|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Who cares? I'm not American, Ukraine is not part of America, and Russia is obviously in the wrong in this case. But it's Russia we have to talk down off the ledge, whether you care to admit it or not. quote:The part about Polish sites being for intercepting hypothetical Iranian missiles, and increasing the American presence in Poland? I don't recall seeing you counter the idea of America not needing Eastern Europe for a proper (anti-Russia) ABM shield for the US. Because I don't think the missile shield should be there either. I've argued pretty vehemently against it for years.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:I explicitly agree about this trends though. To be honest, I think you skimmed my post and wrote a response anyway since you are arguing about a point that I very clearly said. Let me break it down for you since you still don't know that you don't know what you're talking about. Ardennes posted:That said, overall the fertility rate is higher than the US at this point. This is a lie. Even with the prop in fertility rate in the US as a result of the Great Recession the US has a fertility rate much higher than Russia's. The thing that you're confused with is the natality, or birth rate, which is just the number of births ina year. This is just a point and it reflects the underlying demographics. If the underlying demographics were similar you could compare them but since they're nor it's a way to lie with statistics. Russia ahd more births per 1000 people (natality rate) because of a specific underlying population issue, the extreme peaks and troughs of their population. In fact with a lower fertility rate what a high natality rate indicates is that the troughs will be more extreme. With fewer births per woman than the US, the fact there are more births this year indicates there will be far fewer births in coming years unless you expect to see an actual explosion in the fertility rate despite the age cohort of the last peak starting to age out of prime fertility years. You don't understand demographics, stop talking about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Russia's actions prove they are belligerent. The objection you state is that we treated Russia as belligerent, and the solution you offer is giving license to be belligerent. It's senseless. "Russia is a threat to Ukraine because we didn't give them approval to be a threat to Ukraine."
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:NATO expansion probably helped the rise of nationalism, but to be honest I think economics was more of a decisive factor. I agree, I just think it fanned the flames and that put them over the top. NATO expansion may have been inevitable, but they should have definitely had a better plan for a partnership with Russia in the 90s. Best Friends posted:Russia's actions prove they are belligerent. The objection you state is that we treated Russia as belligerent, and the solution you offer is giving license to be belligerent. It's senseless. "Russia is a threat to Ukraine because we didn't give them approval to be a threat to Ukraine." Nope, what I'm saying is that removing perceived security threats to Russia will make them less belligerent. E: I don't buy the argument that by guaranteeing Ukraine's neutrality we would be letting Russia win either. They know Ukraine will join the EU and grow closer to Europe. They know they've lost Ukraine, culturally and economically. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
farraday posted:This is a lie. Even with the prop in fertility rate in the US as a result of the Great Recession the US has a fertility rate much higher than Russia's. The thing that you're confused with is the natality, or birth rate, which is just the number of births ina year. This is just a point and it reflects the underlying demographics. If the underlying demographics were similar you could compare them but since they're nor it's a way to lie with statistics. You are right, the fertility gap closed only somewhat. However, that said, Russian fertility rates are higher than Germany. While I don't disagree there is going to be a big drop coming up, on the other hand I am skeptical the wish of the Russians "dying out" will be fulfilled. Fertility rates in comparison were: US - 1.869 (2013), Russia - 1.708 (2013), Japan - 1.43 (2013), Germany - 1.378 (2012) Fabulous Knight posted:I mean, I do hope you're right and Russia continues dying out. I've been worried about this trend possibly being reversed Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
The people in this thread are forgetting that the ABM shield was not aimed at stopping Russian missiles from reaching the US (in which case they would have built the stuff in Western Europe,) it was aimed at stopping Iranian missiles from hitting Western Europe because everyone just hated Iran so much back then. In that case the bases had to be south/east of old NATO. On appeasement, I don't know if I'd agree that it NATO doesn't need to "rearm." However instead of being in the traditional sense in this case its more like it needs to "reorganize". The Russian military is already there right on or over the Ukrainian border, most of NATO's heavy hitters are west of the Oder. If there had been bases in Romania, Poland and such then they'd be in a much better position to react. Assuming that they actually wanted to, of course. If NATO were serious about defending its eastern members and would-be members from a potential Russian invasion they should open bases there and close superfluous ones in Germany, Italy and the UK. They won't though because that is expensive, a Russian invasion of NATO members still seems unlikely despite what just occurred and its questionable how united NATO actually is in perusing its defensive mission in places like the Baltics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Nope, what I'm saying is that removing perceived security threats to Russia will make them less belligerent. Surely, having no NATO presence in Eastern Europe made the 20th century a brilliantly calm, peaceful era where Russia spent its time trying to plant flowers and be civilized. Oh wait, it turns out that when Russia controls Eastern Europe, it then gets really upset about Western Europe still being a threat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:E: I don't buy the argument that by guaranteeing Ukraine's neutrality we would be letting Russia win either. They know Ukraine will join the EU and grow closer to Europe. They know they've lost Ukraine, culturally and economically. Is guaranteeing Ukraine's "neutrality" even something Russia wants at the moment? Don't they just want to get left alone with their new Crimea and to weaken Ukraine internally?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:NATO expansion probably helped the rise of nationalism, but to be honest I think economics was more of a decisive factor. Honestly, I think NATO expansion was unavoidable, if only because the expansion of the EU was likely to coincide with it and Eastern European wanted in to both. Ardennes posted:That said, I do think NATO should have had a stronger game plan for Ukraine especially after "intensify dialogue" stalled after 2005. Majorian posted:But it's Russia we have to talk down off the ledge, whether you care to admit it or not. Majorian posted:Because I don't think the missile shield should be there either. I've argued pretty vehemently against it for years. Majorian posted:E: I don't buy the argument that by guaranteeing Ukraine's neutrality we would be letting Russia win either. They know Ukraine will join the EU and grow closer to Europe. They know they've lost Ukraine, culturally and economically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Multiple reports of shelling outside Mariupol. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-201/#4175 And the Belarusian embassy in Moscow was on fire today. http://baltinfo.ru/2014/09/06/V-Moskve-gorit-posolstvo-Belorussii-447978 HUGE PUBES A PLUS fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
farraday posted:Let me break it down for you since you still don't know that you don't know what you're talking about. You should probably try not to be so defensive -- Ardennes isn't the one who was making snide comments at you earlier, and I'm pretty sure he was arguing in good faith. You've taken about five posts of "shut up, I'm smarter than you" to get around to actually backing that up (which, when you finally got to it, you did quite well). Now, as the Great Wizard of Demographics who is so much smarter than everyone else in the thread, could you perhaps move beyond slapfighting and on to posting more content? Do you think that immigration could compensate for the coming population drop? What is your prognosis for Russian population growth? How do you see Russian demographics impacting Russian foreign policy over the next decade or two? E: In case it isn't clear, I mean those questions sincerely. You do seem to know what you're talking about, even if you're a bit pompous about it, and I think the thread would genuinely benefit from your assessment. Lead out in cuffs fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Yeah I'm gathering from social media that the commanders of Novorossiya issued a statement a couple of hours ago to the effect that the Ukrainian government has violated the ceasefire. Reports are that at least one of the rebel 'self-defence groups' has resumed fighting.Majorian posted:Who was he saying this to? I never thought I'd feel bad for him. The only info I can find is that was before a scheduled press conference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
loving murderous bastards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:The people in this thread are forgetting that the ABM shield was not aimed at stopping Russian missiles from reaching the US (in which case they would have built the stuff in Western Europe,) it was aimed at stopping Iranian missiles from hitting Western Europe because everyone just hated Iran so much back then. In that case the bases had to be south/east of old NATO. When asked, Vlad begged to differ. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnBSgohtYFI
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:loving murderous bastards. The reports are that it is Ukraine doing the shelling in Mariupol outskirts, not Russia/rebels. Edit: Actually it may just be people putting #Ukraine hashtags in the wrong spot and not saying that it is Ukraine doing the shelling. So not sure who is doing it. Niedar fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They know Ukraine will join the EU and grow closer to Europe. They know they've lost Ukraine, culturally and economically. Then why did this all start with an EU trade deal?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Niedar posted:The reports are that it is Ukraine doing the shelling in Mariupol, not Russia/rebels. Idiotic loving murderous bastards than. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:]On appeasement, I don't know if I'd agree that it NATO doesn't need to "rearm." However instead of being in the traditional sense in this case its more like it needs to "reorganize". The Russian military is already there right on or over the Ukrainian border, most of NATO's heavy hitters are west of the Oder. If there had been bases in Romania, Poland and such then they'd be in a much better position to react. Assuming that they actually wanted to, of course. If NATO were serious about defending its eastern members and would-be members from a potential Russian invasion they should open bases there and close superfluous ones in Germany, Italy and the UK. They won't though because that is expensive, a Russian invasion of NATO members still seems unlikely despite what just occurred and its questionable how united NATO actually is in perusing its defensive mission in places like the Baltics. Granted, it probably needs to do both unless the US takes up much more of the burden, from what I have heard about Western European militaries is that the aren't really in the shape for the large active contributions it would take and if anything that is why the NATO reaction force is quite small. If anything the US would have to not only move what other remaining assets it has in Europe and probably contribute more. I get the feeling in the long term, if anything NATO regardless of what happens will probably will have a less active military presence overall regardless of what happens. quote:Then why did this all start with an EU trade deal? Yeah, I don't think the issue (at least currently) was really ever about NATO but the EU. The protests happened because Yanukovich shut down the EU association agreement, if he had just signed it and moved on he mostly certainly would be still the President at the moment. I think it was a stupid mistake from pretty much every angle, not only was it undemocratic and completely unpopular but even from the "cynical sphere of influence" angle it was pushing the Ukrainians way too hard. EU association didn't mean membership in even the EU either much less NATO. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:You should probably try not to be so defensive -- Ardennes isn't the one who was making snide comments at you earlier, and I'm pretty sure he was arguing in good faith. You've taken about five posts of "shut up, I'm smarter than you" to get around to actually backing that up (which, when you finally got to it, you did quite well).
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:You should probably try not to be so defensive -- Ardennes isn't the one who was making snide comments at you earlier, and I'm pretty sure he was arguing in good faith. You've taken about five posts of "shut up, I'm smarter than you" to get around to actually backing that up (which, when you finally got to it, you did quite well). There is a difference between educating people smugly getting the very basic concepts of a field wrong and performing an in depth analysis for a sarcastic little poo poo on demand. The internet is right over there, go educate yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Niedar posted:The reports are that it is Ukraine doing the shelling in Mariupol outskirts, not Russia/rebels. The rebels are claiming that it's Ukraine doing it. Which is in their interests.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Nope, what I'm saying is that removing perceived security threats to Russia will make them less belligerent. I wish I could believe any promises anyone makes will make Russia less belligerent. You've said yourself Russia feels betrayed by the NATO expansion and by other things; why would Putin believe our promises now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Niedar posted:The reports are that it is Ukraine doing the shelling in Mariupol outskirts, not Russia/rebels. The rebels are definitely claiming that it's Ukraine doing it, but obviously that means very little.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Seriously, gently caress that poo poo if the shooting begins again. Both sides claim that the other is violating the ceasefire, of course. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The rebels are claiming that it's Ukraine doing it. Which is in their interests. It doesn't make much sense for the Ukrainian government to order it either, at best it could be some volunteers fire some shells off on their own but it certainly wouldn't be in their nation's best interest. On the other hand the Separatists/Russians certainly want Mariupol for strategic reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Bizarre seeing the "Ceasefire largely holding" story spreading around the media while Mariupol is literally getting shelled. WaPo's just-published story doesn't even mention it. e: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLd8rD0tc8E Video of the shelling (or audio anyway, you can't really see anything) Zohar fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
jaete posted:I wish I could believe any promises anyone makes will make Russia less belligerent. You've got to start somewhere. At this point, Russia is starting to behave like a complete rogue agent, and one with the power to destroy human civilisation as we know it. It's a pretty frightening prospect, and one which must be contained somehow. Military containment and further marginalisation is unlikely to be fruitful (and could very well just lead to further insularity on part of the Russians), so we pretty much have to start talking, and do so in earnest. This whole situation is hosed up on all sides (particularly Russia, of course), and there's no good way out of it. It may even be necessary to give Putin a win here, painful as that sounds. Russia must be reintegrated into the existing world order, or we're all worse off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
If Mariupol is getting shelled it has to be the sepratists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Bizarre seeing the "Ceasefire largely holding" story spreading around the media while Mariupol is literally getting shelled. WaPo's just-published story doesn't even mention it. I think it is largely just the Western especially American media being continually flatfooted through this whole affair. I don't think there are even many Western journalists out there, the footage I have seen has pretty much been from Vice. I know it took the NYT a while to figure out that whole "ceasefire or not" issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This. Russian nationalism probably would not have reached this boiling point had NATO not fanned the flames. If only NATO hadn't picked on Russia's lil' brudder Serbia, we'd all be living in peace and harmony now. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Ukrainian forces in the area say it's the "rebels" who started shelling again. http://by24.org/2014/09/06/terrorusian_grad_system_working_in_mariupol/ quote:The long-awaited "Minsk truce" , concluded between the official representatives of Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE and the terrorist "republics" DNR and LC yesterday, September 5, lasted only a little more than a day. Today, September 6 at about 22:30 local time, the Russian military under the guise of "national militia of Donbass" again shelled the Ukrainian city of Mariupol from multiple rocket launchers BM-21 "Grad", reports local site 0629.com.ua .
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think it is largely just the Western especially American media being continually flatfooted through this whole affair. I don't think there are even many Western journalists out there, the footage I have seen has pretty much been from Vice. Yeah, I guess that's unavoidable to some extent. It's some pretty amazing dissonance though. Latest news: the DNR's official Twitter account says their forces are taking Mariupol. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Yea I don't think it is much doubt now that "rebels" are doing the shelling. Apparently people are saying the DNR are officially stating they are taking Mariupol. Edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
I suspect the whole point for the ceasefire in the first place was to re-position separatist/Russian forces for a new offensive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:If Mariupol is getting shelled it has to be the sepratists. You've spelled "Russian forces" wrong
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Oh for gently caress's sake. I guess the Russians don't want to leave anything on the table. Shitheads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Nationalism is first and foremost fanciful belief, theres not a whole loving lot of rational or genuine grievance thats not inflated or fabricated. Its vague platitudes, idol worship of the Nation of bravado, pride and ego... never wit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
This sounds bad...
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:27
|
|
Majorian posted:Nope, what I'm saying is that removing perceived security threats to Russia will make them less belligerent. Oh man, it's a tone argument! I'm good at these! The problem with applying response logic here is that Russian narratives and domestic politics are what is making Russia belligerent, what is making them perceive security threats. Russian "perception" isn't tied to external reality in a meaningful way.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:You've got to start somewhere. At this point, Russia is starting to behave like a complete rogue agent, and one with the power to destroy human civilisation as we know it. It's a pretty frightening prospect, and one which must be contained somehow. Military containment and further marginalisation is unlikely to be fruitful (and could very well just lead to further insularity on part of the Russians), so we pretty much have to start talking, and do so in earnest. This whole situation is hosed up on all sides (particularly Russia, of course), and there's no good way out of it. It may even be necessary to give Putin a win here, painful as that sounds. Russia must be reintegrated into the existing world order, or we're all worse off. Russia doesn't deserve to be a part of the international order if it keeps this up. Underwriting the misery of a civil war in another country for your own perceived benefit is loving scummy. Still, Russia can get up to far more mischief than Iran or North Korea can, so you may well be correct.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:33
|
|