Nothing appropriately placed explosives won't fix. I actually heard a rumour that such things were actually embedded at appropriate points along the course of the Channel Tunnel during construction just in case such an eventuality is ever needed. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true.
So if things turn bad we'll kill ourselves eh?. Thats not Ridiculous at all.
If the Russians launch nukes as a matter of standard warfare, then we're all going to die. The whole initial concept is ridiculous for that very reason. There is no way on God's earth the Americans would allow the Russians to wipe out a quarter of a dozen fleets, and NOT incinerate most of Russia as an automatic response.
Which in turn means Russia will respond, and then we all die. MAD is a bit of a drag, but it's what would happen.
So if things turn bad we'll kill ourselves eh?. Thats not Ridiculous at all.
Do they teach you nothing in government school? Please research something called "the Cold War," "Mutually Assured Destruction," and "NATO policies on the use of nuclear weapons in the Cold War."
Remember
WWI started because of treaties.
WWII started because of treaties.
Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.
If it is open warfare and the US is invading the Russian-held Baltics? I think nuclear weapons would be a serious consideration. And I don't think it would end all life on Earth. Firing a few tactical nukes at concentrations of enemy troops is quite a few steps below nuking enemy cities in mutual assured destruction and a display of tragic stupidity.
Are you so shockingly naive to think that russian nuclear strikes against US troops would go unanswered? That Putin could nuke American soldiers and the US would... what? Say, "Oh, fiddlesticks. We got nuked. I guess we should stand in this corner and think about what we did wrong." Seriously? Because if anyone fires a nuke at US troops, the US fires a nuke (or more) right back. Which means the first guy will retaiate with more nukes, which means the US retaliates with even more and then somebody just presses that big, red, candy-like button and humanity gets the bad end (or the good end, if you're a big enough fan of the Fallout games, I guess). No two nations that posess nuclear arms have ever gone to war with each other because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. You are too young to remember the Cold War, but some of us here lived it. The first side to use nukes in a war doesn't win. They are just the second to get wiped out. There is a reason that the US never nuked the USSR. There is a reason that the last time India and Pakistan got into a shooting match was before they both had the bomb.
Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.
If it is open warfare and the US is invading the Russian-held Baltics? I think nuclear weapons would be a serious consideration. And I don't think it would end all life on Earth. Firing a few tactical nukes at concentrations of enemy troops is quite a few steps below nuking enemy cities in mutual assured destruction and a display of tragic stupidity.
Are you so shockingly naive to think that russian nuclear strikes against US troops would go unanswered? That Putin could nuke American soldiers and the US would... what? Say, "Oh, fiddlesticks. We got nuked. I guess we should stand in this corner and think about what we did wrong." Seriously? Because if anyone fires a nuke at US troops, the US fires a nuke (or more) right back. Which means the first guy will retaiate with more nukes, which means the US retaliates with even more and then somebody just presses that big, red, candy-like button and humanity gets the bad end (or the good end, if you're a big enough fan of the Fallout games, I guess). No two nations that posess nuclear arms have ever gone to war with each other because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. You are too young to remember the Cold War, but some of us here lived it. The first side to use nukes in a war doesn't win. They are just the second to get wiped out. There is a reason that the US never nuked the USSR. There is a reason that the last time India and Pakistan got into a shooting match was before they both had the bomb.
I think this gets to why Putin dusted off his nukes. He's reminding the world that "hey, look what we have, do you really want to get involved?"
He also uses pictures that are used by multiple users (one in US, one in Russia, etc) on the VK social networking site as "His" in the "Who are you" thread, so, yeah.
Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.
If it is open warfare and the US is invading the Russian-held Baltics? I think nuclear weapons would be a serious consideration. And I don't think it would end all life on Earth. Firing a few tactical nukes at concentrations of enemy troops is quite a few steps below nuking enemy cities in mutual assured destruction and a display of tragic stupidity.
Are you so shockingly naive to think that russian nuclear strikes against US troops would go unanswered? That Putin could nuke American soldiers and the US would... what? Say, "Oh, fiddlesticks. We got nuked. I guess we should stand in this corner and think about what we did wrong." Seriously? Because if anyone fires a nuke at US troops, the US fires a nuke (or more) right back. Which means the first guy will retaiate with more nukes, which means the US retaliates with even more and then somebody just presses that big, red, candy-like button and humanity gets the bad end (or the good end, if you're a big enough fan of the Fallout games, I guess). No two nations that posess nuclear arms have ever gone to war with each other because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. You are too young to remember the Cold War, but some of us here lived it. The first side to use nukes in a war doesn't win. They are just the second to get wiped out. There is a reason that the US never nuked the USSR. There is a reason that the last time India and Pakistan got into a shooting match was before they both had the bomb.
Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.
If it is open warfare and the US is invading the Russian-held Baltics? I think nuclear weapons would be a serious consideration. And I don't think it would end all life on Earth. Firing a few tactical nukes at concentrations of enemy troops is quite a few steps below nuking enemy cities in mutual assured destruction and a display of tragic stupidity.
Are you so shockingly naive to think that russian nuclear strikes against US troops would go unanswered? That Putin could nuke American soldiers and the US would... what? Say, "Oh, fiddlesticks. We got nuked. I guess we should stand in this corner and think about what we did wrong." Seriously? Because if anyone fires a nuke at US troops, the US fires a nuke (or more) right back. Which means the first guy will retaiate with more nukes, which means the US retaliates with even more and then somebody just presses that big, red, candy-like button and humanity gets the bad end (or the good end, if you're a big enough fan of the Fallout games, I guess). No two nations that posess nuclear arms have ever gone to war with each other because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. You are too young to remember the Cold War, but some of us here lived it. The first side to use nukes in a war doesn't win. They are just the second to get wiped out. There is a reason that the US never nuked the USSR. There is a reason that the last time India and Pakistan got into a shooting match was before they both had the bomb.
Exactly.
All that said, I do think there is a possibility for a shooting war between Russia/USA in the somewhat near future.... BUT, if things did fall to that point, the simultaneous diplomatic efforts to end the conflict would probably be more frantic than in any war previously faced by anyone. I'd give the fighting probably 1-6 months before some sort of deal was worked out, just so that nukes weren't used.
MrDwhitey wrote: He also uses pictures that are used by multiple users (one in US, one in Russia, etc) on the VK social networking site as "His" in the "Who are you" thread, so, yeah.
Wait... so you're saying that Iron_Captain has been dishonest about his identity?
Wait a sec....
He is deliberately obfuscating his identity online... he loves Russia... he REALLY loves Putin...
Grey Templar wrote:The Chinese wouldn't start a war with the US because they dearly love owning our debt. A war would mean all that debt goes away.
Plus the Chinese economy would fall apart if they lost all their customers(they've got a big bubble)
Its why they're desperate to build a domestic market for their goods in case things go sour for them in the global one.
A Town Called Malus wrote:Yeah, it is not in Chinas interest at all to start a war with the western world.
They don't care whether Russia wants some little countries in Europe, they have to keep their economy going and without sales to Europe and North America....
I don't think you understand the Chinese. There is more important things than economy, far more important things. How many people worried about the economy during WW2? In fact, WW2 turned out to be actually very good for the economy. Don't forget that the loss of trade with China would hurt the rest of the world as much as it hurts China, as a staggering amount of stuff has 'made in China' on it. Chinese power has grown immensely over the past decade, and they are increasingly dissatified with the US presence in the Far East, as well as having a large score to settle with surrounding US allies like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. China wants to be recognised as a great superpower break out of the threathening American encirclement and replace the US as the world's leading nation. A war with the US would allow them to accomplish these goals, and while damaging the economy in the short term, in the long term winning a war is highly profitable. And if China can get the US to fight on two fronts, both in Europe and Asia (and maybe opening a third front in Alaska?), they stand a serious chance of succes. Tensions in the Far East have been mounting for some years now, and China's behaviour has become increasingly hostile. It is not without reason that since a few years, minor incidents between China and its neighbours suddenly escalate to large diplomatical rows, while the major border disputes between Russia and China have suddenly been settled. China grows more powerful every day, while the US is waning. There comes a time when the Chinese will take over the position the US has now. Whether that will involve war remains to be seen, but it seems likely.
MrDwhitey wrote: He also uses pictures that are used by multiple users (one in US, one in Russia, etc) on the VK social networking site as "His" in the "Who are you" thread, so, yeah.
Wait... so you're saying that Iron_Captain has been dishonest about his identity?
Wait a sec....
He is deliberately obfuscating his identity online... he loves Russia... he REALLY loves Putin...
Is Iron_Captain Dmitiri Medvedev?
Darn it, I got caught! Vladimir Vladimirovich, come to my aid!
But in all seriousness. I am not supposed to be on Vkontakte anymore, as I deleted my profile quite a while ago. But apparantly, people liked my pictures so much they stole them. When using Google image search on the picture I posted on Dakka, they show up in no less than 5 (5!) different VKontakte profiles... Stealing pictures on VKontakte does happen (really annoying, but VK is really annoying in general), and I already knew before those pictures were on the internet, which is why I posted them in the thread as I didn't have to upload them, but I didn't know they were on more than 5 different profiles... I am famous :3 In any case, I can upload plenty of pictures, videos and official documents to prove the person in the pictures is in fact, me. Just checking now, and some of my other pictures have also been stolen... Well, it can't really hurt though, as I can prove who I am, but it does show the criticism I received in the show yourself threat is correct after all. I look way too generic, and it is time to change my hairstyle Analysing the different profiles, two of them have pictures of lots or random guys, one is clearly an imposter, one stole half my photo album, one is the genuine, but the person standing next to me in one of the pictures, and the others have stolen just a single picture. And come to think of it... why would you be so interested in my pictures as to search them on the internet? That is kinda... creepy.
Right, we rely on chinese parts and the chinese rely on us buying chinese parts. What happens when they start a war? Suddenly none of the western companies are making use of their factories. Those factories close down.
This leads to mass unemployment and a lot of very pissed off unemployed people. They'd be facing the external threats of the US, Australia, Japan, Korea etc. as well as a potential revolution and at the very least protests and riots within their own country.
At a time when the communist government is already coming under strain due to a slowing economy and recent scandals involving party officials and very expensive nightclubs, a war with their main customers is not something they will want.
Also, you can view Chinas opinion on getting involved in someone else's war by looking at their responses to North Korea provoking South Korea.
I don't think you understand the Chinese.
There is more important things than economy, far more important things. How many people worried about the economy during WW2? In fact, WW2 turned out to be actually very good for the economy.
It turned out to be good for one economy. That of the US. It proved to be utterly ruinous to the British Empire, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the French Republic, and practically everyone else involved.
Don't forget that the loss of trade with China would hurt the rest of the world as much as it hurts China, as a staggering amount of stuff has 'made in China' on it.
I'm not so convinced of that. There are many other economies stepping on China's toes who have been taking greater and greater shares of China's market presence in low tech low cost manufacturing. It would damage GDP all around for a short period, but the markets would restructure within a year or two.
Chinese power has grown immensely over the past decade, and they are increasingly dissatified with the US presence in the Far East, as well as having a large score to settle with surrounding US allies like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea.
I know as a fact you're incorrect on at least one of those. Chinese relations with Taiwan have absolutely never been better. Trade links and diplomatic links keep increasing. The Chinese have increasingly come to view Taiwan as a chunk of China that they just don't immediately control, and do not need to. A bit like Hong Kong but more independent.
Japanese/Chinese tensions have risen a great deal recently though, and that's because they're the only potential local opposition to Chinese regional domination. They have a sizeable population, a strong economy, well developed technology, and a decent sized defence force. Where Vietnam or Malaysia more or less have to shut up and put up with Chinese intrusions into their waters, you'll note you don't get hordes of Chinese surveyors and fishermen off Okinawa.
China wants to be recognised as a great superpower break out of the threathening American encirclement and replace the US as the world's leading nation.
Not really. The Chinese don't have a desire to be global police like America, or have a finger in every pie like the EU. Their foreign policy is completely insular and always historically has been for many cultural reasons. The Chinese perfect view of the world involves them having a free hand in Asia to do as they will with the other local countries subservient to them, and a large overseas market to export to. Beyond that, they have no desire to become involved in foreign affairs.
A war with the US would allow them to accomplish these goals, and while damaging the economy in the short term, in the long term winning a war is highly profitable.And if China can get the US to fight on two fronts, both in Europe and Asia (and maybe opening a third front in Alaska?), they stand a serious chance of success.
No. In the least patronising way that I can put it, you're stumbling into the realms of the absurd here. Leave those ideas there, because I quite frankly cannot think of a nice way to dissect them without most likely ending up sounding like I'm being insulting without meaning to do so. And I'd rather have a pleasant discussion by far.
Tensions in the Far East have been mounting for some years now, and China's behaviour has become increasingly hostile. It is not without reason that since a few years, minor incidents between China and its neighbours suddenly escalate to large diplomatical rows, while the major border disputes between Russia and China have suddenly been settled.
China grows more powerful every day, while the US is waning. There comes a time when the Chinese will take over the position the US has now. Whether that will involve war remains to be seen, but it seems likely.
Extremely unlikely in the near future. And extremely unlikely in the distant future. China simply has no desire to take on America's 'position'.
I can see the US footing the bill for that 4K rapid reaction force in Europe.......and still footing the bill on our Rapid Reaction Forces in the US....
Apparently we're contributing a 1,000 men of the 4,000. The Americans don't fund the British forces, last I checked. I daresay we have enough amphibious kit and aircraft for them without relying on US supplies.
Welcome to our live coverage as a ceasefire has been agreed between Ukraine and separatist rebels in the east of the country. We're also reporting on a key Nato summit in Wales, which has agreed to set up a rapid reaction force. We're bringing you the latest updates from our correspondents, expert analysis and your reaction from around the world. You can contact us via email, text or twitter.
14:36:
The ceasefire deal was announced at talks between representatives of Ukraine, the rebels, Russia and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Minsk, Belarus. The truce will start at 16:00 BST.
14:38:
In a tweet (in Ukrainian), Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko wrote that a "preliminary protocol" was signed in Minsk, without giving further details.
14:43:
Mr Poroshenko said he had already ordered the chief of the general staff of Ukraine's armed forces to cease fire at 16:00 BST.
14:45:
Meanwhile, Igor Plotnitsky, one of the rebel leaders of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic, said the truce "does not mean the end of (our) policy to split (from Ukraine), according to Reuters.
14:51:
Details are still sketchy about the 14-point Minsk deal. Reports say it includes "all aspects of control and prisoner exchange", according to Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
14:52:
Earlier today, a new "multinational spearhead force" was announced at the Nato summit in Wales. It will be based in Poland and be able to deploy troops in two to five days.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the force would comprise of 4,000 troops and would be ready to be deployed by the end of 2015.
Welcome to our live coverage as a ceasefire has been agreed between Ukraine and separatist rebels in the east of the country. We're also reporting on a key Nato summit in Wales, which has agreed to set up a rapid reaction force. We're bringing you the latest updates from our correspondents, expert analysis and your reaction from around the world. You can contact us via email, text or twitter.
14:36:
The ceasefire deal was announced at talks between representatives of Ukraine, the rebels, Russia and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Minsk, Belarus. The truce will start at 16:00 BST.
14:38:
In a tweet (in Ukrainian), Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko wrote that a "preliminary protocol" was signed in Minsk, without giving further details.
14:43:
Mr Poroshenko said he had already ordered the chief of the general staff of Ukraine's armed forces to cease fire at 16:00 BST.
14:45:
Meanwhile, Igor Plotnitsky, one of the rebel leaders of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic, said the truce "does not mean the end of (our) policy to split (from Ukraine), according to Reuters.
14:51:
Details are still sketchy about the 14-point Minsk deal. Reports say it includes "all aspects of control and prisoner exchange", according to Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
14:52:
Earlier today, a new "multinational spearhead force" was announced at the Nato summit in Wales. It will be based in Poland and be able to deploy troops in two to five days.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the force would comprise of 4,000 troops and would be ready to be deployed by the end of 2015.
It looks like all is quiet now in E-Ukraine. Let's hope it stays that way and this peace forms the basis for negotiations for a permanent solution agreeable to both parties. At the very least they will exchange prisoners, withdraw troops and allow humanitarian aid.
Haha oh you. I mean I love our Diggers (the ones who aren't scum), but we have an army of 1 regiment. And then the SF.
I'm aware we have armour etc too, but I'm only counting the RAR here
Yeah but who wants to mess with an australian who's been pulled away from their crazy long holidays because somebody decided to mess around with a random country?
Haha oh you. I mean I love our Diggers (the ones who aren't scum), but we have an army of 1 regiment. And then the SF.
I'm aware we have armour etc too, but I'm only counting the RAR here
Deprive them of beer and women, tell them it's China's fault, and in two weeks they will ride into Beijing on twenty five foot salt water crocs duel wielding browning heavy machine-guns, ending what historians will call the bloodiest war in the history of Asia.
Haha oh you. I mean I love our Diggers (the ones who aren't scum), but we have an army of 1 regiment. And then the SF.
I'm aware we have armour etc too, but I'm only counting the RAR here
Deprive them of beer and women, tell them it's China's fault, and in two weeks they will ride into Beijing on twenty five foot salt water crocs duel wielding browning heavy machine-guns, ending what historians will call the bloodiest war in the history of Asia.
I repeat my previous proposition of building a huge wall around Australia. For many reasons, including a natural environment that makes Catachan look like holiday resort and a population descended from criminals, Australia is the most dangerous thing on earth and a threat to human life everywhere. We can't just sit back and rely on the ocean that seperates Australia from the rest of the world to keep us safe. Australians are devious and cunning, and their poisonous pets even more so. They will find ways of crossing that ocean in order to visit death and destruction upon the unsuspecting, innocent world. Clearly the best option is to build huge wall and quarantaine the entire area. New Zealand will be turned into a highly secret testing area where we will unleash a small number of Australians so that we may observe their behaviour and learn new ways of fighting them and preventing contamination.
The second option consists of nuclear weapons, but as these have never yet been tested on Australians, it may be entirely possible that Australians are capable of surviving a nuclear bombardment. Therefore this method is deemed insecure and potentially dangerous, as the radiation may mutate the Australians into Super-Australians (Crikey!).
It does save us from having to get near Australia to build a wall though.
Just be prepared for the contestants who show up to be a bit more muscular than the pictures shown. And sporting facial hair. And wielding assault rifles.
Just be prepared for the contestants who show up to be a bit more muscular than the pictures shown. And sporting facial hair. And wielding assault rifles.
Just be prepared for the contestants who show up to be a bit more muscular than the pictures shown. And sporting facial hair. And wielding assault rifles.
Ukraine ceasefire shaken by shelling Fresh shelling near Donetsk airport after earlier attacks in Mariupol, raising fears Ukraine ceasefire near collapse
More to follow
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29098808
Ukrainian forces are concentrating a large number of troops and military hardware near Gorlovka, some 47 kilometers from the city of Donetsk, reports the RIA news agency citing local militia’s headquarters. A long convoy of military vehicles is moving on the road connecting Mironovka and Debaltsevo settlements.
Self-defense militia forces intel has information that the Ukrainian troops concentrated near Donetsk possess at least 47 tanks, 15 Shilka armored self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicles, 7 Tochka-U (NATO designation – Scarab) tactical ballistic missile complexes, 6 Grad multiple rocket launch complexes and one Smerch heavy multiple rocket launcher.
There have been reports about skirmishes near Donetsk international airport, where a group of armed men of unknown national identity has been holed up for quite a time.
Let us really hope the ceasefire holds, it is not looking good.
So what you're saying is that a large proportion of your armed forces is made up of special forces?
It's like the Mongolian Army. Their regulars make US SEALs look like light weights. So that they don't intimidate everyone, they're all 'special forces'.
Let us really hope the ceasefire holds, it is not looking good.
There's a ceasefire? Someone might want to tell the Russians bombarding Mariupol that.
Clearly, the artillery shells are on vacation and not official Russian shells.
Can't you see that the evil Ukrainians did it! They infiltrated their artillery into a rebel held area/Russia land, set up, and fired on their own cities to make the Russians and rebels look bad!!!!
Haha oh you. I mean I love our Diggers (the ones who aren't scum), but we have an army of 1 regiment. And then the SF.
I'm aware we have armour etc too, but I'm only counting the RAR here
Deprive them of beer and women, tell them it's China's fault, and in two weeks they will ride into Beijing on twenty five foot salt water crocs duel wielding browning heavy machine-guns, ending what historians will call the bloodiest war in the history of Asia.
I repeat my previous proposition of building a huge wall around Australia. For many reasons, including a natural environment that makes Catachan look like holiday resort and a population descended from criminals, Australia is the most dangerous thing on earth and a threat to human life everywhere. We can't just sit back and rely on the ocean that seperates Australia from the rest of the world to keep us safe. Australians are devious and cunning, and their poisonous pets even more so. They will find ways of crossing that ocean in order to visit death and destruction upon the unsuspecting, innocent world. Clearly the best option is to build huge wall and quarantaine the entire area. New Zealand will be turned into a highly secret testing area where we will unleash a small number of Australians so that we may observe their behaviour and learn new ways of fighting them and preventing contamination.
The second option consists of nuclear weapons, but as these have never yet been tested on Australians, it may be entirely possible that Australians are capable of surviving a nuclear bombardment. Therefore this method is deemed insecure and potentially dangerous, as the radiation may mutate the Australians into Super-Australians (Crikey!).
It does save us from having to get near Australia to build a wall though.
Let us really hope the ceasefire holds, it is not looking good.
There's a ceasefire? Someone might want to tell the Russians bombarding Mariupol that.
Clearly, the artillery shells are on vacation and not official Russian shells.
Can't you see that the evil Ukrainians did it! They infiltrated their artillery into a rebel held area/Russia land, set up, and fired on their own cities to make the Russians and rebels look bad!!!!
So... when someone is bombing an Ukrainian city it must automatically be the Russians? Try and tell the people of Donetsk and Luhansk that.
Let us really hope the ceasefire holds, it is not looking good.
There's a ceasefire? Someone might want to tell the Russians bombarding Mariupol that.
Clearly, the artillery shells are on vacation and not official Russian shells.
Can't you see that the evil Ukrainians did it! They infiltrated their artillery into a rebel held area/Russia land, set up, and fired on their own cities to make the Russians and rebels look bad!!!!
So... when someone is bombing an Ukrainian city it must automatically be the Russians? Try and tell the people of Donetsk and Luhansk that.
Aren't those part of the People's Republic of Donetsk?
Let us really hope the ceasefire holds, it is not looking good.
There's a ceasefire? Someone might want to tell the Russians bombarding Mariupol that.
Clearly, the artillery shells are on vacation and not official Russian shells.
Can't you see that the evil Ukrainians did it! They infiltrated their artillery into a rebel held area/Russia land, set up, and fired on their own cities to make the Russians and rebels look bad!!!!
So... when someone is bombing an Ukrainian city it must automatically be the Russians? Try and tell the people of Donetsk and Luhansk that.
Aren't those part of the People's Republic of Donetsk?
Which the Ukrainian government asserts is illegitimate and the cities are still part of Ukraine...in which case they're carrying out an aerial bombing campaign on their own cities and citizens...
...in which case they're carrying out an aerial bombing campaign on their own cities and citizens...
How many instances of information about deliberate aerial attacks on civilian occupied buildings by ukraine forces, confirmed by any trusted source (not RT or DNR spokesmen), can you show me? It must be easy for "aerial bombing campaign".
I haven't seen any, but, maybe, I'm missing something.
Pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine have released 1,200 prisoners, President Petro Poroshenko has said.
The releases followed Friday's ceasefire deal, he said, which included an exchange of prisoners.
He was speaking during a visit to the strategic south-eastern port city of Mariupol, which has come under shelling from pro-Russian rebels in recent days.
Mr Poroshenko announced his arrival in a tweet: "Mariupol is Ukraine. We will not surrender this land to anyone."
Before the truce came into place, pro-Russian separatists made big gains in eastern Ukraine and seized territory a few miles outside Mariupol.
However, despite some sporadic shooting, the ceasefire appears to be holding.
Fighting in the east has killed some 2,600 people since April.
Russia has repeatedly denied accusations by Ukraine and the West that it has been sending troops into Donetsk and Luhansk regions to help the rebels, who want to establish an independent state.
Appeal for monitors
Mr Poroshenko said that "over the past four days, we have managed to secure the release of 1,200 of our captives", according to the Interfax-Ukraine news agency,
The announcement came after a ceasefire was reached in Minsk, Belarus, in talks brokered by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The negotiations involved former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, leaders of the pro-Russian rebels, and a Russian delegate.
Mr Poroshenko appealed on Monday for the OSCE to send representatives to areas where the ceasefire has been broken.
Also on Monday, EU officials called a fresh meeting on imposing new sanctions against Moscow for 18:00 (16:00 GMT).
The meeting has been called at short notice after discussions failed to produce full agreement for the measures among all 28 member states, AFP reports.
Earlier an EU spokeswoman had said new sanctions against Russia would be adopted shortly and take effect on Tuesday.
But an EU spokeswoman said the sanctions would be "reversible", depending on the situation in Ukraine.
Major state-owned oil firms including Rosneft are on the new EU sanctions list, but gas is not affected, diplomats say. US sanctions already target Rosneft.
Russia has warned that it could block international flights through its airspace if the EU goes ahead with new measures.
This is completely unrelated to the topic at hand, i.e. the crisis in Ukraine. Why did you bother posting it in this thread?
Also, apparently one of the people in charge of the executions is currently the "deputy prime minister" of the Donetsk place.
Man, should've posted that too in my list:
Also worth noting that the head of OMON in Riga at the time was none other than Vladimir Antyufeyev, who was not only the driving force behind the failed pro-Soviet coup in Lithuania in 1991, but was also heavily involved in Transdniestr and is now deputy Prim Minister of the "People's Republic of Donetsk".
This is completely unrelated to the topic at hand, i.e. the crisis in Ukraine. Why did you bother posting it in this thread?
Also, apparently one of the people in charge of the executions is currently the "deputy prime minister" of the Donetsk place.
Man, should've posted that too in my list:
Also worth noting that the head of OMON in Riga at the time was none other than Vladimir Antyufeyev, who was not only the driving force behind the failed pro-Soviet coup in Lithuania in 1991, but was also heavily involved in Transdniestr and is now deputy Prim Minister of the "People's Republic of Donetsk".
Was going to reply to your first post, but that's a pretty good reason.
This is completely unrelated to the topic at hand, i.e. the crisis in Ukraine. Why did you bother posting it in this thread?
Its not irrelevant, in fact its a chilling reminder of the turn Russia is taking.
The purpose of this is to create hostility with Lithuania, and possibly other Baltic states.
It is also bullying as the Lithuanian government is expected to participate, and it likely wont unless infiltrated like the Ukrainian one was.
The message is still consistent, its an exercise in toe-treading, possibly as a reaction to declaration of the NATO deployment in Poland austensibly for support of defence of the Baltic states.
As it stands the UN has decreed back at the break up of the Soviet Union that Lithuania and the other Baltic states wee sovereign states under occupation during the Soviet era and never lost their inherent sovereignty. The Lithuanian courts will therefore be able to rule that draft dodgers in Lithuania were expressing their right not to join an occupational army as the Soviet state had no actual moral right to draft them, though said right was backdated.
If Lithuania is successfully bullied it establishes a precedent that the Soviet Union had moral rights over the Baltic States no matter what the UN declared.
This is a clever move and is indicative of the thinking behind the current neo-Soviet policy in Russia today.
...in which case they're carrying out an aerial bombing campaign on their own cities and citizens...
How many instances of information about deliberate aerial attacks on civilian occupied buildings by ukraine forces, confirmed by any trusted source (not RT or DNR spokesmen), can you show me? It must be easy for "aerial bombing campaign".
I haven't seen any, but, maybe, I'm missing something.
Have you not been watching TV? The news is full of bombardments. I don't think the Ukrainian army deliberately tries to hit civilians, but when you bomb a densely populated city, you know most casualties will be innocent.
In any case, I posted this earlier in the thread, you can find much more like it on Youtube:
Also worth noting that the head of OMON in Riga at the time was none other than Vladimir Antyufeyev, who was not only the driving force behind the failed pro-Soviet coup in Lithuania in 1991, but was also heavily involved in Transdniestr and is now deputy Prim Minister of the "People's Republic of Donetsk".
Also worth noting that the head of OMON in Riga at the time was none other than Vladimir Antyufeyev, who was not only the driving force behind the failed pro-Soviet coup in Lithuania in 1991, but was also heavily involved in Transdniestr and is now deputy Prim Minister of the "People's Republic of Donetsk".
Wrong country, apparently it was Latvia.
Well, Vladimir Antyufeyev was head of OMON in Latvia, not Lithuania. However, the attacks on Lithuanian border posts were primarily commited by Rigan OMON, so he did play a major role in them, altough the driving force behind them was likely Viktor Alksnis. Antyufeyev also did stage a coup in Latvia (or at least played a major role in it), played an important role in Transdnyestria and now he is confirmed to have succeeded Borodai as leader of the Donetsk Republic http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/bbc-russian-ex-police-chief-antyufeyev-leads-donetsk-rebels-359030.html. The guy always seems to show up in every place Moscow needs dirt on...
Frazzled wrote: Didn't he just say Kyrgistan wasn't a real country?
If I were them, I'd invade Russia. Beat Russia to the punch.
The downside of course is, even if you win you have to spell Kyrystan in cyrillac. No one has time for that.
You can't even spell the name right. That says enough about Kyrgyzstan's legitimacy as an independent country. I bet 99% of the world population can't even find it on a map.
Frazzled wrote: Didn't he just say Kyrgistan wasn't a real country?
If I were them, I'd invade Russia. Beat Russia to the punch.
The downside of course is, even if you win you have to spell Kyrystan in cyrillac. No one has time for that.
You can't even spell the name right. That says enough about Kyrgyzstan's legitimacy as an independent country. I bet 99% of the world population can't even find it on a map.
Good point! I'd rejoin Russia just to avoid that name.
On the positive every time I hear it, I think of a whole nation of head chopping Kyrgans all with funky Goth outfits shouting "there can only be one!" and going at each other with hand and half swords.
Frazzled wrote: Didn't he just say Kyrgistan wasn't a real country?
If I were them, I'd invade Russia. Beat Russia to the punch.
The downside of course is, even if you win you have to spell Kyrystan in cyrillac. No one has time for that.
You can't even spell the name right. That says enough about Kyrgyzstan's legitimacy as an independent country. I bet 99% of the world population can't even find it on a map.
Frazzled wrote: Didn't he just say Kyrgistan wasn't a real country?
If I were them, I'd invade Russia. Beat Russia to the punch.
The downside of course is, even if you win you have to spell Kyrystan in cyrillac. No one has time for that.
You can't even spell the name right. That says enough about Kyrgyzstan's legitimacy as an independent country. I bet 99% of the world population can't even find it on a map.
You got it wrong - I asked for any confirmed by trusted sorce instance, not special effects video, filmed in moscow studio.
If you mean by AP or the Red Cross, the answer is No, not yet.
Surprisingly, Vladimir Antyufeyev has a pretty extensive rap sheet and clear ties to Putin overthrowing legitimate governments. He's been involved in Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, Crimea, and now Donetsk.
His outstanding charges are aiding and abetting assassins (Moldova), treason (Latvia and Moldova), theft of public funds, abuse of power, and destruction of evidence (all three from the pro Russian government of Transnistria, the break away area of Moldova). He replaced local boy Denis Pushilin as 'Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the People's Republic of Donetsk'', who had supposedly 'fled to Russia'. He's also replaced Igor Girkin, a former GRU Colonel, as commander of the Donetsk military. He too has 'fled to Russia', supposedly, according to former insurgents, because of an FSB purge of the leadership in August.
...in which case they're carrying out an aerial bombing campaign on their own cities and citizens...
How many instances of information about deliberate aerial attacks on civilian occupied buildings by ukraine forces, confirmed by any trusted source (not RT or DNR spokesmen), can you show me? It must be easy for "aerial bombing campaign".
I haven't seen any, but, maybe, I'm missing something.
Are you asking for instances in which the Ukrainian military have deliberately set out to kill civilians, or in which civilian deaths have been disproportionate to the militant deaths/objectives achieved? There's plenty of evidence to support the latter, if that's what what you meant.
Iron_Captain wrote: That is indeed a nice studio they filmed it in... I believe it is the same studio in which the Americans filmed the moon landing and 9/11 attacks.
And Putin filmed aggression against ethnic Russians in Georgia.
Are you asking for instances in which the Ukrainian military have deliberately set out to kill civilians, or in which civilian deaths have been disproportionate to the militant deaths/objectives achieved? There's plenty of evidence to support the latter, if that's what what you meant.
Sadly, in the instance of the separatists, there's a growing number of the former.
Are you asking for instances in which the Ukrainian military have deliberately set out to kill civilians, or in which civilian deaths have been disproportionate to the militant deaths/objectives achieved?
There are(was) "aerial bombing campaign on their own cities and citizens", so, as I understand, there must be hundreds of destroed civilian buildings with tens of thousand casualities (cities there is mostly soviet apartment blocks with hundreds of people in each).
But, somehow, all I see, is strange youtube/RT videos/stories of unknown origin and ban(funcionally) for international reporters/non profits to enter rebel controlled areas.
Strange rebels, really - they can show real face of terrible nazi-junta, but instead they hide it and show own atrocities.
Are you asking for instances in which the Ukrainian military have deliberately set out to kill civilians, or in which civilian deaths have been disproportionate to the militant deaths/objectives achieved?
There are(was) "aerial bombing campaign on their own cities and citizens", so, as I understand, there must be hundreds of destroed civilian buildings with tens of thousand casualities (cities there is mostly soviet apartment blocks with hundreds of people in each).
One would have thought that, in a region in which movement from an urban to rural area is not restricted, civilians would quickly flee the conflict, thereby minimising casualties and making your assumption look rather silly. In fact, the evidence appears to support this, in that the last article I saw quoted the figure of around 260,000 displaced civilians.
One would have thought that, in a region in which movement from an urban to rural area is not restricted, civilians would quickly flee the conflict, thereby minimising casualties and making your assumption look rather silly. In fact, the evidence appears to support this, in that the last article I saw quoted the figure of around 260,000 displaced civilians.
There are ~mil. people in just Donezk alone and like 8 mil. in the whole region. 260k displaced is nothing.
Are you asking for instances in which the Ukrainian military have deliberately set out to kill civilians, or in which civilian deaths have been disproportionate to the militant deaths/objectives achieved?
There are(was) "aerial bombing campaign on their own cities and citizens", so, as I understand, there must be hundreds of destroed civilian buildings with tens of thousand casualities (cities there is mostly soviet apartment blocks with hundreds of people in each).
But, somehow, all I see, is strange youtube/RT videos/stories of unknown origin and ban(funcionally) for international reporters/non profits to enter rebel controlled areas.
Strange rebels, really - they can show real face of terrible nazi-junta, but instead they hide it and show own atrocities.
Tens of thousands of casualties? This is no WW2-style carpet bombing!
This conflict is much smaller and more low intensity, which means there are far less casualties than in WW2. That does not change the reality however that there are innocent people being killed.
Iron_Captain wrote: Tens of thousands of casualties? This is no WW2-style carpet bombing!
This conflict is much smaller and more low intensity, which means there are far less casualties than in WW2. That does not change the reality however that there are innocent people being killed.
I might point out that fighting in an urban environment will always yield civilian casualties, even with the most careful use of artillery, missiles, and bombs. The US war in Iraq had some of the most stringent RoE in history and still yielded 100k civilian casualties.
That does not change the reality however that there are innocent people being killed.
Innocent people are being killed at peace time too. It's tragic, but if the numbers are comparable (and they are for this region) it's looking like blatant manipulation (like "aerial bombing campain" obviously).
That does not change the reality however that there are innocent people being killed.
Innocent people are being killed at peace time too. It's tragic, but if the numbers are comparable (and they are for this region) it's looking like blatant manipulation (like "aerial bombing campain" obviously).
You have a weird view of the region if you think that hundreds of people get killed there in peace time as well. Aerial and artillery bombardments on Donetsk and Luhansk by the Ukrainian government have been proven and documented by plenty of video evidence made by the local population. If you think all that is filmed in studios in Moscow, you should take of that tinfoil hat and stop making a fool of yourself. Check here if you want to see a non-Muscovite article on casualties: http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-620-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-361615.html
Iron_Captain wrote: Tens of thousands of casualties? This is no WW2-style carpet bombing! This conflict is much smaller and more low intensity, which means there are far less casualties than in WW2. That does not change the reality however that there are innocent people being killed.
I might point out that fighting in an urban environment will always yield civilian casualties, even with the most careful use of artillery, missiles, and bombs. The US war in Iraq had some of the most stringent RoE in history and still yielded 100k civilian casualties.
Than maybe you should fething stop dropping bombs on large concentrations of civilians. Only a horrible monster would order artillery or aircraft to fire on a densely populated city.
Apparently the Ukrainian president (IIRC) is discussing devolution for eastern regions. It's good to finally see Kiev willing to negotiate and come to a political compromise, but it's a shame it took months of conflict and thousands of deaths to get to that point.
Some sort of political devolution for the eastern regions similar to Scotland or Nothern Ireland should have been on the table months ago.
Than maybe you should fething stop dropping bombs on large concentrations of civilians. Only a horrible monster would order artillery or aircraft to fire on a densely populated city.
Maybe you don't know what "stringent RoE" means, but we don't drop bombs on large concentrations of civilians.
In addition, a large part (likely the biggest part) of the Iraqi civilian body count wasn't inflicted by US or coalition forces.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Apparently the Ukrainian president (IIRC) is discussing devolution for eastern regions. It's good to finally see Kiev willing to negotiate and come to a political compromise, but it's a shame it took months of conflict and thousands of deaths to get to that point.
Some sort of political devolution for the eastern regions similar to Scotland or Nothern Ireland should have been on the table months ago.
It's been on the table since the word go, and repeatedly rejected by the separatists. It took Moscow replacing almost the entire Donetsk government in August with it's own, hand picked, guys to get this far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Only a horrible monster would order artillery or aircraft to fire on a densely populated city.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Apparently the Ukrainian president (IIRC) is discussing devolution for eastern regions. It's good to finally see Kiev willing to negotiate and come to a political compromise, but it's a shame it took months of conflict and thousands of deaths to get to that point.
Some sort of political devolution for the eastern regions similar to Scotland or Nothern Ireland should have been on the table months ago.
It's been on the table since the word go, and repeatedly rejected by the separatists. It took Moscow replacing almost the entire Donetsk government in August with it's own, hand picked, guys to get this far.
The rebels want to reform Ukraine into a federation, similar to countries like Germany, the United States and Russia. Poroshenko is prepared to grant Donetsk and Luhansk somewhat more autonomy, but still wants to keep Ukraine as a centralised state ruled from Kiev. That is why they are still disagreeing. I hope they will be able to find a good compromise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Only a horrible monster would order artillery or aircraft to fire on a densely populated city.
If France does not deliver those ships, it has to pay back the original price to Russia, plus the fine for breaching the contract, which is even more expensive than the cost of those ships. And they are left with 4 useless ships.
Glad I am not a French taxpayer...
Nonetheless, putting a arms contract on hold for the duration of a conflict is a reasonable decision. Just have to see how Russia will take it.
I'm sure they could find buyers elsewhere, the Mistral class are very modern and the capabilities they offer to a Navy/Marine Corps are something that is in high demand in certain parts of the world, particularly southeast asia.
People in the USSR realised the West had it better and decided to try and break away from the USSR. The rest is history.
Yes. Everyone in the Soviet Union realised that they wanted Uncle Sam's apple pie, and so they overthrew their rulers to break away and form the democratic capitalistic Russia that they'd always wanted.
Pull the other one.
You do know that the USSR was more than Russia, right? East Germany, Poland, Hungary etc.
Are you willing to die for Estonia? Are you willing to risk the lives of your children for Estonia?
Yes. In a nutshell. That's what NATO means. Russia will get away with it in ukraine, and maybe in Belarus or Kazakhstan. But a NATO member? That WOULD spark a full scale war. I think Britain proved that when it jumped in for Belgium and Poland in the past. To quote Lord Palmerston:
Lord Palmerston wrote:
England has no eternal friendships and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests.
And having Russia rampaging through Europe again would be heavily in breach of those interests.
I personally don't believe NATO would respond properly. I'm sure they WOULD respond in some manner, but I think, realistically speaking, the NATO response would be too minimal and too cautious, rather than an actual military campaign it would be some sort of combo of sanctions, humanitarian aid, strong condemnation, and show of force in the Baltic Sea. The outcome of that lack of response, I think, will be more dangerous for the world than if NATO did actually respond properly and attack. Rather than a unified response via NATO against Russia, I foresee the outcome of inaction to be a fracturing of NATO, a heavy arms race/buildup amongst eastern european states, followed later by rearmament in Germany and France, old ethnic tensions and geopolitical rivalries will work their way out of the woodwork and gak will hit the fan.
One protest. One City. One Day. 3 million people.
And that is naturally only a tiny fraction of the people who opposed the Iraq War.
I may have been 12 at the time, and not particularly interested in politics or the War beyond thinking all the soldiers, tanks and fighter jets on the news were cool, but even I was aware at the time that the Iraq war was almost universally reviled.
The city of Rome doesn't even have a population of 3 million people and the greater metro area is only slightly above that, so I find that hard to believe.
Those 1,551,038 men are divided over many small national armies with only a limited amount of cooperation. And judging from the difficulty the EU has with even setting up small military missions, most of those are far from battle-ready. Meanwhile, Russia has about a 100.000 in mechanised and armoured divisions that only need a single command to get rolling. They will have covered a huge amount of territory before Europe will be able to put up an effective resistance.
And American soldiers are not that great of a help when they are an ocean away. It will take a lot of time before they will arrive. And that is if they arrive. Should Russia attack NATO, it is likely China will take its chance as well and invade US allies in the Far East.
Iron_Captain is right about this. 1.5 million men split across what, 2-3 dozen national militaries? There is a heavy, heavy, heavy amount of duplication and redundancy built into that number, tens (If not hundreds) of thousands of redundant support, administrative, logistics, and headquarters personnel never intended for frontline duty. Also, simple analysis of a lot of those forces will reveal that -for the most part- those militaries are underfunded, underequpped, often not fully in compliance with NATO STANAG's (particularly in the east/balkan region where many member states are still operating Russian equipment), and simply not built for anything other than limited peacekeeping and security operations among border regions. On top of that, simply put, the US would have a lot of trouble operating against Russia, its too much real estate for too few men to take, let alone hold. On top of that Russian missile tech, particularly in the anti-ship realm, isn't anything to scoff at, we'd have a hard time getting naval assets close enough to do their job, any deployment of US forces against Russia would have to be primarily overland from our forces based in Western Europe and Turkey (and likely Norway since the USMC has an arsenal of equipment there for just that occasion). It's a pretty long way to the Russian border from Ramstein AFB, its an even longer way to Moscow.
It is only logical. Look at large-scale convential wars of the past. Weapons have only gotten deadlier since then. It is actually a pretty conservative estimate.
Indeed look at Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands died as a result of much smaller and more limited military operations than what would result should europe go to war with russia.
Russia has about a 100.000 in mechanised and armoured divisions that only need a single command to get rolling.
I don't think you understand how modern armed forces work. Nothing that size happens that quickly. You better believe the Russian sparkies and grease monkeys are as behind on their maintenance quotas as everyone else in the world, that the queys want everything filled out 20 times before it shifts and inch, and that you just generally can't say 'go' to 100,000 men and get them rolling, simply because you can't keep 100,000 men at the ready condition that long.
I think you're the one who doesn't quite understand how it works. Its not 1914, or 1939, or even 1990 anymore. In the past it could take up to a year for a nation to mobilize for a war effort, modern conflicts are characterized by rapid deployment and rapid response. Hell, USFK has kept tens of thousands of US troops on the Korean peninsula in a combat ready state for the better part of 6 decades now.
What such event? The EU leaving NATO and creating a military of its own? How would that not make NATO outdated? An organisation should never outlive its purpose. What does the EU need NATO for? Isn't the EU much better of taking the reins in their own hands? Not only would Europe be rid of the jingoistic NATO, while still capable of properly defending its borders, it would also make Russia feel much less threatened and would take the wind out of the sails of the Russian nationalists.
The stronger the NATO response is, the more threatened Russia will feel, which will only fuel radical nationalism and agression on their part. It is much better to disband dangerous divisive organisations like NATO. What people in the West may not realise is that NATO indirectly has a very large part in causing the current conflict in Ukraine, as well as the earlier conflict in Georgia. Russia feels very threatened by the needless (and illegal, as they had promised never to do so) NATO expansion towards its borders, for seemingly no other purpose but to work against Russia. It is a major cause for why Russia has been acting so agressive in defending its interests lately.
The irony here is that a unified EU military would probably be more capable and pose a bigger danger to Russia than NATO currently does.
If Russia built up its forces properly, called up the reservists, lubricated the tanks, etc, and made a general push through Europe, to quote myself, they'd probably get about a third of the way into Germany before they were stopped. But then they'd be pushed back and ground up into pieces from there.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, simply because Russia takes a very different view to WMD's from the west, one which the US and other European nations don't have an adequate response for, thats one of the big points of international nuclear policy and treaties between the US and Russia. They define tactical nuclear weapons differently, and are far more willing to utilize them in a limited fashion against military targets which we would be hard pressed to justify a nuclear response to, particularly since our own tactical nuclear arsenal has grown increasingly more limited since the end of the Cold War leaving us only with a strategic option which only the most hawkish imbecile could justify. Beyond that, don't kid yourself into thinking that NATO could itself make it to Moscow. Beyond that, I dont see WHY they would push for Germany, particularly when their goal is to reacquire areas of the Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, etc.
Are you forgetting the Queen Elizabeth??
Left dry dock in July. Plus we have F-35's and some Typhoons to play with currently.
If by 'left drydock' you mean 'launched' which just means that the structure has been completed and she's watertight, the ship hasnt been fitted out yet and won't reach IOC for another 5 years at least. I'll let you think that over a bit before you decide to commit a non-combat ready ship to the fight... also, you don't have a single F-35 yet, unless you're referring to the ones that the brits are using in FLORIDA to train pilots in, which have yet to be certified as combat capable themselves...
American troops are stationed several places around Europe, notably Germany.
Do you know how far it is to the Russia border from Germany?
1. Total Population: 142,517,670 – 313,847,465
2. Manpower available: 69,117,271 – 142,212,012
3. Military reserve: 20,035,000 – 1,458,000
4. Total aircraft strength: 4,500 – 15,2936
5. Navy ship strength: 224 – 2907
6. Submarines: 58 – 71
7. Total aircraft strength: 4,500 – 15,293.
8. Total helicopter strength: 1,635 – 6,665
...ish.
I dont know where you got these numbers from... but some of them are wrong... one of them isn't even a real number (15,2936)
You do realise that if we are talking about nuclear war there really is no point in sending any troops.
Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.
To be fair that idea of nuking is one of the most slowed things I've read in this thread so far.
We're not talking about nuclear war. A lot of people have this concept that all nuclear weapons are made the same, and the use of one nuclear weapon of any sort will precipitate a full nuclear exchange at the strategic level. This is not the case. So long as the ICBM's on both sides remain in their silos, and the SLBM's remain in their submarines, a limited exchange against military targets by tactical arms isn't completely out of the question, particularly as the primary nuclear arsenals (US and Russia) would not be fighting what is essentially an existential conflict wherein one side could cease to exist as a sovereign nation state as an outcome of the conflict, rather it would be a fight to conquer/defend limited territories along the border. As I've stated before, the official Russian position on nuclear armaments is very different to our concept of it in the west.
f it is open warfare and the US is invading the Russian-held Baltics? I think nuclear weapons would be a serious consideration. And I don't think it would end all life on Earth. Firing a few tactical nukes at concentrations of enemy troops is quite a few steps below nuking enemy cities in mutual assured destruction and a display of tragic stupidity.
Iron_Captain has illustrated exactly what I mean... that opinion right there ^^ is pretty much spot on for what you could expect to hear from Russian military and political leadership.
They will make it their own war. There is no love lost between the Chinese and the Americans and their allies in the Far East, and winning said war would mean China gets rid of the hated US influence in the region while establishing itself firmly as the #1 regional and world superpower. China could gain a lot in such a war. Much more than it could ever gain from investments in the US. The Chinese have been pursueing a policy of confrontation for some years now, while strenghtening (military) ties with Russia. China and the Soviet Union were at odds. China and the Russian Federation like each other very, very much. There was a large joint Chinese-Russian military drill only a few weeks ago.
This however is still inaccurate. The Russians and Chinese are just as much at odds now as they were in the 70s. As a side note, there have been joint Chinese/American military exercises as well, the Chinese even participated in RIMPAC a few weeks ago.
The Chinese wouldn't start a war with the US because they dearly love owning our debt. A war would mean all that debt goes away.
Ugh, they really don't own that much of the debt, we're talking less than 10% of the total...
The US servicemen in Europe might not be able to stop Russia if they committed to a large scale invasion. But god help the Russians if they killed those servicemen. Everyone derides the US as weak and disunified, but everyone sane - hopefully including Putin - realizes we are one great tragedy away from flipping into straight up Vengeance Death mode. If the US ever fully pulled out the stops and got really mad - screw everything else, we need to end you mad - well, I wouldn't want to be on the other side. The whole sleeping giant quote, but even worse nowadays.
We're not what we once were and the world has changed. We dont have the money or the industrial base to mobilize 10 million troops anymore, nor would we have the time to train them in the event that we needed to. That being said, yes, we would strike back hard, but we wouldn't be a 'giant' by any means.
China has always played a long term game. It's culturally ingrained, as is the tendency to view China as 'The World', and everything outside it as uncultured barbarians at the gates. China wants local dominance, but quite frankly doesn't care beyond that. So they're content to bide their time and build up slowly in an inscrutable sort of way. They're certainly less worrying that the Russians, historically speaking.
This, China can achieve global superpower status by becoming the dominant regional power of the area. Theres a reason why they are pushing for a ridiculous EEZ and theres a reason why its arming itself to fight the US in its backyard rather than to try to bring the fight to the US. Chinese troops will never touch US soil, and its doubtful that US troops would ever touch Chinese soil either, simply put China doesn't have to come here to beat us, they just have to keep us out, which is far easier to do than most people realize.
If the Russians launch nukes as a matter of standard warfare, then we're all going to die. The whole initial concept is ridiculous for that very reason. There is no way on God's earth the Americans would allow the Russians to wipe out a quarter of a dozen fleets, and NOT incinerate most of Russia as an automatic response.
Which in turn means Russia will respond, and then we all die. MAD is a bit of a drag, but it's what would happen.
This statement shows a total lack of understanding of reality. Besides the fact that we would never see such a large grouping of naval assets to warrant a nuclear attack such as described (seriously, the ships would be too spread out for even a strategic warhead to adequately neutralize them), barring the appealing targets that are American supercarriers, they are - ultimately - a military target, one which would NOT justify a response by strategic missile forces. Sure you'd get some nutjobs in Congress who demand it, but the Joint Chiefs aren't stupid, and I doubt (more hope really) that we would elect a president dumb enough to do so.
Are you so shockingly naive to think that russian nuclear strikes against US troops would go unanswered? That Putin could nuke American soldiers and the US would... what? Say, "Oh, fiddlesticks. We got nuked. I guess we should stand in this corner and think about what we did wrong." Seriously? Because if anyone fires a nuke at US troops, the US fires a nuke (or more) right back. Which means the first guy will retaiate with more nukes, which means the US retaliates with even more and then somebody just presses that big, red, candy-like button and humanity gets the bad end (or the good end, if you're a big enough fan of the Fallout games, I guess). No two nations that posess nuclear arms have ever gone to war with each other because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. You are too young to remember the Cold War, but some of us here lived it. The first side to use nukes in a war doesn't win. They are just the second to get wiped out. There is a reason that the US never nuked the USSR. There is a reason that the last time India and Pakistan got into a shooting match was before they both had the bomb.
Also shows a lack of understanding. Tactical and strategic nuclear forces doesn't just refer to yields, it also refers to targets. Those missiles we have sitting in silos aren't built to hit the X Mechanized Guards Battalion operating along the Polish frontier, they are built to hit Moscow and Kapustin Yar. If the Russians hit US forces with a tactical nuke, we would likely respond in kind, it wouldn't escalate beyond that unless we gave Russia reason to fear that its continued existence as an independent state was in jeopardy, and the opposite is likewise true. MAD was a STRATEGIC concept used to keep the use of strategic forces (aka world-ending big melon-fething bombs) in check, it had nothing to do with the use of multi kiloton warheads, and for that reason both sides went crazy building tactical nuclear weaponry such as nuclear anti-aircraft missiles, nuclear depth charges, nuclear torpedos, nuclear RPG's, and nuclear artillery. That being said, I'd hate to be a resident of one of the areas in which this hypothetical conflict would be fought...
I don't think you understand the Chinese.
There is more important things than economy, far more important things. How many people worried about the economy during WW2? In fact, WW2 turned out to be actually very good for the economy. Don't forget that the loss of trade with China would hurt the rest of the world as much as it hurts China, as a staggering amount of stuff has 'made in China' on it.
Chinese power has grown immensely over the past decade, and they are increasingly dissatified with the US presence in the Far East, as well as having a large score to settle with surrounding US allies like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. China wants to be recognised as a great superpower break out of the threathening American encirclement and replace the US as the world's leading nation. A war with the US would allow them to accomplish these goals, and while damaging the economy in the short term, in the long term winning a war is highly profitable. And if China can get the US to fight on two fronts, both in Europe and Asia (and maybe opening a third front in Alaska?), they stand a serious chance of succes.
Tensions in the Far East have been mounting for some years now, and China's behaviour has become increasingly hostile. It is not without reason that since a few years, minor incidents between China and its neighbours suddenly escalate to large diplomatical rows, while the major border disputes between Russia and China have suddenly been settled.
China grows more powerful every day, while the US is waning. There comes a time when the Chinese will take over the position the US has now. Whether that will involve war remains to be seen, but it seems likely.
While I dont think you understand the Chinese either, you are correct in your statement that economic arguments as to why war won't occur are flawed. Economic ties have never once been shown to prevent an outbreak of war between two nations. Prior to WW1 Europes economy was more internationally integrated than China's and the United States is today, we see how that worked out. Likewise there were various economic ties and interests stretching across border prior to WW2... still didn't prevent the outbreak of war, nor did it stop Hitler from invading his largest/primary oil suppliers and lenders.
Japanese/Chinese tensions have risen a great deal recently though, and that's because they're the only potential local opposition to Chinese regional domination. They have a sizeable population, a strong economy, well developed technology, and a decent sized defence force. Where Vietnam or Malaysia more or less have to shut up and put up with Chinese intrusions into their waters, you'll note you don't get hordes of Chinese surveyors and fishermen off Okinawa.
The Vietnamese and Malaysians are also stepping up their game, especially Vietnam.
Not really. The Chinese don't have a desire to be global police like America, or have a finger in every pie like the EU. Their foreign policy is completely insular and always historically has been for many cultural reasons. The Chinese perfect view of the world involves them having a free hand in Asia to do as they will with the other local countries subservient to them, and a large overseas market to export to. Beyond that, they have no desire to become involved in foreign affairs.
Iron_Captain wrote: You have a weird view of the region if you think that hundreds of people get killed there in peace time as well.
There are like 5000-7000 dead from "non-natural" cause per year in Donezk region alone.
Also has to note - a week ago i've asked for any trusted account of deliberate bombing of civilians by ukrane army, got plenty of gibberish, but still doesn't get what I asked.
Automatically Appended Next Post: About "russian tank march trought Europe" - friends, I recommend you to read accounts from Illovaisk encirclenment. It was small operation with perfect intelligence information, plenty of preparation time, virtually no opposition and elite partisipants. Still it was logistical and organizational nightmare with accounts of tank regiments losing pitched battles to militia infantry, frendly fire, units forgotten in the position with no water supply and other crasy things.
If Putin will try to mobilize all ~mil of his troops there is large chanse, that they will collapse by themselfs even before leaving russia.
And obviously he won't do it - read/watch any of his propaganda. His narrative is "US is forsing Europe into confrontaion with Russia". So his main geopolitical goal is to "defeat" US and close allies (England, scandinavians?) after which (and he is probably right) EU will be easily controlled by just political means.
yeah the whole russia invading western europe thing is, at least for now, wishful thinking as is the idea that NATO or the US will intervene in Russias games of empire.
I may have been 12 at the time, and not particularly interested in politics or the War beyond thinking all the soldiers, tanks and fighter jets on the news were cool, but even I was aware at the time that the Iraq war was almost universally reviled.
The city of Rome doesn't even have a population of 3 million people and the greater metro area is only slightly above that, so I find that hard to believe.
How is that relevant? The protesters came from all over the country, some may even have come from other countries. You do know how a protest works right? Political protests don't just consist of the local population of the city in which the protest is taking place.
And that source is Wikipedia btw. I didn't just make it up, or pull it from some questionable Op-Ed in a 2nd rate tabloid.
Iron_Captain wrote: You have a weird view of the region if you think that hundreds of people get killed there in peace time as well.
There are like 5000-7000 dead from "non-natural" cause per year in Donezk region alone.
*citation needed. As you're so fond of saying yourself.
Also has to note - a week ago i've asked for any trusted account of deliberate bombing of civilians by ukrane army, got plenty of gibberish, but still doesn't get what I asked.
And accounts were provided. Its not our fault if you ignored them.
Its all there, all over the news, examples of the Ukraine Air Force ostensibly bombing rebels in densely populated civilian areas but killing many civilians in the process. When you bomb a target in a civilian area, knowing full well that there will be collateral damage but you do it anyway, that amounts to recklessness if not deliberate intent.
If France does not deliver those ships, it has to pay back the original price to Russia, plus the fine for breaching the contract, which is even more expensive than the cost of those ships. And they are left with 4 useless ships.
Glad I am not a French taxpayer...
Nonetheless, putting a arms contract on hold for the duration of a conflict is a reasonable decision. Just have to see how Russia will take it.
I'm sure they could find buyers elsewhere, the Mistral class are very modern and the capabilities they offer to a Navy/Marine Corps are something that is in high demand in certain parts of the world, particularly southeast asia.
But they are specifically tailored to Russian specifications. They would need to be heavily refitted to fit other nations.
What such event? The EU leaving NATO and creating a military of its own? How would that not make NATO outdated? An organisation should never outlive its purpose. What does the EU need NATO for? Isn't the EU much better of taking the reins in their own hands? Not only would Europe be rid of the jingoistic NATO, while still capable of properly defending its borders, it would also make Russia feel much less threatened and would take the wind out of the sails of the Russian nationalists.
The stronger the NATO response is, the more threatened Russia will feel, which will only fuel radical nationalism and agression on their part. It is much better to disband dangerous divisive organisations like NATO. What people in the West may not realise is that NATO indirectly has a very large part in causing the current conflict in Ukraine, as well as the earlier conflict in Georgia. Russia feels very threatened by the needless (and illegal, as they had promised never to do so) NATO expansion towards its borders, for seemingly no other purpose but to work against Russia. It is a major cause for why Russia has been acting so agressive in defending its interests lately.
The irony here is that a unified EU military would probably be more capable and pose a bigger danger to Russia than NATO currently does.
True. But the difference would be important to Russia nonetheless. The EU is not a purely military organisation, which despite the many disagreements, Russia usually has had good relations with and which has never shown any real agression or hostility towards Russia. The NATO on the other hand is a purely military organisation created specifically to fight Russia. Also, the EU does not involve the US.
The difference is mainly a political and psychological one. Russia would feel less threatened by a unified EU military than by a NATO military, even if the first one is a far more capable force
I agree. I say scrap NATO; its a two decade outdated jingoistic relic of the Cold War designed to combat the Soviet Union. it should have been scrapped when the USSR collapsed.
Let the EU be responsible for European security and defense. It should be better able to have a more positive, less antagonistic relationship with Russia than an outdated aggressively expansionist anti-Russian military alliance.
Are you seriously claiming that the accounts of civilian casualties of Ukrainian air strikes are lies?
No way I'm entering this idiotic game "give us evidence that we are liying" which Putins propaganda is playing for the whole conflict.
If you are fine with eating garbage, feed to you by them, it's not my business to judge you.
I just asked for any account of it by somebody, who haven't been caught blatant liying before. Let's say for plain curiosity.
Are you seriously claiming that the accounts of civilian casualties of Ukrainian air strikes are lies?
No way I'm entering this idiotic game "give us evidence that we are liying" which Putins propaganda is playing for the whole conflict.
If you are fine with eating garbage, feed to you by them, it's not my business to judge you.
I just asked for any account of it by somebody, who haven't been caught blatant liying before. Let's say for plain curiosity.
So what are you going to do next, deny the holocaust? Media on both sides of the conflict reports large amounts of civilian casualties, there are videos on Youtube showing streets covered in dead bodies. There is an official report of the UN about civilian casualties. How much evidence do you need? Do you seriously believe the UN and the Kyiv Post to be infiltrated by Putinists and reporting propaganda? Take of your tinfoil hat and open your fething eyes!
You see that? This information comes from the Ukrainian government and was quoted in the Kyiv Post. Still Putin's propaganda?
Interestingly enough, this graphic includes Crimea, which makes the refugee numbers a bit larger (by more than a million, due to all the Tartars and Ukrainians fleeing the new regime in Crimea, which has boasted that soon they will be 99% Russian). The separatists have issued a proclamation that no man between the ages of 16 and 60 is permitted to leave. Despite this, according to a UN report back in August, 285,000 people have fled the fighting in the east. 114k of these have fled further into the Ukraine, while 168k have fled into Russia. (which fairly closely matches the Ukrainians/Russians demographics in the region). Interestingly, even if the fighting ceases, those fleeing into Russia are not permitted to leave again under Russian law for at least one year.
You see that? This information comes from the Ukrainian government and was quoted in the Kyiv Post.
My english is not soo good, maybe, help me please - where in this information Ukrainian government said, that those civilians was killed by their "aerial bombing campaign"? We are discussing it, if you forgotten.
You see that? This information comes from the Ukrainian government and was quoted in the Kyiv Post.
My english is not soo good, maybe, help me please - where in this information Ukrainian government said, that those civilians was killed by their "aerial bombing campaign"? We are discussing it, if you forgotten.
Don't worry, your English seems to fine, compared to most Russians. But well, of course not all of them have been killed by aerial bombing. But looking at the evidence available on the internet, we see that most civilian casualties seem to caused by air and artillery bombardments of Donetsk, Luhansk and surrounding cities. It is also quite logical that most casualties are caused by this, it is obvious that you will cause a lot of civilian casualties if you fire weapons like a missile or artillery shell on a place where a lot of people are grouped together.
Iron_Captain wrote: . It is also quite logical that most casualties are caused by this, it is obvious that you will cause a lot of civilian casualties if you fire weapons like a missile or artillery shell on a place where a lot of people are grouped together.
The number one killer of civilians in a siege or FIBUA situation is disease and accidents. Hot on it's heels and related to those, is contaminated water and food. With poorly trained forces like the separatists have, you have a lot of stray fire, a lot of accidental discharges, and so on. Stray artillery can kill more in a single incident, but as time and fighting drags on it gets eclipsed by stray fire, and improvised mortars and rockets in particular, since those tend to be wildly inaccurate.
And the source is the Ukrainian President himself, who claims the threat was made in a "private conversation" so I'd take that with a bucket of salt. Lots of "Ifs" and "Buts" and "Alleged remarks" and "Claims". This is little more than hearsay.
What does the Polish Government, and the governments of the other countries named have to say?
Spoiler:
German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung reports that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko told European Commission that Putin made the threat in a recent conversation
By Justin Huggler, Berlin
6:48PM BST 18 Sep 2014
President Vladimir Putin privately threatened to invade Poland, Romania and the Baltic states, according to a record of a conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart.
"If I wanted, in two days I could have Russian troops not only in Kiev, but also in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw and Bucharest," Mr Putin allegedly told President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, reported Süddeustche Zeitung, a German newspaper.
If true,this would be the first time that Mr Putin has threatened to invade Nato or EU members. Any threat to send Russian troops into the capitals of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Romania would cause grave alarm among Western leaders.
If Mr Putin were to act on this, Britain could find itself at war with Russia. All five countries mentioned in this alleged conversationare members of both the EU and Nato. They are covered by the security guarantee in Article V of Nato's founding treaty, which states that "an attack on one is an attack on all". In a speech in Tallinn earlier this month, President Barack Obama confirmed Nato's commitment to this doctrine.
Mr Putin's alleged threat bears similarities to remarks he made to Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, in which he warned: "If I want to, I can take Kiev in two weeks".
Süddeustche Zeitung claims to have seen a European Union memorandum of a meeting between Mr Barroso and Mr Poroshenko in Kiev last week, during which the latter is said to have described Mr Putin's threat.
The Russian president made these remarks in series of telephone conversations with Mr Poroshenko over the current ceasefire in eastern Ukraine.
Mr Putin also warned Mr Poroshenko not to put too much faith in the EU, saying that Russia could exert its influence and bring about a "blocking minority" among member states.
On Tuesday, Ukraine ratified a historic Association Agreement with the EU, placing the country on the path towards eventual EU membership. It was the refusal of the former president, Viktor Yanukovych, to sign this agreement last year that triggered the Ukraine crisis.
The EU recently announced further sanctions against Russia, focusing on the energy, financial and arms sectors. But there have been divisions among member states over sanctions, with many worried about the impact on their own economies.
The Baltic states are particularly nervous about Russian intentions, and Mr Obama sought to reassure them with his speech in Tallinn earlier this month.
"If you ever ask again 'Who will come to help?' you'll know the answer: the Nato alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America," he said. "We'll be here for Estonia. We will be here for Latvia. We will be here for Lithuania."
Mr Poroshenko is the only alleged source for Mr Putin's latest threat, and there will be concerns he might be motivated to exaggerate in order to strengthen EU and Nato support for Ukraine.
The European Commission refused to confirm or deny whether Mr Barroso had held such a conversation with Mr Poroshenko. "We will not conduct diplomacy in the press or discuss extracts of confidential conversations," said Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen, the Commission spokesperson. "What matters to the EU and the Commission is to contribute to lasting peace, stability and prosperity in Ukraine."
If there is, indeed, a record of this private conversation, as the article suggests, then it's more than just hearsay. However, since it's authenticity will probably never be confirmed by Russia,
Of course, this is just Rusophobia and NATO conspiracies designed to smear Russia's reputation.
Sarcasm aside, if Russia doesn't want NATO to expand, perhaps they shouldn't be bullying their neighbours? Finland's had similar violations recently as well.
RAF fighters were scrambled from a base in Scotland this week to see off a Russian aircraft in International Airspace.
Of course, this is just Rusophobia and NATO conspiracies designed to smear Russia's reputation.
Straw man.
Sarcasm aside, if Russia doesn't want NATO to expand, perhaps they shouldn't be bullying their neighbours? Finland's had similar violations recently as well.
NATO has been expanding for the last two decades, ever since the USSR collapsed. You can't blame recent incidents of Russian aggression for NATO expansion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: If there is, indeed, a record of this private conversation, as the article suggests, then it's more than just hearsay. However, since it's authenticity will probably never be confirmed by Russia,
It is and will remain hearsay until someone can prove that this "record" exists. All we have atm is an anonymous source who claims to have seen a memorandum. And in any case, even if the memorandum does exist, the source of the memorandum was the President of Ukraine himself, a known biased entity with every motive to lie or distort events.
Its like an anonymous source claiming to have read a memorandum of Vladimir Putin complaining to another National Leader about a "private conversation" he had with Poroshenko in which the Ukraine President threatens to nuke Russia, or have Ukrainian Army soldiers and para-military militants hunt down and murder ethnic Russians in Donetsk.
We should wait until this is confirmed by an impartial third party source, rather than immediately jumping on this as "Aha! Russia threatens to invade Europe!" You naturally and rightly wouldn't take such flimsy and circumstantial evidence as gospel if it was Russia that was being threatened by Ukraine, so why are you doing it now?
We should wait until this is confirmed by an impartial third party source, rather than immediately jumping on this as "Aha! Russia threatens to invade Europe!" You naturally and rightly wouldn't take such flimsy and circumstantial evidence as gospel if it was Russia that was being threatened by Ukraine, so why are you doing it now?
Well, it could be because Russia has developed something of a track record for this, and Putin himself has stated on several occasions that he wishes to rebuild the old Soviet Union. By the time a third party source could confirm such a thing, if ever, Russia could be bombing Krakow. Or invading Finland. Or any number of other things that would be detrimental to the EU in general and hte nation being smacked around in particular.
Much the same reason that if Germany started calling for lebensraum and massed several divisions on the Polish or French boarders, we might not buy it they were there for 'training purposes'.
We should wait until this is confirmed by an impartial third party source, rather than immediately jumping on this as "Aha! Russia threatens to invade Europe!" You naturally and rightly wouldn't take such flimsy and circumstantial evidence as gospel if it was Russia that was being threatened by Ukraine, so why are you doing it now?
Well, it could be because Russia has developed something of a track record for this, and Putin himself has stated on several occasions that he wishes to rebuild the old Soviet Union. By the time a third party source could confirm such a thing, if ever, Russia could be bombing Krakow. Or invading Finland. Or any number of other things that would be detrimental to the EU in general and hte nation being smacked around in particular.
Much the same reason that if Germany started calling for lebensraum and massed several divisions on the Polish or French boarders, we might not buy it they were there for 'training purposes'.
We should wait until this is confirmed by an impartial third party source, rather than immediately jumping on this as "Aha! Russia threatens to invade Europe!" You naturally and rightly wouldn't take such flimsy and circumstantial evidence as gospel if it was Russia that was being threatened by Ukraine, so why are you doing it now?
Well, it could be because Russia has developed something of a track record for this, and Putin himself has stated on several occasions that he wishes to rebuild the old Soviet Union. By the time a third party source could confirm such a thing, if ever, Russia could be bombing Krakow. Or invading Finland. Or any number of other things that would be detrimental to the EU in general and hte nation being smacked around in particular.
Much the same reason that if Germany started calling for lebensraum and massed several divisions on the Polish or French boarders, we might not buy it they were there for 'training purposes'.
Let me amend that: Putin is quick to deny that he's rebuilding the 'Soviet Union' but also quick to glorify it and propose plans to get back to that state. He brought back the red star, and hammer and sickle, as symbols of the 'Russian Federation'. He promised, in a 2012 speech that Moscow would become a 'new axis of influence' in the world
"It is my deep conviction that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a national tragedy on a massive scale. I think the ordinary citizens of the former Soviet Union and the citizens in the post-Soviet space, the CIS countries, have gained nothing from it. On the contrary, people have been faced with a host of problems."
"Our objectives on the international stage are very clear – to ensure the security of our borders and create favourable external conditions for the resolution of our domestic problems. " (Italics mine)
"We plan to go beyond that, and set ourselves an ambitious goal of reaching a higher level of integration – a Eurasian Union.
How do we understand the prospects for this project? What shape will it take?
First, none of this entails any kind of revival of the Soviet Union. It would be naïve to try to revive or emulate something that has been consigned to history. But these times call for close integration based on new values and a new political and economic foundation.
We suggest a powerful supranational association capable of becoming one of the poles in the modern world and serving as an efficient bridge between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific region."
NATO has been expanding for the last two decades, ever since the USSR collapsed. You can't blame recent incidents of Russian aggression for NATO expansion.
Except there must be a reason that these countries want to join NATO. I wonder what that could be?
Let me amend that: Putin is quick to deny that he's rebuilding the 'Soviet Union' but also quick to glorify it and propose plans to get back to that state. He brought back the red star, and hammer and sickle, as symbols of the 'Russian Federation'. He promised, in a 2012 speech that Moscow would become a 'new axis of influence' in the world
"It is my deep conviction that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a national tragedy on a massive scale. I think the ordinary citizens of the former Soviet Union and the citizens in the post-Soviet space, the CIS countries, have gained nothing from it. On the contrary, people have been faced with a host of problems."
"Our objectives on the international stage are very clear – to ensure the security of our borders and create favourable external conditions for the resolution of our domestic problems. " (Italics mine)
He seems to forget that the USSR dissolved because the countries which made it up voted for independence.
I applaud those who are willing to stand up for their rights rather then roll over and die. This is how democracy will continue to thrive in the world.
Let me amend that: Putin is quick to deny that he's rebuilding the 'Soviet Union' but also quick to glorify it and propose plans to get back to that state. He brought back the red star, and hammer and sickle, as symbols of the 'Russian Federation'.
Putin didn't, the Russian people did. Putin only made it official. Hell, even today there is plenty of people that do not even know the Russian anthem and continue to sing the Soviet one.
BaronIveagh wrote:He promised, in a 2012 speech that Moscow would become a 'new axis of influence' in the world
"It is my deep conviction that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a national tragedy on a massive scale. I think the ordinary citizens of the former Soviet Union and the citizens in the post-Soviet space, the CIS countries, have gained nothing from it. On the contrary, people have been faced with a host of problems."
"Our objectives on the international stage are very clear – to ensure the security of our borders and create favourable external conditions for the resolution of our domestic problems. " (Italics mine)
"We plan to go beyond that, and set ourselves an ambitious goal of reaching a higher level of integration – a Eurasian Union.
How do we understand the prospects for this project? What shape will it take?
First, none of this entails any kind of revival of the Soviet Union. It would be naïve to try to revive or emulate something that has been consigned to history. But these times call for close integration based on new values and a new political and economic foundation.
We suggest a powerful supranational association capable of becoming one of the poles in the modern world and serving as an efficient bridge between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific region."
And how does that make him want to bring back Soviet Union?
Let me amend that: Putin is quick to deny that he's rebuilding the 'Soviet Union' but also quick to glorify it and propose plans to get back to that state. He brought back the red star, and hammer and sickle, as symbols of the 'Russian Federation'. He promised, in a 2012 speech that Moscow would become a 'new axis of influence' in the world
"It is my deep conviction that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a national tragedy on a massive scale. I think the ordinary citizens of the former Soviet Union and the citizens in the post-Soviet space, the CIS countries, have gained nothing from it. On the contrary, people have been faced with a host of problems."
"Our objectives on the international stage are very clear – to ensure the security of our borders and create favourable external conditions for the resolution of our domestic problems. " (Italics mine)
He seems to forget that the USSR dissolved because the countries which made it up voted for independence.
I applaud those who are willing to stand up for their rights rather then roll over and die. This is how democracy will continue to thrive in the world.
Yes, glory to the people of Donetsk and Luhansk who refused to bow down and submit to an unlawful coup-imposed regime that trampled their rights.
Glad that Americans can see it too
I applaud those who are willing to stand up for their rights rather then roll over and die. This is how democracy will continue to thrive in the world.
Yes, glory to the people of Donetsk and Luhansk who refused to bow down and submit to an unlawful coup-imposed regime that trampled their rights.
Glad that Americans can see it too
Too bad that the people of Donetsk and Luhansk had to flee or hide in their cellars while terrorists, mercenaries and russian soldiers fight the democratically elected government of Ukraine. And all that just to keep one utterly forgettable little man and his cronies in power a little bit longer. Disgusting.
I applaud those who are willing to stand up for their rights rather then roll over and die. This is how democracy will continue to thrive in the world.
Yes, glory to the people of Donetsk and Luhansk who refused to bow down and submit to an unlawful coup-imposed regime that trampled their rights.
Glad that Americans can see it too
Too bad that the people of Donetsk and Luhansk had to flee or hide in their cellars while terrorists, mercenaries and russian soldiers fight the democratically elected government of Ukraine. And all that just to keep one utterly forgettable little man and his cronies in power a little bit longer. Disgusting.
That's historical revisionism. When the rebellion started, the government in charge at the time WAS an illegal regime imposed via a revolution. It was only after several months of fighting that elections were held.
But would a now democraticly elected government be legal. As I see it, it's about as legal as the American, or, for the sake of the argument, Russian government,
Co'tor Shas wrote: But would a now democraticly elected government be legal. As I see it, it's about as legal as the American, or, for the sake of the argument, Russian government,
Yes. Assuming the elections were fair and legitimate.
Co'tor Shas wrote: But would a now democraticly elected government be legal. As I see it, it's about as legal as the American, or, for the sake of the argument, Russian government,
Yes. Assuming the elections were fair and legitimate.
Which they weren't as the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, were a large part of Ukrainian people lives, were only barely able to vote.
I applaud those who are willing to stand up for their rights rather then roll over and die. This is how democracy will continue to thrive in the world.
Yes, glory to the people of Donetsk and Luhansk who refused to bow down and submit to an unlawful coup-imposed regime that trampled their rights.
Glad that Americans can see it too
terrorists, mercenaries and russian soldiers
Clearly you mean: defected Ukrainian soldiers, angry locals, Crimeans, Cossacks and foreign volunteers?
And yet, at the end of the day, how many countries voted to keep the USSR?
To say that "The USSR collapsed because the Warsaw Pact countries voted to leave" is a gross simplification. Economic stagnation and political infighting left the USSR weak and vulnerable, and the WP countries / East Berlin seized the opportunity break away.
If those countries had tried to break away during the height of the USSR's power, they would have been crushed (as indeed some countries were).
Co'tor Shas wrote: But would a now democraticly elected government be legal. As I see it, it's about as legal as the American, or, for the sake of the argument, Russian government,
Yes. Assuming the elections were fair and legitimate.
Which they weren't as the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, were a large part of Ukrainian people lives, were only barely able to vote.
And yet, at the end of the day, how many countries voted to keep the USSR?
To say that "The USSR collapsed because the Warsaw Pact countries voted to leave" is a gross simplification. Economic stagnation and political infighting left the USSR weak and vulnerable, and the WP countries / East Berlin seized the opportunity break away.
If those countries had tried to break away during the height of the USSR's power, they would have been crushed (as indeed some countries were).
Except in that case I wasn't talking about the warsaw pact countries but actually countries like Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan etc.
Which they weren't as the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, were a large part of Ukrainian people lives, were only barely able to vote.
yes, and only for the approved candidates. After all, the leaders the separatists had chosen were obviously inferior and replaced by glorious former FSB agents at the order of Moscow back in August.
You might also want to check your population maps and demographics, though your definition of 'large' may be more fluid than mine.
Clearly you mean: defected Ukrainian soldiers, angry locals, Crimeans, Cossacks and foreign volunteers?
Yes, the glorious foreign volunteers, who now command the Donetsk Army as of August. Though in all fairness, the previous CO was also a glorious volunteer from the in no way involved Russian Army. BTW: there were a lot more Crimeans and Cossacks fighting against the separatists than for, according to some reports. The mass-but-unoffical deportation of the Crimean tartars (and almost a million other Crimean so far) might have had something to do with that though.
I will say this, I must admit, the Russians know how to do leave in style. I mean, I can't think of another army that let's you take your MBT with you when you go on vacation.
Of course, with Russia on the rampage, it will be nice to see some good old fashioned American politics soon.
I applaud those who are willing to stand up for their rights rather then roll over and die. This is how democracy will continue to thrive in the world.
Yes, glory to the people of Donetsk and Luhansk who refused to bow down and submit to an unlawful coup-imposed regime that trampled their rights.
Glad that Americans can see it too
terrorists, mercenaries and russian soldiers
Clearly you mean: defected Ukrainian soldiers, angry locals, Crimeans, Cossacks and foreign volunteers?
By "volunteers" do you mean Russian troops ordered there?
Which they weren't as the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, were a large part of Ukrainian people lives, were only barely able to vote.
yes, and only for the approved candidates. After all, the leaders the separatists had chosen were obviously inferior and replaced by glorious former FSB agents at the order of Moscow back in August.
You might also want to check your population maps and demographics, though your definition of 'large' may be more fluid than mine.
Donetsk Oblast is the most densely populated region of Ukraine, there are even more people there than in Kiev. This oblast alone is already 10% of Ukraines total population, not to mention it is also the richest and has most of Ukraines important industry so it is a very significant place.
Luhansk is smaller, but still contains 5.13% of Ukraines total population.
That makes a total of about 15% of Ukraines total population, and the majority of this group was unable to vote. I call that a large part of the population.
Clearly you mean: defected Ukrainian soldiers, angry locals, Crimeans, Cossacks and foreign volunteers?
Yes, the glorious foreign volunteers, who now command the Donetsk Army as of August. Though in all fairness, the previous CO was also a glorious volunteer from the in no way involved Russian Army. BTW: there were a lot more Crimeans and Cossacks fighting against the separatists than for, according to some reports. The mass-but-unoffical deportation of the Crimean tartars (and almost a million other Crimean so far) might have had something to do with that though.
Cossacks fighting against the seperatists? Against pro-Russians? Cossacks are about the most radical Russian nationalists you can find nowadays. If you don't give me a credible source for it, I'm just going to assume you are making things up and have no idea what a Cossack is.
Same goes for the Crimeans. Most Crimeans are very pro-Russian. There may be tatars and Ukrainians from Crimea fighting against the seperatists, but not in significant numbers.
Also, there are no forced deportations. The tatars are welcome to stay, even if many choose to leave to avoid harrasment from the Cossacks. Most people in Crimea have nothing against the Tatars, but the Cossacks are different. They still see the Tatars as enemies, even if they were conquered centuries ago. There were a few lone stanitsas before that gave the Tatars trouble, but with all the Cossacks swarming to Crimea lately I can't blame the Tatars for wanting to leave. There might very well be a new Host in the making.
Sergej Markov, Putin's personal envoy, considers Sweden to be one of the most Rusophobic in Europe. He warns that a World War could be the result if Russia is pushed into a corner.
-Five, six countries are at the forefront of European Rusophobia: Sweden, Poland, the Baltic countries, and Finland. In the cases of Sweden and Poland this hatred of Russia can be explained with old great-power-complexes, in the case of Lithuania and Estonia it's a case of politics. The Rusophobia in Finland, on the other hand, is incomprehensible, seeing as Finland's benefitted from the increase in trade with Russia. Everything points to Sweden and the Baltic nations having influenced Finland, says Sergej Markov, Putin's doverennoje litso.
The title means he [Markov] is the Russian president's personal envoy and represents him [Putin] in public.
Markov is a political scientist and heads his own think-tank, Institute for political research. He is also a member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, and a known hawk whose ideas are close to Putin's. And he has the president's ear.
-Vladimir Putin and I meet between one and three times a month. I became his personal envoy during the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. Back then we met every week. After the election he [Putin] announced that I had his continued confidence, says Markov.
SvD interviews Markov at Hotel Kosmos in Moscow, where he is opening a seminar for media directors of the region. During his entire opening speech the microphone is malfunctioning. Markov speaks for 40 minutes without the audience hearing a thing. No one dares say anything.
When SvD asks Markov about the deterioration of security policy in Europe he gets upset and almost snarls:
Enough with Russia being treated as inferior! The view of Russians in Europe today is the same as that regarding Jews in times past. Your goal is to destroy Russia. But you will not succeed. Napoleon tried, Hitler tried, without success. You'll destroy Europe instead.
How does this hatred of Russia manifest?
For example the monstrous lies about Ukraine. The claim that Porosjenko was elected in free and fair elections. It's like claiming Bashar al-Assad was democratically elected.
Russia supports al-Assad.
We support those who show understanding for ethnic minorities. The minorities in Syria, the Christians, the Alawites, the Circassians, pray to God that al-Assad remains president. In Ukraine people are killed because they want to elect their own governors and stick to their right to speak their native Russian language. Why does Europe refuse to see this? People were being murdered in Odessa, but your Western media doesn't report on that. Despite the culprit being obvious.
Markov warns for the consequences of cornering Russia.
-Antisemitism started the Second World War, Rusophobia could start a Third. The major problem is that NATO is trying to create artificial conflicts. NATO is no longer needed, it has lost its right to exist and is as a result looking for new purposes. NATO is de facto an American organisation. The American military budget is bigger than the rest of the world combined! The US is arming itself at an alarming rate and is also creating private armies of mercenaries that no one controls, like Blackwater. These developments are extremely dangerous.
What is going to happen in Ukraine?
The most likely solution is the Bosnian scenario. That is, an ethnicity-based federation. Eastern Ukraine becomes the federation of Novorossija, including Donetsk, Luhansk, Charkiv, Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk, and Zaporozjie.
But the separatists only control two of those cities
The others will join their struggle sooner or later. They can't accept the Ukranian nationalists either. In Russia we have to hold back a large stream of volunteers that want to go to Ukraine to protect their brethren. The pressure on Russia to intervene is steadily mounting, 70 percent of the Russian people want Russia to intervene in eastern Ukraine. But Putin doesn't want to. He wants a federation.
There's a number of Russian volunteers in Donbass. Apparently you didn't manage to hold them back
Many more have been stopped at the border.
The separatists are seemingly receiving military aid from Russia
Have you seen how out-of-date their missiles are? Russia has the best anti-air systems in the world. The Rebels are using 1970's weapons. But if the Kiev government doesn't stop using violence against their own people, we will be forced to aid the rebels - with both hardware and men.
[
that the Russian envoy to Sweden called Sweden "Rusophobic" and that there was nothing to fear from Russia. If there isn't, why are they violating both Swedish and Finnish airspace on purpose?
NATO has been expanding for the last two decades, ever since the USSR collapsed. You can't blame recent incidents of Russian aggression for NATO expansion.
I'm not, I'm blaming Russia for knowingly violating the airspace of two sovereign nations that aren't even in NATO.
Cossacks fighting against the seperatists? Against pro-Russians? Cossacks are about the most radical Russian nationalists you can find nowadays. If you don't give me a credible source for it, I'm just going to assume you are making things up and have no idea what a Cossack is.
Same goes for the Crimeans. Most Crimeans are very pro-Russian. There may be tatars and Ukrainians from Crimea fighting against the seperatists, but not in significant numbers.
Apparently better than you do, as I know that cossacks are not universally Russian and that the post Soviet organizations calling themselves cossacks outside Russia have little relationship to actual cossacks. I believe that when you're talking about cossacks, you're talking about 'registered Cossacks' as outlined under Russian law, as opposed to the historical peoples who identify as such. However, this hasn't stopped Cossack groups in Russia and the eastern Ukraine from claiming that the Ukraine belongs to them (in it's entirety). I loved their reference to the government in Kiev as a 'threat to the Russian World'.
OSCE Reports on 'Stakhanov People's Republic' Amidst Conflicting Local News Accounts
17:27 (GMT)
The OSCE monitors have reported on the formation of the "Stakhanov People's Republic" which is reportedly splitting from the "Lugansk People's Republic."
A number of local sources are questioning whether this is a joke or disinformation, and a local news agency is discounting the report.
On the other hand, pro-separatists sources are reporting that the town of Stakhanov did secede from the "Lugansk People's Republic."
And a rally of Cossack fighters was held in Stakhanov today making clear that they wanted to take power.
And refugees from the Crimea have been singing up en mass. I think being 'not deported' has left a bad taste in their mouth. And, given the numbers of refugees, again, I posit that your definitions of large and small numbers is highly fluid.
Also, there are no forced deportations. The tatars are welcome to stay, even if many choose to leave to avoid harrasment from the Cossacks.
Russia gave everyone one month to become a Russian citizen or leave. 12% of the population left in that time frame (A number you consider large when it supports your arguments, but small when it doesn't, apparently). Also, the issue between cossaks and tartars hasn't been the only violence between ethnic groups in the Crimea. The new Russian overlords have not been kind to the Ukrainians who have stayed, with businesses seized and given to loyal Russians, murders, and disappearances. Of course, this all comes from suspect sources like the UN comission on Human Rights, who are obviously in league with those damn Americans in the efforts to smear the glorious Comrade Putin.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
that the Russian envoy to Sweden called Sweden "Rusophobic" and that there was nothing to fear from Russia. If there isn't, why are they violating both Swedish and Finnish airspace on purpose?
You'll find Russians often behave paradoxically (from a Western pov at least). They want you to know that you do not need to be afraid of Russia, but that Russia is very fearsome nonetheless.
Cossacks fighting against the seperatists? Against pro-Russians? Cossacks are about the most radical Russian nationalists you can find nowadays. If you don't give me a credible source for it, I'm just going to assume you are making things up and have no idea what a Cossack is.
Same goes for the Crimeans. Most Crimeans are very pro-Russian. There may be tatars and Ukrainians from Crimea fighting against the seperatists, but not in significant numbers.
Apparently better than you do, as I know that cossacks are not universally Russian and that the post Soviet organizations calling themselves cossacks outside Russia have little relationship to actual cossacks. I believe that when you're talking about cossacks, you're talking about 'registered Cossacks' as outlined under Russian law, as opposed to the historical peoples who identify as such. However, this hasn't stopped Cossack groups in Russia and the eastern Ukraine from claiming that the Ukraine belongs to them (in it's entirety). I loved their reference to the government in Kiev as a 'threat to the Russian World'.
What makes someone a Cossack? I could put on a uniform and start identifying myself as a Cossack, but would that make me one? Some would say yes, but I think not. It comes down to how you define a Cossack. Are they an ethnic group? A warrior caste? A lifestyle?
Cossacks are not Russian, Cossacks are Cossacks. Everyone can become a Cossack. To be a Cossack is to embrace Cossack lifestyle, culture and ideals: Courage and honour, a free and adventurous, and a fierce loyalty to the Orthodox Church and the Russian nation.
They are a combination of an ethnicity with a specific lifestyle, a warrior caste you could call them. You become a Cossack by being descended from one and being raised as one, or by being officially initiated in a host. In my opinion only those that belong to a recognised host are true Cossacks. And all of those are in Russia. Cossacks are defenders of the Russian nation, and it has been that way for hundreds of years.
Many organisations calling themselves cossacks have sprung up yes, but those are not real Cossacks, and actual Cossacks have nothing but scorn for them. As I said, everyone can call himself a cossack, but that doesn't make it true.
When Cossacks claim the Ukraine is theirs, they base that claim on history. Ukraine is not only the original homeland of the Cossacks (many Cossacks speak a Ukrainian dialect even today), but the Zaporozhian Host also ruled it once. With the current Ukrainian government being perceived as anti-Russian, it is no surprise other, modern Cossacks would want to re-instate this Host to ensure Ukraine stays close to Russia.
Also, there are no forced deportations. The tatars are welcome to stay, even if many choose to leave to avoid harrasment from the Cossacks.
Russia gave everyone one month to become a Russian citizen or leave. 12% of the population left in that time frame (A number you consider large when it supports your arguments, but small when it doesn't, apparently). Also, the issue between cossaks and tartars hasn't been the only violence between ethnic groups in the Crimea. The new Russian overlords have not been kind to the Ukrainians who have stayed, with businesses seized and given to loyal Russians, murders, and disappearances. Of course, this all comes from suspect sources like the UN comission on Human Rights, who are obviously in league with those damn Americans in the efforts to smear the glorious Comrade Putin.
I don't recall saying it was a small amount of people that left. You are making up false arguments yet again. It is hard to have a good discussion if you keep lying like that. The Tatars and Ukrainians were welcome to stay if they wanted to become Russian citizens. The fact that radicals on the Russian side choose to vent their rage on innocent individuals belonging to different ethnic groups is regrettable and horrible but you can't really blame it on the Russian government.
pffft... I have learned and used more difficult English words in this thread than in my entire school life so far
That's refreshing news. I’m glad to see that at least some Russians see Putin’s politics for what it really is and voicing their displeasure with it.
I hope this will speed up Russia’s exit from Ukraine.
You are, or at very least have been supportive of Putin and his plans.
It would be hard not to call you a staunch supporter of Russia's agenda in Ukraine.
Redcruisair wrote:You are, or at very least have been supportive of Putin and his plans.
It would be hard not to call you a staunch supporter of Russia's agenda in Ukraine.
I have been so. And I will admit I admire Putin for many things.
But am I a supporter of Russia's agenda in Ukraine? I don't even know what their agenda is, so I wouldn't say I support it.
Whether I support Russia or not depends on its actions. As Russian myself, my judgement will of course be weighted towards my own people, but when Russians do something really bad, I usually disagree. I will often try to explain things from a Russian perspective, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of it.
Co'tor Shas wrote:Pretty much. You deny anything that makes russia seem bad.
I don't. But in this conflict, it is not Russia who is bombing its own civilians for disagreeing with the government.
In this conflict, I am on the side of the people of Donbass.
And since you seem so willing to divide people into 'sides', may I ask whose side are you on?
Co'tor Shas wrote:Pretty much. You deny anything that makes russia seem bad.
I don't. But in this conflict, it is not Russia who is bombing its own civilians for disagreeing with the government.
In this conflict, I am on the side of the people of Donbass.
And since you seem so willing to divide people into 'sides', may I ask whose side are you on?
I don't support either side, but I am against Russia's past and present actions. And don't pretend that Russia has the moral high ground here. It's their fault the conflict is even happening still (started with invading Crimea). They are the ones who have made being gay pretty much illigal. They are the ones who crack down on people for disagreeing with the government, when they are not staging an armed rebellion.
I might even support the separatists if it wasn't for Russia's involvement.
Given that Iron_Captain has close relatives fighting on the Separatist side, that may speak for his bias. Well beyond him being from a family which supports Putin's government (I don't attribute his support to his ethnicity like he does though, as that's an insult to those Russians who don't think too highly of the current government in place there and its appalling domestic and foreign policies) which evidently has had an effect on his political stance. =P
You'll find Russians often behave paradoxically (from a Western pov at least). They want you to know that you do not need to be afraid of Russia, but that Russia is very fearsome nonetheless.
You were saying? Because these guys were recruited right from the Kuban Host in the Ukraine. I'd say joining the SS is about as anti-Russian nation as you can get.
The Tatars and Ukrainians were welcome to stay if they wanted to become Russian citizens. The fact that radicals on the Russian side choose to vent their rage on innocent individuals belonging to different ethnic groups is regrettable and horrible but you can't really blame it on the Russian government.
I've heard the 'can't blame the government for a few extremists' used to defend the lack of protection of civilians by their government before.
Co'tor Shas wrote:Pretty much. You deny anything that makes russia seem bad.
I don't. But in this conflict, it is not Russia who is bombing its own civilians for disagreeing with the government.
In this conflict, I am on the side of the people of Donbass.
And since you seem so willing to divide people into 'sides', may I ask whose side are you on?
I don't support either side, but I am against Russia's past and present actions. And don't pretend that Russia has the moral high ground here. It's their fault the conflict is even happening still (started with invading Crimea). They are the ones who have made being gay pretty much illigal. They are the ones who crack down on people for disagreeing with the government, when they are not staging an armed rebellion.
I might even support the separatists if it wasn't for Russia's involvement.
Neither side has the moral high ground. Thats the problem.
Co'tor Shas wrote:Pretty much. You deny anything that makes russia seem bad.
I don't. But in this conflict, it is not Russia who is bombing its own civilians for disagreeing with the government.
In this conflict, I am on the side of the people of Donbass.
And since you seem so willing to divide people into 'sides', may I ask whose side are you on?
I don't support either side, but I am against Russia's past and present actions. And don't pretend that Russia has the moral high ground here. It's their fault the conflict is even happening still (started with invading Crimea). They are the ones who have made being gay pretty much illigal. They are the ones who crack down on people for disagreeing with the government, when they are not staging an armed rebellion.
I might even support the separatists if it wasn't for Russia's involvement.
Neither side has the moral high ground. Thats the problem.
I think personally think that both sides are nuts, and that the only way to truly decide this is to have free, open, an unbiased voting on he matter. That means no keeping people from the polls, no threatening or bullying, both sides laying down their weapons and promising to abide by the vote, and all Russian army personnel leaving Ukraine. Also, as much observation as possible, especially from the UN.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think personally think that both sides are nuts, and that the only way to truly decide this is to have free, open, an unbiased voting on he matter. That means no keeping people from the polls, no threatening or bullying, both sides laying down their weapons and promising to abide by the vote, and all Russian army personnel leaving Ukraine. Also, as much observation as possible, especially from the UN.
I might point out that the elections were observed by international observers. Several groups attempted to rig the elections, and were caught and arrested. The election had a 60% turnout outside Donetsk. With 20 odd candidates from a bakers dozen parties, Poroshenko, an independant, won 54% of the vote. The next runner up got 12%. Poroshenko was not a member of the pro-temp government that replaced the previous administration. He had served the administration before the overthrown one as Minister of Trade, negotiating several favorable trade deals for the Ukraine.
Assuming that Donbas followed the same participation levels as the rest of the Ukraine, you're looking at about a 6% difference. Not nearly enough to have had another outcome.
If this guy is a hard core Nazi, he's the most stealth Nazi I've run across. Point of fact, his policy on cracking down on break away provinces should have a strong endorsement from one Vladimir Putin, who said, and did, the exact same thing on his taking office.
Co'tor Shas wrote:Pretty much. You deny anything that makes russia seem bad.
I don't. But in this conflict, it is not Russia who is bombing its own civilians for disagreeing with the government.
In this conflict, I am on the side of the people of Donbass.
And since you seem so willing to divide people into 'sides', may I ask whose side are you on?
I don't support either side, but I am against Russia's past and present actions. And don't pretend that Russia has the moral high ground here. It's their fault the conflict is even happening still (started with invading Crimea). They are the ones who have made being gay pretty much illigal. They are the ones who crack down on people for disagreeing with the government, when they are not staging an armed rebellion.
I might even support the separatists if it wasn't for Russia's involvement.
So you are just against Russia regardless of what happens? Altough you can say Russia escalated it by re-annexing Crimea, it is not Russia's fault the conflict is happening. That is the fault of the Ukrainian opposition who staged a coup against the democratically elected president. That is what got the conflict started.
You'll find Russians often behave paradoxically (from a Western pov at least). They want you to know that you do not need to be afraid of Russia, but that Russia is very fearsome nonetheless.
yes, because Russia has never invaded Finland.
Seriously? You are aware political realities change, aren't you?
What reason could Russia possibly have to invade Finland in the present day?
You were saying? Because these guys were recruited right from the Kuban Host in the Ukraine. I'd say joining the SS is about as anti-Russian nation as you can get.
Not from their point of view. They wanted to overthrow the Soviet government (which was hostile to all the Cossacks stood for) and restore things to the way they were before. They believed they acted in Russia's best interests and saw the Nazis as an ally in their struggle against communism.
Nonetheless, the majority of Cossacks remained loyal and fought on the Soviet side.
The Tatars and Ukrainians were welcome to stay if they wanted to become Russian citizens. The fact that radicals on the Russian side choose to vent their rage on innocent individuals belonging to different ethnic groups is regrettable and horrible but you can't really blame it on the Russian government.
I've heard the 'can't blame the government for a few extremists' used to defend the lack of protection of civilians by their government before.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia escalated it by re-annexing Crimea, it is not Russia's fault the conflict is happening. That is the fault of the Ukrainian opposition who staged a coup against the democratically elected president. That is what got the conflict started.
Without russian "help" the month-long protests in Kiev would've removed russia's sock-puppet the former president much faster, with less bloodshed, and less reliance on right wing organisations. Anything happening since is due to russian propaganda sowing fear and mistrust, and the russian occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
Iron_Captain wrote: So you are just against Russia regardless of what happens? Although you can say Russia escalated it by re-annexing Crimea, it is not Russia's fault the conflict is happening. That is the fault of the Ukrainian opposition who staged a coup against the democratically elected president. That is what got the conflict started.
It's not Russia's fault they invaded, after all. It had to be done! The people (and the army, and the rest of the government, and the police) overthrew their great leader! Next thing you know, Russians might start thinking it was a good idea! And that would be bad (for Putin).
Your 'coup' that was composed of the Ukrainian parliament voting that he be removed from office. His own party voted against him. He also issued a statement of resignation, and then recanted it once he fled to Russia one step ahead of the police, who had been sent to arrest him for murder, among other things.
When dealing with European countries invading other countries for spurious ethnic reasons (Donbas/Crimea = Sudetenland, in case you missed the obvious), it's hard NOT to get a comparison to Nazi Germany, since they used the same excuses that Russia (and you) are using to defend their actions.
Unfortunately, the active war-zone has prevented discovery of any further mass graves of people abducted and killed by the Donbas insurgency beyond the two we already know about. I'm sure there are more, sadly. (Since i doubt Ukrainian artillery and rockets kidnapped them in public and slit their throats before flinging them in a trench).
Personally I don't see either side as 'right' or 'wrong' in this, to be honest. I see one country trying to invade another for political and economic reasons, and spreading a lot of propaganda about how it will unite all the lost groups of Russians into a pure Russian nation while sweeping deportations, mass graves, and racism under the carpet.. If you find it offensive that I point out that we've heard this before, if you swap 'Russian' with 'Aryan' or 'German', that's too damn bad.
Personally, I feel that the old saying holds true, it's not who's right, it's who's left. And this promises to be a long, bloody grind, like Chechnya and Bosnia.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think personally think that both sides are nuts, and that the only way to truly decide this is to have free, open, an unbiased voting on he matter. That means no keeping people from the polls, no threatening or bullying, both sides laying down their weapons and promising to abide by the vote, and all Russian army personnel leaving Ukraine. Also, as much observation as possible, especially from the UN.
There was several independent polls in Eastern regions before the hostilities - all of them have shown overwhelming (70%+) support of unified Ukrane. It was one of the reasons why Russia moved from buying political influence to invasion. No way they can allow free elections to happen there.
There was several independent polls in Eastern regions before the hostilities - all of them have shown overwhelming (70%+) support of unified Ukrane. It was one of the reasons why Russia moved from buying political influence to invasion. No way they can allow free elections to happen there.
You know, one of the more interesting things about this whole thread is that, you, elotar, are actually in Russia. And another poster, who is posting from the opposite side of Europe, is trying to convince you that what you see going on in the politics of your own country is wrong.
I have the feeling, that if i was posting from the Donbas, that he would still be trying to argue the same things with me.
'I can see the Russian soldiers raping and pillaging from here'.
''There's no proof of that.'
'Let me just put the video I just shot of it on Youtube'.
'You're not an unbiased source, you whipped the footage up in some Ukrainian special effects studio with the help of the Americans'.
The Ukraine was just a state in the USSR, it was created by Lenin and never intended to be a nation. Could you imagine if you made a state in the US a nation, how long would it last? It wouldn't, it would be absorbed into another state, that's why the EU and corporate America want an independent Ukraine, because it will need protection and they can rule it as a puppet.
I thought Putin was an warmongering authoritarian dictator, at least that's what the western media says.... he seems to be seeking a non violent solution with the backing of his people while the US gov seeks violence without the support of its people.
Invading a country, the most peaceful solution possible.
They can't invade because they have military access to the country.
Also, the US was never intended to be a county either.
In the beginning the first 13 states were 13 nations formed into an alliance, but by the latter part 1800's US states were being created as administrative districts. Its strange the USA RIGHTLY put down ethnic secessionist in their own country but seem to think any band of thugs that say their a political party deserves a nation. If you compare this to the US civil war, or any civil war really, its actually quite humane.
I have been so. And I will admit I admire Putin for many things.
So do I, in a world where nations cease to be nations as we dissolve into a sea globalism controlled by elites who operate above and beyond the laws of any nation, he might be the only credible threat to a new world order.
Co'tor Shas wrote: At this point, is anyone here on Russia's side (other than the captain of iron)?
Not that I would be on Russia's side, but I certanly prefer to have a balance of terror than a single super power that has no opponents.
I sympathise with Russia's motives - putting a stop to eastward NATO expansion. Russia is panicking at the prospect of a hostile military alliance that was founded for the specific purpose of combating Russia (USSR) creeping right up to its borders.
Russia's borders are militarily indefensible - thats why they've been obsessed with setting up puppet States to act as buffer zones along its borders. That was the purpose of the Warsaw Pact. If at some point in the future, several decades from now, Russia and the USA/EU/NATO come to blows, Russia will be screwed.
But that does not equate to my being on Russia's side. If anything, I want a political compromise between Russia and the USA - because lets face it, this is very much a Cold War style proxy war.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think personally think that both sides are nuts, and that the only way to truly decide this is to have free, open, an unbiased voting on he matter. That means no keeping people from the polls, no threatening or bullying, both sides laying down their weapons and promising to abide by the vote, and all Russian army personnel leaving Ukraine. Also, as much observation as possible, especially from the UN.
There was several independent polls in Eastern regions before the hostilities - all of them have shown overwhelming (70%+) support of unified Ukrane. It was one of the reasons why Russia moved from buying political influence to invasion. No way they can allow free elections to happen there.
I am still not convinced Russia wants to annex Eastern Ukraine. But you are right. Most Eastern Ukrainians want to remain part of Ukraine (or at least they did before Ukraine started bombing them). They mostly just wanted more autonomy, not becoming part of Russia like Crimea.
BaronIveagh wrote: You know, one of the more interesting things about this whole thread is that, you, elotar, are actually in Russia. And another poster, who is posting from the opposite side of Europe, is trying to convince you that what you see going on in the politics of your own country is wrong.
I have the feeling, that if i was posting from the Donbas, that he would still be trying to argue the same things with me.
What? Not all Russians agree with each other? now that is interesting... Seriously, you think it is interesting Russians can have disagreements too? Russians are people like everyone else, they disagree with each other on politics as much as Americans or others. And I may no longer live in Russia, but as the son of a diplomat I have always been very interested in politics, and you bet I know my way around Russian politics. Of course I would still disagree with you if you posted from Donbass and still had the same ridiculous and insulting arguments with Nazis. It seems you can't make any arguments without drawing the Hitler card.
BaronIveagh wrote: 'I can see the Russian soldiers raping and pillaging from here'.
''There's no proof of that.'
'Let me just put the video I just shot of it on Youtube'.
'You're not an unbiased source, you whipped the footage up in some Ukrainian special effects studio with the help of the Americans'.
Denial is no mere river in Egypt.
Now you have gone from ridiculous to completely nuts. Unlike elotar I might add, I never put forward any arguments saying: ''yes but this video was filmed in special effects studio so it is fake'' or anything like that. Now I dare you to find a video of Russian soldiers raping and pillaging. Maybe that would finally lend some weight to your arguments.
OK then, planing, but no actual results (unlike the Russians ). Still, not good. Edit: Wow, that site is biased.
Invading a country, the most peaceful solution possible.
They can't invade because they have military access to the country. Huh?
Also, the US was never intended to be a county either.
In the beginning the first 13 states were 13 nations formed into an alliance, but by the latter part 1800's US states were being created as administrative districts. Its strange the USA RIGHTLY put down ethnic secessionist in their own country but seem to think any band of thugs that say their a political party deserves a nation. If you compare this to the US civil war, or any civil war really, its actually quite humane. Humane? And I wasn't compairing the war, I was compairing that the colonies were not supposed to be a country. Even if they were not supposed to be a county, it gives Russia no right to do what it is doing.
I have the feeling, that if i was posting from the Donbas, that he would still be trying to argue the same things with me.
Yea, something like it is happening in fb, when people from the region try to tell, that they are not surrounded by child-eating nazis.
I've already said that this conflict is accompanied by propaganda campaign never seen in the history. It's really hard to understand, what's happening there - you need to break throught tons of disinformation and emotional arguments, conserning "important elements of russian identity". Most people are not ready for this, so they just stop at some point and take neutral position like "both sides are evil".
Unfortunately, this position is quite far from the reality.
Russia is panicking at the prospect of a hostile military alliance that was founded for the specific purpose of combating Russia (USSR) creeping right up to its borders.
Try to compare NATO forces in Eastern Europe with opposing russian forces. You are a little wrong about side, which got reasons to panic.
I remain amazed that you believe the revolution was the US' doing. A popular former president gets thrown in jail on trumped-up charges, the administration responsible takes numerous actions the majority of the country doesn't approve of, and somehow the US talks the populace into going out and getting shot?
I'm Amazed that you don't see this, as this is pretty standard and has happened repeatedly in the past.
CANVAS, the organization that doesn't accept funding from governments, and is largely funded by a single Serb, is secretly a CIA operation?
Do you just make up stuff as you go. Canvas among others is heavily funded by the US state department.
Global Research "about" page wrote:The Global Research website was established on the 9th of September 2001, two days before the tragic events of September 11. Barely a few days later, Global Research had become a major news source on the New World Order and Washington’s “war on terrorism”.
Since September 2001, we have established an extensive archive of news articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media.
In an era of media disinformation, our focus has essentially been to center on the “unspoken truth”.
During the invasion of Iraq (March-April 2003), Global Research published, on a daily basis, independent reports from the Middle East, which provided an alternative to the news emanating from the “embedded” journalists reporting from the war theater. Since 2004, Global Research has provided detailed analysis and coverage of US-NATO-Israel preparations to wage a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran.
Emphasis mine. Do you have anything other than that page supporting that CANVAS takes government money? You'll have to excuse me, but a source claiming to provide news about a "New World Order" is about as far down the ladder of credibility as one can get, especially when it claims that CANVAS is the same entity as Otpor! with a new name. Yes, some of the people involved are the same, that does not make it the same organization. Further, they don't even bother to cite any sources. If I'd written that and turned it in to my Professor as an academic paper I'd be either laughed or kicked (probably both at the same time) out of that course faster than I could say "potato-peeling primordial pygmy plant".
First it tries to equate Otpor! with CANVAS, despite the two being two distincive organizations, then it tries to claim that just because Otpor! recieved funding from the US that means that CANVAS does too, and THEN goes on to claim that Mohammed el-Baradei clearly knew that the Arab Spring was coming because he formed a political coalition. It couldn't possibly be the other way around, that the change came because they did that in the first place, it has to be a conspiracy!
I'm sorry, but that's insane. Utterly, completely insane. It's quite possible that CANVAS really IS recieving US funding for all we know, but that web page doesn't contain any proof for it. At all.
You realize that Global Research has.... no credibility with anyone whatsoever. It's a fringe media site. They're also claiming that Scotland's independence referendum failed because election rigging.
In the beginning the first 13 states were 13 nations formed into an alliance, but by the latter part 1800's US states were being created as administrative districts. Its strange the USA RIGHTLY put down ethnic secessionist in their own country but seem to think any band of thugs that say their a political party deserves a nation. If you compare this to the US civil war, or any civil war really, its actually quite humane.
I might point out that the US Civil war was not ethnic. There had been ethnic wars in the US, particularly between Virginia and other colonies, but the Civil War was not one of them. It was about power blocs colliding rather than ethnic entities. Men like Lee (Virginian), Stand Watie (Cherokee), and P. T. Beauregard (Creole) came from radically different cultures and racial backgrounds, but all fought for the Confederacy. The same can be said for men like Grant (American), Ely Parker (Seneca), and Thomas Francis Meagher (Rabid Irish), for the Union. Culturally and ethnically Maryland, which fought for the North, had more in common with Virginia than Pennsylvania. And Virginia itself was split in half over the issue.
As far as it being 'humane' it's only a few months old. It's actually had more casualties for Civilians than the US Civil War did in the same amount of time. Not every Civil War is like Rwanda where the war is declared, and fifteen minuets later everyone is hacking their neighbors to death with machetes.
Iron_Captain wrote: I am still not convinced Russia wants to annex Eastern Ukraine.
For not wanting to, they've replaced the government the separatists picked with one led by their lead men in annexing everyplace else they've annexed in the last few years. I'd call that a fairly clear sign.
Iron_Captain wrote: It seems you can't make any arguments without drawing the Hitler card.
Well, when The Russians accuse the sovereign government of the Ukraine of being led by Nazis, and then they themselves crib directly from the Nazi playbook, expect to see old Hitler turn up a LOT in discussions of it.
Iron_Captain wrote: Now you have gone from ridiculous to completely nuts.
Unlike elotar I might add, I never put forward any arguments saying: ''yes but this video was filmed in special effects studio so it is fake'' or anything like that.
Now I dare you to find a video of Russian soldiers raping and pillaging. Maybe that would finally lend some weight to your arguments.
One, that would violate quite a few rules of Dakka. Two, obviously understanding ridicule is not your strong point. I was making an absurdest exaggeration to parody how hard you'd deny Russian wrongdoing even when confronted with direct evidence.
Three you'd just claim they were actually Ukrainian soldiers in stolen Russian uniforms.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: The Ukraine was just a state in the USSR, it was created by Lenin and never intended to be a nation. Could you imagine if you made a state in the US a nation, how long would it last? It wouldn't, it would be absorbed into another state.
Texas.
This is to say.... ya really can't make a blanket statement about "making a state into a country" because some of them really could survive as their own country and do from OK to well.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: The Ukraine was just a state in the USSR, it was created by Lenin and never intended to be a nation. Could you imagine if you made a state in the US a nation, how long would it last? It wouldn't, it would be absorbed into another state.
Texas.
This is to say.... ya really can't make a blanket statement about "making a state into a country" because some of them really could survive as their own country and do from OK to well.
NY and Calif would also do quite well. honestly, most of the states (other than places like Rhode Island would be pretty much OK, but they do better together.
Sienisoturi wrote: If somebody knows can you please answer to, how similar are the Russian and Ukrainian cultures?
Not as similar as Belarusian and Russian, but very similar nonetheless. Think of Norwegians and Swedes, but even closer. Ukrainians and Russians are genetically indistinguishable and for a large part share the same history, customs, traditions and religion. The Ukrainian language also is very easily mutually intelligible with Russian. The clash is purely political, not ethnical or cultural. You can find many ethnic Russians that are pro-Ukraine, and many ethnic Ukrainians that are pro-Russia.
Iron_Captain wrote: I am still not convinced Russia wants to annex Eastern Ukraine.
For not wanting to, they've replaced the government the separatists picked with one led by their lead men in annexing everyplace else they've annexed in the last few years. I'd call that a fairly clear sign.
For what reason could Russia possibly even want to annex the Eastern Ukraine? If they had wanted to do so, they would have followed the same strategy there as in Crimea. More likely Russia just wants to create a similar situation as in Georgia or simply show the Ukrainians they won't be able to move away from Russia without splitting their nation.
Iron_Captain wrote: It seems you can't make any arguments without drawing the Hitler card.
Well, when The Russians accuse the sovereign government of the Ukraine of being led by Nazis, and then they themselves crib directly from the Nazi playbook, expect to see old Hitler turn up a LOT in discussions of it.
That is not an argument, that is a logical fallacy. Just because Russia calls the Ukrainian government nazis, doesnt mean you should call the Russian government nazis as well. No matter which side makes the claims, any comparisons to nazis or WW2 are laughable at best. There are so much differences that you can't use WW2 or nazis to make comparisons with the current crisis in Ukraine. Besides that, it is not the Russians, nor the seperatists that walk around waving flags like this: Do note that this Wolfsangel is the official symbol of the Azov batallion, a military formation of the Ukrainian government that reports directly to Ministry of Internal Affairs. Also, the US seems awfully willing to support Ukrainian neo-nazis
Iron_Captain wrote: Now you have gone from ridiculous to completely nuts. Unlike elotar I might add, I never put forward any arguments saying: ''yes but this video was filmed in special effects studio so it is fake'' or anything like that. Now I dare you to find a video of Russian soldiers raping and pillaging. Maybe that would finally lend some weight to your arguments.
One, that would violate quite a few rules of Dakka. Two, obviously understanding ridicule is not your strong point. I was making an absurdest exaggeration to parody how hard you'd deny Russian wrongdoing even when confronted with direct evidence.
Three you'd just claim they were actually Ukrainian soldiers in stolen Russian uniforms.
I gladly admit Russia's wrongdoings when there is evidence, as in the bombing of Grozny. Problem here: There is no evidence.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: The Ukraine was just a state in the USSR, it was created by Lenin and never intended to be a nation. Could you imagine if you made a state in the US a nation, how long would it last? It wouldn't, it would be absorbed into another state.
Texas.
This is to say.... ya really can't make a blanket statement about "making a state into a country" because some of them really could survive as their own country and do from OK to well.
NY and Calif would also do quite well. honestly, most of the states (other than places like Rhode Island would be pretty much OK, but they do better together.
Ehh, I would be OK with putting NY there, but definitely NOT California.... They have to "steal" too much water, and import too many goods from elsewhere to really be self sufficient enough to survive in any state closely resembling what they do now.
I mean, they would appear to be on the verge of total collapse just from a drought, how would they handle other emergencies?
But, this is all ultimately a discussion for another thread
Do note that this Wolfsangel is the official symbol of the Azov batallion, a military formation of the Ukrainian government that reports directly to Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Also, the US seems awfully willing to support Ukrainian neo-nazis
I imagine a meeting Ukrainian militia leaders must be like blazing sattles, Nazis, Jihadist, Israeli mercenaries, Blackwater, and thugs who just like to kill, you wonder how the hell these guys found each other.
Iron_Captain wrote: For what reason could Russia possibly even want to annex the Eastern Ukraine? If they had wanted to do so, they would have followed the same strategy there as in Crimea.
Well, let's see, control of the bulk of the Ukraines gas fields, to create a land corridor to Crimea, to bypass the Ukraine pipeline and sell gas via to Europe via third parties. There are a couple right there.
That is not an argument, that is a logical fallacy. Just because Russia calls the Ukrainian government nazis, doesnt mean you should call the Russian government nazis as well.
Well, the mass graves aside....
No, a Reductio ad Hitlerum would require me to accuse you of having the same views as Adolf Hitler or make a comparison between something totally unrelated to Nazis. As you yourself take great pains to point out in your very next sentence, there are connections, real or assumed, between Nazism and the conflict in the Ukraine. On both sides. While the Ukranian army is embraces any mercenaries or militia willing to fight, as, from their point of view, this is a return to 'The Ruin' (A period of protracted Russian interventions in the Ukraine that caused a century of civil war and anarchy in the Ukraine before the Poles and Russians finally divided the country between themselves. Following WW1 it was reunited, only to be invaded by Russia again.) the Russians play the same sort of ppolitics that Hitler played with the Sudetenland. 'You have Russians living in your territory, so we have to claim that territory to protect our fellow Russians from the violent anarchy that we just happen to be helping propagate."
Iron_Captain wrote: There are so much differences that you can't use WW2 or nazis to make comparisons with the current crisis in Ukraine.
Besides that, it is not the Russians, nor the separatists that walk around waving flags like this
So, in other words, *I* can't make such comparisons, only you can?
Do note that this Wolfsangel is the official symbol of the Azov batallion, a military formation of the Ukrainian government that reports directly to Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Do note that the Azov Battalion has promised to overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine once they finish with Russia. The reason they are attached to the Ministry of Internal Affairs has to do with the laws of war, particularly regarding laws on Mercenaries, rather than any actual oversight. The Ukraine is exploiting the same loophole the UK, France, and Russia do, allowing them to recruit mercenaries without committing a war crime.
You would, considering some of the revisionist history and thinly veiled racism that it oozes. I like how he advises not to trust 'Poles and Balts'. I bet he doesn't trust 'Jews, Micks, Hunkies and Porch Monkies' either.
Iron_Captain wrote: For what reason could Russia possibly even want to annex the Eastern Ukraine? If they had wanted to do so, they would have followed the same strategy there as in Crimea.
Well, let's see, control of the bulk of the Ukraines gas fields, to create a land corridor to Crimea, to bypass the Ukraine pipeline and sell gas via to Europe via third parties. There are a couple right there.
Tiny gas fields that are nothing compared to the gas resources Russia already has, and that for the past decades have been chronically unable to yield any profit. The infrastructure of those gas fields has barely been maintained since the fall of the Soviet Union. To get them to turn a profit again would require huge investments.
A land corridor to Crimea? The most important thing probably, but not very important nonetheless with the bridge between Crimea and mainland Russia being built. Besides, Kaliningrad manages to do just well (very well) without any land corridor.
Bypassing Ukrainian pipelines? No need for an invasion. Pipelines bypassing Ukraine are being constructed as we speak.
I still fail to see why Russia would be interested in annexing this impoverished region. Getting the Donbass up to the average Russian level would put a huge drain on the Russian economy. Crimea alone already drains enough money as it is.
That is not an argument, that is a logical fallacy. Just because Russia calls the Ukrainian government nazis, doesnt mean you should call the Russian government nazis as well.
Well, the mass graves aside....
No, a Reductio ad Hitlerum would require me to accuse you of having the same views as Adolf Hitler or make a comparison between something totally unrelated to Nazis. As you yourself take great pains to point out in your very next sentence, there are connections, real or assumed, between Nazism and the conflict in the Ukraine. On both sides. While the Ukranian army is embraces any mercenaries or militia willing to fight, as, from their point of view, this is a return to 'The Ruin' (A period of protracted Russian interventions in the Ukraine that caused a century of civil war and anarchy in the Ukraine before the Poles and Russians finally divided the country between themselves. Following WW1 it was reunited, only to be invaded by Russia again.) the Russians play the same sort of ppolitics that Hitler played with the Sudetenland. 'You have Russians living in your territory, so we have to claim that territory to protect our fellow Russians from the violent anarchy that we just happen to be helping propagate."
Oh yeah, right. All those mass graves that were very well evidenced and reported by impartial sources. Have you seen them? Neither have I.
And the Ruin? Surely you must mean 'Polish interventions' instead of 'Russian interventions'. Before the Ruin, the area of most of modern Ukraine (which at that point in time was not a state of any kind, but a territory divided in smaller territories that were ruled over by rival warlords) had become part of the Muscovite Tsardom in the Treaty of Pereyaslav. The Ruin was caused by the death of the warlord Bogdan Khmelnytsky, who did not leave a strong sucessor and caused the Ukrainians to fight among themselves between those who supported Poland, Russia or the Turks. The Poles, who wanted their lost lands back, were most active in meddling and prolonging this conflict. This caused the internal Ukrainian conflict to turn into a Polish-Russian war.
Now as to the reductio ad Hitlerum:
Another instance of reductio ad Hitlerum is asking a question of the form "You know who else...?" with the deliberate intent of impugning a certain idea or action by implying Hitler held that idea or performed such action.
I hope you can see the fallacy in this. You are basically saying: Hitler once invaded another country to protect ethnic Germans, therefore everyone who invades another country to protects his people is bad. Just because Hitler once did, said or thought something does not automatically mean that said thing is bad. When you want to call something out as bad, you will need to do so without playing the Hitler card, as those cases always rest on ultimately fallacious logic.
The only exception is when there are actual (neo-)nazis involved. When people start waving about nazi symbols, you can safely assume a comparison to nazis would have some (limited) validity.
In the end, you should probably just refrain from ever mentioning nazis at all. If something is really bad, you should be able to convincingly tell others of it without having to fall back to: 'But the nazis did it too so it is really bad'.
Iron_Captain wrote: There are so much differences that you can't use WW2 or nazis to make comparisons with the current crisis in Ukraine.
Besides that, it is not the Russians, nor the separatists that walk around waving flags like this
So, in other words, *I* can't make such comparisons, only you can?
The difference here is that the comparison is fully justified.
The following is quoted from a scientific article about the matter:
An author on the popular legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, even at-
tempted to draw lines to determine when RAH arguments are appropriate.171
The context of the discussion was a posting about “Godwin’s Law,”
a rule that proposes that as an online discussion grows longer, it becomes a near
certainty that someone will support their point by making a comparison to Nazis or Hitler.172
The blogger suggested a limited set of times when such comparisons are appropriate or useful:
1. When discussing followers and leaders of a political movement . . . explicitly
founded on Nazi principles or . . .admirers/allies of Nazism. . . .(annotation: This is the case here, as this Ukrainian organisation is founded on the principles of admirers/allies of nazism (Banderites and Galician SS) and clearly espouses their values by using their symbols.)
2. When discussing somebody who adopts the nickname “Hitler,” as well as fol-
lowers and cohorts of such a person. . . .
3. People who publish and read Mein Kampf
not as an exploration of an evil mind, but because they like its agenda. . . .
4. People who . . . deny[] that the Holocau st took place
[as a means to delegitimize the need for an Israeli homeland for Jews and to implicitly defend Nazis]. . . .
5. People who advocate for . . . dictatorships and . . . simultaneously espouse ex-
treme forms of anti-[S]emitism . . . .173
This list is a good start and could bene
fit by some broadening
Note: The scientific article in question is: REDUCTIO AD HITLERUM : TRUMPING THE JUDICIAL NAZI CARD by Gabriel H. Teninbaum *
Do note that this Wolfsangel is the official symbol of the Azov batallion, a military formation of the Ukrainian government that reports directly to Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Do note that the Azov Battalion has promised to overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine once they finish with Russia. The reason they are attached to the Ministry of Internal Affairs has to do with the laws of war, particularly regarding laws on Mercenaries, rather than any actual oversight. The Ukraine is exploiting the same loophole the UK, France, and Russia do, allowing them to recruit mercenaries without committing a war crime.
And how do you feel about a government that so willingly collaborates with nazis?
For me, as long as the Ukrainian government continues to work with such vile scum and doesn't actively fight and exterminate them, they have little legitimacy in my eyes. I can't feel comfortable about a government that works with nazis and in which radical nationalists have so much influence.
Or did you forget about these guys already?:
Spoiler:
Svoboda, the former 'Social-Nationalist' party of Ukraine? As long as the Ukraine allows these kind of political parties to exist, they should have zero legitimacy. Scum of the earth like this must be fought with all possible means.
You would, considering some of the revisionist history and thinly veiled racism that it oozes. I like how he advises not to trust 'Poles and Balts'. I bet he doesn't trust 'Jews, Micks, Hunkies and Porch Monkies' either.
where did you see any racism?
How is saying not to trust the Poles and Balts any less racist than saying not to trust the Russians?
I hope you can see the fallacy in this. You are basically saying: Hitler once invaded another country to protect ethnic Germans, therefore everyone who invades another country to protects his people is bad.
Achem.
Hitler invaded another country 'protect his people' from a conflict he had covertly prompted, funded, and supported, then claimed he was doing so to protect his people. Vladamir Putin invaded another country 'protect his people' from a conflict he had covertly prompted, funded, and supported, then claimed he was doing so to protect his people.
Basically in your argument:
'Putin is copying Hitler's playbook in invading other countries and carving off chunks (Something I would hope most people would recognize as equally bad from both players), here are specific relevant examples to this discussion'
becomes
"Putin and Hitler both like dogs, so Putin is like Hitler!'
In a nutshell, your argument is the strawman form of reductio ad absurdum. You create a stawman that's not what I'm actually saying, and attack it with the claim the argument is a Reductio ad Hitlerum when it's no such thing.
And how do you feel about a government that so willingly collaborates with nazis?
Sadly, I could care less, because I understand that in war there's a lot of realpolitik involved and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If I were working under the assumption that a much larger army than I possessed at the current time may or may not be about to invade, I would quite willingly turn a blind eye to the fact that some of the fighters I have might be frothing lunatics. History shows most countries don't care who their allies are, only that they have them, when the gak hits the fan.
Let me turn that question around, how do you feel about Netherlands?
After all, there's collaborators and there's collaborators, if you follow my meaning.
Iron_Captain wrote: For me, as long as the Ukrainian government continues to work with such vile scum and doesn't actively fight and exterminate them, they have little legitimacy in my eyes. I can't feel comfortable about a government that works with nazis and in which radical nationalists have so much influence.
Nationalism will exist as long as there are nations. Remember that there are people still alive who used to say that about working with Russians. Further, again, I know that you're gonna start squawking about Reductio ad Hitlerum again, but vilifying and advocating the extermination of a group of people who you don't agree with is something Hitler would do. I personally don't like Nazis, but I'm also not advocating that they be exterminated.
where did you see any racism?
How is saying not to trust the Poles and Balts any less racist than saying not to trust the Russians?
Because, around here at least, it's a rude slang term for Latvians and Lithuanians (though Poles can be pretty rude too, depending on how you say it). Hence my reference to the author also not trusting 'Jews, Micks, Hunkies and Porch Monkies' (Jews, Irishmen, Hungarians, and African Americans, for those obviously not from the Eastern United States). 'Balts' you can get away with, in print, as it is, technically, the over arching name for all Baltic speaking peoples.
In specific, because the author advises them not to be trusted due to who they are. Russia should not be trusted based on what they've been doing, and the fact that they have been caught in lies, frequently over their forcing their neighbors to submit to them at gunpoint.
Russia calls for intl probe into Ukraine burials with signs of execution
Russia is calling for an international investigation into the discovery of burial sites with signs of execution at locations where the Ukraine National Guard forces were stationed two days earlier.
The head of Russia’s presidential human rights council, Mikhail Fedotov, has called on the authorities to do everything to “ensure an independent international probe” and “let international human rights activists and journalists” gain access to the site in Eastern Ukraine’s embattled Donetsk region.
The burial sites near the Kommunar mine, 60 kilometers from Donetsk, were first discovered on Tuesday by self-defense forces.
Four bodies have been exhumed, including those of three women. Their hands were tied, at least one of the bodies was decapitated, self-defense fighters said.
Two bodies were found Monday, and two others Tuesday.
Self-defense forces believe there might be other burials in the area.
"They are from Kommunar, which has just been freed [by DNR/DPR forces]. The people told me that the women had been missing and here we found four bodies. And I don’t know how many more people we might find,” a self-defense fighter, nicknamed Angel, told RT.
"The peaceful Ukrainian army came here and "liberated" them but I can’t understand what the Army freed them from. These women died horribly," his comrade, Alabai, added.
Self-defense forces said that near the mine – which was abandoned by the Ukrainian forces a few days ago – there are other burial sites which will also be examined.
Svoboda, the former 'Social-Nationalist' party of Ukraine? As long as the Ukraine allows these kind of political parties to exist, they should have zero legitimacy. Scum of the earth like this must be fought with all possible means.
Because freedom, and democracy, mean, among other things, that everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrongheaded, and you don't run around executing people for holding a different opinion than you. Political parties of all sorts are welcome, though most of the more extreme ones don't gain a lot of traction.
After all, suppressing all other political parties and dissenting voices by force is something Hitler would do.
Svoboda, the former 'Social-Nationalist' party of Ukraine? As long as the Ukraine allows these kind of political parties to exist, they should have zero legitimacy. Scum of the earth like this must be fought with all possible means.
Because freedom, and democracy, mean, among other things, that everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrongheaded, and you don't run around executing people for holding a different opinion than you. Political parties of all sorts are welcome, though most of the more extreme ones don't gain a lot of traction.
After all, suppressing all other political parties and dissenting voices by force is something Hitler would do.
Some Russian media is claiming all the bodies were missing their internal organs. Which I find rather odd considering that the OSCE report, they did no forensic examination.
Kiev, Sep 27 (IANS/EFE): Ukrainian authorities have uncovered three mass grave sites in the eastern city of Slaviansk, which had been under the control of independence-seeking pro-Russian militia, officials said.
"We located three mass graves. Bodies have been exhumed and sent to coroners for autopsy and identifying the cause of death," Andrei Lysenko, a spokesman for the National Security and Defence Council, told reporters Friday. Note bullet holes in the head would be easily seen. And Ukraine would be shouting this loudly
The spokesman added that a preliminary examination of the bodies suggests that those found in the sites might have died in the early summer months, when the city was under the separatists' control. Which may or may not be expedient burial sites due to shelling or bombing Compared to graves where people have been tied up and shot in the head.
"The ‘military police’ of ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ (‘DPR’) told the SMM that three unmarked graves allegedly containing multiple bodies had been found; two of them were located in a coal mine Komunar near the village Nyzhnia Krynka (35km north-east of Donetsk) and one inside the village. The SMM proceeded to the scene and saw in the coal mine two areas located fifty metres apart, each containing two human bodies. All four corpses were in the process of decomposition. The SMM also saw eight 9mm Makarov pistol cartridges approximately five meters away from the bodies. Near the road on the edge of the village, the SMM observed a pile of earth resembling a grave which had a stick with a plaque, written in Russian and containing the names (or in one case – initials) of five individuals. The plaque indicated that the individuals died on 27.08.2014. On top of the plaque there was another inscription saying: ‘Died for Putin’s lies’. Neither in the coal mine nor in the village did the SMM see any forensic experts. COMMENT: The SMM cannot provide a forensic assessment of the sites. "
These are the actual facts as known. I'll also point out that if the bodies were decomposing, that makes it being the handiwork of the Ukrainians unlikely. The 'three mass graves' contained two bodies each, with one 'mass' grave only actually being a 'grave'. The Ukrainians were in the area in Early August and mid September, but the marker lists the date of the executions being August 27th, when no regular Ukrainian forces were in the area.
I hope you can see the fallacy in this. You are basically saying: Hitler once invaded another country to protect ethnic Germans, therefore everyone who invades another country to protects his people is bad.
Achem.
Hitler invaded another country 'protect his people' from a conflict he had covertly prompted, funded, and supported, then claimed he was doing so to protect his people. Vladamir Putin invaded another country 'protect his people' from a conflict he had covertly prompted, funded, and supported, then claimed he was doing so to protect his people.
So? Now Putin is behind this conflict? To me it seems more like the West is behind it. What would Putin gain from provoking a conflict that would oust Yanukovich? He has escalated the conflict yes, but I don't think Putin's schemes are what prompted it.
And how do you feel about a government that so willingly collaborates with nazis?
Sadly, I could care less, because I understand that in war there's a lot of realpolitik involved and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If I were working under the assumption that a much larger army than I possessed at the current time may or may not be about to invade, I would quite willingly turn a blind eye to the fact that some of the fighters I have might be frothing lunatics. History shows most countries don't care who their allies are, only that they have them, when the gak hits the fan.
Let me turn that question around, how do you feel about Netherlands?
After all, there's collaborators and there's collaborators, if you follow my meaning.
You could care less? That is worrying. Nazism should be fought at every turn, lest it rears its ugly head once again. I don't think anyone wants genocides and death camps to return to Europe.
Granted, seeing as that the Ukrainian government needs all the support it can get, I understand their current course of action. After the conflict with Eastern Ukraine ends however, there will be no more excuses. The nazis will have to be dealt with.
And how I feel about the Netherlands?
Well, I guess I have a love-hate relationship with it. There is many things I love, but also many things about the Netherlands I hate.
As to nazi collaboration in the Netherlands, yes that is a serious issue. Many Dutchmen actively supported their 'German brothers'. But the Dutch did not commit any genocides of their own during the War, quite unlike the Ukrainians I might add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia Also, the great difference between the Netherlands and Western Ukraine is that while both areas collaborated with the Germans, in the Netherlands this episode is considered a black page in Dutch history, and those people who joined the SS, NSB or otherwise collaborated with the Germans are reviled until the present day. In Western Ukraine in the meanwhile, this collaboration and the deeds of the SS, UPA and Stepan Bandera are celebrated:
Iron_Captain wrote: For me, as long as the Ukrainian government continues to work with such vile scum and doesn't actively fight and exterminate them, they have little legitimacy in my eyes. I can't feel comfortable about a government that works with nazis and in which radical nationalists have so much influence.
Nationalism will exist as long as there are nations. Remember that there are people still alive who used to say that about working with Russians. Further, again, I know that you're gonna start squawking about Reductio ad Hitlerum again, but vilifying and advocating the extermination of a group of people who you don't agree with is something Hitler would do. I personally don't like Nazis, but I'm also not advocating that they be exterminated.
There is nationalism and there is nationalism. There is nothing wrong with a bit of patriotism, but radical nationalism is dangerous. When the admiration for your own people reaches the level where you start considering all other peoples as inferior, that is when things can get really nasty.
Now not all veneration of the UPA and Galician SS in Western Ukraine is all that bad. Most Western Ukrainians are just proud of their own culture and consider those people to be fighters for Ukrainian freedom without approving fascist or nazist ideology. However there exists also significant groups which do not only espouse the patriotism and love of Ukrainian culture and freedom the UPA and Galician SS stand for, but also identify with the racist and fascist ideologies those organisations advocated. And while extermination was a hyperbole on my part (I did mean exterminate as in killing them all, but as in making sure their ideology disappears), actions do need to be taken against this dangerous and scary second group.
Also, indeed. Reductio ad Hitlerum. Again.
Why are you so obsessed with Hitler?
You could have made your point just as well if not better without invoking Hitler.
where did you see any racism?
How is saying not to trust the Poles and Balts any less racist than saying not to trust the Russians?
Because, around here at least, it's a rude slang term for Latvians and Lithuanians (though Poles can be pretty rude too, depending on how you say it). Hence my reference to the author also not trusting 'Jews, Micks, Hunkies and Porch Monkies' (Jews, Irishmen, Hungarians, and African Americans, for those obviously not from the Eastern United States). 'Balts' you can get away with, in print, as it is, technically, the over arching name for all Baltic speaking peoples.
In specific, because the author advises them not to be trusted due to who they are. Russia should not be trusted based on what they've been doing, and the fact that they have been caught in lies, frequently over their forcing their neighbors to submit to them at gunpoint.
Balts is a rude slang? Afaik, it is just a normal name for the Baltic people, just as Slavs is a name for Slavic people and Germans used to be for Germanic people before the English decided to apply it only to the 'Deutsch' people because they had already wasted the English translation of Deutsch on the Dutch.
In any case, I just asked a Lithuanian and he does not consider 'Balts' to be rude or racist at all.
Now please explain to me why the author in this case advises not to trust Balts and Poles based on what they are while when it is 'the Russians' that should not be trusted it is based on what they have done.
Iron_Captain wrote: What would Putin gain from provoking a conflict that would oust Yanukovich?
Well, apparently he had Crimea and eastern Ukraine to gain, and troops in position to take advantage of it when it happened. Stop and think for a moment, Putin pushed hard for a treaty he had to know was so unpopular that Yanukovich removal was practically assured, whether by legal or other means.
You could care less? That is worrying. Nazism should be fought at every turn, lest it rears its ugly head once again. I don't think anyone wants genocides and death camps to return to Europe.
Granted, seeing as that the Ukrainian government needs all the support it can get, I understand their current course of action. After the conflict with Eastern Ukraine ends however, there will be no more excuses. The nazis will have to be dealt with.
Communism could rear it's ugly head again too, but I don't see you demanding that the Russians round them up and put an end to them. After all, Stalin and Mao made Hitler look like an amateur when it came to genocide of one's own people.
Two things. One, I once met a real Nazi. Not one of these 'neo' Nazi skinheads, but the real deal. This man could make the room seem ten degrees colder just by looking at you. I look at modern skinheads and I see 'amateur hour'. These guys don't have what it takes to be real nazis. It's like most 'devil worshipers'. They couldn't cut a heart out in praise to the Prince of Darkness if they had step by step guide.
Two, You see the Azov Battalion as a serious threat. I see it as a bunch of meatheads that someone rounded up to use as bullet stoppers. The fact they could only come up with about 500 tells me that Nazism is not something I should worry about. If they came with five or six thousand men, then I might be concerned. I'm willing to bet, actually, that with a big enough budget, I'd have no problem putting together ten thousand recruiting in North America alone, at least some of whom would be trained military.
As to nazi collaboration in the Netherlands, yes that is a serious issue. Many Dutchmen actively supported their 'German brothers'. But the Dutch did not commit any genocides of their own during the War, quite unlike the Ukrainians I might add:
'Of your own' is a singularly humorous statement, considering you more than made up for it in the efficiency that you exterminated your Jews on behalf of Germany. Most occupied countries came no where near the whopping 75% extermination rate that the Netherlands achieved. You even went so far as to break it down for them into full jews, half jews, and quarter jews, based on level of Jewish ancestry.
Before the invasion, the Jewish population of Netherlands looked like this:
Groningen – 4,682
Friesland – 851
Drenthe – 2,498
Overijssel – 4,345
Gelderland – 6,663
Utrecht – 4,147
North Holland – 87,026 (including 79,410 in Amsterdam)
South Holland – 25,617
Zeeland – 174
North Brabant – 2,320
Limburg – 1,394
Total – 139,717
Of these 'full Jews', 35,000 or so survived the war. Of those, 8,500 or so survived because of a loophole in Dutch law that forbade their deportation.
In Western Ukraine in the meanwhile, this collaboration and the deeds of the SS, UPA and Stepan Bandera are celebrated:
Yes, they are.
Through the nineteen thirties, upwards of 10 million Ukrainians (depending on who's counting) died at the hands of the Soviets. When faced with genocide on that level, you'd embrace the devil himself if you thought he'd stop it.
You could care less? That is worrying. Nazism should be fought at every turn, lest it rears its ugly head once again. I don't think anyone wants genocides and death camps to return to Europe.
Granted, seeing as that the Ukrainian government needs all the support it can get, I understand their current course of action. After the conflict with Eastern Ukraine ends however, there will be no more excuses. The nazis will have to be dealt with.
Communism could rear it's ugly head again too, but I don't see you demanding that the Russians round them up and put an end to them. After all, Stalin and Mao made Hitler look like an amateur when it came to genocide of one's own people.
Two things. One, I once met a real Nazi. Not one of these 'neo' Nazi skinheads, but the real deal. This man could make the room seem ten degrees colder just by looking at you. I look at modern skinheads and I see 'amateur hour'. These guys don't have what it takes to be real nazis. It's like most 'devil worshipers'. They couldn't cut a heart out in praise to the Prince of Darkness if they had step by step guide.
Two, You see the Azov Battalion as a serious threat. I see it as a bunch of meatheads that someone rounded up to use as bullet stoppers. The fact they could only come up with about 500 tells me that Nazism is not something I should worry about. If they came with five or six thousand men, then I might be concerned. I'm willing to bet, actually, that with a big enough budget, I'd have no problem putting together ten thousand recruiting in North America alone, at least some of whom would be trained military.
Communism? Please stop here already for you have already made it clear your knowledge of Communism is lacking. Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone. The Communist ideology, like almost everything in the world has been abused by ruthless dictators to further their political goals and remove their opponents, yes. But the killings under Stalin and Mao were not something inherent to Communism, nor were they genocides. The nature of Hitler's crimes far surpasses Stalin and Mao in maliciousness, despite the number of casualties. Also, unlike Stalin, Hitler was stopped in his murdering. Hadn't that been the case, the number of his victims would have likely exceeded those of Stalin and Mao combined.
Most Communists are good people who stand up for the common worker and dream of a future where there is no more rich or poor. Nazis are just racist fascists.
I see any nazi military formation as a threat to civilisation, no matter how small. They will have to be dealt with after the conflict.
Also, any true nazis still alive today must be very, very old. All nazism post WW2 is called neo-nazism.
As to nazi collaboration in the Netherlands, yes that is a serious issue. Many Dutchmen actively supported their 'German brothers'. But the Dutch did not commit any genocides of their own during the War, quite unlike the Ukrainians I might add:
'Of your own' is a singularly humorous statement, considering you more than made up for it in the efficiency that you exterminated your Jews on behalf of Germany. Most occupied countries came no where near the whopping 75% extermination rate that the Netherlands achieved. You even went so far as to break it down for them into full jews, half jews, and quarter jews, based on level of Jewish ancestry.
Before the invasion, the Jewish population of Netherlands looked like this:
Groningen – 4,682
Friesland – 851
Drenthe – 2,498
Overijssel – 4,345
Gelderland – 6,663
Utrecht – 4,147
North Holland – 87,026 (including 79,410 in Amsterdam)
South Holland – 25,617
Zeeland – 174
North Brabant – 2,320
Limburg – 1,394
Total – 139,717
Of these 'full Jews', 35,000 or so survived the war. Of those, 8,500 or so survived because of a loophole in Dutch law that forbade their deportation.
Funny. In Dutch history books, the blame for the extremely fanatical persecution of Jews is usually put on the Austrians. Because the 'Germans' in charge of the Netherlands were actually Austrians and they wanted to prove themselves as equals, if not better, to the Germans. That is why they were so fanatical.
Regardless, the Second World War is long gone. What matters not is what happened back then, what matters is how modern people think about it. The Dutch are shameful and remorseful about it, preferring to forget entirely about their collaboration and instead focussing on their resistance.
The Ukrainians instead celebrate their dark past as an episode of Ukrainian 'freedom', conveniently forgetting how hars the nazis treated them and the fact they, as sub-humans in an area that was to be settled by Germans, were slated for extermination.
In Western Ukraine in the meanwhile, this collaboration and the deeds of the SS, UPA and Stepan Bandera are celebrated:
Yes, they are.
Through the nineteen thirties, upwards of 10 million Ukrainians (depending on who's counting) died at the hands of the Soviets. When faced with genocide on that level, you'd embrace the devil himself if you thought he'd stop it.
No Ukrainian today was ever faced with genocide on that level. The Holodomor is beyond living memory of all but the very oldest. Besides, the Holodomor was not a genocide, ethnic Russians were killed just the same as ethnic Ukrainians. The Holodomor targetted a social class, not an ethnicity. That is not to mention that the perpetrators of this heinous crime, the Soviets, are no more. The Holodomor was not created by the Russians, blaming them for it is like blaming Barack Obama for the genocide of native Americans. The Holodomor was instigated by a Soviet dictator from Georgia, not even a Russian himself.
The tragedy of the Holodomor today is often sadly abused for political gains. It is telling that those who are most vocal about it, the Western Ukrainians, never even suffered from it. While those whose ancestors were most affected by it, the Eastern Ukrainians, mostly keep quiet about it and hold their commemorations without making political statements.
Iron_Captain wrote: Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone.
You do realize that the distinction between Communism and Social Democracy is that the Communists wanted to make the worker's revolution happen by force, while the Social Democrats wanted to make it happen through democracy, yes?
Iron_Captain wrote: Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone.
You do realize that the distinction between Communism and Social Democracy is that the Communists wanted to make the worker's revolution happen by force, while the Social Democrats wanted to make it happen through democracy, yes?
You confuse Social Democrats with Democratic Socialists here. Democratic Socialists advocate Revolution through democratic processes, while Social Democrats have abandoned the idea of Revolution altogether.
'Communists' are too diverse a group too really make generalisations about. Hardline Stalinists may espouse a violent, forceful Revolution which require the killing of all enemies of the Workin Class to ensure the Revolution's survival, but most Communists are more moderate than that. Communism advocates using force, because that is the only way the Revolution can happen. The Bourgeois aren't going to surrender their political power and ownership of the means of production just like that. Force will be necessary to convince them to do it. Force, however, does not necessarily involve killing people, and while some initial violence may be required to take power, traditional Communism does not advocate the killing of the former ruling classes, nor the purging of political opponents. Rather, it advocates true democracy and the incorporation of the old ruling classes into the Working Class.
Iron_Captain wrote: Funny. In Dutch history books, the blame for the extremely fanatical persecution of Jews is usually put on the Austrians. Because the 'Germans' in charge of the Netherlands were actually Austrians and they wanted to prove themselves as equals, if not better, to the Germans. That is why they were so fanatical.
Regardless, the Second World War is long gone. What matters not is what happened back then, what matters is how modern people think about it. The Dutch are shameful and remorseful about it, preferring to forget entirely about their collaboration and instead focussing on their resistance. The Ukrainians instead celebrate their dark past as an episode of Ukrainian 'freedom', conveniently forgetting how hars the nazis treated them and the fact they, as sub-humans in an area that was to be settled by Germans, were slated for extermination.
Well I had to comment something on the Netherlands. Our history in WW2 is complicated. Dutch who joined the SS were a minority of the population and not larger than those of other Western countries. After the war the Dutch goverment basicly put a death sentence on their heads or later life in prison, but West Germany protected most of them from the Dutch government. More Dutch died in Allied service than in German service.
Do you still use old books in class Iron Captain? Its been shifted a bit in recent years, we accept that we collaborated, which mostly build on the 'excellent' civil service records recording the faith of everyone born, so every city knew how big its Jewish population was. Using this civil service enabled a small group of Germans to kill that many Jews with a lot of Dutch help in deporting them across the border. Off course we forget that everyone and his mother were suddenly in the 'resistance' after the war, so we did not have to prosecute anyone for this participation. If you read the specifics about these civil servant and returning survivors from Germany it makes it even worse. The new narrative is that we accept our responsibility, but that we did not know what was going to happen, load of BS.
Iron_Captain wrote: No Ukrainian today was ever faced with genocide on that level. The Holodomor is beyond living memory of all but the very oldest. Besides, the Holodomor was not a genocide, ethnic Russians were killed just the same as ethnic Ukrainians. The Holodomor targetted a social class, not an ethnicity. That is not to mention that the perpetrators of this heinous crime, the Soviets, are no more. The Holodomor was not created by the Russians, blaming them for it is like blaming Barack Obama for the genocide of native Americans. The Holodomor was instigated by a Soviet dictator from Georgia, not even a Russian himself. The tragedy of the Holodomor today is often sadly abused for political gains. It is telling that those who are most vocal about it, the Western Ukrainians, never even suffered from it. While those whose ancestors were most affected by it, the Eastern Ukrainians, mostly keep quiet about it and hold their commemorations without making political statements.
The Holodomor was not meant to be a genocide, but it basicly became a genocide. Ethnic Ukrainians were the group that suffered the most because ethnic Russians in the majority lived in the cities that were not badly affected by starvation. This is what is remembered, its goal might have been to eliminate a social class but it succeeded only in killing a large amount of Ukranians. The Ukrainians remember their Nazi past in relation to the war, where it might be difficult to seperate intentional and incidental killing as part of the military situation. There is no such problem with the Soviets in peace time, of course this makes it no less disgusting, but to them it makes sense. The Holodomor was created by Russians, mainly because they became the largest group in the Soviet civil system. You could say in the same breath that the Holocaust was not the fault of Germany, because an Austrian was in charge, it wouldnt make sense as one person could never kill all these people alone, but you could say it.
Isnt the reason Russia wants Eastern Ukraine the presence of a large amount of former Soviet defence industry? A lot of currently used hardware uses parts manufactured in this part of the Ukraine.
Iron_Captain wrote: Communism? Please stop here already for you have already made it clear your knowledge of Communism is lacking. Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone. The Communist ideology, like almost everything in the world has been abused by ruthless dictators to further their political goals and remove their opponents, yes. But the killings under Stalin and Mao were not something inherent to Communism, nor were they genocides.
Funny, the Russian courts ruled otherwise, after Stalin's death. They did determine that the Голодомор was, in fact, genocide, IIRC.
I see any nazi military formation as a threat to civilisation, no matter how small. They will have to be dealt with after the conflict.
Also, any true nazis still alive today must be very, very old. All nazism post WW2 is called neo-nazism.
This was some time ago, and I believe the gentleman is long since dead, but yes, he would be very old by now.
The Ukrainians instead celebrate their dark past as an episode of Ukrainian 'freedom', conveniently forgetting how harsh the nazis treated them and the fact they, as sub-humans in an area that was to be settled by Germans, were slated for extermination.
It should tell you a lot that said harsh treatment and being slated to be killed at a later date was step UP from where they were. The Soviets did, after all, have to put up posters that read ""To eat your own children is a barbarian act."
The tragedy of the Holodomor today is often sadly abused for political gains. It is telling that those who are most vocal about it, the Western Ukrainians, never even suffered from it. While those whose ancestors were most affected by it, the Eastern Ukrainians, mostly keep quiet about it and hold their commemorations without making political statements.
That's wrong. While Eastern Ukraine suffered the worst of it, millions died all the way up the Dnieper river valley and into Moldova.
Iron_Captain wrote: Communism? Please stop here already for you have already made it clear your knowledge of Communism is lacking. Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone. The Communist ideology, like almost everything in the world has been abused by ruthless dictators to further their political goals and remove their opponents, yes. But the killings under Stalin and Mao were not something inherent to Communism, nor were they genocides.
Funny, the Russian courts ruled otherwise, after Stalin's death. They did determine that the Голодомор was, in fact, genocide, IIRC.
I recall no such ruling.
The official position of the Russian government is that the Holodomor was a great tragedy for which the Soviet authorities were partly responsible but which was not a genocide because millions of non-Ukrainian Soviet citizens also died.
The Ukrainians instead celebrate their dark past as an episode of Ukrainian 'freedom', conveniently forgetting how harsh the nazis treated them and the fact they, as sub-humans in an area that was to be settled by Germans, were slated for extermination.
It should tell you a lot that said harsh treatment and being slated to be killed at a later date was step UP from where they were. The Soviets did, after all, have to put up posters that read ""To eat your own children is a barbarian act."
The Holodomor was already over when WW2 began. The death toll of Western Ukrainians under Nazi occupation will tell you it was most definitely not a step up.
The tragedy of the Holodomor today is often sadly abused for political gains. It is telling that those who are most vocal about it, the Western Ukrainians, never even suffered from it. While those whose ancestors were most affected by it, the Eastern Ukrainians, mostly keep quiet about it and hold their commemorations without making political statements.
That's wrong. While Eastern Ukraine suffered the worst of it, millions died all the way up the Dnieper river valley and into Moldova.
The darker the shading, the worse the death toll.
Western Ukraine still got off very light. Do note that even Russia itself is much darker than Western Ukraine. Also note that parts of Western Ukraine are not even on that map. Lviv for example was not a part of the Soviet Union at the time and did not suffer any famine.
Iron_Captain wrote: Communism? Please stop here already for you have already made it clear your knowledge of Communism is lacking. Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone. The Communist ideology, like almost everything in the world has been abused by ruthless dictators to further their political goals and remove their opponents, yes. But the killings under Stalin and Mao were not something inherent to Communism, nor were they genocides.
Funny, the Russian courts ruled otherwise, after Stalin's death. They did determine that the Голодомор was, in fact, genocide, IIRC.
I recall no such ruling.
The official position of the Russian government is that the Holodomor was a great tragedy for which the Soviet authorities were partly responsible but which was not a genocide because millions of non-Ukrainian Soviet citizens also died.
There you have it. The Holocaust was not a genocide because a lot of people who weren't jews also died.
Iron_Captain wrote: The Holodomor was already over when WW2 began. The death toll of Western Ukrainians under Nazi occupation will tell you it was most definitely not a step up.
It was bad enough that the census takers were sent to the Gulags as enemies of the Soviet people for reporting that the population had fallen sharply, and was not in line with Comrade Stalin's 170 million citizens. That was in 1937.
'Sure, the Germans steal our breads and shoot us, but the Russians locked us in our villages to starve to death and executed anyone who fled."
'I dunno,less than a decade is an awfully long time ago, and I'd forgotten about it in the wake of all those purges last year."
The Germans caused 4.5 million civilian casualties (mostly as a side effect of the war.). That IS a step up form the 10 million plus that the Russians caused in peace time, for no reason other than they could.. And that 4.5 million does include things like Stalingrad. Post war the Germans got the blame for things like that, but in reality it was both sides that contributed to that number.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: [
The official position of the Russian government is that the Holodomor was a great tragedy for which the Soviet authorities were partly responsible but which was not a genocide because millions of non-Ukrainian Soviet citizens also died.
Thousands of non Jewish Germans died in the Shoah. Does that make it not genocide then?
Iron_Captain wrote: Communism? Please stop here already for you have already made it clear your knowledge of Communism is lacking. Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone. The Communist ideology, like almost everything in the world has been abused by ruthless dictators to further their political goals and remove their opponents, yes. But the killings under Stalin and Mao were not something inherent to Communism, nor were they genocides.
Funny, the Russian courts ruled otherwise, after Stalin's death. They did determine that the Голодомор was, in fact, genocide, IIRC.
I recall no such ruling. The official position of the Russian government is that the Holodomor was a great tragedy for which the Soviet authorities were partly responsible but which was not a genocide because millions of non-Ukrainian Soviet citizens also died.
There you have it. The Holocaust was not a genocide because a lot of people who weren't jews also died.
You do realize how silly that excuse is, yes?
Technically speaking, the Holocaust only refers to the Jewish victims of Nazi Germany. But whatever definition you want to use, the main aim of the Holocaust was to exterminate people based on race. Political opponents were also killed, but this was not the main purpose of the nazi system of concentration and death camps. Contrast this with the Holodomor, which was neither confined to the Ukraine nor aimed at ethnic Ukrainians. It's aim was to destroy a social class, and similar famines and purges happened across the entire Soviet Union. And even then, malicious intent behind the Holodomor has never been proven. It has also been said that the Holodomor was caused by economical problems which resulted from the forced collectivisation and persecution of farmers, rather than being a pre-planned way to get rid of political enemies.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: The Holodomor was already over when WW2 began. The death toll of Western Ukrainians under Nazi occupation will tell you it was most definitely not a step up.
It was bad enough that the census takers were sent to the Gulags as enemies of the Soviet people for reporting that the population had fallen sharply, and was not in line with Comrade Stalin's 170 million citizens. That was in 1937.
'Sure, the Germans steal our breads and shoot us, but the Russians locked us in our villages to starve to death and executed anyone who fled." 'I dunno,less than a decade is an awfully long time ago, and I'd forgotten about it in the wake of all those purges last year."
The Germans caused 4.5 million civilian casualties (mostly as a side effect of the war.). That IS a step up form the 10 million plus that the Russians caused in peace time, for no reason other than they could.. And that 4.5 million does include things like Stalingrad. Post war the Germans got the blame for things like that, but in reality it was both sides that contributed to that number.
The Ukraine alone suffered about 7 million casualties in WW2, 16.3% of its entire population. That is a number the Soviets don't even come close to. The Soviet Union in total suffered more than 20 million casualties, majority of which were civilians. Belarus for example lost a third of its entire population. Think about it. One in three of every Belarusians died in WW2... And that is only those whose death has been recorded.
And the Russians did not cause anything, the Soviets did. Russia may be the sucessor-state to the Soviet Union, but Russian and Soviet are not the same thing. They are not the same nation, not the same country and not at all the same state. I also have a very hard time believing the Soviets caused 10 million plus deaths in Ukraine during peace time. You can yell that all you want, but you provide no sources, so your statements lack any credibility. Soviet archives only provide evidence for a total of 3 million people killed (during Stalin's entire reign, in the entire Soviet Union). Of course, as not everything was oficially recorded, the true number is likely to be higher. But making it as high as 10 million in Ukraine alone is beyond all reason, especially considering the total population of that time.
But whatever definition you want to use, the main aim of the Holocaust was to exterminate people based on race. Political opponents were also killed, but this was not the main purpose of the nazi system of concentration and death camps.
The purpose of a digging machine is to excavate dirt, but when you fit it with nooses and use to hang hundreds of people, it's still mass murder. (I'm looking at you, VonBraun)
Contrast this with the Holodomor, which was neither confined to the Ukraine nor aimed at ethnic Ukrainians. It's aim was to destroy a social class, and similar famines and purges happened across the entire Soviet Union. And even then, malicious intent behind the Holodomor has never been proven.
wikipedia wrote:Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via the (a) Killing of members of the group; (b) Causing of serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberate inflicting on the group's conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing of measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (e) Forcible transferring of children of the group to another group. Genocide entails also the Conspiracy to commit genocide; Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; Attempt to commit genocide; and Complicity in genocide.
The Ukraine alone suffered about 7 million casualties in WW2, 16.3% of its entire population.
We're talking about civilian deaths, since what the Russians inflicted were 100% civilian deaths. That 7 million includes military casualties.
Kosyk gives 2.5 million military and 4.5 million civilian deaths
Kondufor gives 3,898,457 civilians and 1,366,588 military and prisoners-of-war for a total of 5,265,045. He adds another 2 million or so were killed by the Allies.
"During this war over 20 million Soviet people were killed including many peaceful citizens. On the territory of Ukraine along the Hitlerites destroyed over 5 million people and more than 2 million people were carried off into slavery" Ukrainska Radyanska Entsyklopedia, Kyiv 1978, vol. 2, p. 152.
The Soviet Union in total suffered more than 20 million casualties, majority of which were civilians.
This has been hotly contested by writers both inside and outside Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. It mostly comes from Krivosheev's Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. the reason for it being contested is the surviving records don't add up by a sizable margin, never mind the unknown or unnamed dead.
Grand total Russian casualties for civilians was about 13 million, with three million of that in the form of rear area casualties that cannot be attributed to the Germans. 7 million came from combat or violence, including the sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad, typically about half a million is given as the total number of persons actually purged by the Germans as part of their program of genocide. 4 million, give or take, died of famine and disease associated with the war.
Given that 4.5 million, it's not hard to see that the Ukrainians and Belorussians did the majority of the civilian dying in WW2. And the Ukrainian part was less than half the casualties they took during peace from the Russians, just a few years before.
And the Russians did not cause anything, the Soviets did.
And Germany did not cause anything, that crazy Austrian corporal did. Do you think the Ukrainians see them as two separate things, or the same old thing. Particularly since the government they're setting up in the Donbas is embracing the Soviet system.
you're quick ot bring up the azov battalions nazi symbolism, but let's have a look at the Donbas.
Why, it's Uncle Joe! Hmm, what's he doing here?
Looks to me like World War Two wasn't that long ago after all, based on the fact that were seeing Nazis and Stalinists clash.
Iron_Captain wrote: Communism? Please stop here already for you have already made it clear your knowledge of Communism is lacking. Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone. The Communist ideology, like almost everything in the world has been abused by ruthless dictators to further their political goals and remove their opponents, yes. But the killings under Stalin and Mao were not something inherent to Communism, nor were they genocides.
Funny, the Russian courts ruled otherwise, after Stalin's death. They did determine that the Голодомор was, in fact, genocide, IIRC.
I recall no such ruling.
The official position of the Russian government is that the Holodomor was a great tragedy for which the Soviet authorities were partly responsible but which was not a genocide because millions of non-Ukrainian Soviet citizens also died.
Happened, past tense. it proved somewhat unpopular in Zaporizhzhya, one of the areas bordering Donbas, and the statue was beheaded and then blown to pieces.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: A lot.
It often comes as a surprise to Westerners, but Stalin is still greatly admired by a very large part, if not the majority of modern Russians.
Actually this was the first statue of Stalin erected in the Ukraine since his death in 1953. I wouldn't call it 'all the time'. It's erection was met with protests and the eventual destruction of the statue.
It's funny how one mass murderer is celebrated and another condemned.
But whatever definition you want to use, the main aim of the Holocaust was to exterminate people based on race. Political opponents were also killed, but this was not the main purpose of the nazi system of concentration and death camps.
The purpose of a digging machine is to excavate dirt, but when you fit it with nooses and use to hang hundreds of people, it's still mass murder. (I'm looking at you, VonBraun)
And what is the value of this comparison? You just compared a genocide with a digging machine. Comparing warm and soft much? If you fit a digging machine with nooses and use it to hang people, the digging machine does not become mass murder.
wikipedia wrote:Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via the (a) Killing of members of the group; (b) Causing of serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberate inflicting on the group's conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing of measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (e) Forcible transferring of children of the group to another group. Genocide entails also the Conspiracy to commit genocide; Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; Attempt to commit genocide; and Complicity in genocide.
wikipedia wrote:Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via the (a) Killing of members of the group; (b) Causing of serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberate inflicting on the group's conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing of measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (e) Forcible transferring of children of the group to another group. Genocide entails also the Conspiracy to commit genocide; Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; Attempt to commit genocide; and Complicity in genocide.
The Holodomor would have been a genocide if it was aimed at the destruction of the Ukrainian people. Judging from the fact that the Holodomor also heavily impacted large areas of Russia and Belarus, and that many non-Ukrainians also died in it, this was not the case. I agree with Solzhenitsyn on this question:
Wikipedia wrote:Alexander Solzhenitsyn, laureate of the Nobel Prize in Literature and Soviet-Russian historian, opined in Izvestia that Holodomor was no different from the Russian famine of 1921 as both were caused by the ruthless robbery of peasants by Bolshevik grain procurements. According to him the lie of the Holodomor being genocide was invented decades later after the event and the Ukrainian effort to have the famine recognised as genocide is an act of historical revisionism that has now surpassed the level of Bolshevik agitprop. The writer cautions that the genocidal claim has its chances to be accepted by the West due to the general Western ignorance of Russian and Ukrainian history.[22]
The Ukraine alone suffered about 7 million casualties in WW2, 16.3% of its entire population.
We're talking about civilian deaths, since what the Russians inflicted were 100% civilian deaths. That 7 million includes military casualties.
Kosyk gives 2.5 million military and 4.5 million civilian deaths Kondufor gives 3,898,457 civilians and 1,366,588 military and prisoners-of-war for a total of 5,265,045. He adds another 2 million or so were killed by the Allies. "During this war over 20 million Soviet people were killed including many peaceful citizens. On the territory of Ukraine along the Hitlerites destroyed over 5 million people and more than 2 million people were carried off into slavery" Ukrainska Radyanska Entsyklopedia, Kyiv 1978, vol. 2, p. 152.
And why does military or civilian make a difference in this case? Soldiers are people too, and if Hitler had never unleashed his genocidal war on Ukraine, they would have lived. Nonetheless, the majority of those 7 million were still civilians.
The Soviet Union in total suffered more than 20 million casualties, majority of which were civilians.
This has been hotly contested by writers both inside and outside Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. It mostly comes from Krivosheev's Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. the reason for it being contested is the surviving records don't add up by a sizable margin, never mind the unknown or unnamed dead.
Grand total Russian casualties for civilians was about 13 million, with three million of that in the form of rear area casualties that cannot be attributed to the Germans. 7 million came from combat or violence, including the sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad, typically about half a million is given as the total number of persons actually purged by the Germans as part of their program of genocide. 4 million, give or take, died of famine and disease associated with the war.
Given that 4.5 million, it's not hard to see that the Ukrainians and Belorussians did the majority of the civilian dying in WW2. And the Ukrainian part was less than half the casualties they took during peace from the Russians, just a few years before.
And how did you gain all this knowledge? And with such certainty? Did a magical pixie whisper it in your ear? Did it come to you in a dream? Give reliable sources when making such claims, otherwise I won't even respond to them.
Krivosheyev's work has been widely accepted by the scientific community as it is the most thorough and extensive research into the matter so far. Like any controversial issue, it is contested, mostly for political goals. The vast majority of other studies into Soviet casualites also give numbers close to Krivosheyev's. Until someone publishes a more reliable research than Krivosheyev, we should take his numbers as being the closest we can get to the unknowable truth.
And the Russians did not cause anything, the Soviets did.
And Germany did not cause anything, that crazy Austrian corporal did. Do you think the Ukrainians see them as two separate things, or the same old thing. Particularly since the government they're setting up in the Donbas is embracing the Soviet system.
Only a fool would still blame the present-day Federal Republic of Germany for Hitler's crimes. The same should be the case for the Russian Federation and Stalin.
Iron_Captain wrote: A lot. It often comes as a surprise to Westerners, but Stalin is still greatly admired by a very large part, if not the majority of modern Russians.
Actually this was the first statue of Stalin erected in the Ukraine since his death in 1953. I wouldn't call it 'all the time'. It's erection was met with protests and the eventual destruction of the statue.
I was speaking of Russia, not Ukraine, and even in Ukraine, one can still find statues of Stalin in almost any town.
Germany admits and apologises at length for the crimes of the Nazis. You won't find many statues of Hitler in Germany. Russia is still an aggressor to its neighbours as they were soviet satellite states, Russia attempts to rewrite the past by airbrushing textbooks to be pro-Stalin. Germany is ashamed of Hitler and the nazis and apologise profusely for WW2. Don't hear many apologies for the way Russia butchered Germany and mass raped it's population of women and children, or for the millions imprisoned and killed by Stalin.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Germany admits and apologises at length for the crimes of the Nazis. You won't find many statues of Hitler in Germany. Russia is still an aggressor to its neighbours as they were soviet satellite states, Russia attempts to rewrite the past by airbrushing textbooks to be pro-Stalin. Germany is ashamed of Hitler and the nazis and apologise profusely for WW2.
More or less true. But Stalin is more ambiguous than Hitler.
Germany has clear groups it can apologise to for Hitler's behaviour. The Jews, the Slavs and all other groups that were singled out for ethnical or similar reasons.
To what groups should Russia apologise? Stalin mostly targetted political opponents, but how does one apologise to political opponents of Stalin when they no longer exist? The only groups that clearly can be apologised to are those that were forced into exile in Asia because they belonged to an ethnicity that was suspected of disloyalty to Stalin. But most of these groups, such as the Tatars, Cossacks, Ingrians or Kalmyks have been recompensated since then and have returned to their original lands, often with great autonomy.
What others do you think the Russian government should apologise to?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Don't hear many apologies for the way Russia butchered Germany and mass raped it's population of women and children, or for the millions imprisoned and killed by Stalin.
If Germany wants an apology for that, they can wait forever. The Germans deserved what they got for the unspeakable acts they committed in the Soviet Union. Compared to how the Germans treated the Soviets, the Soviets treated the Germans very gently. And not only that, but the stories of the mass rapes are ridiculously exaggerated German propaganda. The nazis started it to frighten their population and inspire them to fight until the last against the Russians, and after the war it lived on in the West as Cold War propaganda. Rape was punished by summary execution in the Red Army. Quite unlike the Wehrmacht I might add.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Don't hear many apologies for the way Russia butchered Germany and mass raped it's population of women and children, or for the millions imprisoned and killed by Stalin.
If Germany wants an apology for that, they can wait forever. The Germans deserved what they got for the unspeakable acts they committed in the Soviet Union. Compared to how the Germans treated the Soviets, the Soviets treated the Germans very gently. And not only that, but the stories of the mass rapes are ridiculously exaggerated German propaganda. The nazis started it to frighten their population and inspire them to fight until the last against the Russians, and after the war it lived on in the West as Cold War propaganda. Rape was punished by summary execution in the Red Army. Quite unlike the Wehrmacht I might add.
And this is where you are wrong. Not civilian deserves to be punished for the actions of the military.
Well, the communists were, the system was just their means to gain power. People like Stalin were never there for GLORIOUS COMMUNISM. He did not care about GLORIOUS COMMUNISM. He just used it go gt power.
Or youknow, or the Jews and Roma that the Soviets went after just as hard as the Nazis...
To say that the atrocities that the Soviets committed are exaggerated may be true, but their soldiers were by no means shining examples of morality. That something's punishable by court marshal certainly didn't stop all the murdering of civilians, destruction of property, thievery (hey if you want to talk about propaganda shall we do a quick search of all those edited images of Soviet soldiers which removed non-standard and totally not looted from the local populace gear) and of course rape. Sure soldiers from other countries were at it as well (the Americans in particular were known for looting), but hell, at least by and large the Western nations admit to all the crap they pulled during that era. The regime under Stalin was horrible and as the popular historical perception goes (one backed up by evidence, not just "Western propaganda") under his regime more political dissidents, those of minorities, and well just undesirables died than through Nazism.
Stalin did nothing for Communism but shred any remnants of that the system was any sort of socialist ideal. He created a cult of personality and screwed over anyone who got in his way, no matter what detriment that caused to the USSR's well being. That people apparently worship him is absurd, as it either shows a complete lack of knowledge over his actions, or that they're perfectly willing to ignore that the guy was a genocidal sociopath. Given the rampart anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia and right wing nationalism in Russia right now though (which is naturally state approved of course) I can see why people would think that the man did great things for the state, but I couldn't condone such thinking.
So. ah, the line that the Russian government has nothing to apologise for (especially given that other nations involved in that conflict have already done so) and that Stalin was a cool guy who didn't order the deaths of millions (or at least his regime did) is a tad offensive. This is OT though, so such attitudes are to be expected. Still, bother considering the facts a bit before being a detractor of them. Given that parties here seem to be in denial over the actions of the Russian Federation in general over the past century, particularly in the past year, that's probably a tall order. =P
Stalin did eliminate political opponents, but that quickly devolved into paranoia. He specifically targeted national minorities, such as with the Polish action. In total, Poles consisted of 1/8 of the total victims of the terror in 37-38. For the whole of the Soviet Union this is a disproportionate amount. Or in Ukraine during the famine in 32-33, where out of the estimated 3.3 million victims, 3 million were Ukranians. If the Russian part is taken into account, the amount of victims would be 4.3 million, with 3.2 million of them Ukranians. With the remainder being Russian, German, Polish, Jewish etc. [Snyder, Bloodlands]
Did the Russian government ever apologize to the Koreans?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Don't hear many apologies for the way Russia butchered Germany and mass raped it's population of women and children, or for the millions imprisoned and killed by Stalin.
If Germany wants an apology for that, they can wait forever. The Germans deserved what they got for the unspeakable acts they committed in the Soviet Union. Compared to how the Germans treated the Soviets, the Soviets treated the Germans very gently. And not only that, but the stories of the mass rapes are ridiculously exaggerated German propaganda. The nazis started it to frighten their population and inspire them to fight until the last against the Russians, and after the war it lived on in the West as Cold War propaganda. Rape was punished by summary execution in the Red Army. Quite unlike the Wehrmacht I might add.
And this is where you are wrong. Not civilian deserves to be punished for the actions of the military.
While I agree in principle with this, I think it is important to imagine the viewpoint of the young Soviet soldier who has lost many friends and family members to the Germans. It is easy to pass judgement from a cozy chair without having suffered so much. And those civilians did vote Hitler into power...
MrDwhitey wrote:Nor does "Well their soldiers raped/murdered our civilians" mean their civilians deserve to be raped/murdered. That's just fething absurd.
Never heard of the concept of 'revenge'? Even the Bible says it: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The Germans themselves were quite fond of this idea. Again, if you had been in the position these men were in, you would have probably said something different.
Grey Templar wrote:Basically the summation is this,
The Nazi's were bad to only certain people.
The Commies were bad to everybody.
I'd say Communism is worse. Especially when you look at the body count.
You couldn't be farther from the truth. At least if you are talking about the Russian communists. The nazis aimed to exterminate entire peoples and races, the communists (or rather Stalinists) only to exterminate political opponents. If you claim communism to be worse than nazism, you must clearly be either mad or ignorant. Not only would the death toll of Nazism been much larger if it hadn't been stopped by the valiant sacrifice of millions of people from all over the world, but nazism kills innocent men, women and children based on nothing but race or ethnicity. Stalinist atrocities on the other hand were usually aimed at people who (willingly) opposed Stalinist authorities. Nazim was bad to entire peoples, Stalinism usually only to certain political groups in society. Besides that, Nazism is inherently evil. The division of people into superior and inferior humans based on ethnicity and the extermination or enslavement of 'inferior' peoples are core principles of Nazi ideology. Communism on the other hand is inherently good. It does not advocate the killing of anyone, it only advocates absolute (economical) equality.
Wyrmalla wrote: Or youknow, or the Jews and Roma that the Soviets went after just as hard as the Nazis...
Oh really? Than were are all those death camps the Soviets built to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe? I have never heard of them.
To say that the atrocities that the Soviets committed are exaggerated may be true, but their soldiers were by no means shining examples of morality. That something's punishable by court marshal certainly didn't stop all the murdering of civilians, destruction of property, thievery (hey if you want to talk about propaganda shall we do a quick search of all those edited images of Soviet soldiers which removed non-standard and totally not looted from the local populace gear) and of course rape. Sure soldiers from other countries were at it as well (the Americans in particular were known for looting), but hell, at least by and large the Western nations admit to all the crap they pulled during that era.
Obviously the Soviet soldiers were far from shining examples of morality. Like all sides in the conflict, they too inflicted many war crimes. It is only the exaggerations that sting so much. Especially since it usually is only the Soviets who were singled out for contemporary political reasons. It does only increase the hostility many Russians feel towards the West.
Wyrmalla wrote: Stalin did nothing for Communism but shred any remnants of that the system was any sort of socialist ideal. He created a cult of personality and screwed over anyone who got in his way, no matter what detriment that caused to the USSR's well being. That people apparently worship him is absurd, as it either shows a complete lack of knowledge over his actions, or that they're perfectly willing to ignore that the guy was a genocidal sociopath. Given the rampart anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia and right wing nationalism in Russia right now though (which is naturally state approved of course) I can see why people would think that the man did great things for the state, but I couldn't condone such thinking.
Stalin was no true Communist, he was a Stalinist. He may have been a Communist once, but when he got a taste of power, it became nothing more than a justification and way to increase and hold his power for him. Nonetheless, Stalin thanks his popularity among the Russian people to the fact he changed Russia from a backwards, agrarian state plagued by civil war and internal unrest into a modern superpower. And on top of that, he also defeated the Nazis.
Wyrmalla wrote: So. ah, the line that the Russian government has nothing to apologise for (especially given that other nations involved in that conflict have already done so) and that Stalin was a cool guy who didn't order the deaths of millions (or at least his regime did) is a tad offensive. This is OT though, so such attitudes are to be expected. Still, bother considering the facts a bit before being a detractor of them. Given that parties here seem to be in denial over the actions of the Russian Federation in general over the past century, particularly in the past year, that's probably a tall order. =P
So who do you think the Russian government should apologise to?
Eugh, Off Topic. Someone else can answer those questions if they want. I'm not in the mood to spend more time tonight discussing this topic with someone who opens their reply with "because people happen to live in a country that soldiers are fighting in that makes them legitimate targets. Come on if they weren't the enemy they wouldn't be there!". That and go and talk to the Israelis about the number of Jews who weren't killed by the Soviets (that 4% of their population which are ethnically Russian just decided to live their because of the nice weather). Meh, go post some silly .gifs, the level of denial in your posts isn't quite so fun any more.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Don't hear many apologies for the way Russia butchered Germany and mass raped it's population of women and children, or for the millions imprisoned and killed by Stalin.
If Germany wants an apology for that, they can wait forever. The Germans deserved what they got for the unspeakable acts they committed in the Soviet Union. Compared to how the Germans treated the Soviets, the Soviets treated the Germans very gently. And not only that, but the stories of the mass rapes are ridiculously exaggerated German propaganda. The nazis started it to frighten their population and inspire them to fight until the last against the Russians, and after the war it lived on in the West as Cold War propaganda. Rape was punished by summary execution in the Red Army. Quite unlike the Wehrmacht I might add.
And this is where you are wrong. Not civilian deserves to be punished for the actions of the military.
While I agree in principle with this, I think it is important to imagine the viewpoint of the young Soviet soldier who has lost many friends and family members to the Germans. It is easy to pass judgement from a cozy chair without having suffered so much. And those civilians did vote Hitler into power...
MrDwhitey wrote:Nor does "Well their soldiers raped/murdered our civilians" mean their civilians deserve to be raped/murdered. That's just fething absurd.
Never heard of the concept of 'revenge'? Even the Bible says it: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The Germans themselves were quite fond of this idea. Again, if you had been in the position these men were in, you would have probably said something different.
You protest rather too hard too convince. The way you dismiss the actions of Soviet forces on multiple points starting with the statement that the Germans 'got what they deserved', justified by legitimising revenge and excusing the actions of soldiers as being those of young men that had suffered, rather makes me doubt that you really have faith that the rapes are so 'ridiculously exaggerated'. That Germany admits to their actions and people like you and Russia generally does not and choose to brush it away as western propaganda, is exactly the point I was making. If you think the soviet forces went 'very gently' on the Germans you need to pick up a non-Putin approved history book and do some fething reading. Recognising what was done to Germany doesn't lessen Russian suffering one bit, but the historical revisionism on display here is quite something.
While I agree in principle with this, I think it is important to imagine the viewpoint of the young Soviet soldier who has lost many friends and family members to the Germans. It is easy to pass judgement from a cozy chair without having suffered so much. And those civilians did vote Hitler into power...
I don't think the German civilians got what they deserved, however I don't think the Red Army or the Soviet people can be blamed collectively. Think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Dresden, not only non nuclear bombing of German and Japanese civilians took on huge amounts of resources that could have been better spent. These bombings that served very little purpose accept to indiscriminately kill civilians are written off as military operations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
That makes it more of a genocide, not less.
Well the Ukrainians allege that they were targeted as an ethnic group, denying that fact can land you in prison in the modern Ukraine(I haven't checked the news so maybe not any more...)
Iron_Captain wrote: And what is the value of this comparison? You just compared a genocide with a digging machine. Comparing warm and soft much? If you fit a digging machine with nooses and use it to hang people, the digging machine does not become mass murder.
Not sure if you're just being obtuse deliberately or are really just not getting it.
the point was that you can make pretty much anything a tool for mass murder. The direct comparison was the engineers at Peenemünde Army Research Center turning a digging machine into a means to execute slave laborers more quickly. England had already showed how mass starvation could be used as a tool for genocide.
The Holodomor would have been a genocide if it was aimed at the destruction of the Ukrainian people. Judging from the fact that the Holodomor also heavily impacted large areas of Russia and Belarus, and that many non-Ukrainians also died in it, this was not the case.
I agree with Solzhenitsyn on this question.
You seem to forget that Solzhenitsyn was writing for a Soviet Paper while living in the Soviet Union and hoping not to go back to the Gulags.
And why does military or civilian make a difference in this case? Soldiers are people too, and if Hitler had never unleashed his genocidal war on Ukraine, they would have lived. Nonetheless, the majority of those 7 million were still civilians.
Probably not, Stalin was winding up for another purge, IIRC, when Hitler invaded.
The reason that we strictly look at civilian casualties is, in war, soldiers are fair game. Soldiers killing soldiers does not constitute a warcrime (outside of certain circumstances, which Russia was guilty of violating just as much as Germany. I seem to recall a particularly chilling interview with an NKVD officer where they simply took the POWs behind the building and shot them once they were done torturing them.).
The other reason was that the Holodomor was directed entirely on civilians.
Iron_Captain wrote: And how did you gain all this knowledge? And with such certainty? Did a magical pixie whisper it in your ear? Did it come to you in a dream?
Give reliable sources when making such claims, otherwise I won't even respond to them.
You won't even respond to them when I do. If you'd bothered to read my post, I did name a few. I'll throw in the records of the Central Bureau for Registration of Personnel Losses in the Active Armies, which wasn't fully cataloged until after Krivosheyev's work was finished. He still doesn't refer to this source in Russia and the USSR in the Wars of the Twentieth Century.
Krivosheyev's work has been widely accepted by the scientific community as it is the most thorough and extensive research into the matter so far. Like any controversial issue, it is contested, mostly for political goals. The vast majority of other studies into Soviet casualites also give numbers close to Krivosheyev's.
Krivosheyev's work is statistically sound, but does not match historical records. His researchers were working with partial data and his work got the official stamp of the Army at the time, and thus has stood.
Until someone publishes a more reliable research than Krivosheyev, we should take his numbers as being the closest we can get to the unknowable truth.
I suggest the report of Assistant chief for scientific work of the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Sergey Aleksandrovich Il’enkov,. His findings were... interesting, though the process or correlating it with graves registry is ongoing.
Solonin's examination of the records suggests that Stalinist reprisals against civilians in formerly German occupied territory were blamed on the Germans and a chunk of that 13.7 odd million civilian deaths are attributable to Russia.
Only a fool would still blame the present-day Federal Republic of Germany for Hitler's crimes. The same should be the case for the Russian Federation and Stalin.
You don't see the Germans putting up Statues of Hitler, and trying to white wash his crimes, while waving flags with his picture on them. Right now, Putin's minions in Eastern Ukraine are doing exactly that.
In all honesty, I feel like Putin could be stabbing this guy in front of us with an electric carving knife and he'd be insisting that it didn't hurt, and was his fault even if it did.
BTW: mulled over Solzhenitsyn's claim about the 1921 famine vs the 32 Famine: Between multiple armies fighting in Russia, the drought, the disintegration of the rail system due to fighting,and the fact that less had been planted due to the fighting, the region was on the brink already, with no one person to blame.. Lenin was forced with a choice to seize crops and food stores or have his army go hungry.
This triggered a 'perfect storm' that went from the usual wartime hunger to disaster. Once Lenin was convinced that there was an actual disaster in progress, he acted to improve the situation. He even used the famine in an effort to bring closer ties between Russia and the west, efforts that did bare some fruit. Steps were taken, aid was delivered, food was distributed.
Stalin, on the other hand, knew what was going on, in detail, and did everything he could to intensify the suffering of the people, taking steps to ensure maximum body count, including rounding up over 190k people who had fled and forcing them to return to their homes to die. International offers of aid were rebuffed and a disinformation campaign started to conceal what went on. Indeed, Stalin followed the British example to the letter, setting impossible quotas and then seizing all available food, regardless of the effects on the citizens.
Unlike in 1921 there was no wide spread shortage of food. Indeed, surpluses were harvested and exported in many regions of Russia. Unlike in 1921, there was a much improved, modern transportation system for goods. Unlike in 1921, there was not a war going on in the area to disrupt harvests and inflict armies foraging for food on the people.
I have to conclude that Solzhenitsyn's assertion is somewhat ludicrous on the face of it. The two situations could not have been more dissimilar.
Karen Dawisha wrote exiting (and cheap) book about real roots of the present Russian regime (involving no Stalin/Hitler comparisons). I highly recommend to read it, was kind of eye opener for some of my foreign friends.
Iron_Captain wrote: And what is the value of this comparison? You just compared a genocide with a digging machine. Comparing warm and soft much? If you fit a digging machine with nooses and use it to hang people, the digging machine does not become mass murder.
Not sure if you're just being obtuse deliberately or are really just not getting it.
the point was that you can make pretty much anything a tool for mass murder. The direct comparison was the engineers at Peenemünde Army Research Center turning a digging machine into a means to execute slave laborers more quickly. England had already showed how mass starvation could be used as a tool for genocide.
Your comparison still does not have any value. Everything can be used as tool for genocide. One could even use pencil to commit genocide. So what?
The Holodomor would have been a genocide if it was aimed at the destruction of the Ukrainian people. Judging from the fact that the Holodomor also heavily impacted large areas of Russia and Belarus, and that many non-Ukrainians also died in it, this was not the case. I agree with Solzhenitsyn on this question.
You seem to forget that Solzhenitsyn was writing for a Soviet Paper while living in the Soviet Union and hoping not to go back to the Gulags.
You seem to forget that when Solzhenitsyn wrote this, the Soviet Union did not even exist.
BaronIveagh wrote: In all honesty, I feel like Putin could be stabbing this guy in front of us with an electric carving knife and he'd be insisting that it didn't hurt, and was his fault even if it did.
BTW: mulled over Solzhenitsyn's claim about the 1921 famine vs the 32 Famine: Between multiple armies fighting in Russia, the drought, the disintegration of the rail system due to fighting,and the fact that less had been planted due to the fighting, the region was on the brink already, with no one person to blame.. Lenin was forced with a choice to seize crops and food stores or have his army go hungry.
This triggered a 'perfect storm' that went from the usual wartime hunger to disaster. Once Lenin was convinced that there was an actual disaster in progress, he acted to improve the situation. He even used the famine in an effort to bring closer ties between Russia and the west, efforts that did bare some fruit. Steps were taken, aid was delivered, food was distributed.
Stalin, on the other hand, knew what was going on, in detail, and did everything he could to intensify the suffering of the people, taking steps to ensure maximum body count, including rounding up over 190k people who had fled and forcing them to return to their homes to die. International offers of aid were rebuffed and a disinformation campaign started to conceal what went on. Indeed, Stalin followed the British example to the letter, setting impossible quotas and then seizing all available food, regardless of the effects on the citizens.
Unlike in 1921 there was no wide spread shortage of food. Indeed, surpluses were harvested and exported in many regions of Russia. Unlike in 1921, there was a much improved, modern transportation system for goods. Unlike in 1921, there was not a war going on in the area to disrupt harvests and inflict armies foraging for food on the people.
I have to conclude that Solzhenitsyn's assertion is somewhat ludicrous on the face of it. The two situations could not have been more dissimilar.
Valid arguments. It shows very well the difference between Stalin and Lenin. But what I think Solzhenitsyn is aiming at is that the cause of both events was similar. Both were caused by Bolshevik mismanagement of agricultural economy. The famine in 1932 was not deliberately created to kill as many Ukrainians as possible, but was the result of radical and disastrous Bolshevik policies aimed at the destruction of the independent farmer class and force collectivisation. The difference is that Lenin tried to restore damage done as much as possible, whereas Stalin didn't do anything as this famine actually helped his plans along. And in '32, there was not a war like in '21, but the damages of the civil war were not yet fully restored, and under Stalin Bolshevik policies aimed at destroying independent farmers were much more harsh and severe.
And why does military or civilian make a difference in this case? Soldiers are people too, and if Hitler had never unleashed his genocidal war on Ukraine, they would have lived. Nonetheless, the majority of those 7 million were still civilians.
Probably not, Stalin was winding up for another purge, IIRC, when Hitler invaded.
The reason that we strictly look at civilian casualties is, in war, soldiers are fair game. Soldiers killing soldiers does not constitute a warcrime (outside of certain circumstances, which Russia was guilty of violating just as much as Germany. I seem to recall a particularly chilling interview with an NKVD officer where they simply took the POWs behind the building and shot them once they were done torturing them.).
The other reason was that the Holodomor was directed entirely on civilians.
Stalin was purging people all the time, even during the war. Whether killing soldiers is a warcrime or not is irrelevant. Those soldiers were conscripts. They were no different from civilians except for their uniform, and their deaths are directly attributable to Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union.
Iron_Captain wrote: And how did you gain all this knowledge? And with such certainty? Did a magical pixie whisper it in your ear? Did it come to you in a dream? Give reliable sources when making such claims, otherwise I won't even respond to them.
You won't even respond to them when I do. If you'd bothered to read my post, I did name a few. I'll throw in the records of the Central Bureau for Registration of Personnel Losses in the Active Armies, which wasn't fully cataloged until after Krivosheyev's work was finished. He still doesn't refer to this source in Russia and the USSR in the Wars of the Twentieth Century.
The Central Registration Bureau is not frequently used by scholars because it has many issues. There are for example duplicated entries, as well as many ones missing. Nonetheless, it is a valid source for research. However, if we now start a debate over what sources are better, we will go completely off-topic and end nowhere, as neither of us is a scholar in this area or has access to the Russian archives. I'll just finish by saying that if you look at the most recent studies into the number of Soviet casualties in WW2, most of them come up with numbers close to Krivosheyev.
Krivosheyev's work has been widely accepted by the scientific community as it is the most thorough and extensive research into the matter so far. Like any controversial issue, it is contested, mostly for political goals. The vast majority of other studies into Soviet casualites also give numbers close to Krivosheyev's.
Krivosheyev's work is statistically sound, but does not match historical records. His researchers were working with partial data and his work got the official stamp of the Army at the time, and thus has stood.
Krivosheyev based his work on historical records. It is also not the official figure used by the Russian government, this is the 1990 ADK (Andreyev, Darski, Kharkova) study which cites 26.6 million war dead iirc. Krivosheyev's study simply is the one that has been most widely accepted by the international scientific community.
Until someone publishes a more reliable research than Krivosheyev, we should take his numbers as being the closest we can get to the unknowable truth.
I suggest the report of Assistant chief for scientific work of the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Sergey Aleksandrovich Il’enkov,. His findings were... interesting, though the process or correlating it with graves registry is ongoing.
Solonin's examination of the records suggests that Stalinist reprisals against civilians in formerly German occupied territory were blamed on the Germans and a chunk of that 13.7 odd million civilian deaths are attributable to Russia.
Il'yenkov's work is very interesting yes, but he bases his research only on the central database, the accuracy of which is disputed. Another important thing to note is that his research is incomplete because it only takes military deaths into account, thus not giving an entire picture of Soviet losses.
Solonin's research on the other hand is quite controversial. It is based on a different demographic model than most studies use. Further it isn't really that notable except in that it has 'victims of Stalinist repression' as a separate category. The problem with this is not only that casualties were never recorded as such but also that it is higly dubious what exactly qualifies as a 'victim of Stalinist repression'. Most researches just include this in the general 'civilian casualties' category without making distinction between which side was responsible.
Only a fool would still blame the present-day Federal Republic of Germany for Hitler's crimes. The same should be the case for the Russian Federation and Stalin.
You don't see the Germans putting up Statues of Hitler, and trying to white wash his crimes, while waving flags with his picture on them. Right now, Putin's minions in Eastern Ukraine are doing exactly that.
That is true, but you can't blame actions of individual Russians or Ukrainians on the Russian government. It is not like Putin is giving orders to put up statues of Stalin. In fact, the Russian government has distanced itself from Stalin multiple times and it even prevented Stalin from winning the 'Greatest Russian' contest
I was speaking of Russia, not Ukraine, and even in Ukraine, one can still find statues of Stalin in almost any town.
Nope. Most were demolished when Khrushchev came to power. The Ukrainians REALLY didn't like old Joe, for obvious reasons.
We should visit Ukraine together. I can show you statues of Stalin in Sevastopol, Yalta and Simferopol and outside of Crimea in Odessa, Kharkov, Kiev, Zaporozh'ye, Donetsk and Luhansk. There may be more in other cities I don't know about. Of course some of them may also not be there anymore because of the crisis. There is even statues of Stalin in the Netherlands, I know one in Arnhem. Most Stalin statues were indeed demolished during destalinisation, but a lot of smaller ones have remained.
No, they only take those statues down to grieve the Russian community.
The fact that they're symbols of a hated totalitarian regime that ruled with unparalleled brutality for 80 odd years is no never-mind.
Nobody ever seemed bothered about them before the conflict. Only now that they have become rallying points for the pro-Russian community they are taken down.
Valid arguments. It shows very well the difference between Stalin and Lenin.
But what I think Solzhenitsyn is aiming at is that the cause of both events was similar. Both were caused by Bolshevik mismanagement of agricultural economy. The famine in 1932 was not deliberately created to kill as many Ukrainians as possible, but was the result of radical and disastrous Bolshevik policies aimed at the destruction of the independent farmer class and force collectivisation. The difference is that Lenin tried to restore damage done as much as possible, whereas Stalin didn't do anything as this famine actually helped his plans along. And in '32, there was not a war like in '21, but the damages of the civil war were not yet fully restored, and under Stalin Bolshevik policies aimed at destroying independent farmers were much more harsh and severe.
Eh.... No, the 1921 was not caused by anything to do with Bolshevik economic policies. It was a case of natural disaster coupled with a human disaster. Economics didn't come into it, large scale devastation coupled with desperate leaders (on all sides) seizing as much food for their armies as they could slammed into a large scale drought and poor harvest.
I suppose the biggest difference that I doubt even you can argue against was that Lenin tried to stop it, and Stalin locked them in and forced them to starve. That's what makes it genocide. Failed economic policies and poor decisions only make a disaster. Willfully ordering people to be held prisoner in their villages to die of starvation takes it to that level.
Whether killing soldiers is a warcrime or not is irrelevant. Those soldiers were conscripts. They were no different from civilians except for their uniform, and their deaths are directly attributable to Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union.
and not, say, Order 227?
And, let's not be dishonest, Stalin was considering the same thing Hitler was when they made the pact. It was just a matter of who attacked who first. Stalin was delayed due to having purged too many of his better officers and the fact that the Red Army suffered severe logistical issues at the time.
Solonin's research on the other hand is quite controversial. It is based on a different demographic model than most studies use. Further it isn't really that notable except in that it has 'victims of Stalinist repression' as a separate category. The problem with this is not only that casualties were never recorded as such but also that it is higly dubious what exactly qualifies as a 'victim of Stalinist repression'. Most researches just include this in the general 'civilian casualties' category without making distinction between which side was responsible.
Well, usually being summarily executed for treason following a German withdrawal would be a good sign. Solonin's work may be controversial, but it also cannot be dismissed out of hand. Thus, the 'controversy' part.
Iron_Captain wrote: Nobody ever seemed bothered about them before the conflict. Only now that they have become rallying points for the pro-Russian community they are taken down.
Actually the one outside the Communist party HQ in Zaporizhya blown up back in 2010. So, yes, I'd say that they bothered people even before the current conflict. In fact, it was commented on at the time that the Statue caused division and controversy.
Following DeStalinisation, there were not a lot of public Stalin statues. Following the fall of the USSR they got fewer fast, most being vandalized and damaged before being dumped or melted down.
Albania
A statue of Soviet premier Joseph Stalin was in Tirana, Albania, but was taken down in December 1990.
A large statue of Stalin, along with one of Lenin, can be found behind the Art Museum in Tirana
Czech Republic
Statue of Stalin & Lenin in Olomouc, Czech Republic
A massive granite statue of Stalin, the largest depiction of Stalin, stood in Letná Park, Prague, Czech Republic, from 1955 to 1962.
Germany
Statue of Stalin in Stalinallee, Berlin, Germany
Plastic Statue of Vladimir Lenin and Stalin at the Leipzig Autumn Fair of 1954.
A large statue of Stalin raising his right hand was in Riesa, Germany
There is a statue of Stalin and Klement Gottwald at the Gundelfingen stone-cutting company
Georgia
Small bust in front of the Batumi Stalin Museum in Batumi, Georgia.
A statue of Stalin stood at the town hall in Gori, Georgia until taken down in June 2010.
A Bust and a statue of Stalin in the Joseph Stalin Museum in Gori, Georgia
A silver statue of Stalin is in Shovi in Georgia.
Hungary
Former Stalin Monument at the edge of Városliget in Budapest, Hungary
Lithuania
Grutas Park, Lithuania (aka 'Stalin World' due to the statues of Stalin from around the country being dumped there)
Mongolia
A statue of Stalin stands at Isimuss Club in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
A statue of Stalin stood at front of the National Library of Mongolia until 1991.
The Netherlands
A statue of Stalin is displayed in water in Sonsbeek Park, Arnhem, Netherlands
Romania
A statue of Stalin stood at the entrance of Parcul I. V. Stalin in Bucharest (now renamed Parcul Herăstrău), which was torn down in 1956 during the De-Stalinization in Romania.
Russia
Many at Fallen Monument Park, Moscow, Russia
Bust at his tomb in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis, Moscow, Russia
Bust in the Museum of the Great Patriotic War, Moscow.
Statue of Stalin along with Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill at the All-Russia Exhibition Center, Moscow, Russia
A large Stalin statue stood at the All-Russia Exhibition Center until 1948.
A bust stands at the Memorial of Glory in Vladikavkaz.
A bust stands at School No. 2 in Ardon, North Ossetia.
In Bryansk, there is a bust of Stalin in the Communist Party's regional headquarters.
A bust of Stalin is in Kizel.
A statue is in Nogir, North Ossetia–Alania.
A statue of Stalin is in the yard of School No.2, Ardon, North Ossetia–Alania.
A bust of Stalin in the village of Chokh, Dagestan
A bust of Stalin at a square in Derbent, Dagestan
Tajikistan
A Stalin statue stands at a nursery school in Asht, Tajikistan
Ukraine
A bust of Stalin formerly was exhibited in front of the Communist Party of Ukraine's headquarters in Zaporizhya, Ukraine, but was destroyed.
United States
A bust of Stalin is displayed at the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia, United States
Lenin did much better. Being seen as a man of the people, regardless of his political views, did a lot to save his statuary after the fall.
KIEV (Reuters) - A column of 32 tanks, 16 howitzer artillery systems and trucks carrying ammunition and fighters has crossed into eastern Ukraine from Russia, the Kiev military said on Friday.
"The deployment continues of military equipment and Russian mercenaries to the front lines," spokesman Andriy Lysenko said in a televised briefing referring to Thursday's cross-border incursion.
The report of a new Russian movement of armor across the border follows a charge on Thursday by pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine that Kiev government forces had launched a new offensive - which Kiev immediately denied.
Sporadic violence has continued since a Sept. 5 truce in a conflict that has cost over 4,000 lives.
But the ceasefire has looked particularly fragile this week, with separatists and the central government accusing each other of violations after separatist leaders held elections in self-proclaimed 'people's republics' last Sunday.
"Supplies of military equipment and enemy fighters from the Russian Federation are continuing," Lysenko said. He added that five Ukrainian soldiers had been killed and 16 wounded in the past 24 hours despite the ceasefire.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: With ISIS grabbing all the headlines Putin can do pretty much whatever he wants now. No one even remembers where Ukraine is anymore.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: With ISIS grabbing all the headlines Putin can do pretty much whatever he wants now. No one even remembers where Ukraine is anymore.
That is pretty cynical. I see headlines daily regarding Russia/Ukraine on sites like Yahoo, BBC, HuffPost, ect., i.e. mainstream sites, so I am not sure people have forgotten about the situation in Ukraine.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: With ISIS grabbing all the headlines Putin can do pretty much whatever he wants now. No one even remembers where Ukraine is anymore.
Isn't that a part of Canada??
Possibly, who knows anymore? Well Putin says he knows what part of Ukraine is part of what. You'd have to ask him I reckon.
Ashiraya wrote: ISIS was created by Putin to draw attention away from his conquests in Europe.
/tinfoilhat
Strange they think its us backed.
Western special services might be behind ISIS terrorists
The leaders of Islamic terrorists could be under the direct influence of NATO and Western powers using their movements to threaten Russia’s territorial integrity, says a former general of Russian military intelligence service.
“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,” Lieutenant-General Nikolai Pushkaryov, formerly of the Central Intelligence Directorate of the Russian General Staff said in an interview with the RIA-Novosti news agency. “The top of these movements can be under the influence of NATO agents,” he added.
The general also commented on the statement by the head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, who promised to destroy any Islamic terrorist who voiced threats against Russia. Kadyrov also told reporters that Chechen special services intended to hunt down and kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – the head of the Islamic State group (also known as ISIL and ISIS), adding that this man had been recruited to work for the US by General David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA, and former commander of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Back then, Kadyrov claimed the Islamic State “was acting on orders from the West and Europe.”
Pushkaryov said in his interview that he took Kadyrov’s words very seriously and believed that the head of the Chechen Republic could bring his plans to fruition. “I have a great respect towards Ramzan Kadyrov. If he and his men want to find this man, they would be capable of doing it,” he stated.
The head of Russia’s Federal Security Service, Aleksandr Bortnikov named the Islamic State as a primary threat at the meeting of the heads of special services of the CIS states on Wednesday.
Bortnikov said that IS terrorists receive combat training and experience in Iraq and Syria and then return to their home countries, including the CIS nations, as instructors, recruiters and experts in the terrorist underground. He added that the Taliban and other radical groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan were ready to adopt these methods and this carried additional threats to the CIS countries.
Russia has acknowledged the threat that comes from the Islamic State and promised to support countries and groups fighting against the organization. However, when in September US Secretary of State John Kerry said that in his view Russia must join the international fight against the IS terrorists, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department for New Challenges and Threats, Ilya Rogachev, said that the country “did not expect any invitations and was not going to buy entry tickets,” into the US-led anti-IS coalition. Rogachev added that Russia was ready to help all IS opponents, including members of the coalition being formed by the US, but under the condition that they stop using double standards and remain within the framework of international law.
loki old fart wrote: Rogachev added that Russia was ready to help all IS opponents, including members of the coalition being formed by the US, but under the condition that they stop using double standards and remain within the framework of international law.
So what they're saying is that they're willing to help, as long as no one accepts Russian help?
That is odd, the encyclopedia says it is a country, wiki says it is a country, and the Ukrainians seem to think it is a country. On the other hand some guy on the internet said it isn't so I guess that it isn't.
That is odd, the encyclopedia says it is a country, wiki says it is a country, and the Ukrainians seem to think it is a country. On the other hand some guy on the internet said it isn't so I guess that it isn't.
It was a spot of dry humour made at Putin's expense. I think you got the wrong end of the stick.
That is odd, the encyclopedia says it is a country, wiki says it is a country, and the Ukrainians seem to think it is a country. On the other hand some guy on the internet said it isn't so I guess that it isn't.
It was a spot of dry humour made at Putin's expense. I think you got the wrong end of the stick.
Or Poe's Law in effect. What if they weren't kidding? Where does that leave us?
Nato officials have seen Russian military equipment and Russian combat troops entering Ukraine this week, its top commander says.
"Russian tanks, Russian artillery, Russian air defence systems and Russian combat troops" were sighted, US Gen Philip Breedlove said.
Russia's defence ministry denied that its troops were in eastern Ukraine to help pro-Russian separatists there.
However, the rebels have admitted being helped by "volunteers" from Russia.
Heavy artillery fire rocked the east Ukrainian city of Donetsk, the industrial hub held by pro-Russian separatist rebels, on Wednesday morning.
It was unclear whether the fire came from besieging government forces or the rebels themselves, or both.
There were also reports of fighting near the rebel-held city of Luhansk. One Ukrainian soldier was killed and another injured north of Luhansk, when rebels fired on government positions near the village of Schastya, Ukrainian security forces said.
Events in Ukraine seem to be turning full circle.
Back in August, Nato was warning about the deployment of Russian artillery batteries inside Ukraine, the supply of Russian military equipment to the rebel forces and the build-up of further Russian combat units at the Ukrainian frontier.
Since then many of these units have been withdrawn.
But now with tensions renewed, Nato's Supreme Commander in Europe General Philip Breedlove has confirmed that over the past two days, Nato has seen columns of Russian armour, artillery and crucially - combat troops - entering Ukraine.
The question now is whether this is just a re-run of events in the summer or does a more significant clash beckon, perhaps one where the Kremlin may decide - in its terms - to teach the Ukrainians a military lesson.
General Breedlove also confirmed that Nato believes Russia is deploying nuclear-capable weapons to Crimea - a reference to reports that Russia is deploying short-range Iskander ballistic missiles there that could potentially be equipped with nuclear warheads.
Unmarked convoys
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has reported seeing unmarked convoys in the region in recent days.
Gen Breedlove, talking to reporters on a visit to Bulgaria, was asked about the purpose of the alleged Russian troop deployment.
He replied: "As to their intent, I'm not sure. My strategic team believes that there is a possibility that, as you know, this pocket of separatist Russian-backed forces and Russian forces in the east of Ukraine - it's not a very contiguous pocket. There are lines of communications that are
interrupted. There are airports that are not held by the Russian-backed forces etc.
"And so it is our first guess that these forces will go in to make this a more contiguous, more whole and capable pocket of land in order to then hold on to it long term."
But Russian defence official Maj-Gen Igor Konashenkov said "there was and is no evidence" to support Gen Breedlove's claims.
Russia has consistently denied sending troops and equipment to support the rebels fighting in eastern Ukraine.
More than 4,000 people have died since government forces moved in April to put down an armed insurrection by the rebels in the two regions, which border Russia.
A fragile ceasefire was agreed in Minsk on 5 September, although hundreds of people have been killed since then.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday her government was "not satisfied" with the progress in implementing the Minsk agreement, but added that there were no plans at present for further economic sanctions against Russia over its involvement in Ukraine.
"Further economic sanctions are not planned at the moment, we are focusing on the winter and the humanitarian situation there and how to get a real ceasefire," she said.
The OSCE said earlier that the conflict could get worse.
"The level of violence in eastern Ukraine and the risk of further escalation remain high and are rising," OSCE representative Michael Bociurkiw told reporters in Kiev.
Just this line:
"Yet, instead of accepting this self-evident fact today after Russia has annexed the territory of another European state, Obama cannot admit to getting it wrong. "
I'm really confused, how has he not shown that he now views Russia as a threat?
What does the EU have to do with anything that goes on out of its borders?
This is a problem for those countries that signed defence agreements with the Ukraine and now aren't following through on them or at most its NATO's problem (which it also really isn't because the Ukraine isn't a part of NATO).
What does the EU have to do with anything that goes on out of its borders?
This is a problem for those countries that signed defence agreements with the Ukraine and now aren't following through on them or at most its NATO's problem (which it also really isn't because the Ukraine isn't a part of NATO).
Ukraine is not part of NATO. Even if it was, for all intents and purposes NATO is dead.
Apparently Russia is claiming a Ukrainian air jet shot down MH17, and have produced satellite images.
Russian media releases satellite image claiming to show MH17 shot down by Ukrainian fighter jet
HOURS before the G20 summit is due to start in Brisbane, Russia’s official media has released satellite images which it claims shows the Malaysia Airline’s flight MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet, not a surface-to-air missile.
The flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was brought down over the war zone in eastern Ukraine on July 17, killing all 298 people on board including 38 Australian residents and citizens.
Russian media picture ... the image appears to show a fighter jet shooting a missile in t
Russian media picture ... the image appears to show a fighter jet shooting a missile in the direction of a passenger jet. Picture: LiveLeak
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been under increasing pressure to apologise for the tragedy after initial investigations indicated it was a Russian made BUK missile system used by pro-Moscow rebels that was responsible.
In what only could be described as an extraordinary coincidence after Mr Putin was confronted by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Beijing this week, Russia’s state broadcaster aired the images supplied by unnamed sources.
The presenter said they showed how a Mig-29 fighter plane destroyed the Boeing 777 passenger plane.
A Dutch Safety Board preliminary report on the MH17 disaster found the aircraft crashed after being punctured by “high energy objects ... that originated from outside the fuselage”.
The report made no finding on whether the “high energy objects” originated from a surface-to-air missile or some other weapon.
In the spotlight ... Russian President Vladimir Putin arrives in Brisbane to take part in
In the spotlight ... Russian President Vladimir Putin arrives in Brisbane to take part in the G20 summit. Picture: AFP PHOTO / Peter Parks
Mr Abbott’s hard line on the suspected Russian involvement in the tragedy has not gone down well with grieving families.
Paul Guard, who lost his parents Roger and Jill Guard when the aircraft was brought down, told the ABC yesterday he would prefer the Prime Minister worked with Mr Putin in order to ensure complete transparency in the investigation process.
Member countries of the joint investigation team announced this week an extension to the official investigation for another nine months until August 15.
Investigators have had difficulty accessing the crash site because of ongoing fighting between the Ukrainians, and pro-Russian separatists.
If it were that clean cut, and Russia had an image which showed it was at least a jet which shot the thing down and not a surface to air missile, why'd they wait till now to show it? Wouldn't it have been a good time to reveal this whilst everyone was pointing the finger at that missile array the Russians were hastily pulling back to their side of the border? Given the bullgak that's been coming out of Russia since this thing started there's no way in hell I'd be trusting anything the Kremlin came out with. Can we have a proper analyst's view of that image? I'm meaning beyond just saying its a piece of photo manipulation. Rather judging whether that's a realistic distance for a jet to be firing on its target from, the angle of the impact, etc. If this is true then its only going to increase the distrust the West has with Russia given they've held onto this knowledge for who knows how long, not giving over critical information to investigation. If its a fake then that's strengthening the view that the Russian government is full of snakes (woo, bias). In any case you can bet they've spent months planning out how to twist the whole situation to their advantage, and no matter what the Russians own sources tell them, got to blame those Ukrainian Nationalists for everything horrible that goes on in that war.
It is funny that when the US produces a sattelite image everyone believes it and when Russia produces a sattelite image everyone thinks it is manipulation. It is almost as if the US didn't have a long track record of manipulation to further its political goals.
Regardless, this picture, like the American ones, does not prove anything.
I fear we will never be able to find the truth. Only a thorough research on the wreckage by a completely independent third party might have been able to find a trustworthy conclusion. But this is impossible now.
It was impossible to manage that from that start given that the locals tampered with the crash scene and the Russians had their men go in and remove the evidence. Like I said, if this is true then its just showing the Kremlin to be a bunch of gakheads for not releasing it when it actually mattered. They've came up with this just to gak stir, but well that's a summary of what we've been seeing Russian foreign policy doing for how long lately? Real or not, as long as it pisses off their opponents the Kremlin's met its goal. Yup, this is how cold wars start.
Wyrmalla wrote: It was impossible to manage that from that start given that the locals tampered with the crash scene and the Russians had their men go in and remove the evidence. Like I said, if this is true then its just showing the Kremlin to be a bunch of gakheads for not releasing it when it actually mattered. They've came up with this just to gak stir, but well that's a summary of what we've been seeing Russian foreign policy doing for how long lately? Real or not, as long as it pisses off their opponents the Kremlin's met its goal. Yup, this is how cold wars start.
It never ended (for us, the "West"). Why else did we keep NATO after winning the last one?
Because the real threat of the soviet union was and always has been Russia
The soviet union was simply the evolution and extension of the Russian empire. That's where the power came from the Russia not the occupied states of eastern Europe.
Thats why you hear the language change in those countries instead now referring to their past history as the Russian occupation rather than the soviet union
Putin believes that it is still Russia's right to rule of the people in eastern Europe
Why is it that former soviet states have turned to both the EU and the US instead of Russia?
It isn't fething western "meddling" it's countries who frankly do not want to be ruled indirectly by Russia
It's fething disgusting imperialistic policies and visions coming from the Kremlin
That's why NATO exist's it gives smaller countries that can't defend themselves from imperialistic Russian aggression and occupation
Iron_Captain wrote: It is funny that when the US produces a sattelite image everyone believes it and when Russia produces a sattelite image everyone thinks it is manipulation. It is almost as if the US didn't have a long track record of manipulation to further its political goals.
The difference being that Russia has everything to gain from manipulating this photo.
Not so much with most of the stuff the US photographs.
Why is it that former soviet states have turned to both the EU and the US instead of Russia?
It isn't fething western "meddling" it's countries who frankly do not want to be ruled indirectly by Russia
It's fething disgusting imperialistic policies and visions coming from the Kremlin
That's why NATO exist's it gives smaller countries that can't defend themselves from imperialistic Russian aggression and occupation
What? There exist countries that do not want to be ruled by Russia? That is liberast nonsense! All peoples want to become one with Mother Russia and enjoy our benevolent overlordship by giving us all their resources!
But in all seriousness, the coin has two sides. Russian imperialism is mainly caused by the Russian's need to feel safe. For this they must establish buffer zones between their country and it's enemies. Given their history, Russians start feeling really nervous when a hostile military alliance approaches their borders. This provokes agression and imperialism. Russia wants to be feared in order to deter the potential invader. Because of all the invasions and bloodshed, Russia is a traumatised nation obsessed with military strength and buffer zones. Of course, this clashes with peoples surrounding Russia that want to be free and independent. It is a vicious circle: 1. Russia feels threatened. 2. Russia invades neighbours to create buffers. 3. Subjugated peoples regain independence and feel threatened by Russia. 4. Former Russian sattelites join Russia's enemies to protect themselves from Russia. 5. Russia feels threatened. This circle has turned around several times now, and it must be broken to ensure lasting peace in Eastern Europe. NATO is not the right way of doing so, it only reinforces the circle.
Iron_Captain wrote: It is funny that when the US produces a sattelite image everyone believes it and when Russia produces a sattelite image everyone thinks it is manipulation. It is almost as if the US didn't have a long track record of manipulation to further its political goals.
The difference being that Russia has everything to gain from manipulating this photo.
Not so much with most of the stuff the US photographs.
The US has plenty to gain in shifting the blame on Russia.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russian imperialism is mainly caused by the Russian's need to feel safe.
Okay... I just have to ask...
What did the US/EU/"the West" really *do* that makes Russian feel unsafe?
Pfff... That is a long story.
It started when the US and other Western nations invaded Russia during the Civil War. (though perhaps it can also be traced back to the Great Game and the Crimean War)
Since that time, Western political rhetoric has often been quite hostile to Russia. WW2 was a good opportunity for a fresh start, but hawkish and inflexible politicians on both sides got the whole relations messed up even more, resulting in the Cold War.
And after the end of the Cold War, Russia felt it was abandoned and ignored by the West, which resulted in even more feelings of animosity.
The public opinion and political rhetoric in the West has long been very anti-Russian, which has led to many Russians seeing the West as a threat and enemy.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russian imperialism is mainly caused by the Russian's need to feel safe.
Okay... I just have to ask...
What did the US/EU/"the West" really *do* that makes Russian feel unsafe?
Pfff... That is a long story.
It started when the US and other Western nations invaded Russia during the Civil War. (though perhaps it can also be traced back to the Great Game and the Crimean War)
Since that time, Western political rhetoric has often been quite hostile to Russia. WW2 was a good opportunity for a fresh start, but hawkish and inflexible politicians on both sides got the whole relations messed up even more, resulting in the Cold War.
And after the end of the Cold War, Russia felt it was abandoned and ignored by the West, which resulted in even more feelings of animosity.
The public opinion and political rhetoric in the West has long been very anti-Russian, which has led to many Russians seeing the West as a threat and enemy.
I meant now...
I mean... I grew up during the hey-days of the "Cold War" during the 80's.
After that... what did Russia want from the West? How did we abandon/ignore Russia?
<---- sorry... just a confused, red-necked midwestern 'Murrican here...
Iron_Captain wrote: Russian imperialism is mainly caused by the Russian's need to feel safe.
Okay... I just have to ask...
What did the US/EU/"the West" really *do* that makes Russian feel unsafe?
Pfff... That is a long story.
It started when the US and other Western nations invaded Russia during the Civil War. (though perhaps it can also be traced back to the Great Game and the Crimean War)
Since that time, Western political rhetoric has often been quite hostile to Russia. WW2 was a good opportunity for a fresh start, but hawkish and inflexible politicians on both sides got the whole relations messed up even more, resulting in the Cold War.
And after the end of the Cold War, Russia felt it was abandoned and ignored by the West, which resulted in even more feelings of animosity.
The public opinion and political rhetoric in the West has long been very anti-Russian, which has led to many Russians seeing the West as a threat and enemy.
I meant now...
I mean... I grew up during the hey-days of the "Cold War" during the 80's.
After that... what did Russia want from the West? How did we abandon/ignore Russia?
<---- sorry... just a confused, red-necked midwestern 'Murrican here...
Nothing really, this is just a standard Russian line of argument, "We may be bad but you are worse!"
In reality Russia will always seek to dominate its neighbors because that's what great powers do.
I think it all boils down to a few things people alike can never get along. As an outsider looking in I can tell you a few things america, Russia and brit are all the same. with usa/Russia more like twins. Just usa had/has better allies.
Both only feel safe when they can blow someone up, both lie to their people so badly and zealously that everyone else is evil and on a weekly basis they are doing a new pissing contest with someone/group that no one ever heard of. Almost like they are so scared to be alone that once they beat up this guy they look around for the next guy walking by to be the new super bad enemy. But you guys have each other so you keep your hate for each other, I think forever. Just like bad neighbors you will hate til one of ya drops dead.
Well china ignors war and is passing everyone.... we are so boned lol
Well atleast the Ukrainians provided a reasonable reason on why the airplane was shot down (buk), while the russian explanation seems to be fabricated, as the idea that a su-25 shot down another highflying airplane is silly. Althogh what most likely happened is that somebody shot down the airplane by accident, and now both sides are trying to take the PR advangatege of it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: And Russia is determined to cling to its status as a "great power" despite never really being one to begin with.
There was no way Russia could have "won" the Cold War. It's economy couldn't sustain the spending required to keep pace with the post-WW2 US.
That has me stirring up one of my lecturer's favorite quotes, I think it was Gorbachev: "Describe the state of the Soviet economy in one word", Gorbachev, "good". "Well how about with two?", "Not good".
Iron_Captain wrote: It is funny that when the US produces a sattelite image everyone believes it and when Russia produces a sattelite image everyone thinks it is manipulation.
But if you discount all of those things, it's probably real.
PS your ability to buy the state message despite all critical thinking, facts, and common sense really explains a lot about why the Russian government acts the way it does, btw. Thank you for being a little bit of insight into how that works for the rest of the world. If I was Putin I'd probably make up tons of crazy stuff too, secure in the knowledge someone like you would be ardently defending the idea that, like, I could breathe underwater, or that I invented scotch tape, or what have you.
Iron_Captain wrote: It is funny that when the US produces a sattelite image everyone believes it and when Russia produces a sattelite image everyone thinks it is manipulation. It is almost as if the US didn't have a long track record of manipulation to further its political goals.
Well, as numerous Russian bloggers, photojournalists, and aircraft fan clubs have pointed out, the picture is an obvious fake. The Malaysian airlines logo is in the wrong place on the airliner, and the jet firing is a Mig. The background and it's clouds come from a google earth image taken in the area from 2012.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russian imperialism is mainly caused by the Russian's need to feel safe.
Okay... I just have to ask...
What did the US/EU/"the West" really *do* that makes Russian feel unsafe?
Pfff... That is a long story. It started when the US and other Western nations invaded Russia during the Civil War. (though perhaps it can also be traced back to the Great Game and the Crimean War) Since that time, Western political rhetoric has often been quite hostile to Russia. WW2 was a good opportunity for a fresh start, but hawkish and inflexible politicians on both sides got the whole relations messed up even more, resulting in the Cold War. And after the end of the Cold War, Russia felt it was abandoned and ignored by the West, which resulted in even more feelings of animosity. The public opinion and political rhetoric in the West has long been very anti-Russian, which has led to many Russians seeing the West as a threat and enemy.
I meant now...
I mean... I grew up during the hey-days of the "Cold War" during the 80's.
After that... what did Russia want from the West? How did we abandon/ignore Russia?
<---- sorry... just a confused, red-necked midwestern 'Murrican here...
It really is a very complex relationship, and I don't think I am the right person to explain it. Nonetheless, I shall try. After the Soviet Union fell, most Russian people hoped to become a stable Western-style democracy. Of course, in a society that had been highly autocratic for over 1000 years, this would be a difficult task. The Russians expected the West to help with this, just as they had helped to build democracy in Germany and Japan after WW2. However, this did not happen. Instead, the West kept on cheering for the corrupt mafia dictator Yeltsin, even after he had the parliament bombed. The West also kept pushing for the free market reforms that were ravaging Russian society. This blind support disillusioned many Russians with the West. It became much worse though after the West supported the Chechen terrorists. But the greatest contributing factor was the enduring russophobia and hypocrisy in Western media and politicians. This is a good article I found on that: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/03/why-do-they-hate-russia-201435102838387692.html
Iron_Captain wrote: It is funny that when the US produces a sattelite image everyone believes it and when Russia produces a sattelite image everyone thinks it is manipulation. It is almost as if the US didn't have a long track record of manipulation to further its political goals.
Well, as numerous Russian bloggers, photojournalists, and aircraft fan clubs have pointed out, the picture is an obvious fake. The Malaysian airlines logo is in the wrong place on the airliner, and the jet firing is a Mig. The background and it's clouds come from a google earth image taken in the area from 2012.
Edit: Damn, ninja'd.
I know, altough the jet in the picture is a SU-27, not a MiG. The picture is a rather amateurish fake. The passenger plane in the picture appears to be the same as the first Google image search result for боинг сверху. Nonetheless, I did not hear anyone here in this thread about some of the highly dubious American?Ukrainian "evidence".
C) When did the West support Chechen insurrection? The only thing I remember from the Chechen ordeal was Beslan crisis, and we didn't touch that even with a borrow dick. (RU told everyone to feth off, it's Russia's problem)
Wyrmalla wrote: It was impossible to manage that from that start given that the locals tampered with the crash scene and the Russians had their men go in and remove the evidence. Like I said, if this is true then its just showing the Kremlin to be a bunch of gakheads for not releasing it when it actually mattered. They've came up with this just to gak stir, but well that's a summary of what we've been seeing Russian foreign policy doing for how long lately? Real or not, as long as it pisses off their opponents the Kremlin's met its goal. Yup, this is how cold wars start.
It never ended (for us, the "West"). Why else did we keep NATO after winning the last one?
Because no bureaucracy ever voluntarily ends. Duh!
Iron_Captain wrote: It is funny that when the US produces a sattelite image everyone believes it and when Russia produces a sattelite image everyone thinks it is manipulation. It is almost as if the US didn't have a long track record of manipulation to further its political goals.
Well, as numerous Russian bloggers, photojournalists, and aircraft fan clubs have pointed out, the picture is an obvious fake. The Malaysian airlines logo is in the wrong place on the airliner, and the jet firing is a Mig. The background and it's clouds come from a google earth image taken in the area from 2012.
Edit: Damn, ninja'd.
I know, altough the jet in the picture is a SU-27, not a MiG. The picture is a rather amateurish fake. The passenger plane in the picture appears to be the same as the first Google image search result for боинг сверху.
Nonetheless, I did not hear anyone here in this thread about some of the highly dubious American?Ukrainian "evidence".
Russia's embattled free press was struck another blow this week by the ouster of two high profile journalists who provoked the ire of authorities.
The owners of Echo of Moscow, one of Russia's oldest critical media outlets, fired popular radio personality Alexander Plyushev on Thursday over a crass tweet. But the move smelled more of political censorship than moral indignation, coming only a week after Plyushev hosted a banned show about Ukrainian troops holding the Donetsk airport against pro-Russian separatists.
The outlet's editors had little doubt as to why Plyushev had been dismissed. "This is part of a trend toward the standardization of the mass media as a propaganda tool rather than a place of dialogue, so that there will be less criticism and fewer alternative opinions," Echo of Moscow deputy editor-in-chief Sergei Buntman told VICE News.
On Monday, Mikhail Mikhailin, editor of the respected newspaper Kommersant, resigned amid a scandal over a report that state oil behemoth Rosneft, run by President Vladimir Putin's close ally Igor Sechin, was preparing a draconian response to Western sanctions.
Meanwhile, in an indication of what the Russian press may look like without pesky critical voices like Kommersant and Echo of Moscow, leading state media propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov unveiled SputnikNews.com on Monday. The pro-Kremlin outlet will publish news and commentary and eventually radio broadcasts in 30 different languages. One of the promoted pieces on the day of the site's debut was a column by Polish neo-Nazi Mateusz Piskorski, who attempted to argue that "Trotskist (sic) policy has grown into a global threat," and is driving the US foreign policy agenda.
The Kremlin's other main English-language news outlet, RT, was summoned to a meeting with the UK's media regulator Ofsted on Monday for a "failure to preserve due partiality" in reports about Ukraine.
The saga around radio host Plyushev started with an October 29 broadcast discussing Los Angeles Times correspondent Sergei Loiko's time inside the Donetsk airport, which pro-Russian rebels have not managed to capture in two months of heavy fighting. Describing the Ukrainian soldiers who are holed up up in the new terminal, where "cigarettes aren't allowed — the sniper shoots by the third puff," Loiko said he "saw that in the airport, absolute good … is fighting with absolute evil, with these orcs who surround the airport and pummel it with Grad rockets, mortars, etc."
The Russian government's communications watchdog evidently didn't like the comparison of the Russia-backed rebels to "orcs" and the rest of the interview, as two days later Echo of Moscow received a warning for spreading "information justifying war crimes." A media outlet can be closed after two warnings in one year.
But Plyushev was only fired by Gazprom Media after a tweet, admittedly in poor taste, about the accidental death of presidential chief of staff Sergei Ivanov's son, who had previously made headlines in 2005 when he avoided charges for striking and killing a 68-year-old woman with his car. "Do you think the death of Ivanov's son, who once crashed into a pensioner and sued her son-in-law, proves the existence of god/higher justice?" Plyushev wrote. He soon took the tweet down and apologized after a public outcry.
Plyushev's dismissal sparked a Twitter "flashmob" of selfies with people contorting their mouths to one side in the style of the host's trademark jokey facial expression. He himself has declined to comment on the situation.
However, Echo of Moscow editor-in-chief Alexei Venediktov argued that according to the company charter and to Russian mass media law, Gazprom Media didn't have the right to fire Plyushev without the editor's permission. Barred by security from entering the outlet's offices, Plyushev nonetheless conducted his show early Saturday morning via Skype.
During a show on Friday, Venediktov tied the story with Plyushev and the attacks on Echo of Moscow with a larger campaign to force criticism of the authorities off the airwaves and out of print.
"There's a desire among the country's elite for single-mindedness and a unified information policy," Venediktov said. "It's clear that Echo of Moscow is breaking out of this. The main, big media, nationwide media are media without debates, without alternative points of view, without the possibility of discussion, because the discussions they have … are ridiculous. In such a situation, the existence of Echo of Moscow is a rebuke to the rest."
Under its crusading editor, Echo of Moscow has been running critical coverage of those in power since 1990, even after it was acquired in 2001 by the media company of state gas giant Gazprom. But in February, the outlet's long-time general director was replaced by the senior editor of state radio station Voice of Russia, who is married to the deputy director of the presidential press service.
In October, Gazprom Media head Mikhail Lesin, a former adviser to Putin, reportedly tried to prevent Echo of Moscow from running a controversial interview with opposition leader Alexei Navalny, the first interview since a court lifted a ban on speaking with the press during the ongoing criminal trial against him. A week later, Russia's emergencies ministry conducted an unusual surprise inspection of the station's offices in what many viewed as an intimidation tactic.
The turmoil at Echo of Moscow is part of a larger crackdown on independent media this year. In January, TV channel Dozhd was dropped by broadcasters, and in March the editor of news site Lenta.ru was replaced with a pro-Kremlin figure. In October, newspaper Novaya Gazeta received a warning for "extremism" over a column criticizing attempts by Putin and other politicians to position traditional "Russian culture" as a bastion against Western cultural and religious depravation.
In September, the parliament passed a law banning foreigners from owning more than a 20 percent stake in Russian media outlets, a restriction that will impact the major independent newspaper Vedomosti and numerous glossy magazines and television channels. The legislation is allegedly designed to limit nefarious foreign influence in the midst of a propaganda war with the West over Ukraine. Russian state media have misleadingly portrayed the Kiev government that came to power in February as a "fascist junta" carrying out a genocide against Ukraine's Russian-speakers.
Another law this summer requires popular bloggers to register as mass media outlets, subjecting them to government oversight and, in the opinion of critics, intimidation and censorship.
Even in the movie industry, state oversight has been expanded. A new law requires all films to obtain a distribution certificate, including just to be shown at a festival, and other recent regulations require scripts to be defended before a panel of cultural ministry experts.
In an incident that may or not be tied to the intimidation of Kremlin critics, actor and outspoken opposition activist Alexei Devotchenko was found dead last week in a pool of blood, with one police source reportedly saying foul play was suspected.
The departure of Kommersant editor Mikhailishin on Monday hinted at pressure on the newspaper, despite Rosneft's denial that it had anything to do with his resignation. The publication has been in hot water since it reported in October that Rosneft had demanded Putin take extreme steps to support the economy amid Western sanctions, including allowing the expropriation of equipment from Western oil and gas companies working in Russia. In response, Rosneft said it would sue Kommersant, accusing it of attempting to "provoke a new round of Western sanctions."
Some pundits are predicting that the closure of Echo of Moscow, the oldest truly critical news outlet in Russia, may not be far off. RuNet Echo editor Kevin Rothrock, an expert on the Russian-language internet, argued in a recent piece that the outlet's special relationship with the Kremlin that allowed it to speak truth to power had unraveled. Putin reportedly once told Venediktov that he considered him an "enemy," but not a "traitor," the difference being that at least enemies can be negotiated with. Now, however, Venediktov says he doesn't "understand the new Putin" and hasn't spoken to him in a year.
"That is a very bad sign," Rothrock wrote. "Vladimir Putin talks to his enemies. A traitor, on the other hand, must be destroyed."
Buntman said he expects there will be attempts to close the radio station but vowed it would not change its editorial policy.
"Our future is unclear because, as we've been saying, the trend to limit the mass media as much as possible to a single tone and a single way of presenting information is only growing," he said.
Iron_Captain wrote: And after the end of the Cold War, Russia felt it was abandoned and ignored by the West, which resulted in even more feelings of animosity. The public opinion and political rhetoric in the West has long been very anti-Russian, which has led to many Russians seeing the West as a threat and enemy. It really is a very complex relationship, and I don't think I am the right person to explain it. Nonetheless, I shall try.
After the Soviet Union fell, most Russian people hoped to become a stable Western-style democracy. Of course, in a society that had been highly autocratic for over 1000 years, this would be a difficult task. The Russians expected the West to help with this, just as they had helped to build democracy in Germany and Japan after WW2. However, this did not happen.
Instead, the West kept on cheering for the corrupt mafia dictator Yeltsin, even after he had the parliament bombed. The West also kept pushing for the free market reforms that were ravaging Russian society. This blind support disillusioned many Russians with the West. It became much worse though after the West supported the Chechen terrorists.
But the greatest contributing factor was the enduring russophobia and hypocrisy in Western media and politicians.
This is something a lot of westerners, Americans especially, don't know about. But I don't expect them to either. The whole world conquering super villain image of Putin really needs to go away. Obviously I don't defend what they did in Ukraine but it was bound to happen sooner or later.
fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=
