Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Horus was loved and admired by those under him, even after he did all sorts of terrible things.

That said, being a "bad guy" almost always has a subjective, point of view component, rarely is simply a purely binomial state of affairs.

To use an example, at the risk of effectively "Godwin'ing" the thread to some degree, Stalin was by most people's accounts a "bad guy", but was widely admired by many citizens of the USSR even as he orchestrated the killing and repression of huge numbers of them. At the same time, it could be argued that both his presence/personality and the totalitarian state he built were necessary for the USSR to have survived and overcome the German invasion of the Soviet Union and that a more open and democratic state may have cracked and broken (as happened in most of western Europe) and that without him Hitler could have emerged victorious and that would have led to even greater slaughter and disaster.

So, yes, everything is subjective and related to a point of view and there are multiple sides to everything, but that still doesn't mean that being loved and admired disqualifies one from being a "bad guy".

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I have to admit, he does look the part. But a proper villain usually is not greatly loved and admired by his own people.

Yes, because beloved, charismatic leaders have NEVER turned out to be evil donkey-caves.

Yes, Hitler was so beloved by his people that they staged multiple assassination attempts on him...
Hitler could only dream of having approval rates like Putin.
In general, once a charismatic leader starts being an evil donkey-cave, he usually stops being beloved.

His people didn't stage assassinations attempts on him, his generals did. For the general people, and until Germany started genuinely loosing the war in 1944, yes Hitler had very high approval ratings.

Also Mao, Stalin, all the Kim Jongs, Chavez, Castro, all of those staged the murder and torture of hundreds, thousands and millions of people and had the same type of approval ratings that Putin has amongst their respective peoples.

Pretty much only dictators ever achieve those types of approval ratings because only in dictatorships can the ruling class control the flow of information and silence the opposing voices so thoroughly and Russia today resembles a dictatorship in everything but the name.

Vaktathi wrote:but was widely admired by many citizens of the USSR

Not only WAS in USSR, also he IS considered mostly as good guy on post-Soviet region.
That a difference between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. First praise an individual, a single man, second are ready to sacrifice single man for the sake of a strong society.
Stalin is associated here mostly with order, power and progress, not with terror. Nowadays here is a proverb which can be hardly translated, but I think this should be correct: "One lack Stalin to induce you have order".
In any case, he is a very controversial and prominent figure in russian and world history, and cannot be judged just as good or bad guy. And anyone should ask himself, what would he do in that place, in that time, in that situation, if one wants to judge him.

IMHO since russians are collectivistic, democracy with western standards has no chance here. Also as in China and Arabia.
So I just ask you to take into account that people on other side of Earth can have absolutely different views on some things, even some fundamental things.

2 Iron_captain: combination of words "shades of gray" after one popular film sounds weird


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

Pretty much only dictators ever achieve those types of approval ratings because only in dictatorships can the ruling class control the flow of information and silence the opposing voices so thoroughly and Russia today resembles a dictatorship in everything but the name.

It makes me laughter when people believe that in totalitarian Russia media is controlled and in fact represents a propaganda, but eastern media are democratic and saying truth, not propaganda. Main goal of every media everywhere in every time was, is and will be to create required public opinion, not to say truth, and there is no difference what regime is in that country.
Your media is lying in familiar way to you so it looks weird to us, our news are lying in familiar way to us and weird way to you, because the target audience is different.

And stop thinking that people had that approval only because of government propaganda. Hitler created mighty industrial state on basis of depressed and ruined Germany after WW1, so strong that whole Europe was conquered. If Hitler was murdered in 1941-1943 he should be national hero of Germany for today.
About Stalin the best word said Isaac Deutscher (often people say that this is Churchill's words) : "...he found Russia working with wooden plows and left it equipped with atomic piles". Despite of GULAGs and propaganda there are many thing for what people loved him then and respect now.

Asadjud wrote:

It makes me laughter when people believe that in totalitarian Russia media is controlled and in fact represents a propaganda, but eastern media are democratic and saying truth, not propaganda. Main goal of every media everywhere in every time was, is and will be to create required public opinion, not to say truth, and there is no difference what regime is in that country.

Actually, once upon a time, media was about fact. It was a dim period between William R. Hearst and Rupert Murdoch, and typified by newsmen like Walter Cronkite.

Further, in this day and age, it's possible to use the internet to get a much broader view than before, meaning that the overall impact of national media is more limited. I don't watch American news, for example. (with the exception of Jon Stewart.)

Asadjud wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Pretty much only dictators ever achieve those types of approval ratings because only in dictatorships can the ruling class control the flow of information and silence the opposing voices so thoroughly and Russia today resembles a dictatorship in everything but the name.

It makes me laughter when people believe that in totalitarian Russia media is controlled and in fact represents a propaganda, but eastern media are democratic and saying truth, not propaganda. Main goal of every media everywhere in every time was, is and will be to create required public opinion, not to say truth, and there is no difference what regime is in that country.
Your media is lying in familiar way to you so it looks weird to us, our news are lying in familiar way to us and weird way to you, because the target audience is different.

Except that western media has a very slight difference to Russian media: you have several conflicting opinions and views on practically everything, there is no unified message like there is in Russian media (or in the media of most dictatorships) and that allows people to make up their own minds about any given subject. But when all that everyone hears is the same message over and over, then that is what generates these high approval ratings... If no one is disagreeing with the great leader then that can only mean that he is right about everything, right?

Murdering and imprisoning you political opponents has the "unintended" side effect of making the ones that remain shut up and stop disagreeing with you.

And if you wan't to discuss relative media bias, call me when you have western reporters resigning their jobs because they can't stand the propaganda that their own network is spewing...

Looks like the threats are set to continue

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-warns-us-against-sending-missile-defence-system-095320485.html

Russia on Tuesday warned the United States against sending a ballistic missile defence system to South Korea, saying it could threaten regional security.

Washington says it wants to deploy the system, known as THAAD, to South Korea as a deterrent to military provocation by North Korea.

"Such a development cannot but cause concern about the destructive influence of the United States' global missile defence on international security," Russia's foreign ministry said in a statement.

"In a region where the situation is already extremely complicated in terms of security, this could serve as another push toward an arms race in northeast Asia and further complicate any resolution of the nuclear issues on the Korean peninsula," the statement said.

China has also already warned that deployment of the system would undermine peace and stability in the region.

Faced with growing isolation from the West over the Ukraine crisis, Russia has moved to bolster ties with former Cold War-ally North Korea.

Moscow and Pyongyang have named 2015 a "year of friendship" between the two countries and the Kremlin says reclusive leader Kim Jong-Un is set to make his first official trip abroad to visit Russia's World War Two victory commemoration in May.

South Korea and the United States will launch a massive landing drill March 28 as the climax of an ongoing joint military exercise which North Korea views as an invasion rehearsal.

I'm so confused about the different sides.

Putin (and the whole oil and trying to secure a port thing aside) aside, can someone explain to me the motivations of the pro-Ukraine and pro-Russian sides? Are they fighting for reasons more than nationalism?

As far as I see it, the pro-Russian side wants to join Russia, but don't actually want to go to Russia, and the pro-Ukrainian, want Ukraine to stay Ukraine.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I have to admit, he does look the part. But a proper villain usually is not greatly loved and admired by his own people.

Yes, because beloved, charismatic leaders have NEVER turned out to be evil donkey-caves.

Yes, Hitler was so beloved by his people that they staged multiple assassination attempts on him...
Hitler could only dream of having approval rates like Putin.
In general, once a charismatic leader starts being an evil donkey-cave, he usually stops being beloved.

Usually by people who knew what was going on (high ranking military), and even then those attempts were aimed to prevent Hitler from fething over Germany, because the man was a walking military catastrophe, not because he was a feth-sucking human gak-hook.

Considering that, it's entirely possible for Putin to be a feth-sucking human gak-hook AND be the circle-jerk idol for the Russian people.

Also, Hitler wouldn't have had to have dreamt to experience those sorts of approval ratings. In fact, Putin's approval ratings, depending on what year we're talking about, would have meant Hitler losing ground with the German people.

http://news.yahoo.com/swedish-military-reports-russian-aircraft-over-baltic-sea-130752850.html

STOCKHOLM (AP) — The Swedish Air Force and NATO jets on Tuesday tracked four Russian combat aircraft flying with their transponders turned off over the Baltic Sea, officials said.

The Russian planes — two long-range, nuclear-capable Tu-22M3 bombers and two Sukhoi Su-27 fighters — were flying in international airspace, according to Sweden's Armed Forces and alliance sources.

NATO said it scrambled Danish jets and Italian jets based in Lithuania early Tuesday to identify the Russian aircraft which it said were heading to the Russian Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad.

"The Russian military aircraft did not use their onboard transponder; they were not in contact with civilian Air Traffic Control and they were not on a pre-filed flight plan," a NATO military officer said on condition he not be identified by name in keeping with alliance practice.

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom said it was "unacceptable" for the Russian planes to be flying with shut-off transponders that are necessary for identifying aircraft on radar, calling it violation of international aviation rules.

"This has happened now on a number of occasions and in a very challenging way," Wallstrom told reporters in Stockholm. "We are tired of always having to protest against this kind of ... breach of rules."

NATO and Sweden, which is not a member of the alliance, have reported an increase in Russian air maneuvers over the Baltic Sea in recent years.

Tuesday's sighting comes as Finnish and Swedish military aircraft are preparing to train with U.S. fighters over the Baltic Sea, and American and NATO forces continue military exercises in the Baltic countries.

The Swedish military said the threat against Sweden had not grown but that the armed forces were watching the "increased activity" in the region.

 Stonebeard wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I have to admit, he does look the part. But a proper villain usually is not greatly loved and admired by his own people.

Yes, because beloved, charismatic leaders have NEVER turned out to be evil donkey-caves.

Yes, Hitler was so beloved by his people that they staged multiple assassination attempts on him...
Hitler could only dream of having approval rates like Putin.
In general, once a charismatic leader starts being an evil donkey-cave, he usually stops being beloved.

Usually by people who knew what was going on (high ranking military), and even then those attempts were aimed to prevent Hitler from fething over Germany, because the man was a walking military catastrophe, not because he was a feth-sucking human gak-hook.

Considering that, it's entirely possible for Putin to be a feth-sucking human gak-hook AND be the circle-jerk idol for the Russian people.

Also, Hitler wouldn't have had to have dreamt to experience those sorts of approval ratings. In fact, Putin's approval ratings, depending on what year we're talking about, would have meant Hitler losing ground with the German people.

I would think that an even more relevant comparison between Putin and Hitler would be their goals more so than their domestic popularity. Putins move into Crimea and Ukraine isn't much different from Hitler's seizure of the Sudetenland and East Prussia and Danzig. As I understand it, Ukraine, especially in the eastern part and Crimea, has plenty of people who self identify as Russian be it ethnically, culturally or politically. That's not surprising given the history of the region. Putin's move into the Crimea and Ukraine has been justified as the liberating of Russians who want the Ukraine/Crimea to be a satelite state of Russia inside Russia's sphere of influence. It will likely be easier to contain Putin than Hitler because I doubt Putin wants to invade Europe after he achieves his goals in Crimea and the Ukraine.

I don't foresee the US or EU engaging in active combat in the Ukraine against Russia for the basically all the same reasons that NATO stayed out of Hungary in 1956.

A less violent political solution could have been worked out internally by the various Ukranian political factions if it hadn't been for some ham fisted diplomacy and interference in the Ukraine by the US and EU. A more deft foreign policy and a willingness to keep Western involvement to a level of economic and political involvement just enough to counter balance Russia's influence to ensure Ukrainian self determination without trying to reach the unachievable goal of creating a Ukraine that could actively oppose Russian interests would have better served everyone.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As far as I see it, the pro-Russian side wants to join Russia, but don't actually want to go to Russia, and the pro-Ukrainian, want Ukraine to stay Ukraine.

Lol no, I get that.

But for the people, what's the difference between joining Russia or not?

Originally I thought economics, social freedoms, etc. but the more I look at it, the more the two sides look the same.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Looks like the threats are set to continue

Indeed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-threat-to-bomb-nato-warships-over-missile-defense-draws-rebuke/

BUCHAREST, Romania -- Britain's defense secretary says NATO members Romania and Britain will not be intimidated by threats against members of the military alliance.

"Neither Romania nor Britain will be intimidated by threats to its alliance or its members," Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said Monday during a one-day visit.

His remarks came days after Russia's ambassador to Denmark, Mikhail Vanin, said in a published report that Danish warships could become targets for Russian nuclear missiles if the Danes join the alliance's missile defense system. Bases are planned in the southern Romanian town of Deveselu and in Poland.

"I do not think Danes fully understand the consequences of what happens if Denmark joins the U.S.-led missile defense. If this happens, Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles," Vanin was quoted as saying by the newspaper Jyllands-Posten on Saturday.

Should Danes join "we risk considering each other as enemies," he added.

I wonder if Putin understands that diplomacy involves a carrot as well as a ten megaton stick?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

A less violent political solution could have been worked out internally by the various Ukranian political factions if it hadn't been for some ham fisted diplomacy and interference in the Ukraine by the US and EU. A more deft foreign policy and a willingness to keep Western involvement to a level of economic and political involvement just enough to counter balance Russia's influence to ensure Ukrainian self determination without trying to reach the unachievable goal of creating a Ukraine that could actively oppose Russian interests would have better served everyone.

Unfortunately, It's hard to create good, balanced diplomacy when troops are already on the move, and have already annexed a big chunk of the country your negotiating with. They tend to scream for aid and troops and all the guns you can do.

 KiloFiX wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As far as I see it, the pro-Russian side wants to join Russia, but don't actually want to go to Russia, and the pro-Ukrainian, want Ukraine to stay Ukraine.

Lol no, I get that.

But for the people, what's the difference between joining Russia or not?

Originally I thought economics, social freedoms, etc. but the more I look at it, the more the two sides look the same.

They are essentially the same with the difference that Ukraine is even more fethed up.

I wonder when the separatists will get these?

 KiloFiX wrote:
I'm so confused about the different sides.

Putin (and the whole oil and trying to secure a port thing aside) aside, can someone explain to me the motivations of the pro-Ukraine and pro-Russian sides? Are they fighting for reasons more than nationalism?

Ukraine depicts Russia as bloodthirsty evil empire that stands behind all the bad stuff going on in their country and Russia depicts Ukraine as crazy nazi who want to oppress and eventually eliminate russian (nationality) civilians.

It's hard to tell what's going on - there's heavy propaganda involved on both sides. What we know for sure is that there's currently civil war in the North-East of Ukraine.

A little of both perhaps?

Ukraine governor Kolomoisky sacked after oil firm row
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32045990

Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko has sacked Ihor Kolomoisky - the billionaire governor of the key industrial region of Dnipropetrovsk.

It comes after armed men suspected of links to Mr Kolomoisky briefly occupied the offices of a state-owned oil firm in the capital Kiev.
Mr Kolomoisky was reportedly unhappy after parliament passed legislation aimed at weakening his influence.
Correspondents say the dispute could affect the conflict in the east.
It triggered fears of a major showdown between the tycoon and the state.

Ultimatum
n a statement released early on Wednesday, Mr Poroshenko's office named Valentyn Reznichenko as the new acting governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region.

It also quoted the president as saying during the talks with Mr Kolomoisky that the region - a centre of heavy industry - should remain "a bastion of Ukraine in the east and protect the peace".

Mr Kolomoisky - who is estimated to be worth more than $2bn (£1.3bn) - has been widely credited with helping bring order in Dnipropetrovsk and halt the advance of pro-Russian rebels further to the east.

He is also financing a number of Ukrainian battalions fighting the separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk region.

His dismissal comes days after armed men suspected of acting on orders from the oligarch briefly seized the headquarters of the Ukrnafta energy company and its subsidiary UkrTransNafta.

The armed men - whom Mr Kolomoisky said were from a private security firm - left the buildings after an ultimatum was issued by the central government.

Mr Kolomoisky claimed the armed men had tried to ward off an illegal takeover of Ukrnafta, in which the tycoon has a 42% stake. The state owns the rest of the oil and gas giant.

This happened after Ukraine's parliament had approved amendments to a law on state-owned companies that experts said effectively removed Mr Kolomoisky's control over Ukrnafta.

More here
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/fight-between-kolomoisky-and-state-turns-ugly-384323.html

Poland says they believe that Russia is gearing up for the same hybrid warfare against them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/polish-general-russia-using-hybrid-warfare-in-poland-2015-3

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Poland says they believe that Russia is gearing up for the same hybrid warfare against them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/polish-general-russia-using-hybrid-warfare-in-poland-2015-3

.

DAMMIT PUTIN STOP GODWINING THE THREAD!

Starting something like that with an EU country would lead to all sorts of Cold War style crap starting up in response I think. I foresee things being ramped up anyway, but something like that may be a bit too close to home for most Europeans. ...Though Ukraine was pretty close as well.

Ah, but yeah, the Russian government must be aware that they're going out of the way to Godwin the hell out of themselves at this point. Not that they care much. =P

 Stonebeard wrote:

And invade a NATO country? Putin might be nuts, but I doubt he's that stupid.

EDIT: Fiver on 6-12 months.

Might be getting that fiver.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

And invade a NATO country? Putin might be nuts, but I doubt he's that stupid.

EDIT: Fiver on 6-12 months.

Might be getting that fiver.

UGGGGGGGHH.......



A man could go poor underestimating just how bat-gak the Russian leadership is.

The US has supplied the Ukrainian government with armoured Humvees apparently. No guns, but its not like a PKM's too hard to come by. An indication of a ramping up in foreign involvement? ...Not that the US doesn't have plenty of these things to spare anyway (more so with the wind down in Afghanistan and the move to newer types of vehicles).

Edit: This comes after they bought up a gakton of old Saxons from the British btw. I'm wondering how much of a discount they were given? ...Especially given the Saxon's accident history since they've been deployed.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Poland says they believe that Russia is gearing up for the same hybrid warfare against them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/polish-general-russia-using-hybrid-warfare-in-poland-2015-3

Not going to happen. First of all, Poland is a stable country. The kind of sneaky annexation Russia did in Ukraine only works in unstable countries. Unless there would be a major destabilising event in Poland, such a thing is not going to work.
Secondly, Poland has no Russian minority, so there would be no local support which is necessary for the hybrid warfare Russia used in Ukraine.
Thirdly, why in Heaven's name would Putin ever want to attack Poland? There is absolutely nothing about Poland that relates to Russia's national interests in any way. The Poles have gone mad. (altough with their history, I can't blame them for being so suspicious to Russia)

BaronIveagh wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Poland says they believe that Russia is gearing up for the same hybrid warfare against them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/polish-general-russia-using-hybrid-warfare-in-poland-2015-3

.

DAMMIT PUTIN STOP GODWINING THE THREAD!

The only one godwinning the thread is you. Stop making comparisons that make no sense whatsoever. It makes you look dumb and ignorant of history and the present situation.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
The US has supplied the Ukrainian government with armoured Humvees apparently. No guns, but its not like a PKM's too hard to come by. An indication of a ramping up in foreign involvement? ...Not that the US doesn't have plenty of these things to spare anyway (more so with the wind down in Afghanistan and the move to newer types of vehicles).

Edit: This comes after they bought up a gakton of old Saxons from the British btw. I'm wondering how much of a discount they were given? ...Especially given the Saxon's accident history since they've been deployed.

They are in desert camouflage? Lol

 Iron_Captain wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Poland says they believe that Russia is gearing up for the same hybrid warfare against them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/polish-general-russia-using-hybrid-warfare-in-poland-2015-3

Not going to happen. First of all, Poland is a stable country. The kind of sneaky annexation Russia did in Ukraine only works in unstable countries. Unless there would be a major destabilising event in Poland, such a thing is not going to work.
Secondly, Poland has no Russian minority, so there would be no local support which is necessary for the hybrid warfare Russia used in Ukraine.
Thirdly, why in Heaven's name would Putin ever want to attack Poland? There is absolutely nothing about Poland that relates to Russia's national interests in any way. The Poles have gone mad. (altough with their history, I can't blame them for being so suspicious to Russia)

Sooo... why is Putin building up his military forces on the Polish border and moving theater level strategic weapons into place? Why is the government controlled media starting to slam the Poles? Hybrid warfare isn't about a Russian minority. It's about putting special forces and similar troops into play with a flimsy excuse, but enough of one to keep your nose clean. You don't need a destabilized country, you can make a stable country unstable... with a convenient rebellion say. This method of warfare is not new to Russian. It used be called Maskirovka. It's very, very clear that Putin, a former intelligence officer himself, has not forgotten this long standing peacetime and wartime tactic.

Let's all be clear. Russian troops have been in Ukraine, all over the fighting since this little "game" started. I'd wonder how much of the "rebel" forces are actually rebels. A lot of them are geared a lot like... Russian army soldiers, but there's just enough of a cover that no one can cry foul till solid evidence can be extracted. It's a beautiful execution of the strategy really.

I believe that most of the rebels are Ukranians.

But there have a been a few occasions were the Ukranian Army had the upper hand only to be stomped by the rebels. I believe that this defeats have been at the hands of Russians forces.

Also I really doubt that Russia is going to invade Poland for the reasons Iron_Captain mentioned. But better be prepared and paranoid.

I don't think they are either actually, but they're going to make it look like they are. Maybe even stir up a "rebellion". It's not really that Poland is a member of the EU. Poland is a member of NATO. Get NATO and the U.S. focusing away from Eastern Europe, looking towards ensuring the sovereignty of a NATO member... well. Who knows what can happen when the sheepdog's in another pasteur?

Or maybe Putin's going to go whole hog with a quick alpha strike in an attempt to recapture the bulk of the Warsaw Pact countries.

I think the latter's rather unlikely, but I don't doubt that strategic scenario is being discussed.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

They are in desert camouflage? Lol

That's easy enough to fix, it's probably just the basic factory paint. German tanks in WW2 operated on the Eastern Front in many of the same areas with a not-too-dissimilar base color called "Panzer Yellow". Fits into wheat fields, dirt trails, etc pretty ok.

It's easy enough to fix either way.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I don't think they are either actually, but they're going to make it look like they are. Maybe even stir up a "rebellion". It's not really that Poland is a member of the EU. Poland is a member of NATO. Get NATO and the U.S. focusing away from Eastern Europe, looking towards ensuring the sovereignty of a NATO member... well. Who knows what can happen when the sheepdog's in another pasteur?

Or maybe Putin's going to go whole hog with a quick alpha strike in an attempt to recapture the bulk of the Warsaw Pact countries.

I think the latter's rather unlikely, but I don't doubt that strategic scenario is being discussed.

Realistically, Russia doesn't have resources to wage a full-scale war against any western alliance. It probably does have resources to blast everyone to the orbit with nuclear weaponry but than you don't need to bolster the border too hard, do you?

Anywayz, Poland and Russia have long-going historical issues against each other. And anti-russian rhetoric is quite popular in Poland afaik. Especially since Poland's break-free from being a soviet satellite.