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.

Forgot one thing on Snowden.

He did not run to Russia.

Putin offer asylum to him

After like ten days in a Russian airport

Edit

Think Snowden had a couple South American countries willing to accept him if he could make it there.

Also the one incident of a Diplomat jet being forced to land when info indicated he was on the jet

 sebster wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I believe that principle to be inaccurate in this particular scenario. Why? Because there are many factors which have led to Africa or Iran staying poor or having less than perfect capability to exploit their resources that simply do not apply to Russia. Let's break it down a little.

Your list of factors simply aren't the factors that matter.

Technology is just a non-factor. Technology crosses borders at will. The inability of Africa and South America to turn their resources in to local wealth has nothing to do with being unable to access technology.

Really? Nothing whatsoever? I beg to differ.

If your technology comes from abroad with half a dozen financial and political strings attached, and you are incapable of manufacturing that technology at home, then you are dependent upon those other nations/corporate entities. What's more, because you have no homegrown technological/manufacturing sector of your own to innovate and improve, you're forced into a chain of dependency upon those entities for your technology. This dependency means that you have to constantly import that technology and expertise, at high cost to your own nation. That alone is not sufficient to trap a nation in poverty, and dependency upon other nations, but it's a damn good start.

Size is similarly irrelevant when it comes to prosperity.

'size'. Sorry. Not entirely sure what point of mine you're attempting to debunk here. If it's the throwaway phrase 'geographically minor', I meant to encompass relative GDP, physical size, and political/military clout compared to Iran within that phrase (to articulate a bit more carefully). And I would maintain that yes, those things do matter very much when pointing out why Iran is vulnerable to American trade sanctions, and Russia/a future EEC not so much.

It matters in political clout, but that's not what we're talking about here. When the US began its march to prosperity it had a very small population. Similarly my own country and much of Europe manages a very high standard of living despite having small populations. But if you look at the largest populations in the world, only the US has a first world standard of living. China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, Bangladesh... none of them have seen their size magically turn in to prosperity.

Size alone does not equal prosperity. But to quote an expert from a few months back:

sebster wrote:Past a certain point, the ability to expand your GDP comes almost solely down to population size.

Cultural and social cohesion get debated by economists, but only as a marginal factor.

You are right that state structures and institutions are important, but miles off the mark in claiming Russia's will develop their natural assets for the good of the State. Russia systems and institutions are hopelessly corrupt and woefully ineffective and inefficient. They call it a kleptocracy for a very good reason.

I'd rank cultural/social cohesion and state structure as inevitably intertwined in places like Africa (which was your original comparison, and thus, my response was tailored to your analogy appropriately). If you don't have the cultural or social predilection or habits for forming into nation states, you don't get the same level as efficiency in the institutions that go with them. Russia might have been run by a bunch of oligarchs throughout the nineties, but Putin has slowly curbed their excesses of the worst of them over the last decade or so, and it's far from beyond the realms of possibility that those institutions could be tightened further over the next five decades.

A total myth, debunked for more than a decade now. Soviet military spending didn't increase to match Reagan's increases, and was actually pretty consistently around 4-5% of GDP throughout the 70s and 80s, which is a pretty standard level of spending. No, their economy collapsed because it was built around systems that placed a tremendous drag on the economy, and when the political will to maintain those systems no longer existed then they fell away incredibly quickly, leading to a crash.

The issue now, is that the systems Russia put in their place aren't that much better.

I'll defer to you on this one, as I would regard my knowledge surrounding the economic collapse of the Soviet Union to be minor. I'll dig into it some more.

Trade isn't about not having everything you need. It's about who has the most optimal conditions in which to do it, and then doing more of that while other places make stuff they have the optimal conditions for, and then we trade. Seriously, just go off now and read about comparative advantage.

I mean, for your future prediction to make any damn sense, it would have happened to us here in Australia generations ago. We have all the resources we need to make what we want, and grow our own food. And yet we are one of the most aggressive free trade nations in the world... because what maximises our living conditions is to make more food than we need, and extract more resources than we need, and sell those to other countries, and then buy manufactured goods from those countries. The same will be true of Russia.

That's a purely capitalistic view of trade, which utterly fails to take into account cultural differences and the impact of political ideology or aims upon economics.

 Ketara wrote:
Really? Nothing whatsoever? I beg to differ.

If your technology comes from abroad with half a dozen financial and political strings attached, and you are incapable of manufacturing that technology at home, then you are dependent upon those other nations/corporate entities. What's more, because you have no homegrown technological/manufacturing sector of your own to innovate and improve, you're forced into a chain of dependency upon those entities for your technology.

Provided that imported tech could never be observed and absorbed in to your country. Whether or not that happens is dependent on the quality of a nation's institutions... as I've been saying all along.

'size'. Sorry. Not entirely sure what point of mine you're attempting to debunk here. If it's the throwaway phrase 'geographically minor', I meant to encompass relative GDP, physical size, and political/military clout to Iran within that phrase (to articulate a bit more carefully). And I would maintain that yes, those things do matter very much when pointing out why Iran is vulnerable to American trade sanctions, and Russia/a future EEC not so much.

Only if sanctions were a primary determinant in poverty. They've caned Iran, of course, but that's one country. In almost all cases the issue is entirely one of productivity - people have low individual incomes because individually they produce little. And the way to change that is with infrastructure, high quality institutions etc...

Size alone does not equal prosperity. But to quote an expert from a few months back:

sebster wrote:Past a certain point, the ability to expand your GDP comes almost solely down to population size.

First up - much much credit for the long memory

Second up, what I'm saying there is that GDP per capita tends to level off pretty quickly. Outside of a couple of small population oil exporters, the developed countries all cluster around 40k to 50k per capita. Countries beneath that can catch up fast by adapting the systems already in place in the developed countries (Germany was the first to do this by aping English industrial development, and ever since then one or two countries typically have been 'joining the club' at any given moment in time), but once you hit that upper limit then increasing GDP per capita is hard work.

But in terms of size helping you reach that point... that's not so much of a thing.

I'd rank cultural/social cohesion and state structure as inevitably intertwined in places like Africa or Afghanistan(which was your original comparison, and thus, my response was tailored to your analogy appropriately). If you don't have the cultural or social predilection or habits for forming into nation states, you don't get the same level as efficiency in the institutions that go with them. Russia might have been run by a bunch of oligarchs throughout the nineties, but Putin has slowly curbed their excesses of the worst of them over the last decade or so, and it's far from beyond the realms of possibility that those institutions could be tightened further over the next five decades.

I don't think those institutions are the kind of thing that can get reformed that quickly. Assuming that Russia could quickly reform its institutions was the mistake the IMF made, leading to the pilfering of so much Russian wealth by the connected elites in the 90s.

That's a purely capitalistic view of trade, which utterly fails to take into account cultural differences and the impact of political ideology or aims upon economics.

Economics, capitalist or otherwise, is merely the outcome of culture and politics. Provided, of course, we consider 'people looking to maximise personal wealth' to be a major part of culture and politics.

 Formosa wrote:
As an ex soldier I'm going to say something that won't be very popular, sod Ukraine, tactically I can see why Russia would not want to be surrounded by a potential enemy (eu) that's creepin up closer and closer through assimilation of the previous eastern Block countries. The reason I say sod them, I'm selfish, I do not want to kill our Russian cousins and they don't want to kill us, sadly these useless dicks called politicians don't seem to care.

Actually thats exceedingly popular. No one is doing anything about it.

If Europe really cared the massive EU army would have sent their combined might into Ukraine already. Thousands upong thousands of Brussels bureacrats would be manning the lines, sharpened pencils at the ready.

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually thats exceedingly popular. No one is doing anything about it.

If Europe really cared the massive EU army would have sent their combined might into Ukraine already.

Yeah, this is the major point. People want Russia to respect international law and national boundaries, but not enough to lose any of their owns sons fighting for it.

Not specifically aiming at you, sebster, but why the constant talk about soldiers and dying? We haven't even arrived at meaningful sanctions yet, so nobody can say if those would be or would have been sufficient. Apart from cases of self-defense, sending troops into any conflict that has the potential to become one of nuclear warfare is utter madness, so personally I don't even see that as an option.

Australian politics are not really on my radar and I lack the in-depth knowledge about the USA to comment about their views, but as far as Europe is concerned, the hard truth is that "the people" simply don't give a feth about Ukraine, which nobody outside the former communist countries would even call "European", and our politicians are not ready to risk even an increased price of Russian gas (as we've not yet arrived at the Russians considering closing the pipes for good, either).

As has been pointed out in this very thread, Russia, like the USA and many other "big players", does not have to respect international law (which is gooey enough as it is - I keep being amazed at how many people seem to believe it's anything like their local criminal code), because the boundaries of power are not laws, but the pain threshold of the other big players. As long as they don't feel hurt, you're free to do whatever you want.

 Allod wrote:
Not specifically aiming at you, sebster, but why the constant talk about soldiers and dying? We haven't even arrived at meaningful sanctions yet, so nobody can say if those would be or would have been sufficient.

To clarify, as well as pointing out that committing troops is unlikely, I also think it's quite unnecessary at this time. But I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that if this was some other place in the world where the US or the European powers saw much more important interests, troop commitments would be on the table.

Apart from cases of self-defense, sending troops into any conflict that has the potential to become one of nuclear warfare is utter madness, so personally I don't even see that as an option.

When a nation has nukes you can't just never ever fight them ever, and just hope they don't decide to just continue expanding their borders. You have to be willing to engage with conventional assets. What nuclear weapons change is that you won't ever risk escalating the conflict, advancing in to their territory or anything that might actually trigger a nuclear response.

Remember, afterall, that Russia is just as uninterested blowing up the world over the Ukraine as the rest of us.

As has been pointed out in this very thread, Russia, like the USA and many other "big players", does not have to respect international law (which is gooey enough as it is - I keep being amazed at how many people seem to believe it's anything like their local criminal code), because the boundaries of power are not laws, but the pain threshold of the other big players. As long as they don't feel hurt, you're free to do whatever you want.

It isn't just big players who get to ignore international law. Everyone gets to ignore international law as long as the issue in question is too small for them to bother with. It's just that the bigger you are, the bigger the piece of international law you get to ignore.

The Road to World War 3: Ukraine, Russia and American Imperialism ?

 sebster wrote:

When a nation has nukes you can't just never ever fight them ever, and just hope they don't decide to just continue expanding their borders. You have to be willing to engage with conventional assets. What nuclear weapons change is that you won't ever risk escalating the conflict, advancing in to their territory or anything that might actually trigger a nuclear response.

Remember, afterall, that Russia is just as uninterested blowing up the world over the Ukraine as the rest of us.

Because the Russians love their children too?

In all seriousness, I disagree completely, because my life experience tells me that conflicts of the scale we're discussing here (40,000 Russian troops for starters) are not predictable or controllable, and even if they were, our leaders are totally unable to do either. If we all were so sensible all the time, nuclear deterrence wouldn't be a thing.

So, if you're a great power and start shooting at Russian soldiers, you should be sure that what you're fighting for is worth a nuclear exchange some time down the road. I doubt that anybody places that kind of value in the territorial integrity of a Soviet successor state that has practically no national history at all.

But that's just my opinion, and hopefully we'll never find out who of us is right.

It isn't just big players who get to ignore international law. Everyone gets to ignore international law as long as the issue in question is too small for them to bother with. It's just that the bigger you are, the bigger the piece of international law you get to ignore.

That's true.

Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.

One on the right is easy on the eyes. Is this a protest or a Renaissance march? And whats with the hair with the dudes (?) on the left? Frazzled confused.

Best to nuke it from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.

Yes we did, but not with SS symbols

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.

Yes we did, but not with SS symbols

I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.

 d-usa wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.

Yes we did, but not with SS symbols

I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.

Right in the middle of the black and white photo, is the symbol of the Ukraine SS div.

The coloured picture has the same symbols in the same colours as used then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_%281st_Ukrainian%29

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.

Yes we did, but not with SS symbols

I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.

Right in the middle of the black and white photo, is the symbol of the Ukraine SS div.

The coloured picture has the same symbols in the same colours as used then

First of all the "symbol" is of the 14th SS Volunteer Division--Galician. It started as a Ukrainian volunteer division(and was founded to provide more forces for the Eastern Front) but later included Slovaks, Czechs, and Dutch officers/soldiers. Not a "Ukraine SS Division".

And oh what's this?

It was based upon medieval heraldry?

The coat of arms for Galicia–Volhynia(read: Ukraine)

 d-usa wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.

Yes we did, but not with SS symbols

I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.

Thats clearly the Zig Zag Division from Grand Budapest Hotel.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.

Yes we did, but not with SS symbols

I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.

Right in the middle of the black and white photo, is the symbol of the Ukraine SS div.

The coloured picture has the same symbols in the same colours as used then

First of all the "symbol" is of the 14th SS Volunteer Division--Galician. It started as a Ukrainian volunteer division(and was founded to provide more forces for the Eastern Front) but later included Slovaks, Czechs, and Dutch officers/soldiers. Not a "Ukraine SS Division".

And oh what's this?

It was based upon medieval heraldry?

The coat of arms for Galicia–Volhynia(read: Ukraine)

Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.

Looks like a lion gagging.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.

Yes we did, but not with SS symbols

I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.

Right in the middle of the black and white photo, is the symbol of the Ukraine SS div.

The coloured picture has the same symbols in the same colours as used then

First of all the "symbol" is of the 14th SS Volunteer Division--Galician. It started as a Ukrainian volunteer division(and was founded to provide more forces for the Eastern Front) but later included Slovaks, Czechs, and Dutch officers/soldiers. Not a "Ukraine SS Division".

And oh what's this?

It was based upon medieval heraldry?

The coat of arms for Galicia–Volhynia(read: Ukraine)

Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ??

How the hell should I know? I'm not one of the protesters there. I'm saying that you need to actually do some research before shooting your mouth off.

Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.

The only people "trying to say something about their political leanings" is RT(aka "the first Russian 24/7 English-language news channel which brings the Russian view on global news"), where the images you linked came from.

 loki old fart wrote:
Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.

Or are they not accepting that some obscure nazi unit during the Second World War effectively stole their coat of arms?

By your logic, the Swedish coat of arms is a nazi symbol because it includes a blue field, yellow crowns and lions.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.

Or are they not accepting that some obscure nazi unit during the Second World War effectively stole their coat of arms?

By your logic, the Swedish coat of arms is a nazi symbol because it includes a blue field, yellow crowns and lions.

I dunno, ask Franz Augsberger or Fritz von Scholz you might need a seance to do it.

If we're going to start out-Godwinning eachother I'll just leave the word "Anschluss" here and be done with it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If we're going to start out-Godwinning eachother I'll just leave the word "Anschluss" here and be done with it.

If it makes you feel better, the SS had British members aswell.

And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.

 loki old fart wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If we're going to start out-Godwinning eachother I'll just leave the word "Anschluss" here and be done with it.

If it makes you feel better, the SS had British members aswell.

And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.

Oh, I'm well aware, I'm just pointing out that it's not Ukraine invading another sovereign state under the pretext of protecting people of a certain ethnicity. If you recall, the same claim was made by another leader of another great European power, hence this being an "out-Godwinning".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If we're going to start out-Godwinning eachother I'll just leave the word "Anschluss" here and be done with it.

If it makes you feel better, the SS had British members aswell.

And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.

Oh, I'm well aware, I'm just pointing out that it's not Ukraine invading another sovereign state under the pretext of protecting people of a certain ethnicity. If you recall, the same claim was made by another leader of another great European power, hence this being an "out-Godwinning".

Yup I,m aware of the Sudetenland. But we brits don't parade our mistakes in public, and I don't think those Ukrainians were being very clever using that heraldic device. And as for people not liking RT, if you watch their programs, and the BBC ETC, You get a more balanced view. Too much of one side screws with your perception.

 loki old fart wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If we're going to start out-Godwinning eachother I'll just leave the word "Anschluss" here and be done with it.

If it makes you feel better, the SS had British members aswell.

And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.

Oh, I'm well aware, I'm just pointing out that it's not Ukraine invading another sovereign state under the pretext of protecting people of a certain ethnicity. If you recall, the same claim was made by another leader of another great European power, hence this being an "out-Godwinning".

Yup I,m aware of the Sudetenland. But we brits don't parade our mistakes in public, and I don't think those Ukrainians were being very clever using that heraldic device. And as for people not liking RT, if you watch their programs, and the BBC ETC, You get a more balanced view. Too much of one side screws with your perception.

It's not a question of "not liking RT", it's recognizing that it is a mouthpiece for an agenda.

This is a rebranded "Russia Today", as in the organization that covered the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict and had the audacity to suggest that "Georgia started it".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If we're going to start out-Godwinning eachother I'll just leave the word "Anschluss" here and be done with it.

If it makes you feel better, the SS had British members aswell.

And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.

Oh, I'm well aware, I'm just pointing out that it's not Ukraine invading another sovereign state under the pretext of protecting people of a certain ethnicity. If you recall, the same claim was made by another leader of another great European power, hence this being an "out-Godwinning".

Yup I,m aware of the Sudetenland. But we brits don't parade our mistakes in public, and I don't think those Ukrainians were being very clever using that heraldic device. And as for people not liking RT, if you watch their programs, and the BBC ETC, You get a more balanced view. Too much of one side screws with your perception.

It's not a question of "not liking RT", it's recognizing that it is a mouthpiece for an agenda.

This is a rebranded "Russia Today", as in the organization that covered the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict and had the audacity to suggest that "Georgia started it".

And American stations would never do that, would they.

Here is a symbol of a French SS unit:



Clearly any use of either of those symbols on there means that you are a nazi in the eyes of RT...

But...but..