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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its not rigged.

IF there is an election, and it went the wrong way, it was just disappear. Again, we've seen this dance before in Russian client states.

Under those circumstances, I would be amongst those calling on Russia to withdraw instantly and respect the decision of the people. Likewise, I would join them if the vote appeared to be rigged, and voters coerced or intimidated.

But until then? There's no need to re-enact the Cold War Mk II over it. And the West just looks insanely reactionary and hypocritical.

Oh we don't need to start the Cold War. Don't assume we should care what happens to them. I just think the thought of a fair election run by Russians to be a prima facae farce.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its not rigged.

IF there is an election, and it went the wrong way, it was just disappear. Again, we've seen this dance before in Russian client states.

Under those circumstances, I would be amongst those calling on Russia to withdraw instantly and respect the decision of the people. Likewise, I would join them if the vote appeared to be rigged, and voters coerced or intimidated.

But until then? There's no need to re-enact the Cold War Mk II over it. And the West just looks insanely reactionary and hypocritical.

Oh we don't need to start the Cold War. Don't assume we should care what happens to them. I just think the thought of a fair election run by Russians to be a prima facae farce.

It's mildly amusing, isn't it? Russia is hardly what one would usually call a guarantor of human rights But like I said, they won't rig it, simply because they don't need to. And as long as the people get what they want, then well....be careful what you wish for? They may find in twenty years time that joining Russia will be easier than leaving.

True that.

Frankly I didn't know they had separated from Russia until all the protests started...

Interestingly enough, it seems that the reports over Russians storming the Ukrainian bases were nothing more than that. Stories.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26492053

No shots fired. The gate supposedly driven through still intact. And the military lorries actually surrounded by irregulars, not Russians troops. Although the aforementioned irregulars have kicked the crap out of some journalists.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The fact that a horrific injustice was committed to an ethnic group 70 years ago does not justify taking revenge by repeating that same injustice against the ethnic group of the dictator responsible for the original crime. And lets not forget that this dictator treated many members of his own ethnicity in similar ways - the gulags weren't just reserved for non-Russians.

An ethnic group that were in the majority in that area, an area now being touted as 'naturally Russia'... well, yes, if you persecute a people on an industrial level and move your own folks in, that's one way to do it, except for those of that people who remain in the area, along with all the other ethic groups with history there and no damned wish to be assimilated into Putin's new empire. But let's all say feth them, because they are in the minority now, so we must consider the Russians who were being...? Persecuted in Ukraine? Tortured? Forceably relocated? Not that I could see...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

After the Cold War when the Soviet Empire fell, the West had the chance to build a positive relationship with Russia. Instead, we chose to continue treating it with hostility and repeatedly humiliated and isolated it. I suppose every superpower needs a bogeyman.

We already had our bogeymen, they kneel to Mecca, Russia was just a mess, and it's officials and people in power were willing to sell out their own, their own nation and whore it out to the highest bidder. Where do you think these robber barons who invest their blood money in football teams and so on came from? Russians sold Russia down the river.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/03/peter-hitchens-vs-edward-lucas-on-the-crimea-confrontation.html

Rather than recognising that the Cold War was over, we re-started it for no good reason, encouraging Russia’s neighbours to join the EU or Nato as if the USSR still existed.
In recent months, the EU and the United States have been willing to wound but afraid to strike.
They have aggressively sought to detach Ukraine from Russia and draw her into the EU orbit, knowing very well that this would infuriate Moscow.
Rather than recognising that the Cold War was over, we re-started it for no good reason, encouraging Russia's neighbours to join the EU or Nato as if the USSR still existed

So it's the West's fault that we've been flirting with Russia's ex-wife after the divorce? So Russia is vindicated in showing up at her house in the middle of the night, claiming rights to the children and threatening to beat her up? And that's our fault for showing her a good time after he pissed off following an abusive marriage full of broken promises and scars?


Ridiculous.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The fact that a horrific injustice was committed to an ethnic group 70 years ago does not justify taking revenge by repeating that same injustice against the ethnic group of the dictator responsible for the original crime. And lets not forget that this dictator treated many members of his own ethnicity in similar ways - the gulags weren't just reserved for non-Russians.

An ethnic group that were in the majority in that area, an area now being touted as 'naturally Russia'... well, yes, if you persecute a people on an industrial level and move your own folks in, that's one way to do it, except for those of that people who remain in the area, along with all the other ethic groups with history there and no damned wish to be assimilated into Putin's new empire. But let's all say feth them, because they are in the minority now, so we must consider the Russians who were being...? Persecuted in Ukraine? Tortured? Forceably relocated? Not that I could see...

Naturally Russia? No, only since 1783. Your words are ironic and hypocritical, coming from an American. Give back the US to the native Americans, than you may speak. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
The new government in Kiev is clearly unfriendly towards Russians, denying them their rights to their own language and culture, and forcing them to learn Ukrainian. No wonder they want to be independent
Crimea is ethnically Russian now, and whether you like it or not, it is the way it is.
Besides that, Stalin wasn't even Russian, and Russians found their way to the Gulags as much as other ethnicities.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

After the Cold War when the Soviet Empire fell, the West had the chance to build a positive relationship with Russia. Instead, we chose to continue treating it with hostility and repeatedly humiliated and isolated it. I suppose every superpower needs a bogeyman.

We already had our bogeymen, they kneel to Mecca, Russia was just a mess, and it's officials and people in power were willing to sell out their own, their own nation and whore it out to the highest bidder. Where do you think these robber barons who invest their blood money in football teams and so on came from? Russians sold Russia down the river.

Muslims are hardly a suitable bogeyman. Not only are they unable to threaten the US on a large-scale level, there are also many muslims in the US who take offense. No, the US has never gotten out of its Cold War attitude towards Russia. Instead of giving the aid Russia needed in in the 90's, or at least leaving Russia alone, you had to break your treaties and promises and encroach ever further upon Russia's sphere of influence. The Russians offered you peace, an end to hostilities and old stereotypes, but instead of accepting that offer, you chose to decieve and threaten. And as you sow, so shall you reap. Now that Putin has restored order and Russia is growing in strenght again, you should not be surprised that this new Russia is even more hateful towards the US than the old.
Sadly, a new Cold War seems almost inevitable, now that the US and their allies are declining, and Russia and China are on the rise.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/03/peter-hitchens-vs-edward-lucas-on-the-crimea-confrontation.html

Rather than recognising that the Cold War was over, we re-started it for no good reason, encouraging Russia’s neighbours to join the EU or Nato as if the USSR still existed.
In recent months, the EU and the United States have been willing to wound but afraid to strike.
They have aggressively sought to detach Ukraine from Russia and draw her into the EU orbit, knowing very well that this would infuriate Moscow.
Rather than recognising that the Cold War was over, we re-started it for no good reason, encouraging Russia's neighbours to join the EU or Nato as if the USSR still existed

So it's the West's fault that we've been flirting with Russia's ex-wife after the divorce? So Russia is vindicated in showing up at her house in the middle of the night, claiming rights to the children and threatening to beat her up? And that's our fault for showing her a good time after he pissed off following an abusive marriage full of broken promises and scars? Ridiculous.

The West had explicitly promised not to flirt with Russia's ex-wife. It is a very bad analogy in any case. International relations are much, much more complicated than that.
The US has no business in the Ukraine. Sticking your nose where it doesn't belong is considered very rude over here.

Iron_Captain, I'm British, so perhaps stop making assumptions.

Also the rest of your response is basically like someone sticking their fingers in their ears and making loud noises, if you want to discuss, discuss, but stop making simple contrary statements without basis or grounds or even the bloody decency to acknowledge when I'm being factual.

And if you ever try to whitewash the Stalinist regime's actions with 'well he wasn't even russian and some russians got killed so it's not fair on russia to complain about a people being wary of russian conquest due to Stalin' again, I'll put your excuse-making arse on ignore.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Naturally Russia? No, only since 1783. Your words are ironic and hypocritical, coming from an American.Give back the US to the native Americans, than you may speak. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Actually, MGS is one of those heathen tin miners from Cornwall.

He's no Yank, he just moved there.

Instead of giving the aid Russia needed in in the 90's, or at least leaving Russia alone, you had to break your treaties and promises and encroach ever further upon Russia's sphere of influence.

It's not so much a conscious choice as the nature of capitalism, and American capitalism in general. Marx had a lot to say on that one.

Sadly, a new Cold War seems almost inevitable, now that the US and their allies are declining, and Russia and China are on the rise.

China, yes, Russia, no. Throwing your weight around militarily does not re-invigorate your economy or increase your population count beyond a certain point. France and the UK combined have the total population of Russia. Russia, sadly, looks to be more or less done for as a major power unless they can turn things around on the domestic front.

It is completely irrelevant if it is ethnically Russian. That topic has been beat to death multiple times in this thread. Let it rest. Russia may be on the rise, but it is still decades away from being an economic power on par with the US, China, and Japan. China is more concerned with domestic problems than it is with making land grabs. Large portions of the country are woefully undeveloped and don't even have access to basic amenities that Western nations take for granted.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Iron_Captain, I'm British, so perhaps stop making assumptions.

Also the rest of your response is basically like someone sticking their fingers in their ears and making loud noises, if you want to discuss, discuss, but stop making simple contrary statements without basis or grounds or even the bloody decency to acknowledge when I'm being factual.

And if you ever try to whitewash the Stalinist regime's actions with 'well he wasn't even russian and some russians got killed so it's not fair on russia to complain about a people being wary of russian conquest due to Stalin' again, I'll put your excuse-making arse on ignore.

Trust me, I would be one of the last to whitewash Stalin's actions, my grandfather lost his life in the Gulags. Stalin's actions are however no reason to prefer one ethnicity over another.
If you are British, I apologise. I assumed you were American due to the US flag next to you posts.

Also the rest of your response is basically like someone sticking their fingers in their ears and making loud noises

Instead of being hypocritical, you could have adressed my opinions. I have yet to see you back up your opinions with any facts or post anything else but simple contrary statements yourself. You are giving your opinion, not making 'factual statements'.
I respect your opinion however, and I ask of you to respect mine.
Stick your head in the ground if you want to, but that is not how an adult should behave in my opinion.

Iron_Captain, just as something in the nature of friendly advice. You have something of a habit of making quite controversial statements with regards to Russian superiority, geopolitics, economics, and so forth without actually being able to substantiate them. Whilst I can see that you do genuinely want to have a constructive debate, you need to be able to provide a certain degree of proof, or most people will just bypass/dismiss you. Especially when what you're saying runs contrary to established cultural beliefs or perceptions.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


An ethnic group that were in the majority in that area, an area now being touted as 'naturally Russia'... well, yes, if you persecute a people on an industrial level and move your own folks in, that's one way to do it, except for those of that people who remain in the area, along with all the other ethic groups with history there and no damned wish to be assimilated into Putin's new empire. But let's all say feth them, because they are in the minority now, so we must consider the Russians who were being...? Persecuted in Ukraine? Tortured? Forceably relocated? Not that I could see...

Right. Ok then. Lets just deport all ethnic Rus living in Crimea en masse back to Russia. If the ethnic Rus living in Crimea don't like the Neo Nazi regime in Kiev trying to assert its authority over them after overthrowing the legitimate elected government that they favoured, they should all just bugger off back to where they (or rather, their great grandparents) came from. ?

We already had our bogeymen, they kneel to Mecca, Russia was just a mess, and it's officials and people in power were willing to sell out their own, their own nation and whore it out to the highest bidder. Where do you think these robber barons who invest their blood money in football teams and so on came from? Russians sold Russia down the river.

Ditto for Ukraine. The revolutionaries are hardly angels and model democrats themselves. Who'd have guessed, just 70 years after the horrors of fascism, national socialism and the holocaust that The West - the supposed free world - would be encouraging violent rebellions across the world and propping up a rag tag coalition government with a significant proportion of Neo Nazi's.

So it's the West's fault that we've been flirting with Russia's ex-wife after the divorce? So Russia is vindicated in showing up at her house in the middle of the night, claiming rights to the children and threatening to beat her up? And that's our fault for showing her a good time after he pissed off following an abusive marriage full of broken promises and scars?

 Ketara wrote:
Iron_Captain, just as something in the nature of friendly advice. You have something of a habit of making quite controversial statements with regards to Russian superiority, geopolitics, economics, and so forth without actually being able to substantiate them. Whilst I can see that you do genuinely want to have a constructive debate, you need to be able to provide a certain degree of proof, or most people will just bypass/dismiss you. Especially when what you're saying runs contrary to established cultural beliefs or perceptions.

Your cultural beliefs and perceptions are different than mine. And altough I am familiar with yours (I have mostly been living in the West since 2008, including a while in Scotland ), I do not see why I should be the only one to provide proof. Shouldn't both sides provide proof in a debate? I am just trying to state what the majority of Crimeans and Russians think of the situation, and therefore I cite RT, one of the more liberal Russian news sites, as proof. If you do not want to hear or accept that opinion, well than there might be one of the reasons that Russia and the West did not become friends. Maybe Russian values are inherently incompatible with Western values, or maybe both sides are just too full of themselves to accept different opinions.
It is somewhat ironic though. Here I am seen as too pro-Russian, while on the Russian forums, I am seen as too pro-Western. I feel like having an identity crisis

Well... looks like cooler head prevailed.

ShepNewsTeam ✔ @ShepNewsTeam
Follow
REPORTS: Situation at #Ukraine military base in #Crimea is over, two #Russia trucks drove off after "talks"
3:08 PM - 7 Mar 2014

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Iron_Captain, just as something in the nature of friendly advice. You have something of a habit of making quite controversial statements with regards to Russian superiority, geopolitics, economics, and so forth without actually being able to substantiate them. Whilst I can see that you do genuinely want to have a constructive debate, you need to be able to provide a certain degree of proof, or most people will just bypass/dismiss you. Especially when what you're saying runs contrary to established cultural beliefs or perceptions.

Your cultural beliefs and perceptions are different than mine. And altough I am familiar with yours (I have mostly been living in the West since 2008, including a while in Scotland ), I do not see why I should be the only one to provide proof. Shouldn't both sides provide proof in a debate? I am just trying to state what the majority of Crimeans and Russians think of the situation, and therefore I cite RT, one of the more liberal Russian news sites, as proof. If you do not want to hear or accept that opinion, well than there might be one of the reasons that Russia and the West did not become friends. Maybe Russian values are inherently incompatible with Western values, or maybe both sides are just too full of themselves to accept different opinions.
It is somewhat ironic though. Here I am seen as too pro-Russian, while on the Russian forums, I am seen as too pro-Western. I feel like having an identity crisis

Please don't jump to conclusions about my own personal preconceptions. Yes, I'm British, but I've lived in other places in the world. I've also read fairly extensively in several academic fields by various nationalities(including Soviet and communist sources), meaning that I can usually spot my own cultural preconceptions when I run into them. You might note I seem to be doing a lot of arguing in this thread with various people.

But when you launch off into how powerful or wonderful Russia is in eighty five different ways with blanket opinionated assertions about military and economic strength that are woefully inaccurate, people simply don't take you seriously. It could be because you're simply not old enough to have read widely enough, I don't know your age (I'm assuming you're young as several people have called you a kid). And that's fine. We all start somewhere. I've learnt things here on Dakka to be true that I thought were not, and vice versa. Every day, you learn new things.

But you seem to make your assertions in a very provocative fashion, and rarely substantiate the most controversial ones. I'll note here that I'm probably just as bad with how I come across on the net, but I can usually cite multiple sources and books for any fact that I care to state, whilst you seem to link to an RT article every once in a while, and leave it at that.The result being that whilst MGS and I might disagree heavily on something, he and I go our separate ways without dismissing the other out of hand, but when you two butt heads, that doesn't happen so much.

I apologise if this comes off as patronising at all. I'm just trying to help you engage with all the other wonderful chaps on this forum in a productive and fun way.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Right. Ok then. Lets just deport all ethnic Rus living in Crimea en masse back to Russia. If the ethnic Rus living in Crimea don't like the Neo Nazi regime in Kiev

Annnnnddd you're outta there!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Right. Ok then. Lets just deport all ethnic Rus living in Crimea en masse back to Russia. If the ethnic Rus living in Crimea don't like the Neo Nazi regime in Kiev

Annnnnddd you're outta there!

Hyperbole begats hyperbole.

Though, for the record. Do you deny that Neo Nazi groups were involved in some of the most violent protests, have been accused of using snipers to target both the Police and Protesters, and have had several of their members appointed to government positions?

 Ketara wrote:


But you seem to make your assertions in a very provocative fashion, and rarely substantiate the most controversial ones. I'll note here that I'm probably just as bad with how I come across on the net, but I can usually cite multiple sources and books for any fact that I care to state, whilst you seem to link to an RT article every once in a while, and leave it at that.The result being that whilst MGS and I might disagree heavily on something, he and I go our separate ways without dismissing the other out of hand, but when you two butt heads, that doesn't happen so much.

I apologise if this comes off as patronising at all. I'm just trying to help you engage with all the other wonderful chaps on this forum in a productive and fun way.

Indeed, Ketara and I agree on some threads, disagree on others, but I am usually inclined to stop and listen soundly to what he's saying and I am reassured that he, like several others who post here who post sound and balanced arguments, could sit down and have a beer with and talk about less incendiary matters or have a game of something.

Iron Captain, it reads from your posts like you are waving a banner and willing to argue anything and everything that does not entirely support Russia and Russia's perspective, widely targeting and blanket responding with counters without actual thought through reasoning but instead a strongly announced statement without the ability to back it up, like the statements about Russia's military, which were not in keeping with modern military thinking.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Right. Ok then. Lets just deport all ethnic Rus living in Crimea en masse back to Russia. If the ethnic Rus living in Crimea don't like the Neo Nazi regime in Kiev

Annnnnddd you're outta there!

Hyperbole begats hyperbole.

Though, for the record. Do you deny that Neo Nazi groups were involved in some of the most violent protests, have been accused of using snipers to target both the Police and Protesters, and have had several of their members appointed to government positions?

...begets...

I won't deny something that is true, far right groups have been in protests, just as ultra-nationalist far right Russian groups have been in protests in the Crimean region. Positions in the temporary government have been given to right wing party representatives.

Do you deny that calling the current government of the Ukraine a 'Neo Nazi Regime' was ridiculous and childish?

...begets...

I won't deny something that is true, far right groups have been in protests, just as ultra-nationalist far right Russian groups have been in protests in the Crimean region. Positions in the temporary government have been given to right wing party representatives.

Do you deny that calling the current government of the Ukraine a 'Neo Nazi Regime' was ridiculous and childish?

No more ridiculous and childish than your silly, oversimplified analogy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


...begets...

No, begats. Its the archaic form, but no less valid.

Do you deny that you're a grammar Nazi?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Indeed, Ketara and I agree on some threads, disagree on others, but I am usually inclined to stop and listen soundly to what he's saying and I am reassured that he, like several others who post here who post sound and balanced arguments, could sit down and have a beer with and talk about less incendiary matters or have a game of something.

On that sidenote, will you be at Adepticon this year MGS? I'll be heading over, and sharing a scotch over a casual game could be good fun.

Do you deny that calling the current government of the Ukraine a 'Neo Nazi Regime' was ridiculous and childish?

In all fairness to both sides gentlemen, the analogy was a bit oversimplified, but likewise calling the Ukrainian administration neo-nazi's is equally oversimplified.

 Ketara wrote:


In all fairness to both sides gentlemen, the analogy was a bit oversimplified, but likewise calling the Ukrainian administration neo-nazi's is equally oversimplified.

Granted, but my response was sarcastic.

So where exactly are we at on this thread?
Neo Nazi in Ukraine government?
Russia strong arming the Crimea local government?
Rig Crimean Elections?

So we were in Iraq and Afghanistan during their election Yep its a combat zone. Russia troops are not in a combat zone but troops are there. Saying their military presence effecting the outcome is saying the same about us effecting both those election.

 Jihadin wrote:

So we were in Iraq and Afghanistan during their election Yep its a combat zone. Russia troops are not in a combat zone but troops are there. Saying their military presence effecting the outcome is saying the same about us effecting both those election.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that bro...

I'll admit, I'm not really qualified to have a concrete opinion... but, Iraq/Afganistan are (or were) active war zones. Ukraine is nothing like that...

Its also not like we were protecting an election where the result would make Afghanistan the 51st state, which is essentially what Russia is doing.

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Iron_Captain, just as something in the nature of friendly advice. You have something of a habit of making quite controversial statements with regards to Russian superiority, geopolitics, economics, and so forth without actually being able to substantiate them. Whilst I can see that you do genuinely want to have a constructive debate, you need to be able to provide a certain degree of proof, or most people will just bypass/dismiss you. Especially when what you're saying runs contrary to established cultural beliefs or perceptions.

Your cultural beliefs and perceptions are different than mine. And altough I am familiar with yours (I have mostly been living in the West since 2008, including a while in Scotland ), I do not see why I should be the only one to provide proof. Shouldn't both sides provide proof in a debate? I am just trying to state what the majority of Crimeans and Russians think of the situation, and therefore I cite RT, one of the more liberal Russian news sites, as proof. If you do not want to hear or accept that opinion, well than there might be one of the reasons that Russia and the West did not become friends. Maybe Russian values are inherently incompatible with Western values, or maybe both sides are just too full of themselves to accept different opinions.
It is somewhat ironic though. Here I am seen as too pro-Russian, while on the Russian forums, I am seen as too pro-Western. I feel like having an identity crisis

Please don't jump to conclusions about my own personal preconceptions. Yes, I'm British, but I've lived in other places in the world. I've also read fairly extensively in several academic fields by various nationalities(including Soviet and communist sources), meaning that I can usually spot my own cultural preconceptions when I run into them. You might note I seem to be doing a lot of arguing in this thread with various people.

But when you launch off into how powerful or wonderful Russia is in eighty five different ways with blanket opinionated assertions about military and economic strength that are woefully inaccurate, people simply don't take you seriously. It could be because you're simply not old enough to have read widely enough, I don't know your age (I'm assuming you're young as several people have called you a kid). And that's fine. We all start somewhere. I've learnt things here on Dakka to be true that I thought were not, and vice versa. Every day, you learn new things.

But you seem to make your assertions in a very provocative fashion, and rarely substantiate the most controversial ones. I'll note here that I'm probably just as bad with how I come across on the net, but I can usually cite multiple sources and books for any fact that I care to state, whilst you seem to link to an RT article every once in a while, and leave it at that.The result being that whilst MGS and I might disagree heavily on something, he and I go our separate ways without dismissing the other out of hand, but when you two butt heads, that doesn't happen so much.

I apologise if this comes off as patronising at all. I'm just trying to help you engage with all the other wonderful chaps on this forum in a productive and fun way.

Thanks for your kind words, it is good to hear them, and to be honest, I did not realise I was coming across as such.
I apologise if I come across as overly patriotic, I may wave a Russian banner around every now and then, but I do not intend to be like that. However, it is said of the Russians that they love their country like a mother, and that is true for me as well, so I sometimes react rather violently to any perceived insult. I will try to reign it in as much as possible It is just that here in the West, I come across a lot of prejudice, racism and ignorance towards anything Russian, so I tend to be rather defensive about it. After all, it is every ethnic Russian's duty to defend his Motherland
As people have noted, I am indeed young and somewhat inexperienced, though I strive to learn as much as I can. I am fairly knowledgable about topics relating to Russia (and Crimea especially), altough this knowledge stems more from personal experience and local contacts than from academic sources. However, if people more knowlegable than I am (and I am sure many of you are) start waving around fair, academic sources, I'll happily concede my argument, but not everyone else here makes such well substantiated posts as you do. Some other people also just shout their opinion without really substantiating. In any case, I want to try to substantiate my posts as well as possible, but I sometimes find it hard to put my thoughts into words. Language is also a barrier here, and I do not always understand what people mean when they write something. I really like your posts, they are unbiased, knowledgable and mostly well sourced. I wish I could say things as well as you can say them.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


But you seem to make your assertions in a very provocative fashion, and rarely substantiate the most controversial ones. I'll note here that I'm probably just as bad with how I come across on the net, but I can usually cite multiple sources and books for any fact that I care to state, whilst you seem to link to an RT article every once in a while, and leave it at that.The result being that whilst MGS and I might disagree heavily on something, he and I go our separate ways without dismissing the other out of hand, but when you two butt heads, that doesn't happen so much.

I apologise if this comes off as patronising at all. I'm just trying to help you engage with all the other wonderful chaps on this forum in a productive and fun way.

Indeed, Ketara and I agree on some threads, disagree on others, but I am usually inclined to stop and listen soundly to what he's saying and I am reassured that he, like several others who post here who post sound and balanced arguments, could sit down and have a beer with and talk about less incendiary matters or have a game of something.

Iron Captain, it reads from your posts like you are waving a banner and willing to argue anything and everything that does not entirely support Russia and Russia's perspective, widely targeting and blanket responding with counters without actual thought through reasoning but instead a strongly announced statement without the ability to back it up, like the statements about Russia's military, which were not in keeping with modern military thinking.

Again, I apologise if I came across as too patriotic. I'll gladly concede my arguments about Russia's military to anyone with superior military knowledge and good sources. I also try to get good sources, like NATO's former secretary-general, who said that the EU was a military dwarf compared to Russia and who I quoted earlier in this thread.
I do put thought into my posts, but my opinions may be too strongly worded at times. Maybe you could give me some tips as how to better substantiate my opinions?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I won't deny something that is true, far right groups have been in protests, just as ultra-nationalist far right Russian groups have been in protests in the Crimean region. Positions in the temporary government have been given to right wing party representatives.

Good that you mention ultra-nationalist Russian groups. I have been going on about ultra-nationalist Ukrainians for so long now that I may as well start talking about Russian groups as well.
It is important, because ultra-nationalist Russian groups, especially Cossacks are very active in Crimea at the moment and the Cossacks do certainly influence the situation there. According to one of my friends who lives in Simferopol, they are very active in organising pro-Russian protests right now and they beat up opponents and that kind of nasty stuff. The Cossacks are a really intimidating bunch, and they stand pretty much above of the law, so it is worrying. Not just in Crimea, but in the whole of Southern Russia.
I was reading a very interesting background article on the return of the Cossacks just yesterday, and maybe you'll find it interesting as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/world/europe/cossacks-are-back-in-russia-may-the-hills-tremble.html
Still, I find it hard to dissaprove of the Cossacks, they are like a combination of a knight and a cowboy, and it is them who made Russia in what it is today. They are the ones who conquered Siberia.
I dissaprove of their actions towards non-Russians, but they are simply so awesome, they are like the epitome of Russian :

 Ketara wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Indeed, Ketara and I agree on some threads, disagree on others, but I am usually inclined to stop and listen soundly to what he's saying and I am reassured that he, like several others who post here who post sound and balanced arguments, could sit down and have a beer with and talk about less incendiary matters or have a game of something.

On that sidenote, will you be at Adepticon this year MGS? I'll be heading over, and sharing a scotch over a casual game could be good fun.

No sir, I heard all you wiff-waff were coming over here so I'm taking Mrs S back to Blighty for two weeks...two... weeks.... two... w.....

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Park a few bombers in her Western airfields, a Nimitz in the Black Sea and then see how frisky Putin's 'unmarked army' is feeling, especially as being unmarked, they can be targeted and liquidated as terrorists.

Are you gonna pay for that?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


...begets...

No, begats. Its the archaic form, but no less valid.

Do you deny that you're a grammar Nazi?

"Begat" is simple past tense of "beget", archaic or not.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Thanks for your kind words, it is good to hear them, and to be honest, I did not realise I was coming across as such.

I didn't think you did, which was why I wanted to try and get across to you in a non-hostile fashion the type of miscommunication that was going on between you and other posters here. I could see you and a number of other people getting fustrated, and was starting to discount you in the same way, and then realised it probably wasn't entirely fair and nice. We're all just normal blokes here to chat about toy soldiers, and occasionally something on the side. Life's too short for us to get upset over stuff on the internet.

not everyone else here makes such well substantiated posts as you do. Some other people also just shout their opinion without really substantiating. In any case, I want to try to substantiate my posts as well as possible, but I sometimes find it hard to put my thoughts into words. Language is also a barrier here, and I do not always understand what people mean when they write something. I really like your posts, they are unbiased, knowledgable and mostly well sourced. I wish I could say things as well as you can say them.

As someone who's currently striving their best to make it as a military historian, impartiality and thoroughness are part of the crucial main tools of my trade if I want to succeed. As you say, you won't always get people posting eighty five sources in support of their opinion, but most people don't need/want to write huge essays on Dakka as I'm sometimes inclined to do. Which is fair enough, and on most points, it's not always necessary.

I'll gladly concede my arguments about Russia's military to anyone with superior military knowledge and good sources. I also try to get good sources, like NATO's former secretary-general, who said that the EU was a military dwarf compared to Russia and who I quoted earlier in this thread.
I do put thought into my posts, but my opinions may be too strongly worded at times. Maybe you could give me some tips as how to better substantiate my opinions?

A few good tips:-

1) Try not to make broad assertions like, 'The EU is a military dwarf compared to Russia', unless they are manifestly self-evident, and specialist knowledge is not required. To make that statement means you need to have at least basic grasp of the economics behind each countries input into defence, the level of manpower they draw upon, and the comparative levels of technology. If you don't have those things, all you know is that someone said it, and you're repeating it. Which is fine if that other person was knowledgeable, but if they weren't, you'll suffer the same response they did. Which leads to:

2) Before you quote a source as a fact, or even accept as truth anything you read or write, question it. Who wrote it? What was their agenda? What other beliefs do they have, and what motivations? NATO's former Secretary General? What are his interests? Does he work for a prominent defence firm? Does he possibly have interests in exaggerating the Russian menace, in order to boost the 'need' for NATO, and the funding it receives? Is he trained in economics, or was he just a diplomat who got shuffled sideways? You're not always going to have the answers to these questions, but if you ask yourself what motivations a person could have to believe something, or to try and make you believe something, it'll make you harder to fool, more critical, and more impartial.


"What if I told you....that you could save hundreds on car insurance by switching to Geico?"

3) Distrust the media. Seriously. Everyone has an agenda to push. That sparkling review of Krzygstan by their Travel Editor? He got paid to write it. The article slagging off the British prime Minister? The owner of the paper just had a spat with him over a new restrictive law and wants to make him look bad. The 'survey' on how bad immigrants are? Odds are it was manipulated figures in some way, or all the other papers would be running it too.

If you know what influences and pressures a newspaper or website is under, you can spot the gaps in their reporting, and the spin they employ. You can, in other words, read between the lines and deduce the actual facts, or which ones are missing. If you get all your information from one or two media sources, and you don't know what their angle is, they're effectively directing your perception of events. It's a trap a lot of people get sucked into.


"I'll show that son of a gun Spiderman who really controls public opinion round here!"

4) Accept that opinion is not fact, and be able to separate the two in yourself when discussing something. Sebster and me had a slight disagreement a few pages back over Putin's motivations. We both made our predictions/reasoning plain, discussed them briefly, and then politely agreed to disagree. Very gentlemanly, very polite, educated on both sides. But you might remember him saying

 sebster wrote:
People who are confident that they know how this is going to turn out don't know enough to know how little they know, if you get my meaning.

Excellent advice. We both made our predictions and educated guesses, but we are both aware that we may not be in possession of all the facts, It is possible for two people to logically work off the same data and come to a different conclusion. As none of us have a truly defining piece of evidence to convince the other one or to prove our viewpoints, we are both aware that we're ultimately just guessing. If we tried to pass our opinions off as facts and dismiss all alternative views, we'd be being intellectually dishonest.

5) Try and be friendly. When you can feel yourself getting annoyed, try and tone your own posts down a little. I had an argument with another chap earlier on in this thread. I tried to tone my own posts down whilst trying to imply something of a ceasefire, but my own posts still had enough bite in them he didn't believe I was being genuine. Which is fair enough. We took it to PM, and now we're good. Too many people forget this is a wargaming site about toy soldiers, and being able to accept you are wrong, or even just saying, 'Yeah, we're getting overheated over this' makes it that much more fun for everyone. Also lowers your heart pressure.


"Mustn't....Blame...the victim!!!"

MGS wrote:No sir, I heard all you wiff-waff were coming over here so I'm taking Mrs S back to Blighty for two weeks...two... weeks.... two... w.....

Poor show old chap, poor show!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
but The West kept on bullying and insulting Russia.

People keep saying this, can I ask how when or where ?

Because I'm struggling to recall anything along this line really.

I'm sure there has no doubt been the odd occasion when Russia may have lost out, so to speak, in a situation, but no more so than any other nation has IMO.

I do seem to recall us bending over backwards to help Russia/former USSR countries with aid packages, investments and the like. And those people from those countries who have done well -- I'll grant you there some severely dubious sort of chaps, rum coves as t'were, amongst those who've made , literally, billions, whilst huge swathes of their country is left to stagnate and rot and decay but one would suggest that is little more than business as usual as it was under the previous regime and seems to infer that the west/rest of the world should, somehow have stopped this from happening.


Which -- impossibility aside -- one would suggest if we had even attempted to do so would indeed have been somewhat bullying and insulting to the people/nations involved.


Oh, also

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/11/putin-win-russian-free-press

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia#Under_Putin_.28incl._2nd_Chechen_conflict.29


Of course some of those who have died will have been killed by Terrorists and the like.

But it is somewhat ..... odd ...? ... convenient .. ? ... quite how many people who were investigating or critical of the regime have met with unfortunate accidents. Or committed suicide or etc etc