that African leaders, for example, are tempted by the Chinese model because they want control and they can take a cut etc - and no doubt that's part of it - but I think the main reason is that China's gone from poor to middle income and they want that for their people. Again - where's our example? I think it should absolutely be a focus.
An example I think of an incredible achievement was Gordon Brown, one of his big focuses was child poverty and it fell all the time he was chancellor and when he was PM it continued to fall even after the crash which is very impressive - similarly his goal to hugely reduce debt for the developing world.
If you look at the big policy areas I think there have been too many failures for us to sit on our laurels and contemplate how wonderful our system is - rather than overhauling it because it has failed. Two wars, one global crash, ongoing climate crisis and growing social division/dissatisfaction with democracy (not just the US: France and Italy too have really alarming poll results for wanting an authoritarian saviour) - that's not a successful policy legacy against the stated objective of western leaders over the last three decades. Even the ones that haven't been catastrophes have been like, say, European strategic autonomy - a grand goal repeated many times and not one inch closer to being achieved.
Let's look at how the West does in preserving democracy and not dividing further, dealing with climate, addressing inequality, controlling big tech, plus the broader foreign policy/security issues that vary slightly by country - because those are the big issues western leaders have been talking about. Those are the issues we judge them on. Based on the record of the last thirty I'm not flushed with confidence - now that doesn't mean I think Russia or China would deal with them better, but they're not even in that conversation because they'll have different goals (though I think Chinese success on climate is essential for the world and it'll be interesting if they do manage to deal with some of the issues they've identified because there is more overlap there).
You keep asking for "our example" and I posted several data sources that made it clear that in fact the data show that since the end of the Cold War, there has been *radical* improvement in the standards of living, education, political freedom, and an actual switch globally in the number of countries that are authoritarian versus democratic.
And you just absolutely ignore it.
You demand "examples" and then ignore them because you are so committed to this idea that the West has been this epic failure, when the reality is that that is totally untrue.
Nobody is claiming we should "sit on our laurels". Who has said that? We should keep striving to keep the momentum going, keep preaching the value of our system and how it has suceeded in driving down poverty, despotism, and increased the quality of life of people *without* the need for authoritarianism!
We should be arguing that our system actually works, and should not be afraid to come right out and say so without fear of others who claim to want the same things saying "Gosh, that is so black and white! The reality is all grey, and really, we kind of suck actually! Russia amasses 100k troops and threatens to invade Ukraine, but you know...the US has contingency plans for invading Canada, so is that really any different?"
You keep complaining about how bad we are at messaging, and yet YOUR MESSAGE is one of complete pessimism and touting how fucking awesome China has done instead.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 12:30:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 11:57:16 AM
I'm coming from the point of view that US is essentially in a state of cold civil war, and that cold civil war can lead to some pretty catastrophic developments. If US falls to Trump again, or someone of his ilk, what is the West going to do in the face of Russian/Chinese aggression? I don't think that 150 Swedes without any tank destroyers are going to hold the line for the western civilization. Maybe we're not losing yet, but IMO we're in a very precarious situation with no clear path out of it.
Yeah that I can agree with. A Trump victory could be catastrophic in many ways, including here. And I agree the West, as a whole, is not in top trim and things could are precarious. But that's not the same as losing. Not yet. Things can get a lot worse.
It is also not the same as "fine". Putin and Trump and those assholes that Duck keeps touting in France are all the same thing. A wave of fascism assailing the world. A victory by Putin weakens democracy across the west and emboldens fascists here. Yesteryear it was Spain and Cable street. Today it is Ukraine and the US capitol.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 01:28:05 PM
Let's look at how the West does in preserving democracy and not dividing further,
One of the reasons we are dividing further is because we aren't willing to actually come together and state that our system is better. Full stop.
They are.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2022, 01:39:28 PM
It is also not the same as "fine". Putin and Trump and those assholes that Duck keeps touting in France are all the same thing. A wave of fascism assailing the world. A victory by Putin weakens democracy across the west and emboldens fascists here. Yesteryear it was Spain and Cable street. Today it is Ukraine and the US capitol.
Fair.
We are under threat. We are, however, not losing.
We are losing. The only question is if we're losing more slowly than Russia.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 01:55:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2022, 01:39:28 PM
It is also not the same as "fine". Putin and Trump and those assholes that Duck keeps touting in France are all the same thing. A wave of fascism assailing the world. A victory by Putin weakens democracy across the west and emboldens fascists here. Yesteryear it was Spain and Cable street. Today it is Ukraine and the US capitol.
Fair.
We are under threat. We are, however, not losing.
We are here.
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 01:38:57 PMYou keep asking for "our example" and I posted several data sources that made it clear that in fact the data show that since the end of the Cold War, there has been *radical* improvement in the standards of living, education, political freedom, and an actual switch globally in the number of countries that are authoritarian versus democratic.
And you just absolutely ignore it.
You demand "examples" and then ignore them because you are so committed to this idea that the West has been this epic failure, when the reality is that that is totally untrue.
I've explained why I don't think the standards of living, education etc are relevant - though it would be interesting to see how much is the transformation of China to split that out in the figures. Which goes to my point of where is our development model?
And my view isn't that the West has been an epic failure - I think the post-war construction of the West was an extraordinary achievement. I think post-war reconstruction that went with it was too, as was winning the cold war. I'd still add the eastern expansion of the EU though it's obviously a little more complicated now. My point is it's been a while. The challenges are still as big and I'm not seeing much ambition or delivery.
I don't think the answer is a return to 90s triumphalism not least because I think it's bogged in formalism and process rather than what democracy's actually about. I think it's stultifying. Rather I think we need an examination of where that led us and how to fix it.
QuoteNobody is claiming we should "sit on our laurels". Who has said that? We should keep striving to keep the momentum going, keep preaching the value of our system and how it has suceeded in driving down poverty, despotism, and increased the quality of life of people *without* the need for authoritarianism!
We should be arguing that our system actually works, and should not be afraid to come right out and say so without fear of others who claim to want the same things saying "Gosh, that is so black and white! The reality is all grey, and really, we kind of suck actually! Russia amasses 100k troops and threatens to invade Ukraine, but you know...the US has contingency plans for invading Canada, so is that really any different?"
You keep complaining about how bad we are at messaging, and yet YOUR MESSAGE is one of complete pessimism and touting how fucking awesome China has done instead.
I don't think faith and preaching the old religion is good enough and I don't think message is more important than reality as experienced by voters. I don't really buy the "war of ideas" point, I think that's always second to reality and material facts.
I've said what I think western leaders across various political familes have called out as their priorities - we need to deliver on that. And we might, it may be that the old, in my view rather ossified, tea ceremony version of democracy that we have will deliver that. It's a possibility.
But based on the last thirty years I don't have much basis for thinking that. We've failed almost all the other big things and crises that have come our way in the last thirty years. And as we fail to deliver the appeal of movements that just want to overturn the entire system will grow. Whether it's Trump, the about 50% of French voters who look like they're going for the far right or the far left, the 55% of Italian voters who are voting for far right and anti-system parties. The reason that's happening is because so many voters don't think this system is delivering for them and it's not enough to just tell them they're wrong or stupid or need to look at the data or explain it to them. We need to actually make it work and deliver on some of those goals.
And I look at those examples and they remind me of Eastern European politics. For a very long time I think the assumption was that CEE would become more like Western Europe. I think if we keep the disappointment and disillusion growing then we'll get the same results and actually the future may well be Poland or Czechia: parties/movements flaring up and disappearing, persistent anti-system parties, billionaires running for office etc. It's still democracy just not as we've practiced it before.
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 03:01:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 18, 2022, 02:50:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2022, 02:21:33 PM
The west really is doomed if this is what the *defenders* of the western liberal ideal think is rational argument in the context of opposing Russian aggression into sovereign states. Shelf and Zoupa basically coming to the defense of Putin.
If Western Liberal Democracy has become so weak as to not be able to withstand a more nuanced view than the one you espouse then yes, it is truly compromised.
There is nothing nuanced about your views here. It is childishly assinine to compare invading the USSR or Russia with dropping some bombs on Libya in a desperate attempt to stop a civil war.
Not to mention just letting someone claim that Lithuania joining NATO of their own free will is the same as NATO just invading Lithuania and conquering them. That passes without comment, of course. Because you are just so concerned with nuance.
I never made that comparison, so I have no idea why "your views" refers to. I have read the views of Shelf and Zoupa though, and you have not done a very good job understanding what they are posting.
@Sheilbh: I am with Berkut here and don't get why we need a "development model". The West is literally "on top of the world" in just about every statistic that matters.
The only thing that can topple Western leadership is as you say distrust in our own system and turning to authoritarianism,I.e. becoming more like e.g. China or Russia.
Quote from: Zanza on January 19, 2022, 02:15:43 PM
@Sheilbh: I am with Berkut here and don't get why we need a "development model". The West is literally "on top of the world" in just about every statistic that matters.
The only thing that can topple Western leadership is as you say distrust in our own system and turning to authoritarianism,I.e. becoming more like e.g. China or Russia.
The main threats I see to Liberal Democracy is that it has been undermined from within by the right starting in the Reagan/Thatcher years so that now we have societies with dramatic wealth and income disparity combined with declining social mobility.
The thing that can topple Western leadership is the policies and politics of the West and the damage those things do to the West.
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2022, 09:27:09 AM
The us had a contingency plan to invade Canada to protect itself from the uk up until the 30s. So yeah I think America's history might have clouded its view of the uk :P after that you got nukes and world power status o less of an issue :D
France was invaded 3 times by Germany in less than a century. I don't think there's still a Maginot line standing in eastern France. ;)
However, there is a lot of resentment from French people toward Germany, for various reasons, but no one is fearing an imminent invasion.
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2022, 01:33:26 PM
The US and UK went from boring to laughable in less than a generation. Winning.
As opposed to Sweden saving the world with 150 troops?
Quote from: viper37 on January 19, 2022, 02:20:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2022, 09:27:09 AM
The us had a contingency plan to invade Canada to protect itself from the uk up until the 30s. So yeah I think America's history might have clouded its view of the uk :P after that you got nukes and world power status o less of an issue :D
France was invaded 3 times by Germany in less than a century. I don't think there's still a Maginot line standing in eastern France. ;)
Right, there is NATO and the EU without which there could well be a need.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 01:55:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2022, 01:39:28 PM
It is also not the same as "fine". Putin and Trump and those assholes that Duck keeps touting in France are all the same thing. A wave of fascism assailing the world. A victory by Putin weakens democracy across the west and emboldens fascists here. Yesteryear it was Spain and Cable street. Today it is Ukraine and the US capitol.
Fair.
We are under threat. We are, however, not losing.
"We"?
Have you looked South lately? :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2022, 02:20:51 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 19, 2022, 02:15:43 PM
@Sheilbh: I am with Berkut here and don't get why we need a "development model". The West is literally "on top of the world" in just about every statistic that matters.
The only thing that can topple Western leadership is as you say distrust in our own system and turning to authoritarianism,I.e. becoming more like e.g. China or Russia.
The main threats I see to Liberal Democracy is that it has been undermined from within by the right starting in the Reagan/Thatcher years so that now we have societies with dramatic wealth and income disparity combined with declining social mobility.
The thing that can topple Western leadership is the policies and politics of the West and the damage those things do to the West.
Agreed. I would add two grassroots trends: a) distrust in science and facts as presented by "elites" and b) the filter bubble in media consumption. Those exacerbate the top-down policies you mention.
Quote from: Zanza on January 19, 2022, 02:15:43 PM@Sheilbh: I am with Berkut here and don't get why we need a "development model". The West is literally "on top of the world" in just about every statistic that matters.
The West is also a small part of the world and its population. It's a limited part of the world constituted largely of former and current imperial powers and superpowers of their day who have a head-start, and countries that were basically entirely re-built after the war.
I think we're competing China on a more global scale - so I think part of that is we need a model that works for the rest of the world. How do you get from low-income to even middle income? How do you get from century of humiliation or post-colonial state to participating in the west with a voice and vote? And I think if we don't have that offer for the rest of the world - and especially if China is able to help others develop - then we will find ourselves less able to shape the world order because that will follow power and economic power especially and we either rage against the dying of the light while the world is made safe for autocrats or we do something really stupid.
I think a lot about that Laurence Summers question: "Can the US imagine a viable global economic system" in which it is no longer the dominant player? Could an American "political leader acknowledge that reality in a way that permits negotiation over what such a world would look like?... Can China be held down without inviting conflict?"
To me the best way of avoiding that is by expanding the west as that will allow us to keep pace and entrench the economic system more broadly - and part of that absolutely means we need a development model that lifts countries out of poverty without the normal military dictatorship stage from the only other examples I can think of. But also I think it's a moral imperative - it's a bit like "in the long run we're all dead". If we don't have a model for countries that aren't already part of the West - then what's it for in the face of countries and societies desperate to develop and make the leap that China has?
QuoteThe only thing that can topple Western leadership is as you say distrust in our own system and turning to authoritarianism,I.e. becoming more like e.g. China or Russia.
I think the size of the economy and market matters. I think we're already seeing this with climate - there is no solution to climate without China and China will not participate in the way the West does which is broadly under American leadership. It wants an equal voice - and in terms of impact on climate and global economy, China deserves that.
QuoteThe main threats I see to Liberal Democracy is that it has been undermined from within by the right starting in the Reagan/Thatcher years so that now we have societies with dramatic wealth and income disparity combined with declining social mobility.
I agree but it's not just the Reagan/Thatcher years - it's the last forty years of depoliticisation, moving policy areas out of democracy in the name of a liberal "consensus", "whatever works" v politics. I think that's a huge driver of issues.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 19, 2022, 02:21:57 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2022, 01:33:26 PM
The US and UK went from boring to laughable in less than a generation. Winning.
As opposed to Sweden saving the world with 150 troops?
:unsure:
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2022, 11:39:03 AM
We are winning. Cause we have tiger blood.
We're bi-winning. Win here, win there, win win everywhere!
Ukraine's president published his official address to Ukrainians:
https://youtu.be/DSMMlF9vptg
"No panic, breathe out, no need for emergency supplies." He goes on to describe the peaceful year ahead.
Net, both the Russian and Ukrainian presidents have said "no invasion."
So who is pushing the "invasion" narrative?
Probably the guys massing tons of troops on the border? :P
Anyway at this point I agree nothing will happen. But I still think we should ship all those drones to Ukraine.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 19, 2022, 01:02:31 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJeZlkCXwAQZq3Z?format=png&name=900x900)
Yep, that's an old Soviet poster from 1921: "Donbas is the heart of Russia."
Not anymore though. After the commies cut the heavily industrialised Donbas from Russia and stuck it into Ukraine ("to raise the class self-awareness of Ukrainian peasant masses"), we grew other industrial hearts.
Communists and their arbitrary borders. How many deaths they caused...
:lol: Spoke too soon on the western response being impressively united as Macron announces that "it is good that Europeans and the United States co-ordinate, but it is necessary that Europeans conduct their own dialogue" and that "these next few weeks should lead us to bring about a European proposal building a new order of security and stability. We must build it between Europeans, then share it with our NATO allies, then then propose it to the negotiation with Russia".
Russia has rejected this and said they don't want to bring too many countries in as it's counter-productive and they're talking with the US.
And I'm not sure it's likely to arrange a new order of security in a few weeks or super-helpful during a crisis - and frankly I suspect a larger proportion of EU states would prefer negotiations through the NATO channel (with the US) than through a European-only channel.
Edit: But this is what I mean about Macron would love it if we kicked some of this into the long-grass for summits on the European security architecture etc.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 03:11:43 PM
Probably the guys massing tons of troops on the border? :P
Anyway at this point I agree nothing will happen. But I still think we should ship all those drones to Ukraine.
The Russian troops are on the Russian territory in response to the NATO activity in Ukraine. We've talked this.
And yep, nothing will happen.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 19, 2022, 03:21:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 03:11:43 PM
Probably the guys massing tons of troops on the border? :P
Anyway at this point I agree nothing will happen. But I still think we should ship all those drones to Ukraine.
The Russian troops are on the Russian territory in response to the NATO activity in Ukraine. We've talked this.
And yep, nothing will happen.
Well it is hardly a proportionate response. NATO does not have thousands of troops in Ukraine.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 03:20:33 PM
:lol: Spoke too soon on the western response being impressively united as Macron announces that "it is good that Europeans and the United States co-ordinate, but it is necessary that Europeans conduct their own dialogue" and that "these next few weeks should lead us to bring about a European proposal building a new order of security and stability. We must build it between Europeans, then share it with our NATO allies, then then propose it to the negotiation with Russia".
Russia has rejected this and said they don't want to bring too many countries in as it's counter-productive and they're talking with the US.
And I'm not sure it's likely to arrange a new order of security in a few weeks or super-helpful during a crisis - and frankly I suspect a larger proportion of EU states would prefer negotiations through the NATO channel (with the US) than through a European-only channel.
I'm starting to believe all this noise is just a distraction.
Real decisions are being talked and locked away from cameras and mics.
Russia is run by secret service, after all.
Maskirovka is everything :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 03:20:33 PM
:lol: Spoke too soon on the western response being impressively united as Macron announces that "it is good that Europeans and the United States co-ordinate, but it is necessary that Europeans conduct their own dialogue" and that "these next few weeks should lead us to bring about a European proposal building a new order of security and stability. We must build it between Europeans, then share it with our NATO allies, then then propose it to the negotiation with Russia".
Russia has rejected this and said they don't want to bring too many countries in as it's counter-productive and they're talking with the US.
And I'm not sure it's likely to arrange a new order of security in a few weeks or super-helpful during a crisis - and frankly I suspect a larger proportion of EU states would prefer negotiations through the NATO channel (with the US) than through a European-only channel.
Edit: But this is what I mean about Macron would love it if we kicked some of this into the long-grass for summits on the European security architecture etc.
Love it. AUKUS comes due. Live and learn, Blinken.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 03:23:51 PM
Well it is hardly a proportionate response. NATO does not have thousands of troops in Ukraine.
Europe is small and full of NATO troops. Ukraine is small. Russia, on the other hand, is rather big and sparse in railways. It makes sense to have them where they are.
Anyway, I don't imagine the modern wars are fought with boots on the ground.
Ps: I just realised you used "Russia" and "proportionate response" in the same sentence :)
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 03:28:35 PMLove it. AUKUS comes due. Live and learn, Blinken.
Re. history mattering - see France :P :wub:
I also saw a poll that now only 40% of the French see the UK or Australia as allies :lol:
Nobody said history doesn't matter.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 19, 2022, 03:21:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 03:11:43 PM
Probably the guys massing tons of troops on the border? :P
Anyway at this point I agree nothing will happen. But I still think we should ship all those drones to Ukraine.
The Russian troops are on the Russian territory in response to the NATO activity in Ukraine. We've talked this.
And yep, nothing will happen.
Well it is hardly a proportionate response. NATO does not have thousands of troops in Ukraine.
What NATO activity are we even talking about?
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 03:28:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 03:20:33 PM
:lol: Spoke too soon on the western response being impressively united as Macron announces that "it is good that Europeans and the United States co-ordinate, but it is necessary that Europeans conduct their own dialogue" and that "these next few weeks should lead us to bring about a European proposal building a new order of security and stability. We must build it between Europeans, then share it with our NATO allies, then then propose it to the negotiation with Russia".
Russia has rejected this and said they don't want to bring too many countries in as it's counter-productive and they're talking with the US.
And I'm not sure it's likely to arrange a new order of security in a few weeks or super-helpful during a crisis - and frankly I suspect a larger proportion of EU states would prefer negotiations through the NATO channel (with the US) than through a European-only channel.
Edit: But this is what I mean about Macron would love it if we kicked some of this into the long-grass for summits on the European security architecture etc.
Love it. AUKUS comes due. Live and learn, Blinken.
More likely, it's election season in France and they still like to pretend they are big shots and having IMPORTANT BUSINESS conducted while ignoring them is upsetting.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 03:30:41 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 03:28:35 PMLove it. AUKUS comes due. Live and learn, Blinken.
Re. history mattering - see France :P :wub:
I also saw a poll that now only 40% of the French see the UK or Australia as allies :lol:
I don't get it. Why do you guys think disunity is *good?*
Quote from: Tamas on January 19, 2022, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 03:28:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 03:20:33 PM
:lol: Spoke too soon on the western response being impressively united as Macron announces that "it is good that Europeans and the United States co-ordinate, but it is necessary that Europeans conduct their own dialogue" and that "these next few weeks should lead us to bring about a European proposal building a new order of security and stability. We must build it between Europeans, then share it with our NATO allies, then then propose it to the negotiation with Russia".
Russia has rejected this and said they don't want to bring too many countries in as it's counter-productive and they're talking with the US.
And I'm not sure it's likely to arrange a new order of security in a few weeks or super-helpful during a crisis - and frankly I suspect a larger proportion of EU states would prefer negotiations through the NATO channel (with the US) than through a European-only channel.
Edit: But this is what I mean about Macron would love it if we kicked some of this into the long-grass for summits on the European security architecture etc.
Love it. AUKUS comes due. Live and learn, Blinken.
More likely, it's election season in France and they still like to pretend they are big shots and having IMPORTANT BUSINESS conducted while ignoring them is upsetting.
Indeed, while the reality is more that the EU isn't even at the negotiating table.
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 04:16:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 03:30:41 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 03:28:35 PMLove it. AUKUS comes due. Live and learn, Blinken.
Re. history mattering - see France :P :wub:
I also saw a poll that now only 40% of the French see the UK or Australia as allies :lol:
I don't get it. Why do you guys think disunity is *good?*
You play the cards you're dealt.
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 04:16:44 PM
I don't get it. Why do you guys think disunity is *good?*
Oh it's not. But it's France being France - and that's *magnificent* :P
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 03:28:35 PM
Love it. AUKUS comes due.
Your hate is amusing.
The US
The UK
Australia
It's funny how selective some people are in how they choose to "remember history".
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 04:27:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 04:16:44 PM
I don't get it. Why do you guys think disunity is *good?*
Oh it's not. But it's France being France - and that's *magnificent* :P
You do realize that Zoupa thinks you agree with him well beyond the magnificence of it....right?
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 19, 2022, 03:07:27 PM
So who is pushing the "invasion" narrative?
The 100 000 troops at Ukraine's borders?
They're merely passing through the area.
You have to understand their fear if imminent NATO invasion.
After all, GdM just told us they were there because of NATO being in Ukraine.
The fact that NATO is not actually in Ukraine is not an important part of the nuance that matters.
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 05:31:12 PM
The fact that NATO is not actually in Ukraine is not an important part of the nuance that matters.
The "funny" thing is there have been Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea for a while now. Long before NATO or any of its member States got involved in the area.
Gaiijin seems surprised that some of Russia neighbours wish to join NATO after seeing Russia invade some other neighbour. The same way one would be surpised to see bars in the windows of a house in a neighborhood where there has been multiple burglaries. People react in funny, totally unpredictable ways, sometimes.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 05:29:10 PM
They're merely passing through the area.
Yeah, they're on their way to Germany, I guess. ;)
Quote from: viper37 on January 19, 2022, 05:27:20 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 19, 2022, 03:07:27 PM
So who is pushing the "invasion" narrative?
The 100 000 troops at Ukraine's borders?
Ergh... we literally just talked this a few posts ago with Valmy :)
Quote from: viper37 on January 19, 2022, 05:35:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 05:31:12 PM
The fact that NATO is not actually in Ukraine is not an important part of the nuance that matters.
The "funny" thing is there have been Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea for a while now. Long before NATO or any of its member States got involved in the area.
Gaiijin seems surprised that some of Russia neighbours wish to join NATO after seeing Russia invade some other neighbour. The same way one would be surpised to see bars in the windows of a house in a neighborhood where there has been multiple burglaries. People react in funny, totally unpredictable ways, sometimes.
I'm all for self-determination, as long as it goes both ways.
When in 2014 the then-Ukraine government asked for a time out on negotiations regarding its trade with the EU, it was ousted with a violent coup.
You seem surprised that I don't buy the current narrative, which I see as demagogic.
Quote from: viper37 on January 19, 2022, 05:36:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2022, 05:29:10 PM
They're merely passing through the area.
Yeah, they're on their way to Germany, I guess. ;)
No :) but some of them are on their way to Belarus for joint military exercises.
Routine, I'm sure.
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 05:15:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 04:27:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 04:16:44 PM
I don't get it. Why do you guys think disunity is *good?*
Oh it's not. But it's France being France - and that's *magnificent* :P
You do realize that Zoupa thinks you agree with him well beyond the magnificence of it....right?
You've upgraded your modus operandi. Before you just put words in other people's mouth, but now you can read minds! :o
The frothiness amuses though lol
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 06:04:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2022, 05:15:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 04:27:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 04:16:44 PM
I don't get it. Why do you guys think disunity is *good?*
Oh it's not. But it's France being France - and that's *magnificent* :P
You do realize that Zoupa thinks you agree with him well beyond the magnificence of it....right?
You've upgraded your modus operandi. Before you just put words in other people's mouth, but now you can read minds! :o
The frothiness amuses though lol
What is funny is that he just said he exact same thing I said about you - that you entire perspective is about spite, and nothing more - and you didn't even notice.
The difference is that he thinks the stereotype of the smug, spiteful Frenchman is magnificent and I think its petty and ridiculous.
There you go again lol. "He thinks", "Zoupa thinks".
Try re-reading your text before posting.
What? I don't think it's spite or smugness :huh:
It's aspiration and a little bit of grandeur.
Might need some calibration on that mind-reader, Berkypooh.
Whether smugness or grandeur, it's a bit odd. Disunity in the face of aggression is bad news, not something to be happy about, I would have thought?
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 03:28:35 PM
Love it. AUKUS comes due. Live and learn, Blinken.
This is why France shouldn't have nice things.
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 06:40:36 PM
Whether smugness or grandeur, it's a bit odd. Disunity in the face of aggression is bad news, not something to be happy about, I would have thought?
Disunity in the face of Chinese aggression is also bad yes?
Yes. Do we have anything good in the face of aggression? :unsure:
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 06:44:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 06:40:36 PM
Whether smugness or grandeur, it's a bit odd. Disunity in the face of aggression is bad news, not something to be happy about, I would have thought?
Disunity in the face of Chinese aggression is also bad yes?
Yes. Why?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 06:32:34 PM
What? I don't think it's spite or smugness :huh:
It's aspiration and a little bit of grandeur.
How does this describe whining about Aukus? Seems pretty clearly spite.
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 07:03:26 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 06:44:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 06:40:36 PM
Whether smugness or grandeur, it's a bit odd. Disunity in the face of aggression is bad news, not something to be happy about, I would have thought?
Disunity in the face of Chinese aggression is also bad yes?
Yes. Why?
It's just that I missed your posts about it in the AUKUS thread back then.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 06:32:34 PM
What? I don't think it's spite or smugness :huh:
It's aspiration and a little bit of grandeur.
Who should we believe about what you think? You or Berkut?
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 07:09:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 06:32:34 PM
What? I don't think it's spite or smugness :huh:
It's aspiration and a little bit of grandeur.
Who should we believe about what you think? You or Berkut?
Calling Zoupa's butthurt nationalism grandeur is pushing it a bit though. :p
Quote from: Tamas on January 19, 2022, 07:28:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 07:09:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 06:32:34 PM
What? I don't think it's spite or smugness :huh:
It's aspiration and a little bit of grandeur.
Who should we believe about what you think? You or Berkut?
Calling Zoupa's butthurt nationalism grandeur is pushing it a bit though. :p
Not as much as Trianon pushed back Hungary's borders though. :sleep:
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 19, 2022, 03:21:01 PM
The Russian troops are on the Russian territory in response to the NATO activity in Ukraine. We've talked this.
And yep, nothing will happen.
I agree with this, but probably not in the way you intended.
To claim that the Russian troops are there to defend against a couple hundred civilian subcontractors who are training Ukrainians to use their new military gear is farcical..
They are there as a show of force to bully Ukraine into not applying for NATO membership.
Have you considered the internal inconsistency of threatening to invade a country (which has recently been invaded and had part of its territory unilaterally annexed) in order to prevent that country from entering into alliances to safeguard its security?
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 07:08:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 07:03:26 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 06:44:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 06:40:36 PM
Whether smugness or grandeur, it's a bit odd. Disunity in the face of aggression is bad news, not something to be happy about, I would have thought?
Disunity in the face of Chinese aggression is also bad yes?
Yes. Why?
It's just that I missed your posts about it in the AUKUS thread back then.
I haven't been around much.
Will this be Putin's Russia's 'Iraq 2003' moment?
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 07:29:50 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 19, 2022, 07:28:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 07:09:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 06:32:34 PM
What? I don't think it's spite or smugness :huh:
It's aspiration and a little bit of grandeur.
Who should we believe about what you think? You or Berkut?
Calling Zoupa's butthurt nationalism grandeur is pushing it a bit though. :p
Not as much as Trianon pushed back Hungary's borders though. :sleep:
Seriously, what is wrong with you?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2022, 08:31:41 PM
Seriously, what is wrong with you?
:huh:
Tamas threw a playful jab at Zoupa. Zoupa responded in kind. Or is there something about referring to political events 100 years ago that's somehow egregious?
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 06:40:36 PM
Whether smugness or grandeur, it's a bit odd. Disunity in the face of aggression is bad news, not something to be happy about, I would have thought?
Bad news, yes. Odd, not really. Despite being Canadian, Zoupa still has a little bit of French in him. You can get the French out of France, but not France out the French :P
His position is typical of the French left of the early 2000s, so not very odd to me. I'm still disapointed by this kind of attitude, from anyone, but I am not very surprised.
It is true the US does not pay much mind to its allies in time of peace, lately, multiplying the acts of economic agression.
I don't think letting Putin have another go at Ukraine is the way to solve such disputes though. When he feels he's ready to push further, he'll launch a full scale assault against another member, NATO or not. Quite possibly when he'll be certain the alliance will simply not act to defend its member, the way Trump proposed.
And when he does that, he'll be in a position to inflict much more harm. Kinda like Germany in 1936. France and the UK could have stopped Germany right there, but they didn't. By 1939, it took all of the might British Empire/Commonwealth and many other countries just to prevent the defeat/surrender of Great Britain, and we needed the US and USSR for the final push, once Germany had overextended itself.
I don't think Russia will be nice enough to declare war on China at the same time as its tanks are rolling down Warsaw and Vilnius once more.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 09:17:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2022, 08:31:41 PM
Seriously, what is wrong with you?
:huh:
Tamas threw a playful jab at Zoupa. Zoupa responded in kind. Or is there something about referring to political events 100 years ago that's somehow egregious?
Perhaps cheering Europeans disunity during a crisis seems pretty cool to you. I dunno.
I'm not sure what you're talking about Raz. Macron literally wants the opposite, EU defense and foreign policy.
Quotethese next few weeks should lead us to bring about a European proposal building a new order of security and stability. We must build it between Europeans
https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-wants-new-euro-russian-security-negotiation/
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 09:52:49 PM
I'm not sure what you're talking about Raz. Macron literally wants the opposite, EU defense and foreign policy.
Quotethese next few weeks should lead us to bring about a European proposal building a new order of security and stability. We must build it between Europeans
https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-wants-new-euro-russian-security-negotiation/
if it happens, it'll be a very good thing. But I doubt it will.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 09:52:49 PM
I'm not sure what you're talking about Raz. Macron literally wants the opposite, EU defense and foreign policy.
Yeah I think what the French claim to want to do would be great and actually in our interests.
Berkut strongly disagrees though :P
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 11:40:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 09:52:49 PM
I'm not sure what you're talking about Raz. Macron literally wants the opposite, EU defense and foreign policy.
Yeah I think what the French claim to want to do would be great and actually in our interests.
Berkut strongly disagrees though :P
Feels like empty rhetoric though.
Quote from: garbon on January 20, 2022, 12:19:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2022, 11:40:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 09:52:49 PM
I'm not sure what you're talking about Raz. Macron literally wants the opposite, EU defense and foreign policy.
Yeah I think what the French claim to want to do would be great and actually in our interests.
Berkut strongly disagrees though :P
Feels like empty rhetoric though.
Probably. I mean nobody else really seems onboard so...
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 01:22:46 PM
However, I have trouble buying that Putin actually and sincerely believes the nonsense he spews. He's supposed to be a chess master of manipulation, not a lucky rube like Trump.
I'm baffled where people got this idea. Putin is absolutely a lucky rube, he was a two-bit gang member from the slums who became a KGB pawn and then moved into organized crime, which propelled him to the top in the 90s.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 20, 2022, 04:03:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 01:22:46 PM
However, I have trouble buying that Putin actually and sincerely believes the nonsense he spews. He's supposed to be a chess master of manipulation, not a lucky rube like Trump.
I'm baffled where people got this idea. Putin is absolutely a lucky rube, he was a two-bit gang member from the slums who became a KGB pawn and then moved into organized crime, which propelled him to the top in the 90s.
While I'd agree his genius shouldn't be (over)stated as that just buys into his propaganda, dismissing him as some kind of Trumpian rich dumb papa's boy would also be a mistake. I imagine you had to be pretty cruel and cunning to survive your way to the top in Russia. Maybe it was a less dangerous road than in previous centuries but there had to be some pretty savage and cunning individuals gunning for the same job.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 20, 2022, 04:03:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 01:22:46 PM
However, I have trouble buying that Putin actually and sincerely believes the nonsense he spews. He's supposed to be a chess master of manipulation, not a lucky rube like Trump.
I'm baffled where people got this idea. Putin is absolutely a lucky rube, he was a two-bit gang member from the slums who became a KGB pawn and then moved into organized crime, which propelled him to the top in the 90s.
Your description doesn't sound Trumpian at all.
I didn't say he was like Trump, but he definitely isn't some "chess master of manipulation". What are people basing this on?
Quote from: Solmyr on January 20, 2022, 04:13:43 AM
I didn't say he was like Trump, but he definitely isn't some "chess master of manipulation". What are people basing this on?
You said he is "absolutely a lucky rube". Your description doesn't sound like a lucky rube at all.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 20, 2022, 04:03:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 01:22:46 PM
However, I have trouble buying that Putin actually and sincerely believes the nonsense he spews. He's supposed to be a chess master of manipulation, not a lucky rube like Trump.
I'm baffled where people got this idea. Putin is absolutely a lucky rube, he was a two-bit gang member from the slums who became a KGB pawn and then moved into organized crime, which propelled him to the top in the 90s.
I don't know if that career path gels with just being lucky. It's quite the impressive climb.
Sure, roll a million dice and you'll likely get a fair few sixes. But I suspect given Putins staying power there is some actual skill there.
With trump too I wouldn't be so keen to just dismiss him as an idiot. His wisdom and int stat may be low but he has some kind of weird setup to give him 18+ charisma on stupid (mostly white) people. Grifting takes some skill.
Trump is incredibly stupid, likely not fully sentient. This appeals to the American voter.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 07:29:50 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 19, 2022, 07:28:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 07:09:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 06:32:34 PM
What? I don't think it's spite or smugness :huh:
It's aspiration and a little bit of grandeur.
Who should we believe about what you think? You or Berkut?
Calling Zoupa's butthurt nationalism grandeur is pushing it a bit though. :p
Not as much as Trianon pushed back Hungary's borders though. :sleep:
Forgot to react to this. :P You are very much right of course, I DO have extensive experience of witnessing the spite in people resulting from the collision of perceived national importance with the cold embrace of reality. I can spot it from a mile away.
To get to the very top of anything you have to be very lucky, and it helps a lot to also be very good. The richest self-made people have all been very lucky in their lives, the top sportspeople have all been very lucky in their lives, and so on.
People seem to have this concept that being lucky precludes ones from being good, when they're really orthogonal concepts. Skill alone, no matter how great, isn't nearly enough to get you to the top of the pile of millions and millions of people.
Quote from: Threviel on January 19, 2022, 01:27:46 AM
The Swedish Commander-in-Chief has gone public with a comment that if the west agrees to the Russian demands, he will not be able to do his job.
Meanwhile, the Swedish strategic reserve, the military force of last and first (it's also a rapid reaction force) resort have moved out to Gotland, increasing the presence there with 150 soldiers. The total strategic reserve is a company on 150 soldiers. :bleeding:
Heads should be rolling over this, but the journalists are mostly leftist airheads not understanding anything so no tough questions are being asked of the politicians.
For the first time in years however, a Swedish Armed Forces news item made it to lemonde.fr :)
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/01/20/l-armee-suedoise-envoie-des-renforts-sur-l-ile-de-gotland-en-plein-c-ur-de-la-baltique_6110181_3210.html (https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/01/20/l-armee-suedoise-envoie-des-renforts-sur-l-ile-de-gotland-en-plein-c-ur-de-la-baltique_6110181_3210.html)
Article says 350 military personnel were already there, with 150 more as reinforcements.
Quote from: Tamas on January 20, 2022, 04:43:33 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 07:29:50 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 19, 2022, 07:28:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2022, 07:09:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2022, 06:32:34 PM
What? I don't think it's spite or smugness :huh:
It's aspiration and a little bit of grandeur.
Who should we believe about what you think? You or Berkut?
Calling Zoupa's butthurt nationalism grandeur is pushing it a bit though. :p
Not as much as Trianon pushed back Hungary's borders though. :sleep:
Forgot to react to this. :P You are very much right of course, I DO have extensive experience of witnessing the spite in people resulting from the collision of perceived national importance with the cold embrace of reality. I can spot it from a mile away.
Not to be an asshole, but there's a difference in the options and capabilities of Hungary and France.
French defense and foreign policy is not operating in lalaland, I don't think we have any illusions about our real "power".
France looks for force multipliers. Nuclear weapons, humint, the EU, Françafrique, even now Macron's call for a European solution to Ukraine-Russia.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 20, 2022, 04:03:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 01:22:46 PM
However, I have trouble buying that Putin actually and sincerely believes the nonsense he spews. He's supposed to be a chess master of manipulation, not a lucky rube like Trump.
I'm baffled where people got this idea. Putin is absolutely a lucky rube, he was a two-bit gang member from the slums who became a KGB pawn and then moved into organized crime, which propelled him to the top in the 90s.
He's an ex KGB spook who managed to survive a free for all among a lot of scary Russian crime bosses. Of course he's lucky, but it seems pretty likely he's tough and clever.
Agreed that people merely *suppose* he's a chess master, because of some of his apparently clever moves - like getting Trump beholden to him. Perhaps the contrast between him and Trump makes him shine by comparison.
Dictators being taken for clever before they screw up isn't uncommon. Mussolini was largely admired for his cleverness, before WW2, even by people who hated him. Not so much after WW2.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 20, 2022, 10:45:25 AMNot to be an asshole, but there's a difference in the options and capabilities of Hungary and France.
French defense and foreign policy is not operating in lalaland, I don't think we have any illusions about our real "power".
France looks for force multipliers. Nuclear weapons, humint, the EU, Françafrique, even now Macron's call for a European solution to Ukraine-Russia.
I do think it was badly timed and unfortunate given the previous unity - that's exactly what I said when I posted it.
But ultimately I'm not sure America has or wants to have a military big enough to increase or even maintain current commitments in Europe and have a chance of restoring their edge in Asia v China. I think Biden recognises that there is a need to prioritise which is exactly why he gave that speech after Afghanistan that is key. Because they will need to prioritise I think they will choose facing the rising power, rather than increasing commitments to defend one of the richest areas of the world against a declining power.
But I think in Europe only the UK and France recognise it. Or they're they only ones willing to acknowledge it even if others know it's happening (I think it is striking that France and the UK have both very recently increased their naval commitments in the Baltic and Black Sea). I think Macron's approach is necessary.
I also think that the EU for all of the grand rhetoric around it, bends towards accountancy - see the slightly mad video of the EU as Clint Eastwood in the wild west of digital markets posted by one of the Commissioners. Which is a very dramatic "cool guy" way of framing market regulations :lol: It's good to have a bit of ambition and vision about it which is what Macron does at his best that goes beyond that stuff.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 20, 2022, 09:56:08 AM
Quote from: Threviel on January 19, 2022, 01:27:46 AM
The Swedish Commander-in-Chief has gone public with a comment that if the west agrees to the Russian demands, he will not be able to do his job.
Meanwhile, the Swedish strategic reserve, the military force of last and first (it's also a rapid reaction force) resort have moved out to Gotland, increasing the presence there with 150 soldiers. The total strategic reserve is a company on 150 soldiers. :bleeding:
Heads should be rolling over this, but the journalists are mostly leftist airheads not understanding anything so no tough questions are being asked of the politicians.
For the first time in years however, a Swedish Armed Forces news item made it to lemonde.fr :)
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/01/20/l-armee-suedoise-envoie-des-renforts-sur-l-ile-de-gotland-en-plein-c-ur-de-la-baltique_6110181_3210.html (https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/01/20/l-armee-suedoise-envoie-des-renforts-sur-l-ile-de-gotland-en-plein-c-ur-de-la-baltique_6110181_3210.html)
Article says 350 military personnel were already there, with 150 more as reinforcements.
Yeah, there's an Armoured Regiment based on Gotland.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2022, 11:53:58 AM
But I think in Europe only the UK and France recognise it. Or they're they only ones willing to acknowledge it even if others know it's happening (I think it is striking that France and the UK have both very recently increased their naval commitments in the Baltic and Black Sea). I think Macron's approach is necessary.
So Second Crimean War it is then...
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 20, 2022, 09:56:08 AM
Article says 350 military personnel were already there, with 150 more as reinforcements.
so, they moved their entire army over there? Wow.:P
Quote from: Zoupa on January 19, 2022, 09:52:49 PM
I'm not sure what you're talking about Raz. Macron literally wants the opposite, EU defense and foreign policy.
Quotethese next few weeks should lead us to bring about a European proposal building a new order of security and stability. We must build it between Europeans
https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-wants-new-euro-russian-security-negotiation/ (https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-wants-new-euro-russian-security-negotiation/)
Seems like there are countries that aren't part of the EU.
We're sending two frigates to the Black Sea. I hope they come back. We haven't finished paying for them yet...
Incidentally, there's a Catalan saying that goes "God give us water, clear days, and war in Sevastopol" :P
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2022, 01:11:55 PM
We're sending two frigates to the Black Sea. I hope they come back. We haven't finished paying for them yet...
If they don't, write it off as sunk costs.
Quote from: Zanza on January 19, 2022, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2022, 02:20:51 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 19, 2022, 02:15:43 PM
@Sheilbh: I am with Berkut here and don't get why we need a "development model". The West is literally "on top of the world" in just about every statistic that matters.
The only thing that can topple Western leadership is as you say distrust in our own system and turning to authoritarianism,I.e. becoming more like e.g. China or Russia.
The main threats I see to Liberal Democracy is that it has been undermined from within by the right starting in the Reagan/Thatcher years so that now we have societies with dramatic wealth and income disparity combined with declining social mobility.
The thing that can topple Western leadership is the policies and politics of the West and the damage those things do to the West.
Agreed. I would add two grassroots trends: a) distrust in science and facts as presented by "elites" and b) the filter bubble in media consumption. Those exacerbate the top-down policies you mention.
Agreed
@sheilbh - I also agree with your point about the post Reagan years - I was just picking the starting point of where the damage starting being done.
Quote from: Syt on January 20, 2022, 02:04:01 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2022, 01:11:55 PM
We're sending two frigates to the Black Sea. I hope they come back. We haven't finished paying for them yet...
If they don't, write it off as sunk costs.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2022, 07:32:26 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 19, 2022, 03:21:01 PM
The Russian troops are on the Russian territory in response to the NATO activity in Ukraine. We've talked this.
And yep, nothing will happen.
I agree with this, but probably not in the way you intended.
To claim that the Russian troops are there to defend against a couple hundred civilian subcontractors who are training Ukrainians to use their new military gear is farcical..
They are there as a show of force to bully Ukraine into not applying for NATO membership.
Have you considered the internal inconsistency of threatening to invade a country (which has recently been invaded and had part of its territory unilaterally annexed) in order to prevent that country from entering into alliances to safeguard its security?
No, they're not there to defend against a hundred sub-contractors, lol.
Anyway, after the speeches by Putin, Zelensky, and Biden I'm now even more convinced that we're watching a carefully orchestrated performance. Both the Russian and Ukrainian leaders are telling their populations to relax and not get caught in emotions. Zelensky pretty much called the rumours of invasion "manipulation."
I'm going to go ahead and agree with them at this stage. I'm no longer giving my energy to this issue. Will wait for the next one :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2022, 07:32:26 PM
had part of its territory unilaterally annexed
I've read and fully understood the western dominant legal view on this issue, for example here:
https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_2014_-_The_crimea_crisis_-_an_international_law_perspective.pdf
... and the Russian dominant legal view expressed here, for example:
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/krymskoe-pravo-ili-yuridicheskie-osnovaniya-dlya-vossoedineniya-kryma-s-rossiey/viewer
I simply don't see how these two diametrically opposite views can ever be reconciled. Both sides feel fully justified in their positions.
My father's family comes from Simferopol Crimea, so this peninsula will always remain my fatherland, whoever it belongs to politically :)
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 20, 2022, 04:28:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2022, 07:32:26 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 19, 2022, 03:21:01 PM
The Russian troops are on the Russian territory in response to the NATO activity in Ukraine. We've talked this.
And yep, nothing will happen.
I agree with this, but probably not in the way you intended.
To claim that the Russian troops are there to defend against a couple hundred civilian subcontractors who are training Ukrainians to use their new military gear is farcical..
They are there as a show of force to bully Ukraine into not applying for NATO membership.
Have you considered the internal inconsistency of threatening to invade a country (which has recently been invaded and had part of its territory unilaterally annexed) in order to prevent that country from entering into alliances to safeguard its security?
No, they're not there to defend against a hundred sub-contractors, lol.
Anyway, after the speeches by Putin, Zelensky, and Biden I'm now even more convinced that we're watching a carefully orchestrated performance. Both the Russian and Ukrainian leaders are telling their populations to relax and not get caught in emotions. Zelensky pretty much called the rumours of invasion "manipulation."
I'm going to go ahead and agree with them at this stage. I'm no longer giving my energy to this issue. Will wait for the next one :)
Let me guess if the tanks assembled for the military exercise in Belarus will roll south and take Kiev, you'd consider that the West's fault?
Quote from: Tamas on January 20, 2022, 05:00:39 PM
Let me guess if the tanks assembled for the military exercise in Belarus will roll south and take Kiev, you'd consider that the West's fault?
If they start rolling, let's then talk.
Why engage in theoretical discussion which will only drain your and my energies? It's not wise.
I guess some people want to pin you down before it happens, because they suspect that if Russia does invade, you're going to go "of course they're justified, Ukrainians did attack that radio station".
*Whether* Russia invades or not is a pointless debate and best left to the betting markets.
How to best respond to Russia's massing of troops on the border is non-theoretical.
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2022, 05:24:22 PM
I guess some people want to pin you down before it happens, because they suspect that if Russia does invade, you're going to go "of course they're justified, Ukrainians did attack that radio station".
Funny how you and Tamas are putting your words into my mouth. It's like you know what's going to happen and who will be to "blame."
I simply don't know what will happen, so what do you want me to say?
You know, I'm a member of a large group in Telegram (about 4000 people). Roughly 40% of participants are from Russia, same from Ukraine, the rest are from Belarus, Baltics, Kazakhstan, a bunch of random Russian speakers from around the world.
You'll never guess what we're discussing there.
It's the amount of snow in Kamchatka, the difference between the Ukrainian and Russian borscht, how to create passive income streams, and so on. Not a single mention of tanks, invasions, "pinning someone down"...
Meanwhile, the non-raw material, non-energy export from Russia has set a new record in 2021, growing 36% versus year ago to $191 billion.
https://amp.rbc.ru/rbcnews/rbcfreenews/61e8746f9a7947475ba309fb
The top 5 buyers were China ($15.6 Bln), Kazakhstan ($14.4), Belarus ($11.4), Turkey ($10.9) and the US ($7.9bln).
This record was set even though Russia removed gold from this category in January 2021, so it was done against a higher base.
Still relatively low numbers on a global scale, but it's encouraging to see less reliance on the natural gas, oil, and raw materials. Incidentally, the international sanctions seemed to have contributed to this: Russia finally got serious about rebuilding its agriculture and industry after the communist legacy of universal decline and collapse.
Edit: just saw that the trading exchange between RU and UA in 2021 also grew by 20% vs. YA on average both ways, according to the Voice of America which quotes Ukrainian data:
https://www.golosameriki.com/amp/ukraine-russia-trade/6354236.html
The other interesting diplomatic angle is Turkey (who are exporting to Ukraine the same drones Azerbaijan used so effectively against Armenia). Erdogan had suggested a summit with Putin and Zelenskiy which the Kremlin rejected because Turkey was "pumping up Ukraine with weapons". But Erdogan has announced that Putin is visitng Turkey soon - and, apparently, ahead of Erdogan's own planned trip to Kyiv.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 20, 2022, 04:03:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2022, 01:22:46 PM
However, I have trouble buying that Putin actually and sincerely believes the nonsense he spews. He's supposed to be a chess master of manipulation, not a lucky rube like Trump.
I'm baffled where people got this idea. Putin is absolutely a lucky rube, he was a two-bit gang member from the slums who became a KGB pawn and then moved into organized crime, which propelled him to the top in the 90s.
That's like saying Stalin was just a lucky bank robber.
This is interesting:
https://www.state.gov/russias-top-five-persistent-disinformation-narratives/
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2022, 07:37:38 PM
The other interesting diplomatic angle is Turkey (who are exporting to Ukraine the same drones Azerbaijan used so effectively against Armenia). Erdogan had suggested a summit with Putin and Zelenskiy which the Kremlin rejected because Turkey was "pumping up Ukraine with weapons". But Erdogan has announced that Putin is visitng Turkey soon - and, apparently, ahead of Erdogan's own planned trip to Kyiv.
This is an interesting angle, also given Turkey's economic interests in Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea parts of which used to belong to Ottomans and their vassal.
I'm convinced that Russia and Turkey are closely coordinating their actions over the last few years. Will be interesting to see what comes of it. So far, Putin has shown no desire whatsoever to talk with Zelensky whom he doesn't see as able to make independent decisions.
Quote from: Malthus on January 20, 2022, 10:47:17 PM
This is interesting:
https://www.state.gov/russias-top-five-persistent-disinformation-narratives/
:)
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 19, 2022, 05:49:28 PM
No :) but some of them are on their way to Belarus for joint military exercises.
Routine, I'm sure.
For a different perspective:
QuoteIf our Western colleagues continue the obviously aggressive stance, we will take appropriate retaliatory military-technical measures and react harshly to unfriendly steps," Putin said at a Defense Ministry board meeting, according to the state-run TASS news agency.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/12/21/putin-warns-of-military-technical-response-to-western-aggression-a75891#:~:text=President%20Vladimir%20Putin%20threatened%20a%20%E2%80%9Cmilitary-technical%E2%80%9D%20response%20Tuesday,Moscow%27s%20ongoing%20tensions%20with%20Western%20countries%20over%20Ukraine.
I.e the reason why there is an "invasion narrative" is not because of some obscure conspiracy among "Western media" or hysterical neo-con retreads. It's because Putin is very deliberately fomenting such a narrative.
Thinking on the situation of Russia and Ukraine - a somewhat applicable historical precedent, in one respect, is the War of 1812. That respect is how it helped form Canadian nationalism.
Russia and Russians tend to view Ukraine as simply more Russia, that Ukrainian identity is a false construct, one encouraged or even instigated by the West. Many Ukrainian citizens are in fact Russian in origin, speak mostly Russian. So Russia figures why not assimilate them?
Similarly, in Upper Canada, prior to the War of 1812 many of the inhabitants were in fact of recent American origin. Canadians tend to remember the "united empire loyalists" who fled the revolution, but in point of fact, most locals of recent American origin were not loyalists - they came for cheap land opportunities. The Americans knew this (and so did the British), and both anticipated that many of the locals would really be loyal to America, not the Empire.
The war though changed all that - as the war's fortunes swayed one way then the other, raiding, burning and military impositions hardened attitudes - on the Canadian side, gradually uniting public opinion against the invaders. Stuff like the burning of Niagara on the Lake, the sack of York, etc. basically discredited those citizens who were loyal to the US, and created the beginnings of a distinct English-Canadian identity (French Canadian identity having a separate origin).
A similar effect is going on in Ukraine. There were many in the territory of Ukraine who may have been loyal to Russia, given a chance. However, they have been thoroughly discredited by Russia's aggressive actions. The use by Russia of "separatists" as Trojan horses for Russian intervention, the constant treats and harassment, and now this - all are forging an oppositional Ukrainian identity.
I think the process is not reversible. Russia may well defeat Ukraine militarily, and the West may allow that to happen. But mere defeat can't erase a nationalist attitude once it has formed. Indeed, it may harden it. Ukrainians are very unlikely to see *themselves* as Russians now, and for that, the Russian government itself is to blame.
Interesting analogy.
I would add that to the extent we are premising arguments on the effects of past historical events on present day national attitudes, I imagine the Holodomor is not likely to promote great trust and faith in Russian leadership, at least among some Ukrainians.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2022, 11:28:44 AM
Interesting analogy.
I would add that to the extent we are premising arguments on the effects of past historical events on present day national attitudes, I imagine the Holodomor is not likely to promote great trust and faith in Russian leadership, at least among some Ukrainians.
The usual answer to that from the Russian side is that historical crimes committed against Ukrainians were crimes of the communist leadership that were also committed against ethnic Russians, so not a Russian vs. Ukrainian thing. Of course, Stalin himself was Georgian ...
Also, many of those with Russian background currently within the borders of Ukraine, were moved there by the Soviets ... and these folks are some of those whose sympathies are now up for grabs.
And lots of communists were Ukrainian anyway, so actually Ukrainians were the perpetrators...
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/d3f8840223004979ca21afd88379f867/tumblr_nuqlbdyel91qz8z2ro1_500.png)
Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2022, 11:36:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2022, 11:28:44 AM
Interesting analogy.
I would add that to the extent we are premising arguments on the effects of past historical events on present day national attitudes, I imagine the Holodomor is not likely to promote great trust and faith in Russian leadership, at least among some Ukrainians.
The usual answer to that from the Russian side is that historical crimes committed against Ukrainians were crimes of the communist leadership that were also committed against ethnic Russians, so not a Russian vs. Ukrainian thing. Of course, Stalin himself was Georgian ...
Also, many of those with Russian background currently within the borders of Ukraine, were moved there by the Soviets ... and these folks are some of those whose sympathies are now up for grabs.
The communism was a nightmare which happened to us all who lived there. We honestly didn't even think about nationalities back then — we thought in terms of social classes. I grew up in Uzbekistan, no one cared that I was half-UA/half-RU. Everyone cared about my class origins and my family connections though.
And yes, a lot of Ukrainians live in Russia and vice versa. And many Russians ended up in Ukraine because the communists moved them there along with their lands (Crimea, Donbas, Odessa...). Doesn't mean Russia should invade, of course.
I personally don't know a more savagely Russophobic / Ukraino-fobic regime than the communists.
Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2022, 11:55:12 AM
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/d3f8840223004979ca21afd88379f867/tumblr_nuqlbdyel91qz8z2ro1_500.png)
:)
So... why should Russia invade?
GdM, the West is talking about the threat of Russian invasion because Russia has amassed its soldiers on Ukraine's borders.
QuoteI just don't get the supposed motive for this invasion.
I'm not sure motive even matters, it seems to be happening. Or at least Russia is spending lots of money and diplomatic capital on making the threat of it happening real.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 21, 2022, 11:59:49 AM
GdM, the West is talking about the threat of Russian invasion because Russia has amassed its soldiers on Ukraine's borders.
QuoteI just don't get the supposed motive for this invasion.
I'm not sure motive even matters, it seems to be happening. Or at least Russia is spending lots of money and diplomatic capital on making the threat of it happening real.
How can it be happening without the need?
The Russians said repeatedly the troops are there because of the NATO activity.
We're in a deadlock.
Okay, everyone, stand down. Gaijin does not see the need for the invasion, so no need to be concerned about a large military force massed at the border.
Allez arrête.. quelle activité de l'OTAN? Les 3 ou 4 instructeurs, ca requiert 100 000 troupes et des chars d'assaut?
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2022, 12:04:54 PM
Okay, everyone, stand down. Gaijin does not see the need for the invasion, so no need to be concerned about a large military force massed at the border.
Do you have a rational explanation on why Putin would invade? Every crime needs a motive.
I asked this question a dozen times. I got no logical response.
Russia has said during the talks going on today that they want NATO troops withdrawn from Romania and Bulgaria which is, I think, new and it seems strange to escalate the demands.
I saw that Romania have rejected and France has called for more troops to be put into Romania and Bulgaria instead :lol:
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 12:06:43 PM
Do you have a rational explanation on why Putin would invade? Every crime needs a motive.
I asked this question a dozen times. I got no logical response.
Probably because it's an idiotic question. If you point a gun at me, I'm going to feel threatened, whether I understand why you may want to shoot me or not.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 12:02:11 PM
The Russians said repeatedly the troops are there because of the NATO activity.
Really, mate. I think most of us have been pretty civil in the discussion here, can you please stop insulting our intelligence? You cannot possibly believe, that a few hundred/thousand NATO troops scattered between the Baltics and Romania warrants Russia to mass 100k+ troops on the border of, wait for it, not Estonia, Not Lithuania, not Latvia (i.e. Russian borders with NATO), heck not even the Kalinigrad enclave. No, it's the Ukrainian border they amass troops on.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 12:02:11 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 21, 2022, 11:59:49 AM
GdM, the West is talking about the threat of Russian invasion because Russia has amassed its soldiers on Ukraine's borders.
QuoteI just don't get the supposed motive for this invasion.
I'm not sure motive even matters, it seems to be happening. Or at least Russia is spending lots of money and diplomatic capital on making the threat of it happening real.
How can it be happening without the need?
The Russians said repeatedly the troops are there because of the NATO activity.
We're in a deadlock.
The answer has already been given - miscalculation or mistake; the same way a lot of wars are started.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 21, 2022, 12:05:29 PM
Allez arrête.. quelle activité de l'OTAN? Les 3 ou 4 instructeurs, ca requiert 100 000 troupes et des chars d'assaut?
Les 3 ou 4 instructeurs :D
The Russian concerns go back at least to April 2021:
https://www.interfax.ru/amp/760031
Machine-translated to English:
Quote
The Russian Foreign Ministry announced an increase in NATO activity in Ukraine and the Black Sea
Moscow. April 7. INTERFAX.RU - NATO continues to increase the activity of its armed forces on the territory of Ukraine and in the Black Sea, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
"We drew attention to the aggressive information campaign unleashed recently by Ukraine and a number of Western countries that are trying to accuse Russia of escalating tensions in Donbass and on the Russian-Ukrainian border. The aggravated situation in eastern Ukraine, provoked by the Kiev authorities themselves, as well as planned measures of the Russian armed forces for combat training, which are regularly held on the territory of Russia during this period of time and do not exceed the scale of previous years," the comment of the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Maria Zakharova, distributed on Wednesday, reads, was chosen as an occasion.
As noted in the document, "we consider such a policy of disinformation and propaganda as actions designed to create the necessary information background and distract attention from Kiev's own military preparations in Donbass, Ukrainian sabotage of the implementation of the Minsk agreements and increasing military activity of NATO countries on the territory of Ukraine".
The commentary also notes that "currently Kiev continues to draw new forces and weapons to the line of contact in Donbass and violate the ceasefire".
Zakharova reminded that seven joint exercises are planned for 2021 on Ukrainian territory with various alliance countries. "Extelligence activities of foreign countries in Ukraine along the borders with Russia and the line of contact in Donbass using aircraft and radio electronic means have significantly intensified," said the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.
In addition, according to her, "the financial and material and logistics support of the Ukrainian armed forces from NATO countries, the supply of lethal weapons, training of Ukrainian servicemen by Western instructors continue".
"We call on Ukraine and NATO countries to stop the hysterical Russophobic propaganda campaign, stop military preparations and escalation of tensions in Donbass and refrain from actions that can lead to destabilization of the situation in eastern Ukraine," Zakharova stressed.
She noted that Russia stands "for the settlement of the conflict in Donbass exclusively by peaceful means on an alternative basis of the Minsk "Complex of Measures", approved by UN Security Council resolution 2202.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2022, 12:12:07 PM
The answer has already been given - miscalculation or mistake; the same way a lot of wars are started.
This I can understand.
In other words, no rational explanation.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 12:13:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2022, 12:12:07 PM
The answer has already been given - miscalculation or mistake; the same way a lot of wars are started.
This I can understand.
In other words, no rational explanation.
That seems to be the biggest worry of the analysists interviewed by the CBC
Quote from: Tamas on January 21, 2022, 12:10:26 PM
Really, mate. I think most of us have been pretty civil in the discussion here, can you please stop insulting our intelligence? You cannot possibly believe, that a few hundred/thousand NATO troops scattered between the Baltics and Romania warrants Russia to mass 100k+ troops on the border of, wait for it, not Estonia, Not Lithuania, not Latvia (i.e. Russian borders with NATO), heck not even the Kalinigrad enclave. No, it's the Ukrainian border they amass troops on.
Yeah, seriously, I'm finding it increasingly impossible to believe that Gaijin is discussing things in good faith here. His tone is civil, but the content is extremely insulting. I don't know why Putin is massing his troops at Ukrainian border, but he is, and that's a threat. I don't know why Gaijin sounds so much like a professional Russian troll, but he does, and that is at the very least a little disturbing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2022, 12:14:18 PM
That seems to be the biggest worry of the analysists interviewed by the CBC
Makes sense, thank you for a simple response with no ideology.
Appreciated.
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2022, 12:15:36 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 21, 2022, 12:10:26 PM
Really, mate. I think most of us have been pretty civil in the discussion here, can you please stop insulting our intelligence? You cannot possibly believe, that a few hundred/thousand NATO troops scattered between the Baltics and Romania warrants Russia to mass 100k+ troops on the border of, wait for it, not Estonia, Not Lithuania, not Latvia (i.e. Russian borders with NATO), heck not even the Kalinigrad enclave. No, it's the Ukrainian border they amass troops on.
Yeah, seriously, I'm finding it increasingly impossible to believe that Gaijin is discussing things in good faith here. His tone is civil, but the content is extremely insulting. I don't know why Putin is massing his troops at Ukrainian border, but he is, and that's a threat. I don't know why Gaijin sounds so much like a professional Russian troll, but he does, and that is at the very least a little disturbing.
I'm confused, and trying to understand.
My "problem" is I'm seeing the escalating issue from both sides of the fence. And I'm seeing a massive disconnect.
It may seem like "trolling" to you because I'm the only one doubting the officially recognised narrative... I definitely don't mean it this way.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2022, 12:07:49 PM
Russia has said during the talks going on today that they want NATO troops withdrawn from Romania and Bulgaria which is, I think, new and it seems strange to escalate the demands.
I saw that Romania have rejected and France has called for more troops to be put into Romania and Bulgaria instead :lol:
(https://europecentenary.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Regina_Maria_Sputnik.jpg)
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 12:02:11 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 21, 2022, 11:59:49 AM
GdM, the West is talking about the threat of Russian invasion because Russia has amassed its soldiers on Ukraine's borders.
QuoteI just don't get the supposed motive for this invasion.
I'm not sure motive even matters, it seems to be happening. Or at least Russia is spending lots of money and diplomatic capital on making the threat of it happening real.
How can it be happening without the need?
The Russians said repeatedly the troops are there because of the NATO activity.
We're in a deadlock.
A motive derived from the conflict of rival nationalisms I was talking about.
From what I've heard, Russians by and large are weary of Putin's autocratic ways, and the COVID response/impact in Russia was and is pretty bad (it's been bad everywhere, but Russians are cranky about it). Putin is busy cracking down even harder on dissent. There are popular uprisings all over the Russosphere ... so Putin is feeling edgy.
When an autocrat is feeling edgy, what's his go-to solution? Why, stir up an external enemy, of course. Many Russians, even those who hate Putin, basically agree with him that Ukrainians are just Russians artificially separated by Western meddling, and the march of NATO toward Russia marks Russia's decline. So threats to undo that may have the effect of uniting Russians under the dear leader.
The issue is whether mere posturing will "do", if this is the motive. The fear is that it may not, unless the West hands him an easy win by way of appeasement. Problem is that his ask is something that the West is unlikely to agree with, as it would represent extreme cowardice.
Basically, the fear is that Putin has painted himself into a corner from which he can't extract himself without actual fighting - again, an analogy may be with Egypt before the 1967 war.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 12:17:55 PM
I'm the only one doubting the officially recognised
No. You are the only one ACCEPTING the official narrative of the side doing the troop-massing.
Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2022, 12:19:20 PM
A motive derived from the conflict of rival nationalisms I was talking about.
From what I've heard, Russians by and large are weary of Putin's autocratic ways, and the COVID response/impact in Russia was and is pretty bad (it's been bad everywhere, but Russians are cranky about it). Putin is busy cracking down even harder on dissent. There are popular uprisings all over the Russosphere ... so Putin is feeling edgy.
When an autocrat is feeling edgy, what's his go-to solution? Why, stir up an external enemy, of course. Many Russians, even those who hate Putin, basically agree with him that Ukrainians are just Russians artificially separated by Western meddling, and the march of NATO toward Russia marks Russia's decline. So threats to undo that may have the effect of uniting Russians under the dear leader.
The issue is whether mere posturing will "do", if this is the motive. The fear is that it may not, unless the West hands him an easy win by way of appeasement. Problem is that his ask is something that the West is unlikely to agree with, as it would represent extreme cowardice.
Basically, the fear is that Putin has painted himself into a corner from which he can't extract himself without actual fighting - again, an analogy may be with Egypt before the 1967 war.
Interesting view.
I agree with being in the corner analogy — the RU government themselves have said they have nowhere to retreat at this stage.
But it has nothing to do with UA. It has everything to do with NATO.
Quote from: Tamas on January 21, 2022, 12:23:03 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 12:17:55 PM
I'm the only one doubting the officially recognised
No. You are the only one ACCEPTING the official narrative of the side doing the troop-massing.
I won't argue perceptions. I understand why you may see it this way though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2022, 12:07:49 PM
Russia has said during the talks going on today that they want NATO troops withdrawn from Romania and Bulgaria which is, I think, new and it seems strange to escalate the demands.
I saw that Romania have rejected and France has called for more troops to be put into Romania and Bulgaria instead :lol:
Bulgaria rejected it as well. From an orthodox slavic nation traditionally close to Russia, that's quite telling.
I know of another reason: Crimea is running out of water. Crimea relies on canals in Ukraine for its water, canals that are have been blocked ever since the Russian invasion. Russia needs Ukrainian water if it wants to continue it's occupation of Crimea.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2022, 12:33:50 PM
I know of another reason: Crimea is running out of water. Crimea relies on canals in Ukraine for its water, canals that are have been blocked ever since the Russian invasion. Russia needs Ukrainian water if it wants to continue it's occupation of Crimea.
Yeah, I heard about it, but I think they're finding internal solutions. According to the official sources, the overall water supplies are sufficient for the peninsula, but they're not distributed equally. They're investing into the infrastructure to fix that.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 21, 2022, 12:27:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2022, 12:07:49 PM
Russia has said during the talks going on today that they want NATO troops withdrawn from Romania and Bulgaria which is, I think, new and it seems strange to escalate the demands.
I saw that Romania have rejected and France has called for more troops to be put into Romania and Bulgaria instead :lol:
Bulgaria rejected it as well. From an orthodox slavic nation traditionally close to Russia, that's quite telling.
Honestly, expected and not surprising.
Wouldn't the smart thing for Putin be to officially nab the Donbass region. :hmm: An easy Schleswig-Holstein minor conflict. :hmm:
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 12:41:58 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 21, 2022, 12:27:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2022, 12:07:49 PM
Russia has said during the talks going on today that they want NATO troops withdrawn from Romania and Bulgaria which is, I think, new and it seems strange to escalate the demands.
I saw that Romania have rejected and France has called for more troops to be put into Romania and Bulgaria instead :lol:
Bulgaria rejected it as well. From an orthodox slavic nation traditionally close to Russia, that's quite telling.
Honestly, expected and not surprising.
Still, not good for PR.
Romania was no surprise at all.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 21, 2022, 12:52:31 PM
Wouldn't the smart thing for Putin be to officially nab the Donbass region. :hmm: An easy Schleswig-Holstein minor conflict. :hmm:
That's my expectation. Create a landbridge from Russia to Crimea, "liberate" the oppressed Ukraine, and create a new buffer of insurrection (like current Donbass) to keep Ukraine busy and unstable. I doubt Putin would go for a full occupation, because I think he knows that the Western parts have a potential to become a quagmire and drain on resources.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 21, 2022, 12:56:14 PM
Still, not good for PR.
Romania was no surprise at all.
I don't think RU has ever been good at PR :)
There's a difference between brotherly feelings which the members of the population may feel towards each other and the government policies...
Here's the thing, in Bulgaria the members of the population get to elect their government. :P
Quote from: celedhring on January 21, 2022, 01:37:17 PM
Here's the thing, in Bulgaria the members of the population get to elect their government. :P
Really? Ok :)
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 01:10:56 PM
There's a difference between brotherly feelings which the members of the population may feel towards each other and the government policies...
Yeah I am sure the Bulgarians probably like Russians...the Russian state not so much. But I may be projecting since that is basically my feelings on the matter :P
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 01:10:56 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 21, 2022, 12:56:14 PM
Still, not good for PR.
Romania was no surprise at all.
I don't think RU has ever been good at PR :)
There's a difference between brotherly feelings which the members of the population may feel towards each other and the government policies...
Yeah, hopefully Bulgarians think better of Russians than Putin. :P
Quote from: celedhring on January 21, 2022, 01:37:17 PM
Here's the thing, in Bulgaria the members of the population get to elect their government. :P
Don't tell me you believe that mass media official narrative. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 21, 2022, 02:09:57 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 01:10:56 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 21, 2022, 12:56:14 PM
Still, not good for PR.
Romania was no surprise at all.
I don't think RU has ever been good at PR :)
There's a difference between brotherly feelings which the members of the population may feel towards each other and the government policies...
Yeah, hopefully Bulgarians think better of Russians than Putin. :P
I don't think anyone can hate Russians as much as Putin does. :P
Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2022, 01:56:13 PM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 01:10:56 PM
There's a difference between brotherly feelings which the members of the population may feel towards each other and the government policies...
Yeah I am sure the Bulgarians probably like Russians...the Russian state not so much. But I may be projecting since that is basically my feelings on the matter :P
Bulgarians like Russians as long as Russia doesn't start telling them what to do. That's what soured relations just before WW1, too (and that after Russia basically created an independent Bulgaria).
Quote from: Solmyr on January 21, 2022, 02:28:19 PM
I don't think anyone can hate Russians as much as Putin does. :P
I respectfully disagree :) He has literally saved the country from the post-communist collapse into many "republics." The process of post-imperial collapse continued for a while (Abkhazia, Crimea, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Donbas, all the ethnic wars in the "stans"...) but he stopped it in his country by negotiating a difficult peace with Chechnya, limiting the power of the oligarchs, and so on.
Now, for example, he's waging a massive war on the government corruption, and he's not joking around.
The Russian quality of life is still far behind Europe and US on some aspects, but it's the highest in all the history of that country.
I know my opinions are unpopular on this board, but that's what I see.
Putin is waging a massive war on government corruption? I wish him luck.
Quote from: Jacob on January 21, 2022, 03:02:10 PM
Putin is waging a massive war on government corruption? I wish him luck.
Yes... ministers, officials, police officers and so on are landing behind bars en masse, their "hard-earned assets" being confiscated into the state treasury. In the mid-sized industrial dump of a town I used to live, the entire local administration was jailed and rightly so. Suddenly, the town is being rebuilt — as if by magic.
The new prime minister Mishustin is an administrative beast, driving a lot of change.
Internally, the current government is reasonably successful. Of course, still tons of major issues to address.
Xi, similarly, is driving hard at anti-corruption in China. Curiously, however, almost everyone who is done in for corruption (and there are many) is either expendable or inconvenient to Xi... while at the same time Xi (and Xi's family) and people well connected to him continue getting wealthier and be offered all sorts of opportunities.
It seems very much like Xi is wielding anti-corruption as a political weapon, while happily allowing his allies and family to benefit from corruption.
And similarly - until this confrontation - lots of commentators were noting the "social turn" in Putin's rhetoric and that, for example, the main focus in his New Year's press conference was mainly that especially raising living standards. It doesn't necessarily mean anything but seemed unusual if a leader's prepping their country for war.
Add to that - less like China - that Russia is hugely exposed to climate change and to decarbonisation. I'm not convinced Putin has established a real growth model outside of oil and gas (though I saw GdM's post on that earlier). I think he's smart enough to know that and also to know that oil and guess is not even a medium term bet anymore. I listend to one Russia expert/commentator speculate that a "heroic" style investment and rebuilding the domestic economy might be a project that appeals to Putin - especially building up Siberia, a bit like a 21st century virgin lands campaign. He even wondered if it might be something that would interest Shoigu who's acquired a good reputation as Defence Minister, is a potential successor but might want to build up some domestic policy achievements first.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2022, 12:04:54 PM
Okay, everyone, stand down. Gaijin does not see the need for the invasion, so no need to be concerned about a large military force massed at the border.
Do you have a rational explanation on why Putin would invade? Every crime needs a motive.
I asked this question a dozen times. I got no logical response.
Ask me again if an invasion happens . . .
Right now all he is done is threaten to invade and backed that threat with very visible preparations on the ground. There are a number of reasons why he might act in that way.
As to why he would invade, it is purely hypothetical at this point. But to speculate, he may view the 2014 incursion and annexation of Crimea as a viable model. He may think he can contain the fallout from a war with the limited aim of forcing a peace that creates a Russian puppet statelet or "autonomous region" in the eastern Ukraine. Russia is better prepared for Western sanctions then it was in 2014 or at least Putin and the leadership think it is prepared and have reasons to think that way.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2022, 03:50:16 PM
Ask me again if an invasion happens . . .
Right now all he is done is threaten to invade and backed that threat with very visible preparations on the ground. There are a number of reasons why he might act in that way.
As to why he would invade, it is purely hypothetical at this point. But to speculate, he may view the 2014 incursion and annexation of Crimea as a viable model. He may think he can contain the fallout from a war with the limited aim of forcing a peace that creates a Russian puppet statelet or "autonomous region" in the eastern Ukraine. Russia is better prepared for Western sanctions then it was in 2014 or at least Putin and the leadership think it is prepared and have reasons to think that way.
Interesting — you're assuming Ukraine holds any value that would justify a military conquest. I don't think it does. Even forgetting the sanctions, pacifying a conquered country is almost an impossible task (cue Afghanistan for any empire which attempted to control it).
So far, Russia has abstained from sponsoring and executing colour revolutions, at least as far as I know. It's a much smarter way to get vassals or simply neutral regimes into power. You can even build an entire epic story around this event, like they did in Ukraine.
I wonder if RU would ever do this.
Curious how slavic solidarity between Bulgaria and Russia is expected but not between Bulgaria and Ukraine.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2022, 03:48:21 PM
And similarly - until this confrontation - lots of commentators were noting the "social turn" in Putin's rhetoric and that, for example, the main focus in his New Year's press conference was mainly that especially raising living standards. It doesn't necessarily mean anything but seemed unusual if a leader's prepping their country for war.
This is still being done. He introduced a whole set of measures to support families with children, for example.
His pension reform massively dropped his approval ratings though. The Russians were too spoiled, retiring at 55-60. He gradually raised the age by 5 years, whilst increasing the payouts.
Being closely exposed to the internal agenda in Russia, all this war talk completely took me by surprise. The internal narrative was dominated by measures to support young families to have more children, increasing longevity, combatting domestic violence, raising the living standards, fighting corruption, supporting various religious denominations, and so on.
Quote from: Tyr on January 21, 2022, 04:42:49 PM
Curious how slavic solidarity between Bulgaria and Russia is expected but not between Bulgaria and Ukraine.
It's a bit like Germany's sense of historic responsibility being invoked in relation to policy with Russia, but not Ukraine so much (maybe a perception of Russia as the successor state of the Soviet Union, while Ukraine isn't? :hmm:).
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 04:32:24 PM
Even forgetting the sanctions, pacifying a conquered country is almost an impossible task (cue Afghanistan for any empire which attempted to control it).
I don't know. Russia always had a way to pacify occupied countries in the past.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 02:57:57 PMThe Russian quality of life is still far behind Europe and US on some aspects, but it's the highest in all the history of that country.
I know my opinions are unpopular on this board, but that's what I see.
Yeah. The Russian people given how the 20th century turned out deserve at least 10 centuries of peace and quiet. A nice life with children, an active social calendar and community obligations and a yearly 3 point something interest on the retirement fund above inflation over a 30 year period. :ccr
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2022, 03:48:21 PM
And similarly - until this confrontation - lots of commentators were noting the "social turn" in Putin's rhetoric and that, for example, the main focus in his New Year's press conference was mainly that especially raising living standards. It doesn't necessarily mean anything but seemed unusual if a leader's prepping their country for war.
Add to that - less like China - that Russia is hugely exposed to climate change and to decarbonisation. I'm not convinced Putin has established a real growth model outside of oil and gas (though I saw GdM's post on that earlier). I think he's smart enough to know that and also to know that oil and guess is not even a medium term bet anymore. I listend to one Russia expert/commentator speculate that a "heroic" style investment and rebuilding the domestic economy might be a project that appeals to Putin - especially building up Siberia, a bit like a 21st century virgin lands campaign. He even wondered if it might be something that would interest Shoigu who's acquired a good reputation as Defence Minister, is a potential successor but might want to build up some domestic policy achievements first.
It's pretty obvious that Putin considers having to deal with the welfare of Russian people as an annoying distraction to his grand geopolitical ambitions. He sounds like he's barely paying attention whenever he speaks about it, and mostly makes the same empty promises of "things will get better" every year.
Shoigu's suggestion of building huge cities in Siberia was laughable. There are no people to populate such cities, nobody in their right mind would voluntarily move to Siberia.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 04:43:09 PM
Being closely exposed to the internal agenda in Russia, all this war talk completely took me by surprise. The internal narrative was dominated by measures to support young families to have more children, increasing longevity, combatting domestic violence, raising the living standards, fighting corruption, supporting various religious denominations, and so on.
Oh yeah, that sounds like combatting domestic violence alright: https://time.com/5942127/russia-domestic-violence-women/
Quote from: Solmyr on January 22, 2022, 02:14:51 AM
It's pretty obvious that Putin considers having to deal with the welfare of Russian people as an annoying distraction to his grand geopolitical ambitions. He sounds like he's barely paying attention whenever he speaks about it, and mostly makes the same empty promises of "things will get better" every year.
Shoigu's suggestion of building huge cities in Siberia was laughable. There are no people to populate such cities, nobody in their right mind would voluntarily move to Siberia.
I see it the exact opposite way.
The geopolitical moves of Russia are designed to serve the internal agenda. For example, the action in Syria was most likely taken to block the pipeline from Qatar and keep the RU share in the European energy markets, thus securing income for internal social reforms. It also was a signal to RU's allies that it's a reliable partner who would step in when needed. It served as a showroom for the RU weapons, helping secure many profitable deals. Finally, it allowed RU to give combat experience to its special ops and aviation troops, and battle-test its emerging armament systems.
As for the cities in Siberia — Shoigu approaches this as a minister of defence. He wants to place the critical decision-making infrastructure of his country in the most defensible location away from the western borders.
Putin is doing this differently. He's reducing the symbolic importance of Kremlin, and dispersing his government infrastructure across Moscow, St-Pete, and Sochi.
Edit: typos :blush:
Quote from: Solmyr on January 22, 2022, 02:18:37 AM
Oh yeah, that sounds like combatting domestic violence alright: https://time.com/5942127/russia-domestic-violence-women/
It's a huge problem. The government has been pushing some important laws through.
For example, repeat offenders against children will now almost automatically get life sentence.
Quote from: celedhring on January 21, 2022, 01:37:17 PM
Here's the thing, in Bulgaria the members of the population get to elect their government. :P
I've been reading up on Bulgaria and chatting on some Bulgarian forums.
The insight I got from Bulgarians is their country has been resisting pressure from both sides: they haven't allowed mass deployment of NATO infrastructure on their territory, and they're also resisting Russia's pressure attempts.
I can respect that.
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 21, 2022, 04:32:24 PM
So far, Russia has abstained from sponsoring and executing colour revolutions, at least as far as I know. It's a much smarter way to get vassals or simply neutral regimes into power. You can even build an entire epic story around this event, like they did in Ukraine.
They helped get Trump elected.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2022, 05:36:30 AM
They helped get Trump elected.
Which evidence convinced you that it's true?
Quote from: Legbiter on January 21, 2022, 09:18:43 PM
Yeah. The Russian people given how the 20th century turned out deserve at least 10 centuries of peace and quiet. A nice life with children, an active social calendar and community obligations and a yearly 3 point something interest on the retirement fund above inflation over a 30 year period. :ccr
Too true :)
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 22, 2022, 05:44:10 AM
Which evidence convinced you that it's true?
I haven't seen any evidence that they swayed the election. However, there is irrefutable evidence Russia *tried.*
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 22, 2022, 05:55:18 AM
I haven't seen any evidence that they swayed the election. However, there is irrefutable evidence Russia *tried.*
Could you please point me to this irrefutable evidence?
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 22, 2022, 06:01:48 AM
Could you please point me to this irrefutable evidence?
https://www.google.com/search?q=us+intelligence+report+on+russian+interference+in+us+election&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=AOaemvKGIWzkS14Tyrqm0RLReEcSAs6vHQ%3A1642848387694&ei=g-DrYeXlKfGV0PEP5amakAM&ved=0ahUKEwils8WUl8X1AhXxCjQIHeWUBjIQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=us+intelligence+report+on+russian+interference+in+us+election&gs_lcp=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&sclient=gws-wiz
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 22, 2022, 06:52:42 AM
Quote from: Gaijin de Moscu on January 22, 2022, 06:01:48 AM
Could you please point me to this irrefutable evidence?
https://www.google.com/search?q=us+intelligence+report+on+russian+interference+in+us+election&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=AOaemvKGIWzkS14Tyrqm0RLReEcSAs6vHQ%3A1642848387694&ei=g-DrYeXlKfGV0PEP5amakAM&ved=0ahUKEwils8WUl8X1AhXxCjQIHeWUBjIQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=us+intelligence+report+on+russian+interference+in+us+election&gs_lcp=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&sclient=gws-wiz
:D Google search?
Ok, thank you Yi.
I couldn't link the Mueller report because it's a PDF.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 22, 2022, 08:16:48 AM
I couldn't link the Mueller report because it's a PDF.
Oh, I see. Thanks, will take a look.
Interesting take on the failure of the West to live up to its promises to Ukraine
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-when-it-comes-to-ukraines-national-security-vladimir-putin-has-already/
QuoteLubomyr Luciuk is a professor of political geography at the Royal Military College of Canada.
I have no idea what Vladimir Putin intends to do this week, next month, or next year – nor do the other pundits I have read.
Some have promoted the notion that Russia has a "sphere of influence" over Ukraine just because Ukraine was once held captive within the Soviet imperium. This is a rather tired excuse for settler-colonialism, a quite unacceptable formula for how international affairs should be managed in the 21st century.
In the three decades since the Soviet empire collapsed in 1991, a post-Soviet generation has grown up. I've met many of these young people in Ukraine. I've even encountered a few in Kingston, where for many years Ukrainian officers annually participated in advanced military training. The last two students who came here, just before the pandemic disrupted the program, were born after 1991, veterans of combat against the Russian invaders in eastern Ukraine in 2014. Neither man wanted his country to have anything to do with the anti-democratic regime of the Russian President and his KGB confederates, whom they correctly described as being hostile to the very idea of a free Ukraine. These warriors are now on the front lines. I know they will fight hard, not just because they know how, but more importantly, because they know why.
Then there are those who claim that NATO has gone "marching" eastward, "incorporating" former Soviet republics and the Warsaw Pact states and posing some kind of existential threat to Russia. Well, the reality is that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and other countries willingly reoriented themselves toward Europe and joined NATO as quickly as they could, doing whatever necessary to get away from Moscow. They saved themselves.
Some have suggested that Mr. Putin's real purpose, whether his troops stage a limited incursion or launch a full-scale attack, is to get Ukraine to accept neutrality, as Austria or Finland were forced to do after the Second World War. But that's not it. What Mr. Putin really craves is a neutered Ukraine. Sadly, I think he may succeed – not through the force of Russian arms, but because of what the West won't do.
Indeed, this is the reality: Despite decades of blather that's still being repeated, Ukraine hasn't been welcomed into NATO. All the assurances Kyiv was given about how Ukraine's territorial integrity and political independence would be respected in exchange for the surrender of the country's nuclear arsenal – promises that include the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances – were nothing but hollow. A generation of Ukrainians was duped, and they should have known better.
In 1991, I wrote an op-ed for this newspaper cautioning Kyiv against trusting others with Ukraine's national security. For that, I was admonished as a roguish provocateur; surely, the free world would not break its solemn promises? I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so," but I must. Today, when Ukraine needs reliable allies, none are to be found. Ukraine stands alone, betrayed.
In 2014, Russian soldiers occupied Crimea, which was illegally annexed by the Russian Federation soon thereafter. Russia has waged war against Ukraine ever since. Meanwhile, the West has not helped much, its much-touted economic sanctions incomplete and largely ineffectual. No matter what Russia does next, it's obvious the West has been cowed – and Mr. Putin knows it. So today's Ukrainians have to swallow the bitter truth: that their dreams of Ukraine returning to its rightful place in Europe have been undermined by the West. Or to put it another way: Mr. Putin has already won this war, without having to despoil even another metre of Ukrainian land.
Where the world goes after this is something we should all fear.
QuoteIndeed, this is the reality: Despite decades of blather that's still being repeated, Ukraine hasn't been welcomed into NATO. All the assurances Kyiv was given about how Ukraine's territorial integrity and political independence would be respected in exchange for the surrender of the country's nuclear arsenal – promises that include the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances – were nothing but hollow. A generation of Ukrainians was duped, and they should have known better.
Yeah way to encourage nuclear proliferation world. I hope fucking Ukraine is worth it.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2022, 11:03:56 AM
Yeah way to encourage nuclear proliferation world.
that's coming anyway
Truth is Ukraine is way too volatile to be a NATO let alone an EU member and that's not only the West's and Russia's failure, that's Ukraine's failure as well. Plus like every other single non-Ukrainian person living in a NATO country -despite whatever Gaijin's media tells him- I do NOT want Ukraine as a NATO member. That doesn't mean Russia should be given free reign over them, however. With just a bit of luck (for the ROTW not Ukrainians and Russians, who are fucked), it will become a decades-long resource sink for Russia, delaying that much the day when they will be coming for the Baltic States.
Quote from: Tamas on January 25, 2022, 12:09:53 PM
Truth is Ukraine is way too volatile to be a NATO let alone an EU member and that's not only the West's and Russia's failure, that's Ukraine's failure as well. Plus like every other single non-Ukrainian person living in a NATO country -despite whatever Gaijin's media tells him- I do NOT want Ukraine as a NATO member. That doesn't mean Russia should be given free reign over them, however. With just a bit of luck (for the ROTW not Ukrainians and Russians, who are fucked), it will become a decades-long resource sink for Russia, delaying that much the day when they will be coming for the Baltic States.
Haha you can't seem to write a post without taking a stab at me these days :)
Tamas, on behalf of Russia in all of its iterations — the Russian Empire, the USSR, and the Russian Federation — I sincerely apologise for every wrong-doing or wrong words you and those close to you have suffered from everything I may represent in your mind.
I pray for peace, we Russians love our children too.
PS: agree with you on the UA's volatility. One non-stop Maidan since 1990s may describe how I feel about it sometimes.
Quote from: Tamas on January 25, 2022, 12:09:53 PM
Truth is Ukraine is way too volatile to be a NATO let alone an EU member and that's not only the West's and Russia's failure, that's Ukraine's failure as well. Plus like every other single non-Ukrainian person living in a NATO country -despite whatever Gaijin's media tells him- I do NOT want Ukraine as a NATO member. That doesn't mean Russia should be given free reign over them, however. With just a bit of luck (for the ROTW not Ukrainians and Russians, who are fucked), it will become a decades-long resource sink for Russia, delaying that much the day when they will be coming for the Baltic States.
So I think we agree :o :P
But you're right and it shows. Ukrainian GDP per capita only got to about 80% of what was in 1990 in 2007, and they've more or less stagnated since. The comparison with countries who had a similar GDP per capita in 1990 (Russia, Poland, Turkey) is really grim. The other side where I do think the West - and particularly the UK bears a higher responsibility is in facilitating the looting of that country and others. I think the 90s in Ukraine were even worse than they were in Russia.
I agree on not letting Ukraine into NATO - but I think as the Finlandisation example shows, being an in-between-place doesn't necessarily mean the Ukrainian experience of the last 30 years and I hope that they can move to a bit more of a Finland situation.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2022, 11:03:56 AM
QuoteIndeed, this is the reality: Despite decades of blather that's still being repeated, Ukraine hasn't been welcomed into NATO. All the assurances Kyiv was given about how Ukraine's territorial integrity and political independence would be respected in exchange for the surrender of the country's nuclear arsenal – promises that include the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances – were nothing but hollow. A generation of Ukrainians was duped, and they should have known better.
Yeah way to encourage nuclear proliferation world. I hope fucking Ukraine is worth it.
So 1980s of you. Hate to break it to you, but its already here.
Is there anyone not in Ukraine who thinks Ukraine should actually be invited into NATO?
I think that is an argument looking for someone to argue against.
The only circumstances that I could imagine where Ukraine is in NATO is if Russia is in it as well.
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2022, 02:04:47 PM
Is there anyone not in Ukraine who thinks Ukraine should actually be invited into NATO?
I think that is an argument looking for someone to argue against.
The only circumstances that I could imagine where Ukraine is in NATO is if Russia is in it as well.
For the first time I believe, I'd agree with you.
It's US and NATO policy since 2008. My understanding is that it took a fair bit of pressure from the Bush administration to get that agreed:
QuoteThe United States continues to support NATO's decision in the 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration, reaffirmed ever since, including in the June 2021 Brussels Summit, that Georgia and Ukraine will become NATO members", the US Department of State said.
And from the NATO communique of June:
QuoteWe reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits. We stand firm in our support for Ukraine's right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference.
It's why Georgia decided they needed to solve the Abkhazia and South Ossetia issues - which of course led to the Russian invasion.
I don't think it's going to happen and I think it has a bigger impact in Ukrainian politics than it does on the heads of NATO governments re-iterating those statements, which is probably pro-forma by now. I think we probably should be honest with Ukraine on this.
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2022, 02:04:47 PM
Is there anyone not in Ukraine who thinks Ukraine should actually be invited into NATO?
I think that is an argument looking for someone to argue against.
The only circumstances that I could imagine where Ukraine is in NATO is if Russia is in it as well.
Well, NATO for one - from the 2008 Bucharest meeting official statement, point 23.
QuoteNATO welcomes Ukraine's and Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries' applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
I wonder what the logic is of announcing that you'll have Ukraine and Georgia in NATO at some point, but not now. Doesn't that basically put a clock on Russia to fuck them up before they become untouchable?
Yes.
I think it was Bush. Iraq had failed but there'd been the colour revolutions and Saakashvili and it looked like Ukraine, Serbia and Georgia was where the Bush/neo-con/"spreading democracy" agenda might be vidndicated. Obviously it was before the conflict in Georgia or the invasion of Ukraine, so Putin gave his speech about challenging Western/US hegemony but I don't think it was taken seriously and I think it was just assumed that this was all progress and irreversible.
In retrospect, I think it was hubristic - and absolutely did put a target on Georgia and Ukraine.
Yeah, that is a pretty dumb move.
I don't see it is realistic now or then. The only way that could make actual sense would be if Russia was basically completely non-belligerent towards the West, or Russia was a LOT more belligeret towards the West.
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2022, 02:04:47 PM
Is there anyone not in Ukraine who thinks Ukraine should actually be invited into NATO?
I think that is an argument looking for someone to argue against.
The only circumstances that I could imagine where Ukraine is in NATO is if Russia is in it as well.
I am in favor of Ukraine joining NATO.
Ukraine is basically a defensive alliance against Russia. Ukraine is threatened by Russia, they have an army, and they are willing to fight. That's more than can be said for most current NATO members.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2022, 02:34:23 PM
In retrospect, I think it was hubristic - and absolutely did put a target on Georgia and Ukraine.
Oh it was very hubristic at the time, not just in retrospect. It was not like we were all observing Bush back then thinking "wow this seems like a great idea".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2022, 04:05:34 PM
I am in favor of Ukraine joining NATO.
Ukraine is basically a defensive alliance against Russia. Ukraine is threatened by Russia, they have an army, and they are willing to fight. That's more than can be said for most current NATO members.
And you're thinking it's worth starting a fight with Russia over that?
Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2022, 05:13:24 PM
And you're thinking it's worth starting a fight with Russia over that?
What an odd way to put it.
Ukraine joining would not be "starting a fight." It would be preparing for a fight if Russia wants to start one.
Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2022, 05:13:24 PM
And you're thinking it's worth starting a fight with Russia over that?
Exactly. It's a mutual defence pact. The point isn't whether they're willing to fight - we're not forming a gang - but are we will to fight for them even if that means war with Russia. I think realistically, the honest is answer is no - we should absolutely help them be able to defend themselves but I don't think we should lead them on about this.
And as I say I think the repeated reiteration that Ukraine will join NATO is cheap for heads of government in Brussels. I think it's hugely important for people in Ukraine and shapes politics - possibly forcing some into more confrontational postures in the expectation that NATO has their back, for others who are attached to Russia it makes things for them feel more existential.
How can willingness to fight *not* be an issue in a mutual defense pact?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2022, 05:26:48 PM
What an odd way to put it.
Ukraine joining would not be "starting a fight." It would be preparing for a fight if Russia wants to start one.
Is the issue that you prefer "getting into a fight with Russia" to "starting a fight with Russia"? If so I'm happy to go with that.
The question still remains, though... as per your words NATO is a defensive alliance against Russia, Ukraine is threatened by Russia, and has a big army that is ready to fight.
So you think Ukraine should join NATO. From the perspective of current NATO members - including the US - is it worth bringing Ukraine into the alliance if it means direct armed conflict with Russia as a result?
Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2022, 06:38:47 PM
So you think Ukraine should join NATO. From the perspective of current NATO members - including the US - is it worth bringing Ukraine into the alliance if it means direct armed conflict with Russia as a result?
Sure. Better to fight now than do another Munich.
You seem to be forgetting that part of NATO's role is deterrence.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2022, 08:16:23 PM
Sure. Better to fight now than do another Munich.
You seem to be forgetting that part of NATO's role is deterrence.
Not forgetting that at all. I'm from a country that is right in the way of Russian actions should the balloon ever go up, I'm very cognizant of the deterrence role of NATO.
With the comparison to Munich, it sounds like you think all out war with Russia is inevitable?
I don't think it's inevitable. But *if* Russia invades Ukraine the Munich comparison is apt. What reason is there to think Putin would stop there?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2022, 09:52:59 PM
I don't think it's inevitable. But *if* Russia invades Ukraine the Munich comparison is apt. What reason is there to think Putin would stop there?
If Putin invades Ukraine, then he'll be in for a surprise. If he thought the letters to him were sternly worded before, they'd be really sternly worded after that. Maybe he'll get unnerved and stop eventually? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2022, 09:52:59 PMI don't think it's inevitable. But *if* Russia invades Ukraine the Munich comparison is apt. What reason is there to think Putin would stop there?
I can think of a few potential reasons:
1) Ukraine turns out to be less of a roll over than Putin thought in that particular case. Obviously that's something that remains to be seen, but I am personally partial to the view OvB has laid out earlier: that Russia full on invading Ukraine could end up an expensive quagmire both in terms of blood and money. Obviously this is speculative at this point.
2) Assuming you are considering NATO countries (as opposed to places like Belorussia), then there is a significant difference between attacking a member of the alliance and attacking a non-member of the alliance. It's not unreasonable to expect Putin to want to avoid putting himself at the receiving end of a NATO article 5 invocation.
3) The sanctions against Russia in response to a straight up invasion could potentially damage the Russian economy sufficiently to make waging further war economically impossible for Putin.
Interesting post from Damir Murasic on this point exactly - I'd add that as well as giving false hope to pro-EU/NATO Ukrainians and alarming Russia (a leadership, in my view, prone to paranoia) this matters because of its effect on Ukrainian domestic politics too. The van Middelaar lines are particularly striking because I believe during 2014 he was van Rompuy's speechwriter so was in the room (in 2008 he wasn't):
QuoteHow Not To Bend The Arc of History
Ukraine shows how idealism can get us into an unholy mess.
Damir Marusic
Published on: Jan 24, 2022 | 2 comments
I have been struggling to put down on paper exactly why the crisis in Ukraine is much bigger than Ukraine, and have been miserably failing these past few weeks. Fortunately, Brookings scholar and Russia expert Fiona Hill penned an article that hits most of the points I would have liked to hit. Do read the whole thing if you have time.
Fiona's essay opens with an arresting anecdote. "George, you have to understand that Ukraine is not even a country," Putin apparently told then-President George W. Bush in 2008. "Part of its territory is in Eastern Europe and the greater part was given to us." The backdrop for this ominous banter was the NATO summit in Bucharest, where the United States' desire to extend Membership Action Plans to Georgia and Ukraine had been thwarted by the vetoes of France and Germany. As a compromise with allies, NATO offered a halfway measure to the aspirants: "An explicit promise to join the bloc, but no specific timeline for membership," Fiona writes.
The wiggle room created by this half-meant promise—a promise she quietly lets us know she was opposed to while serving in the Bush government—has since opened up space for Putin to play hardball. He sees the West overextended and without the will for a fight. He has calculated, correctly, that we won't come to aid Ukraine militarily. By mauling Ukraine as we helplessly stand by, he plans to press his advantage, working to "exploit all the frictions and fractures in NATO and the European Union." Our allies, especially those on Europe's eastern flank, watching Ukraine get slowly dismembered, will have doubts about their own security guarantees, especially if countries like Germany continue to play down Russian aggression.
Fiona's argument is compelling and convincing to me, so much so that it sent me reflecting on some of my frustrations with how exactly we got here—and with the often dangerous role that unchecked idealism plays in the making of foreign policy.
First and foremost, it's worth stating clearly that I believe a country like Ukraine deserves a better future than the one that geography and history has cruelly bequeathed it. That said, I also believe that the difficulty of Ukraine's situation is very concrete and real, and is difficult to wave away. No matter what we may want for Ukraine and its citizens, it has long been obvious that the best case scenario is well out of reach. The world is a tragic place. In many situations, good people meet horrible fates. That tragic reality, however, has been ignored by a generation of activist policymakers steeped in a progressive vision of the world that kicked off with the end of the Cold War. And today's crisis is an excellent illustration of just how the best of intentions can lead us astray.
Just as NATO was starting to lead the Ukrainians and Georgians on with half-promises of eventual membership in 2008, the EU was playing the exact same dishonest game with its enlargement policy. It offered the six post-Soviet states not yet in the bloc the opportunity to join its "Eastern Partnership" initiative. Luuk van Middelaar's Alarums and Excursions is particularly damning in telling this story.
QuoteThe partnership was emphatically not an antechamber to accession. Western European public opinion was expressing itself tired of enlargement, so the Union kept its biggest magnet, the prospect of membership, in its pocket. This was not what leaders in Chisinau, Kiev and Tbilisi wanted to hear; for some, Union membership was the top priority.
A dilemma for Europe's diplomats: they wanted to support pro-European forces in the neighboring countries but could not make promises that went against the wishes of their own voters. The result was semantic ambivalence. In 2008 the European Council recognized Ukraine as "European country," still one step away from the coveted status of "European state" that would mean it could formally lay claim to membership. The subtle distinction was unsustainable. Knowing that these countries wanted to enter yet without promising to hold the door open, in its official declarations the Union repeated the Jesuitical formula "We recognize your European aspirations". In other words: no harm in trying.
Take a second to appreciate what is happening here: the idealists in Europe are refusing to bow to political realities at home—voters are tired of enlargement and advocating for it is a political loser—and are trying to lawyer their way to providing false hope to aspirant countries that have no realistic prospect of becoming members. They did it because they thought it was the right thing to do, and because it would be a shame to not give succor and hope to desperate people wanting a better life.
This kind of mindset led to a profound befuddlement across Europe when Russia finally invaded Ukraine in 2014 over Ukraine's attempt to sign an Association Agreement with the bloc. Middelaar again:
Quote The European Union refused to think in terms of spheres of influence; that, as President Obama would say later, was a nineteenth-century concept, unworthy of the twenty-first century. Against political antagonism it set a story of economic interlinkage. The trade agreement was presented as advantageous to all parties. It would immediately save Ukraine €500 million in import duties and in the longer term it would create 6 per cent annual growth, according to Barroso after the summit ended. This was not a zero-sum game, economist Van Rompuy agreed; prosperity in Ukraine would confer benefits on its neighbor Russia.
According to Brussels logic this win-win principle of trade was beyond dispute. It is the Union's raison d'être. Anyone who thinks or acts differently is beyond the pale. This conceptual rigidity revealed itself gloriously when Commission president Barroso firmly announced (without mentioning the man in the Kremlin by name), "This is a process not against someone. This is a process for something. It is for democracy, for stability and for prosperity. It is not against someone, because I don't believe someone should be against democracy, against stability or against prosperity." This was the ideology of the Brussels magnet in its most depoliticized, moralistic form. It sounded shrill. Impotent swagger.
Again, take a moment to appreciate this passage. The Europeans never had any intention of granting full membership to Ukraine. They could only offer halfway measures. But they dressed it up as a lot more than it was, both raising Ukrainian hopes and at the same time alarming the paranoid imperialist Russians. The Europeans were so deluded about what they were doing that they genuinely couldn't comprehend why Russia was sending troops to Crimea. Nineteenth-century behavior! The world doesn't work that way! We're just trying to make the world a better place!
The duplicitousness is bad enough, but the swagger coupled with actual impotence was the most damaging. Western moral credibility was built on a set of promises made to aspirant countries, in language replete in talk of values and solidarity. What Putin is attempting to do now is to prove the hollowness of the whole edifice. We have acted in bad faith, and led on countries we always knew we would never go to bat for. Putin is looking to provide an object lesson as to our worthlessness as allies.
As regular listeners of the podcast know, Shadi and I have both scorned Obama's passivity, memorably enshrined by the man himself in his remarks about the "arc of history bending toward justice". One does not have to actually do anything if history will prove that we were on the right side all along.
But where Shadi and I part ways is in support of activist policymaking. His rebuke to Obama was that as the most powerful person on the planet, he should have bent the arc of history toward justice himself rather than counting on it bending of its own accord. If Shadi followed Europe more closely, he probably would have been sympathetic to doubling down on promises to the countries striving to join the West in 2008—by both Americans and Europeans alike. The political realities were bleak for it working out, but the role of leadership is to change these realities, to bend history. Better to nudge things along and work on the politics, right?
My unease with this pose has always been that certain realities are fundamental, and are not really forceable by strong leadership. It may be narrowly true that if Georgia and Ukraine had been admitted to NATO and the European Union in 2008 straight away, Russia would never have dared to intervene, first in Georgia that same year, and then in Ukraine in 2014. But the political reality is that NATO accession was being blocked by two major European powers, and EU enlargement was already mostly dead at that point. In short, contra Shadi, I'd argue that it's as foolish to assume away politics as it is to assume that the arc of history automatically bends towards justice.
This, ultimately, is why I tend to advocate for a properly tragic view of the world. A smart politician will understand that no progress is permanent, and that every achievement is incredibly fragile. There are opportunities to make a difference, sure, and it may well be the case that in the case of Syria, Obama misjudged the situation—I'm not enough of an expert to argue those counterfactuals. But I maintain, however, that progress-minded policy activism, born out of a sunny optimism to change the world, is no less deadly than passivity. The crisis that the Western alliance is now facing on the eastern reaches of Europe, with Putin calling bullshit on all we stand for, is testament to just how bad a place good intentions can get us.
Sheilbh, may I suggest that by bolding the majority of the article, you aren't bolding anything? :P
For sure - but I thought most of it was interesting :P :blush:
It's a bold article indeed :P
That is good stuff.
The basic idea applies to a lot of progressive idealism.
Letting ideals drive things ends up over-promising and under-delivering, which does more damage to progressive cause then if you had done nothing at all.
I'm not sure I'd equate NATO or EU membership with "progressive idealism".
George Bush promising NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine may well have been foolish and counter productive, but that is something to lay at the feet of neocons, not progressives.
Quote from: Jacob on January 26, 2022, 01:58:06 PM
I'm not sure I'd equate NATO or EU membership with "progressive idealism".
George Bush promising NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine may well have been foolish and counter productive, but that is something to lay at the feet of neocons, not progressives.
I think it is the exact same thing, actually. It isn't "progressive" from the standpoint of "my team/your team" progressive, but from the standpoint of a desire to achieve what is perceived as a better outcome, and willing to actually make change to achieve that better outcome. It is what I mean when I describe myself as a progressive.
Indeed, I think the basic neocon positon is one that is in fact progressive in that sense - the idea that there are places that are screwed up, they are screwed up because they have messed up political systems, and if we could just bring them democracy, why....(stuffstuffstuff)...western liberal democracy and properity and happiness!
Hell, necons are incredibly progressive in that sense. In fact, I think your counter argument that that was "neocons" I agree with, and in fact would argue that it kind of makes my point. Wishing something were so isn't enough to make it so, and wishing plus doing doesn't always result in the outcome you want either.
Wishing and half ass doing, or wishing and not doing, or wishing and saying but not doing is worse then just not wishing at all.
That's all well and true, but given that "progressive" has a specific political meaning - especially in the US - and given how much discourse goes on about "idiot progressives being impractical" and so on I think calling neocon policy "progressive" when it fails (and isn't pushed by progressives) is a bit unfortunate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2022, 09:52:59 PM
I don't think it's inevitable. But *if* Russia invades Ukraine the Munich comparison is apt. What reason is there to think Putin would stop there?
What reason is there to think Putin would go further? Or even invade for that matter?
Quote from: Jacob on January 26, 2022, 04:09:10 PM
That's all well and true, but given that "progressive" has a specific political meaning - especially in the US - and given how much discourse goes on about "idiot progressives being impractical" and so on I think calling neocon policy "progressive" when it fails (and isn't pushed by progressives) is a bit unfortunate.
Do you think the desire to engage with the Ukraine was really "neocon"?
I've never really thought of it that way...I wonder if it isn't the other way around - its neocon because it failed.
Expansion of NATO eastwards was hardly a Republican political objective after all - that very much fell under the foreign policy consensus / broad agreement between both parties.
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2022, 05:40:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 26, 2022, 04:09:10 PM
That's all well and true, but given that "progressive" has a specific political meaning - especially in the US - and given how much discourse goes on about "idiot progressives being impractical" and so on I think calling neocon policy "progressive" when it fails (and isn't pushed by progressives) is a bit unfortunate.
Do you think the desire to engage with the Ukraine was really "neocon"?
I've never really thought of it that way...I wonder if it isn't the other way around - its neocon because it failed.
Expansion of NATO eastwards was hardly a Republican political objective after all - that very much fell under the foreign policy consensus / broad agreement between both parties.
For sure it was Berkut, there have been a number of descriptions of that linked in this thread already - including Sheilbh's latest article. This was the Bush presidency we are talking about here... It was a US initiative. The reason it did not happen is France, and iirc the UK objected.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2022, 05:42:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2022, 05:40:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 26, 2022, 04:09:10 PM
That's all well and true, but given that "progressive" has a specific political meaning - especially in the US - and given how much discourse goes on about "idiot progressives being impractical" and so on I think calling neocon policy "progressive" when it fails (and isn't pushed by progressives) is a bit unfortunate.
Do you think the desire to engage with the Ukraine was really "neocon"?
I've never really thought of it that way...I wonder if it isn't the other way around - its neocon because it failed.
Expansion of NATO eastwards was hardly a Republican political objective after all - that very much fell under the foreign policy consensus / broad agreement between both parties.
For sure it was Berkut, there have been a number of descriptions of that linked in this thread already - including Sheilbh's latest article. This was the Bush presidency we are talking about here... It was a US initiative. The reason it did not happen is France, and iirc the UK objected.
That's not what I meant - I just mean that I don't think it was a neocon thing - had Clinton been President, or Obama, at that time, nobody would have thought it was crazy that a Dem would be pushing for inclusion of Ukraine into the western sphere. It was the US position, but I don't think it was really a neocon position, if that makes any sense.
Nor am I saying that there was some kind of great consensus that it would be a good idea to get Ukraine into NATO over the objections of the Russians. Just that those positions were not really political within the US. More just arguments about whether or not it would be a good idea.
I mean, this was when most Dems voted for the neocon agenda. The neocons were extending the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, they weren't inventing something completely new.
People at the time certainly saw it as part of the Neo Con agenda.
QuoteAt the recently completed NATO summit in Bucharest, the Bush Administration took another step in its seven-year effort to transform the transatlantic alliance into an organization with a more global mission supportive of Washington's broader foreign policy goals. The Administration was able to win approval for an increase in NATO forces in Afghanistan, for its plan to deploy a missile defense system in Central Europe ostensibly aimed at a future Iranian nuclear threat, and for further enlarging NATO membership with the admission of Albania and Croatia and with promises of future membership for Georgia and Ukraine. In Bucharest Bush described his vision for the alliance in terms that should worry everyone familiar with the neoconservative agenda. "NATO," he said, "is no longer a static alliance focused on defending Europe from a Soviet tank invasion. It is now an expeditionary alliance that is sending its forces across the world to help secure a future of freedom and peace for millions."
In fact, the Administration's mission to transform NATO promises to do great damage to international peace and cooperation. If the true purpose of the old NATO was to "keep the Americans in, the Soviets out and the Germans down," as the saying went, the Bush Administration's goal for the alliance is to provide multilateral cover and support for its unilateral crusade while encircling Russia and sidelining the United Nations (a programmatic extension of the Clinton Administration's use of NATO to sideline the UN during the 1999 Kosovo war). This is a prescription for an even colder peace, if not an outright new cold war, with Russia; continued contentious relations with America's oldest allies in Europe, who do not share Washington's global mission; and an even weaker UN at a time when it is needed more urgently than ever.
The main vehicle for transforming NATO into an alliance with a global mission controlled by Washington has been expansion. The Administration pushed for a large NATO expansion in 2001 that incorporated the Baltic states as well as the Central and Eastern European countries not included in the first round of enlargement. It did so in part to dilute (old) European influence within the alliance, since the new members, especially the Baltic and Balkan states, like Poland before them, tend to be more subservient to Washington on military matters.
Expansion has forced the alliance into a looser military and command structure, allowing Washington to pick and choose its allies in any crisis while retaining the appearance of overall NATO support. This strategy did not help win outright support for the invasion of Iraq, but US courtship of Central and Eastern European countries did buy it some semblance of an international coalition and has facilitated its goal of leaning on NATO to support its war in Afghanistan.
The enlargement of NATO has done great damage to the cause of effective international cooperation, including on many of the issues that most affect US security. The main damage has been the increasing alienation of Russia, which has vigorously opposed NATO's push eastward. Russians of all political persuasions have, justifiably, seen NATO expansion as an unnecessary provocation aimed at weakening Moscow's influence with its neighbors. Moscow has countered this and other Washington moves by suspending the Conventional Forces in Europe agreement, by stepping up the modernization of its nuclear forces and by tightening its grip on the oil and gas supplies of Eurasia.
Washington's championing of NATO membership for Georgia, a former Soviet republic that is openly hostile to Moscow, and of Ukraine, a country that is deeply entwined with Russia economically, demographically and culturally, threatens to further damage relations with Russia (it's also bound to create internal tensions in Ukraine, where a majority of the population opposes NATO membership). This comes at a time when the United States needs Russian cooperation for a wide variety of foreign policy goals, from controlling loose nukes to helping to curb Iran's nuclear program to containing Islamic extremism. Only the objections of Germany, France and a few other European countries prevented NATO from offering Georgia and Ukraine a Membership Action Plan.
The other casualty of the Bush Administration's NATO policy has been UN reform. In many respects Administration neoconservatives see a globalized NATO as an alternative to the UN. The Administration has used NATO to push aside the UN even when the latter body, if given the proper resources, would have had a better chance of succeeding in places like Afghanistan. Indeed, many neoconservative and neoliberal hawks, including presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, see Bush's globalized NATO as the forerunner of a concert of democracies that will replace the UN. In that respect, Bush's globalized NATO is just one more neocon delusion that must be challenged and set aside by an incoming Democratic administration.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/neocon-nato-delusions/
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2022, 07:51:42 PM
I mean, this was when most Dems voted for the neocon agenda. The neocons were extending the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, they weren't inventing something completely new.
lolwut :wacko:
You have a peculiar recollection.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/maritime-warning-on-russian-navy-drills-is-first-for-foreign-military-in-20-years-1.4788228?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
QuoteMaritime warning on Russian navy drills is first for foreign military in 20 years
Fishing group discovers that Irish trawlers will be in area to north of military exercises
Russia's naval drills planned for next week are the first exercises by a foreign military in at least 20 years that have required an Irish maritime warning.
While other navies and air forces regularly transit through Ireland's exclusive economic one (EEZ), live fire drills are unheard of in recent years, aside from those carried out by the Irish Naval Service.
The Department of Transport told The Irish Times it has issued 39 marine notices relating to military exercises in the last two decades, all of which related to exercises carried out by the Irish Defence Forces. The one exception is the Russian drills planned for next month.
A Russian flotilla, believed to contain five ships, including a large missile cruiser, continues to make its way down the west coast of Norway in the direction of Ireland.
Naval sources said they believe these ships are likely due to take part in the drills some 240km off Ireland's southwest for five days from next Thursday.
The department issued a marine notice on Wednesday to all seafarers with the location of the exercises, warning that they "will include the use of naval artillery and launching of rockets".
"Given the nature of the planned exercises and the presence of naval forces, vessels and crew are advised of serious safety risks in the operational area," the department said.
Seafarers were advised to "navigate their vessel to ensure safety at all times", it added.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin has expressed concern for the safety of west Cork fishermen who plan to peacefully protest Russian military exercises by continuing to fish in the area.
Mr Martin said his priority was the welfare of the fishermen who are engaging in the protest and he warned them that they should exercise caution.
Safety
"People have to be first and foremost conscious of safety, and in our view that is not the safest thing to be doing, fishing close to where military drilling is taking place," he said.
"We will at some stage engage with the fishermen on this and take advice on that. There needs to be balance here and proportionality on how it is addressed with safety always at the forefront."
One fishing industry group, which was involved in discussions with the Russian ambassador Yuri Filatov about the naval exercises in Dublin on Wednesday, said it only discovered after the meeting that Irish trawlers would not be fishing next week in the vicinity of the navy drills.
Brendan Byrne, chief executive of the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association (IFPEA), provided The Irish Times with a map created by marine newspaper The Skipper, in consultation with fishermen, showing that trawlers would be fishing some distance away from the location of the planned military exercises.
The trawlers would be fishing for prawns in the Porcupine Bank area to the north of the designated area where the Russian drills will take place.
The map, he said, was drafted for IFPEA using the coordinates published by the department and cross-referenced with the coordinates for the most southerly point for the fishing in that area.
"The net result is there is already a vast buffer zone between both areas. Had the department shared this data with the industry earlier, all of this could have been avoided," he said.
Mr Byrne said that it was clear to him that there would be a "natural safety zone" between the Russian naval vessels and the Irish fishing trawlers.
Denied statement
He was responding after the Russian embassy issued a denial to Mr Byrne's statement to the media on Wednesday that Mr Filatov and the fishing industry group had agreed to a "buffer zone" between the Russian naval vessels and the Irish fishing boats during the military drills.
An embassy spokesman said this was "not true".
"The ambassador has listened carefully to the concerns that the Irish fishermen expressed and explained to them that these drills will not do any harm to their interests," he said. "He also urged them to refrain from any provocative actions which might endanger all involved."
Up to 60 Irish trawlers are planning to fish in the area to the north of the Russian drills location from February 1st when the prawn quotas open up.
The exercises take place between February 3rd and 8th, according to the department's marine notice issued on the back of information given by Russia to the Irish Aviation Authority.
Sean O'Donoghue, chief executive of the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, said there would be no fishing activity in the location of the Russian drills at the time they are taking place.
Pelagic fishing vessels "from time to time fish in the vicinity of the Russian drill area but the blue whiting fishery will not be starting until around the middle of February and it is usually further north than the drill area", he said.
Other fishing, for albacore tuna, takes place there but not until the summer months, he said.
"The only other pelagic species that maybe in area is boarfish but I am pretty sure it is not a problem," he added.
I have to be honest the ongoing row between the Russian defence ministry and embassy in Ireland with some Irish fishermen is my favourite sub-plot in this. I think the fishermen were initially suggesting they would go into the exercise and disrupt it :lol:
There's lots of speculation about the Russian navy choosing that site, incidentally.
There is nothing funny or charming about it. :P
As you note maybe the Russians are itching for a Casus Belli, in which case Irish trawlers getting near their ships will be sunk and Ukraine will be invaded. So the Irish better dial down their own stereotypes and stay the heck away.
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2022, 03:17:57 PM
There is nothing funny or charming about it. :P
If there's one thing likely to inspire a full military response from the EU it's people fucking with fishermen :lol: :ph34r:
Quote from: Zoupa on January 27, 2022, 05:53:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2022, 07:51:42 PM
I mean, this was when most Dems voted for the neocon agenda. The neocons were extending the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, they weren't inventing something completely new.
lolwut :wacko:
You have a peculiar recollection.
Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 29, 2022, 03:42:02 PM
Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.
... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2022, 06:22:17 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 29, 2022, 03:42:02 PM
Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.
... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?
Maybe?
Quote from: Tamas on January 29, 2022, 03:17:57 PM
As you note maybe the Russians are itching for a Casus Belli, in which case Irish trawlers getting near their ships will be sunk and Ukraine will be invaded. So the Irish better dial down their own stereotypes and stay the heck away.
The last Russian fleet that blasted a bunch of fishing trawlers off Europe's northern coast faired poorly thereafter.
(https://alchetron.com/cdn/battle-of-tsushima-6286286d-90c7-4ec6-ab15-38ab947c691-resize-750.jpeg)
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2022, 06:22:17 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 29, 2022, 03:42:02 PM
Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.
... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?
THe idea of expanding NATO eastward was
A) Part of the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, and
B) Arguably a "progressive" idea, in that it is an attempt to extend greater human rights/protections/western liberalism globally.
As I thought I tried to make very clear, it isn't mean "progressive" from the standpoint of modern day progressives vs. conservatives political teams.
The American left tends to bigger on alliances, including NATO, than the American Right. One of the big complaints about the Iraq war was that it was dividing our allies. Keep in mind that the Neocons were born out of the left. They were the old leftists who hated the Soviet Union and were disgusted by the old left demanding an end to the Vietnam war. They believed that Democracies didn't wage wars on another and if you spread enough Democracy it would result in world peace. Back in the 1990's and 2000's the there was a chance to make right the wrongs committed during the Cold War. America had abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal and that was seen as a moral wrong as well as a practical mistake. If we could just establish democracy the people there wouldn't want war or extremist tyranny.
This didn't make them that different than the mainstream American left.
Quote from: Berkut on January 30, 2022, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2022, 06:22:17 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 29, 2022, 03:42:02 PM
Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.
... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?
THe idea of expanding NATO eastward was
A) Part of the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, and
B) Arguably a "progressive" idea, in that it is an attempt to extend greater human rights/protections/western liberalism globally.
As I thought I tried to make very clear, it isn't mean "progressive" from the standpoint of modern day progressives vs. conservatives political teams.
I guess you did not read the article I posted from the period of time we are discussing, which states exactly the opposite. Yeah, you have made your view clear, but using the word progressive in any sense to describe the neo con foreign policies of the Bush administration is just bizarre.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 31, 2022, 11:22:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 30, 2022, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2022, 06:22:17 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 29, 2022, 03:42:02 PM
Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.
... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?
THe idea of expanding NATO eastward was
A) Part of the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, and
B) Arguably a "progressive" idea, in that it is an attempt to extend greater human rights/protections/western liberalism globally.
As I thought I tried to make very clear, it isn't mean "progressive" from the standpoint of modern day progressives vs. conservatives political teams.
I guess you did not read the article I posted from the period of time we are discussing, which states exactly the opposite. Yeah, you have made your view clear, but using the word progressive in any sense to describe the neo con foreign policies of the Bush administration is just bizarre.
I think we all knew that it was possible to find an article "from the time we were discussing" making any kind of political claim one would like to find. So no, I don't think the fact that you can find an article saying expanding NATO was a neocon policy actually makes it true that only neocons ever thought expanding NATO was a good idea, or that anything neocons were in favor of, by definition, could not also be considered a good idea by others, including progressives.
No everything MUST be seen in light of purple and green Drazi.
Quote from: Berkut on January 31, 2022, 01:12:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 31, 2022, 11:22:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 30, 2022, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2022, 06:22:17 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 29, 2022, 03:42:02 PM
Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.
... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?
THe idea of expanding NATO eastward was
A) Part of the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, and
B) Arguably a "progressive" idea, in that it is an attempt to extend greater human rights/protections/western liberalism globally.
As I thought I tried to make very clear, it isn't mean "progressive" from the standpoint of modern day progressives vs. conservatives political teams.
I guess you did not read the article I posted from the period of time we are discussing, which states exactly the opposite. Yeah, you have made your view clear, but using the word progressive in any sense to describe the neo con foreign policies of the Bush administration is just bizarre.
I think we all knew that it was possible to find an article "from the time we were discussing" making any kind of political claim one would like to find. So no, I don't think the fact that you can find an article saying expanding NATO was a neocon policy actually makes it true that only neocons ever thought expanding NATO was a good idea, or that anything neocons were in favor of, by definition, could not also be considered a good idea by others, including progressives.
No everything MUST be seen in light of purple and green Drazi.
Once you latch onto an idea, no matter how much it gets contradicted with facts, you dig in harder and harder. Hopefully this is just a character you play on Languish.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 31, 2022, 01:23:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 31, 2022, 01:12:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 31, 2022, 11:22:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 30, 2022, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2022, 06:22:17 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 29, 2022, 03:42:02 PM
Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.
... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?
THe idea of expanding NATO eastward was
A) Part of the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, and
B) Arguably a "progressive" idea, in that it is an attempt to extend greater human rights/protections/western liberalism globally.
As I thought I tried to make very clear, it isn't mean "progressive" from the standpoint of modern day progressives vs. conservatives political teams.
I guess you did not read the article I posted from the period of time we are discussing, which states exactly the opposite. Yeah, you have made your view clear, but using the word progressive in any sense to describe the neo con foreign policies of the Bush administration is just bizarre.
I think we all knew that it was possible to find an article "from the time we were discussing" making any kind of political claim one would like to find. So no, I don't think the fact that you can find an article saying expanding NATO was a neocon policy actually makes it true that only neocons ever thought expanding NATO was a good idea, or that anything neocons were in favor of, by definition, could not also be considered a good idea by others, including progressives.
No everything MUST be seen in light of purple and green Drazi.
Once you latch onto an idea, no matter how much it gets contradicted with facts, you dig in harder and harder. Hopefully this is just a character you play on Languish.
Bizarre. It is a total irrelevant nit. It matters not one bit to the discussion whether or not NATO expansion was championed only by neocons or more generally. This idea that the entire world was aghast at the idea of NATO expanding except those damned neocons is obviously somehow super important to you, ok...
But sure - if this is something you want to crow about how your Drazi never supported such a thing, go right ahead. Whatever.
In the US, the legislative authorization to pursue NATO membership for Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine was provided through the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007. In the Senate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd co-sponsored. The bill passed both houses by unanimous consent. This was pretty typical of the series of NATO enlargement bills going back to the early 90s all of which passed by very wide margins or without a formal roll call. It simply is not correct to say that NATO enlargement in US politics was a neo-con project. It was widely supported across much of the political spectrum. The Nation is good opinion mag, but what it expresses are editors' opinion, nothing more.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 31, 2022, 05:08:33 PM
In the US, the legislative authorization to pursue NATO membership for Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine was provided through the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007. In the Senate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd co-sponsored. The bill passed both houses by unanimous consent. This was pretty typical of the series of NATO enlargement bills going back to the early 90s all of which passed by very wide margins or without a formal roll call. It simply is not correct to say that NATO enlargement in US politics was a neo-con project. It was widely supported across much of the political spectrum. The Nation is good opinion mag, but what it expresses are editors' opinion, nothing more.
Yeah expanding both the EU and NATO to include all of Europe was something both parties agreed on completely until the past decade or so.
But the idea was basically to ensure peace in a form basically good for American security and economic interests, I don't think anybody in the US thought that membership in NATO and the EU would make all those countries do our bidding as is clear by virtually the entire history of NATO and the EU :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 31, 2022, 05:08:33 PM
In the US, the legislative authorization to pursue NATO membership for Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine was provided through the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007. In the Senate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd co-sponsored. The bill passed both houses by unanimous consent. This was pretty typical of the series of NATO enlargement bills going back to the early 90s all of which passed by very wide margins or without a formal roll call. It simply is not correct to say that NATO enlargement in US politics was a neo-con project. It was widely supported across much of the political spectrum. The Nation is good opinion mag, but what it expresses are editors' opinion, nothing more.
Normally there's a bit of a step between "cross-partisan" and "progressive", I thought?
I formally retract any comment I made connecting the expansion of NATO to the word progress, progressive, or any other derivative of the term.
I apologize for triggering you all.
Can't help being an asshole can you.
Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2022, 07:08:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 31, 2022, 05:08:33 PM
In the US, the legislative authorization to pursue NATO membership for Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine was provided through the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007. In the Senate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd co-sponsored. The bill passed both houses by unanimous consent. This was pretty typical of the series of NATO enlargement bills going back to the early 90s all of which passed by very wide margins or without a formal roll call. It simply is not correct to say that NATO enlargement in US politics was a neo-con project. It was widely supported across much of the political spectrum. The Nation is good opinion mag, but what it expresses are editors' opinion, nothing more.
Normally there's a bit of a step between "cross-partisan" and "progressive", I thought?
Sure but if the definition of neo-con is drawn widely enough to include Teddy Kennedy, etc, then it becomes meaningless.
Just because the unchecked neo-cons in the Bush Jr administration made terrible mistakes doesn't mean that any idea supported by a neo-conservative at any time must necessarily be wrong or must be shunned by everyone else completely for all time, at risk of catching neo-con cooties.
BTW the same general idea goes for "socialism"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2022, 11:53:14 AM
Sure but if the definition of neo-con is drawn widely enough to include Teddy Kennedy, etc, then it becomes meaningless.
Just because the unchecked neo-cons in the Bush Jr administration made terrible mistakes doesn't mean that any idea supported by a neo-conservative at any time must necessarily be wrong or must be shunned by everyone else completely for all time, at risk of catching neo-con cooties.
That's fair. I assumed it was a neocon policy because of the neocon nature of Bush's administration, but am happy to stand corrected on that.
... and I don't hold that all things neocon are anathema. I'm sure history will vindicate any number of neocon policies (whether enacted or merely argued for); so I agree with you there as well.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 31, 2022, 05:08:33 PM
In the US, the legislative authorization to pursue NATO membership for Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine was provided through the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007. In the Senate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd co-sponsored. The bill passed both houses by unanimous consent. This was pretty typical of the series of NATO enlargement bills going back to the early 90s all of which passed by very wide margins or without a formal roll call. It simply is not correct to say that NATO enlargement in US politics was a neo-con project. It was widely supported across much of the political spectrum. The Nation is good opinion mag, but what it expresses are editors' opinion, nothing more.
Normally I'd take your word for this, but CC has linked to an article where one guy says that this was a neocon-only policy, and facts cannot be allowed to override that guy's opinion.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 01, 2022, 12:36:35 AM
Can't help being an asshole can you.
:lmfao: Irony isn't just the opposite of wrinkly.
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2022, 01:14:08 PM
Incidentally, there's a Catalan saying that goes "God give us water, clear days, and war in Sevastopol" :P
??? what is the origin of that saying?
I don't get it either.
I guess the Sevastopol part is the wish to be involved in a war where you get to trounce your enemy?
My guess:
War = opportunity to get wealth and - for the officer class, promotions.
In Sevastapol = far away such that the local population doesn't suffer; possibly the saying was saying when Crimea was a focus of international conflict.
Alternate guess:
War in Sevastapol is associated with conflicts in which Spain's enemies got deeply involved, interfering less in Spanish affairs.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 31, 2022, 05:08:33 PM
In the US, the legislative authorization to pursue NATO membership for Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine was provided through the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007. In the Senate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd co-sponsored. The bill passed both houses by unanimous consent. This was pretty typical of the series of NATO enlargement bills going back to the early 90s all of which passed by very wide margins or without a formal roll call. It simply is not correct to say that NATO enlargement in US politics was a neo-con project. It was widely supported across much of the political spectrum. The Nation is good opinion mag, but what it expresses are editors' opinion, nothing more.
No, read what it actually authorized. It did not actually authorize Ukraine to pursue membership. But rather the ability to receive assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994. Those are two very different things.
The US has never actually authorized the Ukraine to join but rather to take steps to pursue an application to join which application would be assessed. Fancy footwork that came about because the Neo Con agenda to include Ukraine within NATO was rejected by other NATO countries.
It is not surprising it passed unopposed, it doesn't actually mean anything other than give access to aid.
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2022, 03:35:26 PM
I guess the Sevastopol part is the wish to be involved in a war where you get to trounce your enemy?
Nobody really did any trouncing in the Crimean War.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2022, 04:48:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2022, 03:35:26 PM
I guess the Sevastopol part is the wish to be involved in a war where you get to trounce your enemy?
Nobody really did any trouncing in the Crimean War.
The war was a pretty devastating blow to Russia, and it was knee-capped for at least a couple of decades. Now that I think of it, though, it does seem more likely that as far as Spaniards are concerned, the Crimean War is a calamity that keeps all their potential rivals occupied.
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2022, 05:00:18 PM
The war was a pretty devastating blow to Russia, and it was knee-capped for at least a couple of decades. Now that I think of it, though, it does seem more likely that as far as Spaniards are concerned, the Crimean War is a calamity that keeps all their potential rivals occupied.
Well, I'm more informed about the battles than I am about the geopolitical consequences (based largely on an excellent SPI quadrigame), but I thought the Russians were rampaging through Ottoman controlled Balkans not long after. And the battles were certainly no cake walk for the French, British and Sardinians(!).
And were the British, French, and Russians really military rivals of the Spanish at the time?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 01, 2022, 04:18:31 PM
No, read what it actually authorized. It did not actually authorize Ukraine to pursue membership. But rather the ability to receive assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994. Those are two very different things.
I would not say there are very different things. In fact, they were very similar things. The 94 Act was the framework for promoting NATO membership of former eastern bloc countries. The Act directs the President to establish a program to "facilitate the transition to NATO membership." That was the whole purpose: to "furnish appropriate assistance to facilitate the transition to full NATO membership at an early date."
So designating Ukraine (and the others) as participants in the 94 Participation Act means to get them into NATO. And that's exactly what the US Congress unanimously declared in the 2007 legislation:
QuoteContingent upon their continued implementation of democratic, defense, and economic reform, and their willingness and ability to meet the responsibilities of membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a clear expression of national intent to do so, Congress calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia (FYROM), and Ukraine to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to promote security and stability in Europe
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2022, 06:20:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2022, 05:00:18 PM
The war was a pretty devastating blow to Russia, and it was knee-capped for at least a couple of decades. Now that I think of it, though, it does seem more likely that as far as Spaniards are concerned, the Crimean War is a calamity that keeps all their potential rivals occupied.
Well, I'm more informed about the battles than I am about the geopolitical consequences (based largely on an excellent SPI quadrigame), but I thought the Russians were rampaging through Ottoman controlled Balkans not long after. And the battles were certainly no cake walk for the French, British and Sardinians(!).
And were the British, French, and Russians really military rivals of the Spanish at the time?
Russians lost every battle of consequence during the war, and it was a huge shock for Russia. They also essentially had Crimea demilitarized. The allies did lose a mind-numbing number of people considering their overwhelming success in the war, but almost all of them were due to disease (Ottomans excepted). It wasn't until 1877 that Russians could resume confidently pecking on the Ottoman corpse.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2022, 06:47:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 01, 2022, 04:18:31 PM
No, read what it actually authorized. It did not actually authorize Ukraine to pursue membership. But rather the ability to receive assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994. Those are two very different things.
I would not say there are very different things. In fact, they were very similar things. The 94 Act was the framework for promoting NATO membership of former eastern bloc countries. The Act directs the President to establish a program to "facilitate the transition to NATO membership." That was the whole purpose: to "furnish appropriate assistance to facilitate the transition to full NATO membership at an early date."
So designating Ukraine (and the others) as participants in the 94 Participation Act means to get them into NATO. And that's exactly what the US Congress unanimously declared in the 2007 legislation:
QuoteContingent upon their continued implementation of democratic, defense, and economic reform, and their willingness and ability to meet the responsibilities of membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a clear expression of national intent to do so, Congress calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia (FYROM), and Ukraine to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to promote security and stability in Europe
And the 2007 act passed with unanimous consent in both houses. Can't really argue that every senator and congressman of the time was a neocon.
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2022, 06:53:24 PM
Russians lost every battle of consequence during the war
I wouldn't call Balaclava a loss for Russia.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2022, 09:24:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2022, 06:53:24 PM
Russians lost every battle of consequence during the war
I wouldn't call Balaclava a loss for Russia.
But it was a big win for terrorists, hijackers and that robber guy who keeps trying to get me to buy a security system on TV.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2022, 06:47:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 01, 2022, 04:18:31 PM
No, read what it actually authorized. It did not actually authorize Ukraine to pursue membership. But rather the ability to receive assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994. Those are two very different things.
I would not say there are very different things. In fact, they were very similar things. The 94 Act was the framework for promoting NATO membership of former eastern bloc countries. The Act directs the President to establish a program to "facilitate the transition to NATO membership." That was the whole purpose: to "furnish appropriate assistance to facilitate the transition to full NATO membership at an early date."
So designating Ukraine (and the others) as participants in the 94 Participation Act means to get them into NATO. And that's exactly what the US Congress unanimously declared in the 2007 legislation:
QuoteContingent upon their continued implementation of democratic, defense, and economic reform, and their willingness and ability to meet the responsibilities of membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a clear expression of national intent to do so, Congress calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia (FYROM), and Ukraine to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to promote security and stability in Europe
I think you need to read it a little more carefully. You know the part where the Ukraine and Georgia were expressly given different treatment from the rest. The clause that is specifically only about them... The obvious explanation is that they needed to be treated differently because the NATO allies objected to treating Ukraine and Georgia the same, and so despite the wishes of the Bush administration that is as far as they could go. If you can explain to me how allowing a country to prepare to make an application which will be made at a later date and then assessed to see if they should be admitted is the same as all the others who were give much more favourable treatment, I would be much obliged. But there seems to be a clear difference between being welcomed into the alliance and being told that if you just wait outside and in future tell us why we should let you in and we will think about it.
And after all, that is why Ukraine is not in NATO today.
So apparently Putin has spoken to the current situation (for the first time in weeks). Highlights include:
- The West is attempting to lure Russia into a war, so they can justify harsh sanctions to hinder Russia's development.
- It is clear that the West is completely ignoring Russia's legitimate security needs.
- The West (which is the US, helped by its European allies) doesn't care about Ukraine, but is using it in an attempt to harm Russia.
- The 100,000 troops are purely there in response to the increasing threat from NATO.
- One scenario that illustrates Russia's very reasonable demand for NATO to never accept Ukraine is this: imagine Ukraine is part of NATO and Ukraine then attacks Russia in an attempt to regain Crimea? This could mean war between Russia and NATO. Did anyone think about that? Apparently not.
Separately, apparently Orban - having talked to Putin - agrees that the differences between NATO and Russia are significant, but he is convinced that a solution can be found that's acceptable to all parties.
... so... looking at it positively, if Putin is framing the potential for a conflict as a Western ploy to trick Russia into starting a war, that suggests that he's trying to make "no invasion" the clever move for Russia.
Hopefully it's a sign that he's planning to retreat. It could be an attempt to drive the wedge between the US and Ukraine, though. US and Ukraine have always been at odds about the chances of Russian invasion, at least publicly, and from pretty much the beginning a popular theory in Ukraine was that US was hyping up the war hysteria to get Ukraine to do something. Putin may be playing into this theory by trying to convince Ukrainians that they're treated as cannon fodder by the US.
Quote from: chipwich on February 01, 2022, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2022, 01:14:08 PM
Incidentally, there's a Catalan saying that goes "God give us water, clear days, and war in Sevastopol" :P
??? what is the origin of that saying?
The Crimean War. Catalan farmers thrived due to rising grain prices.
The wider meaning is that war in faraway lands can be beneficial. It has to be put in context of a time when Spain began sitting out all major global conflicts, and usually the economy benefited from it.
Quote from: celedhring on February 02, 2022, 06:48:50 AM
Quote from: chipwich on February 01, 2022, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2022, 01:14:08 PM
Incidentally, there's a Catalan saying that goes "God give us water, clear days, and war in Sevastopol" :P
??? what is the origin of that saying?
The Crimean War. Catalan farmers thrived due to rising grain prices.
The wider meaning is that war in faraway lands can be beneficial. It has to be put in context of a time when Spain began sitting out all major global conflicts, and usually the economy benefited from it.
Interesting, thanks.
El País have got their hands on the US written response.
https://english.elpais.com/usa/2022-02-02/us-offers-disarmament-measures-to-russia-in-exchange-for-a-deescalation-of-military-threat-in-ukraine.html
Quote from: Jacob on February 02, 2022, 12:53:26 AM
- The 100,000 troops are purely there in response to the increasing threat from NATO.
:yeah:
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2022, 12:43:06 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2022, 06:47:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 01, 2022, 04:18:31 PM
No, read what it actually authorized. It did not actually authorize Ukraine to pursue membership. But rather the ability to receive assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994. Those are two very different things.
I would not say there are very different things. In fact, they were very similar things. The 94 Act was the framework for promoting NATO membership of former eastern bloc countries. The Act directs the President to establish a program to "facilitate the transition to NATO membership." That was the whole purpose: to "furnish appropriate assistance to facilitate the transition to full NATO membership at an early date."
So designating Ukraine (and the others) as participants in the 94 Participation Act means to get them into NATO. And that's exactly what the US Congress unanimously declared in the 2007 legislation:
QuoteContingent upon their continued implementation of democratic, defense, and economic reform, and their willingness and ability to meet the responsibilities of membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a clear expression of national intent to do so, Congress calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia (FYROM), and Ukraine to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to promote security and stability in Europe
I think you need to read it a little more carefully. You know the part where the Ukraine and Georgia were expressly given different treatment from the rest. The clause that is specifically only about them... The obvious explanation is that they needed to be treated differently because the NATO allies objected to treating Ukraine and Georgia the same, and so despite the wishes of the Bush administration that is as far as they could go. If you can explain to me how allowing a country to prepare to make an application which will be made at a later date and then assessed to see if they should be admitted is the same as all the others who were give much more favourable treatment, I would be much obliged. But there seems to be a clear difference between being welcomed into the alliance and being told that if you just wait outside and in future tell us why we should let you in and we will think about it.
And after all, that is why Ukraine is not in NATO today.
Once you latch onto an idea, no matter how much it gets contradicted with facts, you dig in harder and harder. Hopefully this is just a character you play on Languish.
Germany revokes license for German language Russia Today: https://www.dw.com/en/russias-rt-channel-blocked-by-german-regulators/a-60635397
Quote from: Jacob on February 02, 2022, 01:04:13 PM
Germany revokes license for German language Russia Today: https://www.dw.com/en/russias-rt-channel-blocked-by-german-regulators/a-60635397
And of course Russia is reacting in a measured, cautious manner. From the BBC's Eastern Europe correspondant:
QuoteRussia launches all-out attack on Deutsche Welle: will close Moscow bureau, kick out all staff, take the channel off air & may label DW 'foreign agents'. Will also bar unnamed German officials. All in 'response' to fight over RT broadcasts in Germany
They're probably doing them a favor. I know it's their job, but I would still rather not be physically located in Russia right now. If Russians feel like they can get away with psychological warfare on US diplomats for years, then they feel like they can get away with anything they do to anyone on their soil.
Could have been worse, might have been some unplanned pipe maintenance that left Germany cut off in winter.
Quote from: HVC on February 03, 2022, 06:13:41 PM
Could have been worse, might have been some unplanned pipe maintenance that left Germany cut off in winter.
Hard to play that card without fucking themselves over.
Ukrainian saboteurs?
And it'd only take like a day to remind Germany who their indebted to
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2022, 06:16:17 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 03, 2022, 06:13:41 PM
Could have been worse, might have been some unplanned pipe maintenance that left Germany cut off in winter.
Hard to play that card without fucking themselves over.
Does Germany pay in advance?
Yeah, while Germany doesn't want to be without natural gas I expect that Russia isn't super keen on cutting a massive stream of hard currency either.
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2022, 08:02:28 PM
Yeah, while Germany doesn't want to be without natural gas I expect that Russia isn't super keen on cutting a massive stream of hard currency either.
Yeah but Russia has I think the third largest foreign currency reserves in the world after China and Japan. That's why Putin has freedom of movement on foreign policy (and it's been a clear strategic decision of Putin's to build up reserves) - so far the reserves are large enough to help withstand sanctions and also, as necessary, to occasionally prop up the ruble. Similarly there's also been a push (unlike in other east European countries or Turkey) to move foreign-currency denominated debt into rubles which I think has worked.
There's no doubt they want their stream of hard currency - but Putin's positioned things so the state doesn't necessarily need to for a while, unlike most other petro-states that don't build up huge reserves and are often quite exposed. And obviously Russia and China have just agreed a new gas deal which will involve another new pipeline. Again it suggests to me Putin's looking for an approach that allows for maximum flexibility in his policy (i.e. it's easy to turn off the taps on Europe if you have the infrastructure to export a lot more to China).
More generally it may be that economically Russia is also pivoting to China - which could leave Europe in a really difficult position if the US is, from a policy and security perspective, more focused on the Pacific and simultaneously Russia is less economically exposed to Europe.
I'm no expert, but my feeling is that foreign currency reserves can disappear very quickly if you're not careful. But yes, Putin has some room to manoeuvre. Turning off the pipeline for a bit would be sustainable for a bit, but what if Germany for some reason doesn't cave immediately?
I think that's where the increasing the number of pipelines to China and expanding that market plays a role - and is a big thing Russia and China are doing right now. There's lots of pipelines being built (which will also cut out a lot central Asian countries from a pretty big revenue source). My understanding is that trade is also going to be in Euros or dollars.
Obviously you're right on the reserves but Russia's had huge foreign reserves since 2008 (though it started climbing as soon as Putin came into power), they were able to weather sanctions of Georgia and 2014 and are now back to a very large figure. I think it's the three sides of Russian policy - build up foreign reserves to reduce your exposure to sanctions; build alternative pipelines to China to reduce economic dependence/reliance on Europe; and discourage Europe from looking for alternatives to Russian gas to maintain or increase their energy dependence/reliance.
From a Chinese perspective I also wonder if they're thinking that the more they can offer an alternative market to Russia and so de-risk Russia pushing aggressively in Europe blowing up their economy, that's a counter to the US. The US wants to pivot to the Pacific and pull back from Europe. But if the Chinese build that other market for Russia then unless European policymakers get their act together on European defence and security then, just when the US is out we'll pull them back in - which ties them down dealing with Russia in Europe and not China in the Pacific.
Yeah, that makes sense.
I see that Xi and Putin made statements about "NATO aggression" and "no independence for Taiwan" today. So yeah, if Russia can sell their gas to China instead, that can work out for them.
Would make sense to me for Germany to move away from Russian gas, but you know....
Well on that front Gerhard Schroeder was announced as a director of Gazprom today - which if nothing else shows a spectacular sense of timing :lol: :bleeding:
... right after Putin kicks DW out of Russia and basically salts the earth on them.
I wonder how he's perceived in Germany? If he still has the whole "respected former Chancellor" vibe or if this stuff really tarnishes his reputation with most people?
I was wondering the same thing. I can't see that history will treat Schroeder well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2022, 12:33:36 PM
I wonder how he's perceived in Germany? If he still has the whole "respected former Chancellor" vibe or if this stuff really tarnishes his reputation with most people?
He is seen as a dipshit and Putin stooge.
Quote from: Jacob on February 04, 2022, 11:35:30 AM
I'm no expert, but my feeling is that foreign currency reserves can disappear very quickly if you're not careful. But yes, Putin has some room to manoeuvre. Turning off the pipeline for a bit would be sustainable for a bit, but what if Germany for some reason doesn't cave immediately?
Not sure why Germany is always singled out regarding gas when half the EU is similarly exposed to Russian gas. Would all of these countries cave or is there something specific about German gas consumption that does not exist in the other countries?
(https://ucpnz.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/it-is-tempting-to-blame-foreigners-for-europes-gas-crisis-6.png)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2022, 12:56:39 PM
I was wondering the same thing. I can't see that history will treat Schroeder well.
His chancellorship has a few positives, e.g. on foreign policy joining the Kosovo War and not joining the Iraq War and domestically breaking with some of Germany's extreme conservative societal policies and his labor market and social security reforms of the early 2000s, although the latter are not popular with his own party anymore. Of course his activities after politics, not just his Russia lobbyism, are tarnishing whatever achievement he has.
Quote from: Zanza on February 04, 2022, 01:16:57 PM
Not sure why Germany is always singled out regarding gas when half the EU is similarly exposed to Russian gas. Would all 9f these countries case or is there something specific about German gas consumption that does not exist in the other countries?
Fair point.
I think it's because Germany is seen as being able to pull the other countries along with it, and to change the direction of EU policy towards Russia, more so than the other countries involved.
But maybe it's unfair, I don't know.
I do think that if Germany said "we are putting political will and money towards a project of lessening our dependence on Russian gas", I think it would change the political calculus significantly more than if any of the other countries on the map did so. But if I was the government of any of the other countries, I would consider orienting my energy policy to lessen the dependence on Russian gas. Who knows when Putin will decide to turn of the gas?
On the Xi - Putin bromance... I saw a thing recently that noted that China still hasn't recognized the Russian annexation of Crimea :hmm:
Quote from: Zanza on February 04, 2022, 01:16:57 PM
Not sure why Germany is always singled out regarding gas when half the EU is similarly exposed to Russian gas. Would all of these countries cave or is there something specific about German gas consumption that does not exist in the other countries?
(https://ucpnz.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/it-is-tempting-to-blame-foreigners-for-europes-gas-crisis-6.png)
Welcome to the unfairness of prominence. The US has always been singled out for sucking Saudi dick, even though 80% of the Gulf's oil goes to Asia.
Yeah my impression he's like the anti-Jimmy Carter - his time in office was not bad, it's just out of office that he's trashed his reputation.
QuoteI think it's because Germany is seen as being able to pull the other countries along with it, and to change the direction of EU policy towards Russia, more so than the other countries involved.
Yeah Germany's a big country and a leader - I saw a German commentator describe Berlin's policy to Ukraine (which has moved more clearly in the last few weeks) as Germany playing its favourite game: pretending it's Switzerland :lol: Of big countries I think Italy has also come in for criticism, but is probably perceived as less important.
I also think all of those other gas consuming countries are opposed to Nord Stream II for obvious reasons, which I think is another big driver of the criticism of Germany specifically.
Quote from: Jacob on February 04, 2022, 01:27:55 PM
On the Xi - Putin bromance... I saw a thing recently that noted that China still hasn't recognized the Russian annexation of Crimea :hmm:
I wonder if that's just consistency - China's is always non-interference in another country's internal affairs. Russia makes the same point but geopolitically trolls Western policy by comparing Crimea to Kosovo (or positioning intervention in Syria as "responsibility to protect"); while China recognises neither.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2022, 01:30:25 PM
Welcome to the unfairness of prominence. The US has always been singled out for sucking Saudi dick, even though 80% of the Gulf's oil goes to Asia.
Well... the US does supply significantly more advanced military equipment to the Saudi military than Asia does?
Quote from: Jacob on February 04, 2022, 01:26:21 PM
I do think that if Germany said "we are putting political will and money towards a project of lessening our dependence on Russian gas", I think it would change the political calculus significantly more than if any of the other countries on the map did so. But if I was the government of any of the other countries, I would consider orienting my energy policy to lessen the dependence on Russian gas. Who knows when Putin will decide to turn of the gas?
I guess that's actually a good point. According to the German press, which is rather critical of the Russia policy, Germany is the only EU country without a LNG harbor. This is seen as a major weakness here. Not sure how fast one could build such a harbor. Seems feasible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2022, 01:30:25 PM
Welcome to the unfairness of prominence. The US has always been singled out for sucking Saudi dick, even though 80% of the Gulf's oil goes to Asia.
Does it really matter physically where the oil from any particular place goes? It seems like a question of logistics to me more than anything, it's fungible like money. If Gulf's oil becomes more expensive, then so does the oil from wherever it is that US gets it.
Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2022, 01:48:32 PM
Does it really matter physically where the oil from any particular place goes? It seems like a question of logistics to me more than anything, it's fungible like money. If Gulf's oil becomes more expensive, then so does the oil from wherever it is that US gets it.
Yeah and I think US policy was influenced by the fact it was the world's biggest oil importer - similarly I think it's probably important that's now China and America's now a net exporter.
Quote from: Zanza on February 04, 2022, 01:48:03 PM
I guess that's actually a good point.
:hug:
QuoteAccording to the German press, which is rather critical of the Russia policy, Germany is the only EU country without a LNG harbor. This is seen as a major weakness here. Not sure how fast one could build such a harbor. Seems feasible.
That seems like a good idea to me, no matter what direction Germany takes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 04, 2022, 01:31:28 PM
QuoteI think it's because Germany is seen as being able to pull the other countries along with it, and to change the direction of EU policy towards Russia, more so than the other countries involved.
Yeah Germany's a big country and a leader - I saw a German commentator describe Berlin's policy to Ukraine (which has moved more clearly in the last few weeks) as Germany playing its favourite game: pretending it's Switzerland :lol: Of big countries I think Italy has also come in for criticism, but is probably perceived as less important.
Maybe it's just my view from Germany, but Germany does not seem to be a leader or have significant foreign policy influence. Sure, we are bigger than the other countries in the EU and thus have weight in common decisions. Also German interests are often aligned with our neighbours and where that is the case, Germany as the biggest country looks like a leader. But when there is actual opposition there seems to be little power. The last incident I ca think of where Germany actually exerted foreign policy power was during the Euro crisis. And it is still massively resented for that.
Quote from: Zanza on February 04, 2022, 02:00:30 PM
Maybe it's just my view from Germany, but Germany does not seem to be a leader or have significant foreign policy influence. Sure, we are bigger than the other countries in the EU and thus have weight in common decisions. Also German interests are often aligned with our neighbours and where that is the case, Germany as the biggest country looks like a leader. But when there is actual opposition there seems to be little power. The last incident I ca think of where Germany actually exerted foreign policy power was during the Euro crisis. And it is still massively resented for that.
Part of being a leader is being resented for the decisions you take :(
And yeah, Germany is a reluctant leader but a leader nonetheless.
I think that's the point - Germany is a leader because of its size and its economy. During the Merkel era I think Germany was also a leader because of Merkel's credibility/influence obviously that doesn't transfer to the new guy automatically but is built up over time - remember all the slightly cringeworthy "leader of the free world" press after Trump was elected. Germany isn't a leader because of what it does but because of what it is - one of the biggest economies in the world, the biggest country in the EU, a major NATO partner and a pivotal country in Europe. I think the criticism is that Germany's policy often doesn't match its role.
So absolutely, other countries slide beneath the radar but I think that is the reality - and not choosing or not leading is also a choice and also has consequences. To not be a leader or have significant foreign policy influence is a choice given Germany's position and one that can give the impression that German policy-makers have no strategy beyond economic interests.
But the mismatch between policy and role matters - Austria or Switzerland or Hungary can not do anything and it doesn't really matter and isn't noticed that much. When a country as important and big as Germany doesn't respond in quite the same way as other allies I think it leads to perhaps outsize criticism - so you see American or Polish foreign policy people online wondering if Germany is actually an ally or whether corporate/economic interests would win out. But that's because of how much Germany matters.
It would be exactly the same if the UK had the same policy as Germany on Ukraine - we would have a million thinkpieces about the influence of Russian money and Brexit and Britain withdrawing from Europe etc. Same with France - it would be about neo-Gaulism etc. That's just because they're big economies and big countries on a small continent.
If the assumption is that Germany will in doubt go for its economic interests, you can rest assured. Russia does not matter besides natural gas. We have more trade with Hungary Russia is our 14th biggest trading partner.
The criticism that Germany does not match its role of course assumes that if it would assert its power it would match the foreign policy goals of the criticizing country. Just remember the Iraq War when Germany - in hindsight correctly - defied the wishes of the US. Or the many differences we have with Poland.
Based on German history, in doubt I prefer us passive to assertive.
Quote from: Zanza on February 04, 2022, 03:05:12 PMIf the assumption is that Germany will in doubt go for its economic interests, you can rest assured. Russia does not matter besides natural gas. We have more trade with Hungary Russia is our 14th biggest trading partner.
The criticism that Germany does not match its role of course assumes that if it would assert its power it would match the foreign policy goals of the criticizing country. Just remember the Iraq War when Germany - in hindsight correctly - defied the wishes of the US. Or the many differences we have with Poland.
Iraq was a coalition of the willing though.
Isn't the rest just part of being in the Western alliance? Isn't that basically the difference between countries that are committed parts of that alliance and, say, Hungary or Turkey? Germany is an ally because its goals, aims and policy are aligned.
QuoteBased on German history, in doubt I prefer us passive to assertive.
I think there is almost certainly a huge amount of hypocrisy from a lot of Germany's critics who dislike Germany's passive role but would also lose their shit if Germany wasn't passive.
For what it's worth I think personally that Germany has an important leadership role and I think its policy should reflect that reality. That doesn't necessarily mean that Germany should be assertive but it has a fundamental role to play in Europe and - especially if America does want to pivot to Asia - in European defence. That may be playing more of a support role or more through institutions like the EU or NATO.
I think WW2 was a fucking long time ago, and neither Germany or Japan should worry about that one tiny little bit anymore.
Personally.
Japan is a bit more problematic then Germany, but in both cases there are neighbors of both that have shown themselves to be radically more of a concern as threats to world peace then either of those countries as they exist today.
Quote from: Berkut on February 04, 2022, 03:49:52 PM
I think WW2 was a fucking long time ago, and neither Germany or Japan should worry about that one tiny little bit anymore.
Disagree, considering there is a party in Germany that pulls 10+% in federal elections and significantly higher in various state elections, where leading members
- consider the Third Reich "a negligible bit of bird poop" in Germany's history
- were outraged because Germany is the only country that would put "a monument of shame" in their capital (referring to the holocaust memorial)
- called for a 180° turn in the national memorial culture in that context
Quote from: Syt on February 04, 2022, 04:02:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 04, 2022, 03:49:52 PM
I think WW2 was a fucking long time ago, and neither Germany or Japan should worry about that one tiny little bit anymore.
Disagree, considering there is a party in Germany that pulls 10+% in federal elections and significantly higher in various state elections, where leading members
- consider the Third Reich "a negligible bit of bird poop" in Germany's history
- were outraged because Germany is the only country that would put "a monument of shame" in their capital (referring to the holocaust memorial)
- called for a 180° turn in the national memorial culture in that context
If you made that same demand of every country that can point to 10% of their electorate being a bunch of ssemi-fascist assholes, there would be no countries left of import to do anything.
Quote from: Berkut on February 04, 2022, 03:49:52 PM
I think WW2 was a fucking long time ago, and neither Germany or Japan should worry about that one tiny little bit anymore.
Personally.
Japan is a bit more problematic then Germany, but in both cases there are neighbors of both that have shown themselves to be radically more of a concern as threats to world peace then either of those countries as they exist today.
I think Japan should worry about it quite a bit more than Germany. I think Germany made a clean break with its warlike past, so you can make an argument that at some point they shouldn't be tied down with it. I'm far less sold on the idea that Japan truly changed its mentality in ways that would persist after they're not held down by outside forces.
Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2022, 04:54:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 04, 2022, 03:49:52 PM
I think WW2 was a fucking long time ago, and neither Germany or Japan should worry about that one tiny little bit anymore.
Personally.
Japan is a bit more problematic then Germany, but in both cases there are neighbors of both that have shown themselves to be radically more of a concern as threats to world peace then either of those countries as they exist today.
I think Japan should worry about it quite a bit more than Germany. I think Germany made a clean break with its warlike past, so you can make an argument that at some point they shouldn't be tied down with it. I'm far less sold on the idea that Japan truly changed its mentality in ways that would persist after they're not held down by outside forces.
Don't disagree with any of that, but would note that
A) In my list of countries to worry about *today* when it comes to nationalistic, proto-fascist warmongers, China and North Korea are far more worrisome then Japan, and
B) They have in fact made an incrediblly important change to their mentality - they are now a functioning democratic nation with an answerable political class.
Sure, they have not made the cultural admissions and self reflection we might like, but their history of action 80+ years ago carries very little weight today compared to what other countries are doing right now. I don't think there is any real credible threat of Japan re-committing the sins of the Empire in the future.
That doesn't mean they should not acknowledge what actually happened, but not because they need to convince anyone they are not a threat to repeat.
Quote from: Berkut on February 04, 2022, 03:49:52 PM
I think WW2 was a fucking long time ago, and neither Germany or Japan should worry about that one tiny little bit anymore.
I don't even think it's relevant. I think Germany's approach to its history is incredibly admirable and should be a model - especially for Britain and empire.
However my criticism of German policy would be that even in the immediate post-war I think West German leaders were aware of the choices, costs and consequences of foreign policy and were a vital part of the western alliance. The leadership or foreign policy I think is absent was present under Kohl, Schmidt - even Brandt (:wub:) during ostpolitik. I think my crticism would be that I think Schroeder and Merkel, I think to an extent, shied away from that.
As a hypothetical, imagine Germany announcing that it will take care of conventional defense for Europe. And not just go for the 2% GDP NATO spending, but 4% and also increase army size to the maximum allowed under the 2+4 Treaty - about twice its current size. Some Europeans might already get doubts then.
As the new leader of European defense, Germany would then not commit a battalion of troops to Baltic states like now, but station a full panzer division there with 30k soldiers and heavy equipment. The Bundeswehr logo goes back to the Teutonic Knights after all. I somehow doubt that a policy like this would be welcomed in e.g. Poland... despite being in line with the notional goals of a Western alliance.
You cannot separate the atonement for our past crimes from the restraint in our foreign policy, especially when it comes to hard power.
Quote from: Zanza on February 04, 2022, 06:16:53 PM
As a hypothetical, imagine Germany announcing that it will take care of conventional defense for Europe. And not just go for the 2% GDP NATO spending, but 4% and also increase army size to the maximum allowed under the 2+4 Treaty - about twice its current size. Some Europeans might already get doubts then.
As the new leader of European defense, Germany would then not commit a battalion of troops to Baltic states like now, but station a full panzer division there with 30k soldiers and heavy equipment. The Bundeswehr logo goes back to the Teutonic Knights after all. I somehow doubt that a policy like this would be welcomed in e.g. Poland... despite being in line with the notional goals of a Western alliance.
You cannot separate the atonement for our past crimes from the restraint in our foreign policy, especially when it comes to hard power.
I'm sympathetic to Germany's sincere pacifism and unwillingness to offend neighbors who suffered during WWII, on the other hand Germany's enthusiasm for contributing to NATO seems to have diminished significantly with the transference of the Iron Curtain further east.
When Germany was a front line state they were serious about defense. Now they seem happy to free ride off Poland and the US, much like the Belgium and Italy did when Germany was a front line sate.
Yeah - I thought this piece was interesting. The German government's moved a lot in its public statements in the last couple of weeks and committing more to the NATO mission in Lithuania, so I think the criticism is overblown but I think this crisis (with Nordstream II, sending 5,000 helments to Kyiv, blocking Estonia sending artillery) has hurt Germany's reputation. I think whether its Eastern Europe or DC, I think it will take some time to rebuild trust. And I know I keep going on about the American pivot to Asia but I really think it's essential that Europe works on this because I think we're probably one or two administrations (of either party) away from the US being totally disengaged from Europe and focused on the Pacific (Josh Hawley has already made that case).
QuoteOlaf Scholz Is Coming to America on a Salvage Mission
The German chancellor has no choice but to focus on restoring his country's damaged credibility.
By Thorsten Benner, a co-founder and the director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin.
February 4, 2022, 6:49 AM
Standing next to then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel last June, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared: "I think it's fair to say that the United States has no better partner, no better friend in the world than Germany." When Merkel's successor Olaf Scholz meets U.S. President Joe Biden in Washington on Monday, these words will sound like a memory from a distant past.
In recent months, Germany's reputation has declined precipitously given what many decry as Berlin's wobbly stance vis-à-vis both the Kremlin and Beijing. Last week, Emily Haber, Germany's ambassador to the United States, sent a cable to Berlin warning that many in the United States see Germany as an "unreliable partner." Republicans in Congress, Haber telegraphed, see Germany as "in bed with Putin" warning of "immense" damage to Germany's reputation. Many in the Biden administration share misgivings about Berlin's stance, although they put on a brave face publicly. Germany's Eastern European partners are more direct. Last week, Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks called Germany's stance on Russia and China "immoral and hypocritical."
Scholz's central mission for his Washington visit has to be restoring German credibility. As a trans-Atlantic-minded centrist, he is well placed to do so with a clear message on Russia sanctions, contributing more to NATO defense capabilities, and a joint agenda on China.
This is not how Scholz had envisaged his first U.S. trip as chancellor. When he was in Washington last October as finance minister, he celebrated the agreement on a global corporate minimum tax he helped to broker with his U.S. counterpart Janet Yellen. It's these sorts of issues that are unrelated to hard security that Scholz is most passionate about. He would have preferred to focus his Washington trip on his priorities for Germany's G-7 presidency under the slogan "progress toward an equitable world," including a "climate club" of pioneering states. This is the global flip side of Scholz's domestic agenda for a modernization decade that he thinks Germany badly needs after too much stasis under Merkel. Scholz's closest advisors see him as "Angela Merkel with a plan." Unlike Merkel, who contented herself with diligently dealing with the many crises coming her way, Scholz came to office determined to pursue a long-term agenda of an equitable digital and post-carbon transformation not just of Germany's industry but also of politics and society in a stronger Europe.
But international security was never near the top of his agenda. That explains why Scholz took a hands-off approach when the crisis with Russia hit right during the first weeks of his chancellorship. He failed to communicate a clear course vis-à-vis Russia's threats against Ukraine. For a long time it was unclear what actions Germany was willing to support to deter the Kremlin from staging another major invasion. Scholz did talk about the "high price" Russian leader Vladimir Putin would pay but sowed doubts about his determination by continuing to label the highly contested Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany a private business project. The fact that German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht tried to take Nord Stream2 sanctions off the table the same day the Biden administration asked U.S. senators to vote to waive sanctions against Germany over this very pipeline added to the fury in Washington. Scholz also failed to reign in the motley crew of pro-Kremlin voices from within his own Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the opposition Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union, including Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder, a former chancellor hopeful who cautioned against "ever new threats and ever tougher sanctions" against Russia. That Germany cautioned against using the SWIFT financial communications network as part of the sanctions package and refused to send weapons to Ukraine or even authorize the transfer of German-made weapons from Estonia only added to the impression of an unreliable ally.
It was only in mid-January that Scholz committed to the formula of "all options being on the table" in terms of sanctions. But the fact that, apart from weapons deliveries, Germany has fully signed on to the U.S.-led deterrence-through-sanctions agenda while investing in diplomatic channels for crisis management has mostly not registered with Germany's allies. Scholz and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock use the slogan "dialogue and toughness" for their Russia policy. But the impression is, as Russia expert Julia Friedrich has put it, that Berlin "mostly relies on the toughness of others while it sees itself as the bridge for dialogue."
That is why as a first order of business in Washington Scholz needs to loudly and clearly reiterate the message that, in terms of sanctions on Russia, all options are on the table—including Nord Stream 2. That will help to correct the perception that Germany is unwilling to support any sanctions that mean significant economic costs for Germany. If Scholz is clear on this, he can also more forcefully make the case that he wants the burden of sanctions vis-à-vis Russia to be shared fairly among allies (and remind the United States that it is one of the biggest importers of Russian crude). Scholz should also use the Washington visit to distance himself clearly from former SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder whose work on the payroll of the Russian energy firms Gazprom and Rosneft and whose pro-Kremlin advocacy (most recently waffling about Ukrainian "saber-rattling") have become an increasingly heavy reputational millstone around Scholz's, and by extension Germany's, neck.
Even more importantly, Scholz needs to signal that while Germany will not supply weapons to Ukraine, it will contribute additional resources to the defense of NATO allies that feel threatened by Russia. The chancellor should make it crystal clear during his trip to the United States that he sees deterrence by NATO of an aggressive Russia as a task to which Germany is willing to make additional contributions. This is a recognition of the fact that the current crisis with Russia is about a lot more than Ukraine. It is about the key elements of European security order, as the Kremlin's demands in the draft treaty language make it clear.
Scholz can make the case for additional investments in defense and deterrence as part of his call for a new European Ostpolitik together with Germany's key European partners. Scholz's appeal echoes the policy of detente pursued by the first SPD chancellor and Nobel Prize winner Willy Brandt in the late 1960s. Scholz can build on an aspect of Brandt's approach that has largely gone forgotten: that detente was built on a firm commitment to deterrence. In 1973, Brandt argued that "the freedom to work on detente does not come for free." He stressed the need to preserve "presence and combat strength" of the German armed forces and called the defense budget "not just a necessity" but also a "serving our work for peace." As a consequence, under Brandt's leadership from 1969-1974 the German defense budget saw the largest increases to date. It's this legacy of Ostpolitik that Scholz can invoke to justify Germany investing more in European defense.
Investing more resources in defense and deterrence is not popular domestically in Germany, so Scholz will have to spend political capital to convince his own party and the German public. The current level of aggression displayed by the Kremlin is a good window of opportunity to make the case to the German public that does not quite see the need for investing in deterrence in order to negotiate with Moscow on arms control from a position of strength. While Scholz would very much prefer to spend his political capital on other domestic issues, he has no choice but to also invest more in terms of defense if his key goal of a stronger Europe is to have a fighting chance. If key European partners feel insecure and left alone by Berlin, projecting European political unity on the global stage will remain a pipe dream. Berlin can no longer rely on Washington to take care of increased needs for investing in European security. That Biden this week decided to bolster the U.S. presence in Europe by 2,000 troops should not blind Germans to the fact that the United States wants and needs to decrease its presence in Europe in the medium term to focus on countering China in the Indo-Pacific. Scholz knows that even if Trumpism does not stage a comeback in 2024, we will likely never see another U.S. administration with as much goodwill toward Europe and as much willingness to invest in a European crisis. That is why Scholz should make it clear Germany will go ahead with this enhanced contribution even if we get lucky and Putin decides to not pursue another invasion of Ukraine for now.
In his meeting with Biden, Scholz should also present a substantive agenda on possible areas for cooperation on China policy. In his state of the union speech outlining his governing program last December, Scholz talked about the need to adjust German and European policy "to the China we find in the real world," signaling an end to a policy that fed on the illusion of a Beijing continuing to open up its system. The chancellor called on Germany and Europe to "invest in our own political, economic, and technological strength" and to use the strength of the European common market to "fight for fair competition for our companies and to compete globally" with China. Strikingly, he added: "Our most important partner in this is the United States." That is a stronger commitment to trans-Atlantic cooperation on China than you ever heard from Angela Merkel.
Scholz can now fill this idea with life by proposing concrete cooperation in areas such as semiconductors, rare earths, global infrastructure (building on the European Union's recent Global Gateway initiative), and green technology. Scholz should seek cooperation with the United States on countering China's economic coercion (most recently attacking key principles of the European common market by going after Lithuania and German companies producing there). In doing so, he can remind his U.S. counterparts that Washington needs to stop using sanctions against its democratic allies if it wants cooperation on this front. At the same time, Scholz should clearly signal that Berlin is committed to defending the peaceful status quo in the Taiwan Strait. Germany can make an important contribution on the political, economic, and technological front to nonmilitary deterrence of Beijing moving on Taiwan, the one hot spot that could trigger a great-power war with catastrophic consequences not just for global stability but also for German and European prosperity.
The trip to Washington needs to be Olaf Scholz's overdue coming out on international security. Only if the chancellor invests forcefully in managing international crises and restores Germany as a credible partner with key allies will he have the breathing space to pursue his ambitious and much needed domestic modernization agenda.
Thorsten Benner is a co-founder and the director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2022, 09:24:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2022, 06:53:24 PM
Russians lost every battle of consequence during the war
I wouldn't call Balaclava a loss for Russia.
It was a draw, but virtually every other battle the Russians lost rather badly...at least against the allies, they beat up on the Ottomans in some places.
My recollection is that the Russians view the Crimean War as a humiliating drubbing, and a catalyst for radical changes to how Russian society worked, in order to be able to resist the Western power in future conflicts. I understand that the victors of this war didn't feel like they won a whole lot, but Russians definitely felt like they lost a lot.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 09:06:54 PM
My recollection is that the Russians view the Crimean War as a humiliating drubbing, and a catalyst for radical changes to how Russian society worked, in order to be able to resist the Western power in future conflicts. I understand that the victors of this war didn't feel like they won a whole lot, but Russians definitely felt like they lost a lot.
Well the main winner was France and then...well...it didn't end well for their bid to be the dominant power in Europe. The Russian bear was chased back to its den for awhile allowing for NAPOLEONIC GLORY!!!111
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 08:47:41 PM
It was a draw, but virtually every other battle the Russians lost rather badly...at least against the allies, they beat up on the Ottomans in some places.
I wouldn't say the Russians lost Inkerman badly. Nip and tuck for the British, had to be bailed out by the French one more time.
This is interesting.
A retired Russian general, speaking on internal Russian politics and the threatened war with the Ukraine.
I guess he is a ignorant moron as well, since he is parroting exactly what I've said - that the claimed "threat" is not just bullshit, even those making the threat know it is bullshit.
https://twitter.com/Lucian_Kim/status/1490313041447116806?s=20&t=upB9SgJidSivmSf2Yo5Shw&fbclid=IwAR2hZugn3ih4iPoPy2IeCj6t4ITG9e5_PdzYFy5UrvpODI5qfAZRfXg3mi0
QuoteAs for external threats, they are certainly present. But, according to our expert assessment, they are not at the moment critical, directly threatening the existence of Russian statehood, its vital interests. In general, strategic stability persists, nuclear weapons are under reliable control, NATO force groups are not increasing, there is no threatening activity.
Therefore, the situation escalated around Ukraine is, first of all, artificial, selfish in nature for some internal forces, including the Russian Federation. As a result of the collapse of the USSR, in which Russia (Yeltsin) took a decisive part, Ukraine became an independent state, a member of the UN, and in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter has the right to individual and collective defense.
Quote from: Berkut on February 07, 2022, 05:06:32 PM
I guess he is a ignorant moron as well,
more like a dead man walking. :(
Quote from: viper37 on February 07, 2022, 08:47:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 07, 2022, 05:06:32 PM
I guess he is a ignorant moron as well,
more like a dead man walking. :(
I think he'll be doing more jumping than walking going forward.
Seeing reports (by reputable independent investigative journalist organization Proekt) that Putin has built a private railroad connecting his residences in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Sochii.
I guess he's worried that if a Polish president could die in a plane accident, so could a Russian one.
Quote from: Jacob on February 19, 2023, 05:00:12 PMSeeing reports (by reputable independent investigative journalist organization Proekt) that Putin has built a private railroad connecting his residences in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Sochii.
I guess he's worried that if a Polish president could die in a plane accident, so could a Russian one.
Got to give it to him. This is amazingly cool (in a holy shit that's corrupt as hell way).
Even a little private railway would be cool but one so huge, and unknown?
Colour me as skeptical as a newborn cock on a conveyor belt. But if true... Quite amazing and sounds really useful for post Putin Russia.
:lol: Yeah I had the same thought :blush:
Here's a few English links to the story:
https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/02/14/proekt-putin-uses-secret-railroads-that-lead-to-his-residences-en-news
https://meduza.io/en/news/2023/02/14/russian-government-has-built-secret-network-of-railroad-lines-and-train-stations-for-putin-s-exclusive-use-according-to-new-report
... maybe it's more that they built extensions from Putin's residences to the existing rail network, rather than a full scale separate rail system.
Quote from: Jacob on February 19, 2023, 06:14:35 PM... maybe it's more that they built extensions from Putin's residences to the existing rail network, rather than a full scale separate rail system.
Yeah, just spurs from existing railway lines. It's what I would do if I had that kind of power :)
OK, so less Snowpiercer then and more generic Bond villain.
Still kind of cool.
Squeeze applauds Putin's low carbon footprint but reserves final judgement until he finds out if the rail is private or nationalized.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2023, 04:56:11 PMSqueeze applauds Putin's low carbon footprint but reserves final judgement until he finds out if the rail is private or nationalized.
In Russia there is no such distinction.