Eastern Europe: Poland rip in pis

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Eastern Europe: Poland rip in pis

«‹›749 »

slumdoge millionare: Feb 17, 2006; by FactsAreUseless; Grimey Drawer

Jesus Christ, Brown Moses. Stay anonymous and safe, man. This site has lost enough to violence.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 01:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 19:25

Horns of Hattin: Dec 21, 2011

Majorian posted:

This is some of the most bizarre word salad I've ever read. Am I misreading it, or is the author basically just saying, "Nuh uh! That's not proof!" to Brown Moses' actual, tangible proof? Like, without elaborating on why he or she thinks it's not proof? Because the rest of his/her argument seems to hinge on that assertion.

Hm? I did link to the article: http://vz.ru/politics/2014/9/9/704737.html . The passage where they straight up deny it is here:

quote:

В тексте приводится достаточное количество фотографий самой разнообразной техники и даже снимок принятия присяги, однако документальных подтверждений вины ополчения Донбасса (а уж тем более России) в статье нет.

I can summarize the article for those too lazy to read broken English:

The official report did not assign blame.
Bellingcat made some poo poo up to blame Russia before the official report was released.
~~National traitors~~Gullible opposition members who bought in to this nonsense are named.
The BBC is a rag newspaper that doesn't know what it's talking about and has no journalistic integrity.
Bellingcat so much worse than the BBC, that people are forced to cite the unreliable BBC to hide the fact that they're really citing Bellingcat.
Switching to a completely different topic so fast you'll get whiplash, Ukrainian media is also unreliable.
In conclusion, right from the start some biased people were out to prove that Russia was to blame, even before any official evidence/reports came in. Now they're making up "evidence" to fit their anti-Russian agenda.

Brown Moses posted:

A lot of the Russian stuff is being done by Russian speakers, so it's not an issue, and I can ask them whenever needed.

Here's the Russia today clip, starts at 5:39

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDvCzzrYLM0&t=339s

I hadn't yet watched the clip when I was translating the article, but it's amazing how in both cases Bellingcat is mentioned along with the same BBC article. At the same time, it isn't immediately apparent to me if or how RT.com and vzglyad.ru are so closely related. It's like peering through the looking glass of the Russian propaganda machine, where a memo ordering these two things that should be mentioned is disseminated to different news outlets.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 01:30

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Vladimir Putin posted:

That's not even an appropriate representation of WWII. Russia won but with like 14 million dead.

I shouldn't be saying this to you, but the spin on WWII in modern Russian identity is overwhelmingly positive and centered on victory more than the cost. Also, please don't say "Russia won" --- there were plenty of non-Russians in Soviet Army, like, say, Ukrainians, something that the real Vladimir Putin would rather have people forget.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 01:38

Braking Gnus: Oct 13, 2012

El Scotch posted:

Well, are you on the dole?

(Who is Bryan MacDonald? In-house mouthpiece?)

Notice how he avoided answering your first question. Clearly hiding something.

Alert RT, we have confirmation!

# ? Sep 10, 2014 01:48

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Come on, we all know the real question is:
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a recipient of State Department grants? How about baked goods?!".

# ? Sep 10, 2014 01:54

HUGE PUBES A PLUS: Apr 30, 2005

OddObserver posted:

I shouldn't be saying this to you, but the spin on WWII in modern Russian identity is overwhelmingly positive and centered on victory more than the cost. Also, please don't say "Russia won" --- there were plenty of non-Russians in Soviet Army, like, say, Ukrainians, something that the real Vladimir Putin would rather have people forget.

Yeah, the Red Army that surrounded Berlin in 1945 included Ukrainians, Belarusians, Poles, and so on.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 02:06

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

eigenstate posted:

Hm? I did link to the article: http://vz.ru/politics/2014/9/9/704737.html . The passage where they straight up deny it is here:

I can summarize the article for those too lazy to read broken English:
[list][*]The official report did not assign blame.
[*]Bellingcat made some poo poo up to blame Russia before the official report was released.

Yeah, no, I caught that, and thanks for translating it. I just wanted to make sure that they didn't have any real counterarguments to what Brown Moses posted beyond plugging their ears and going "LALALALA!"

# ? Sep 10, 2014 02:16

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

Majorian posted:

Yeah, no, I caught that, and thanks for translating it. I just wanted to make sure that they didn't have any real counterarguments to what Brown Moses posted beyond plugging their ears and going "LALALALA!"

Yeah but Brown Moses is just an internet nerd and RT are Real Journalists with credentials and education! There's no proof here!

# ? Sep 10, 2014 02:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

Based on a profile by Dave Weigel a couple months back, RT liked to pose as a credible agency to new journalism school graduates and sucker them in. Only once they got there and started work would they realize it was a propaganda outfit, at which point they were often unhireable (and as I mentioned before, getting paid to recite propaganda, and having an interest in your own self-esteem, is a great way to start drinking the kool-aid). Other journalists and journalism schools started warning people about the entity so it became harder for them to ~~dupe~~recruit from mainstream sources. About the same time, there was a management change, and RT started taking a more militantly oppositional approach. They basically don't bother trying to seem legitimate to others in the media now- they know there's still a crackpot anti-US subculture (see, e.g., Ted Rall from the Political Cartoons thread) on the left fringe that they can still speak to and recruit from.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 02:29

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

On a cross-thread issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/w...WT.nav=top-news

quote:

Iran�s Talks With Russia May Strike at Sanctions
By RICK GLADSTONESEPT. 9, 2014

Iran sent new signals on Tuesday that it was seeking to subvert the Western sanctions on its contentious nuclear energy program, adding uncertainties in advance of another round of negotiations next week in New York before the United Nations General Assembly.

The Iranians said they had been engaged in talks with Russia, a member of the group of big powers negotiating with Tehran, about economic cooperation in energy, which could undercut the sanctions. South Africa, a former Iranian oil customer that has honored the sanctions in deference to Western pressure, said that, after talks with an Iranian delegation, it hoped to resume imports in three months.

President Hassan Rouhani called the United States on Saturday the biggest obstacle to finding agreement on nuclear talks after it imposed new sanctions on Iran.Speaking to air force commanders in Tehran on Thursday, Ayatollah Ali Khameini said Iran U.S. Adds Penalties Amid Resistance by Iran to Inspection of Nuclear Work. On Monday, Iran�s negotiator at the nuclear talks, Abbas Araghchi, the deputy foreign minister, said his country would not countenance any new economic penalties imposed by the United States, after an announcement by the Obama administration last month that it was adding more than 25 Iranian individuals and companies to a sanctions blacklist.

The atmosphere contrasts starkly with President Hassan Rouhani�s first visit to the United Nations last September for the General Assembly�s annual convergence of world leaders. The Iranian president spoke optimistically of a new era and prospects for a nuclear deal � capped by a groundbreaking telephone conversation with President Obama.

Since then, a temporary agreement reached in November eased some of the sanctions against Iran in exchange for a freeze on most of its nuclear activities. Negotiators extended the talks, creating a new deadline for a permanent agreement by this November, but there has been little sign of substantive progress.

Iran and the so-called P5-plus-1 group � permanent Security Council members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany � are scheduled to reconvene in New York on Sept. 18, a few days before the General Assembly.

Both Mr. Rouhani and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran�s supreme leader, have been asserting with increased frequency that should there be no nuclear agreement, the sanctions would fracture.

The Iranians may just be posturing as part of a negotiation strategy to exert pressure on the Obama administration, which has made a nuclear agreement an important foreign policy objective.

But some experts who have followed the negotiations say Mr. Khamenei, who deeply mistrusts the United States and has the final word on any deal, now believes Iran can withstand the economic consequences of any new sanctions should diplomacy fail.

Some analysts have speculated that Iran�s conservative hard-liners, who oppose any rapprochement with the United States, have convinced Mr. Khamenei that improved economic ties with Russia � which also faces sanctions by the West over the Ukraine crisis � have given Iran new leverage.

Last month, Russia and Iran signed a memorandum in which Russia would buy Iranian crude oil and Iran would purchase energy equipment, machinery and food, a deal that American officials have warned would be a sanctions violation.

On Tuesday, Ali Majedi, Iran�s deputy oil minister, was quoted by state news media as reiterating that Iran and Russia would �develop cooperation� in energy and petrochemicals industries.

�What Russia did was give Iranian hard-liners an argument to Khamenei, that in a no-deal scenario, Iran has an economic lifeline from Russia, which is why we don�t need to have this deal stuffed down our throats,� Cliff Kupchan, the Middle East director at the Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy in Washington, said in a telephone interview.

In an emailed report to clients on Thursday, Mr. Kupchan and Greg Priddy, the group�s global oil director, downgraded the possibility of a nuclear accord to 40 percent from 60 percent.

Something I suspected that would happen (or at least would be an issue), isolation of Iran only effectively work as long as they didn't have a patron and they effectively may have one now. One thing is Russia certainly has the technology and equipment to make airstrikes difficult if not impossible, S-300/400 systems and SU-30s would make things messy.

That said, it is mostly about leverage and what type of concessions the West would be interested in giving up, that said Obama especially may not have much to give.

Ardennes fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Sep 10, 2014

# ? Sep 10, 2014 02:54

Dandywalken: Feb 11, 2014

Are airstrikes even on the table anymore? I thought that was more or less past.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 04:22

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Dandywalken posted:

Are airstrikes even on the table anymore? I thought that was more or less past.

Well the question is if Iran can break out of sanctions, the West may scramble for some other form of leverage. They have been off the table for a while, but I suspect at least a discussion about them will come up.

That said, with the situation in Iraq, it would actually be nuts especially since we are already devoting air assets to bomb what is still their enemy and cooperation with Baghdad would completely meltdown. In addition, Iran most likely has been beefing up their air defenses over time, and the US might actually have to try and achieve air superiority, I don't think a one off strike or cruise missiles would be enough. It just gets worse if Russia gives them more-modern equipment, modern Israeli/US F-16s and newer models of the SU-30 are pretty comparable matches.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 04:56

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Pellisworth posted:

Yeah but Brown Moses is just an internet nerd and RT are Real Journalists with credentials and education! There's no proof here!

I figured that's what it was, I just wanted to make sure. :tipshat:

# ? Sep 10, 2014 05:01

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

Ardennes posted:

Well the question is if Iran can break out of sanctions, the West may scramble for some other form of leverage. They have been off the table for a while, but I suspect at least a discussion about them will come up.

That said, with the situation in Iraq, it would actually be nuts especially since we are already devoting air assets to bomb what is still their enemy and cooperation with Baghdad would completely meltdown. In addition, Iran most likely has been beefing up their air defenses over time, and the US might actually have to try and achieve air superiority, I don't think a one off strike or cruise missiles would be enough. It just gets worse if Russia gives them more-modern equipment, modern Israeli/US F-16s and newer models of the SU-30 are pretty comparable matches.

I think SAMs would be more likely in the near term than aircraft. I'm not quite sure how long it takes to build a competent Su-30 squadron but for other aircraft types Russia has sometimes been kind of slow to build them in big numbers.

edit: I think the newest Russian gear in the Iranian air force inventory right now is the MiG-29, not sure when they got those.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 05:03

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Ardennes posted:

On a cross-thread issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/w...WT.nav=top-news

Something I suspected that would happen (or at least would be an issue), isolation of Iran only effectively work as long as they didn't have a patron and they effectively may have one now. One thing is Russia certainly has the technology and equipment to make airstrikes difficult if not impossible, S-300/400 systems and SU-30s would make things messy.

That said, it is mostly about leverage and what type of concessions the West would be interested in giving up, that said Obama especially may not have much to give.

It certainly doesn't help to pile on new sanctions in the middle of negotiating about lifting them.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 05:11

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

StandardVC10 posted:

I think SAMs would be more likely in the near term than aircraft. I'm not quite sure how long it takes to build a competent Su-30 squadron but for other aircraft types Russia has sometimes been kind of slow to build them in big numbers.

edit: I think the newest Russian gear in the Iranian air force inventory right now is the MiG-29, not sure when they got those.

In the short term, certainly SAMs would be the effective way to negative a possible responsible. However, beyond new fighters, Russia reportedly has been helping modernized Iran's F-14s and once was working with them on a 4th generation fighter which supposedly became the Saeqeh. Certainly, active Russian assistance would allow the Iranians to accelerate their own fighter programs beyond buying Russian aircraft themselves.

The MIG-29s were from the Soviets, I don't know if they have been upgraded or not.

Ultimately, it is up to the US and how much they are going to responsible to Iran's possible leverage. If the US maintains a hardline, and keeps up ramping up sanctions while negotiations are happening, Iran may very well just go for plan B.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 06:02

Bullfrog: Nov 5, 2012

Has the thread discussed this already? This is a really underhanded move.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/iss-astronauts-could-be-pawns-in-russia-ukraine-conflict/

# ? Sep 10, 2014 06:34

The New Black: Oct 1, 2006; Had it, lost it.

eigenstate posted:

I hadn't yet watched the clip when I was translating the article, but it's amazing how in both cases Bellingcat is mentioned along with the same BBC article. At the same time, it isn't immediately apparent to me if or how RT.com and vzglyad.ru are so closely related. It's like peering through the looking glass of the Russian propaganda machine, where a memo ordering these two things that should be mentioned is disseminated to different news outlets.

I also noticed some similarities in the reports. You may be on to something. However, to be fair I think we see as much similarity between various Western media outlets. The sad truth is that these days most reporters copy and paraphrase wire agency stories, press releases and each others' pieces all the time. I certainly notice that I'll often see surprisingly similar structure/wording between for example BBC and Guardian news stories (those are the ones I read most regularly).

Of course, the TV report/interview and the column posted are more like 'opinion' pieces, so it's not quite the same, and therefore the similarities are more suspicious in terms of a propaganda line being taken.

e: new thread title is amazing.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 06:35

Demiurge4: Aug 10, 2011

Bullfrog posted:

Has the thread discussed this already? This is a really underhanded move.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/iss-astronauts-could-be-pawns-in-russia-ukraine-conflict/

drat that's scummy. But we shouldn't have become 100% reliant on Russian space craft.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 07:22

SA_Avenger: Oct 22, 2012

Fartmancer posted:

I don't think Russia's going to be backing down any time soon.

Don't think many people are expecting Russia to back down at all

# ? Sep 10, 2014 08:04

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Majorian posted:

This is some of the most bizarre word salad I've ever read. Am I misreading it, or is the author basically just saying, "Nuh uh! That's not proof!" to Brown Moses' actual, tangible proof? Like, without elaborating on why he or she thinks it's not proof? Because the rest of his/her argument seems to hinge on that assertion.

It's reassuring that this appears to be the only level of debate they can reach. That, and claiming everything is photoshoped.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 08:06

confused: Oct 3, 2003; It's just business.

Demiurge4 posted:

drat that's scummy. But we shouldn't have become 100% reliant on Russian space craft.

I think the big issue for Russia with their retaliatory actions is that they seem to be predicated on the idea that the world can't live without Russia. I think that it may cause the opposite result and drive home the fact that besides dropping nuclear bombs, Russia can't do much outside of its region except inconvenience people.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 08:09

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Also, they keep going on about how I published my piece before the MH17 report. So what? I'm not writing about anything that's discussed in the report, and I'm sure these media organisations are aware of the concept of publishing stories at a time when there's the most interest in the subject. Their faux astonishment such a thing is possible is comical.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 08:13

Dolash: Oct 23, 2008; aNYWAY,
tHAT'S REALLY ALL THERE IS,
tO REPORT ON THE SUBJECT,
oF ME GETTING HURT,

confused posted:

I think the big issue for Russia with their retaliatory actions is that they seem to be predicated on the idea that the world can't live without Russia. I think that it may cause the opposite result and drive home the fact that besides dropping nuclear bombs, Russia can't do much outside of its region except inconvenience people.

Someone is going to make the point that in that scenario there's a chance that Russia will start dropping those bombs and therefore we should make sure not to hurt their feelings too much. But yes, geopolitically it would be nice to see the rest of the world show some backbone about extricating themselves from Russia's influence if this is how they're going to use it. Now if only certain European nations would get on board with that idea.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 08:15

Torka: Jan 5, 2008

Dolash posted:

Someone is going to make the point that in that scenario there's a chance that Russia will start dropping those bombs

On whom, and for what reason?

# ? Sep 10, 2014 08:22

SA_Avenger: Oct 22, 2012

Dolash posted:

Someone is going to make the point that in that scenario there's a chance that Russia will start dropping those bombs and therefore we should make sure not to hurt their feelings too much. But yes, geopolitically it would be nice to see the rest of the world show some backbone about extricating themselves from Russia's influence if this is how they're going to use it. Now if only certain European nations would get on board with that idea.

Ugh in my opinion Europe is already antagonizing Russia way too much and forgetting that everything they do now will have long term consequences. I'd have much more preferred for Europe to negotiate deals with Russia and let it do whatever they wanted in Ukraine than what they do now. The end result will be the same anyway for Ukraine but at least in the long term we would have had better ties with Russia and less economic harshness down the drain. Ukraine is not part of NATO nor EU, Russia will do anything for it not to join either and noone is going to stop that except if we are willing to go for WW3 (I hope noone is). Russia is a local power but it's a power that is rising back and we may regret all this 20-30 years from now.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 08:22

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Brown Moses posted:

Also, they keep going on about how I published my piece before the MH17 report. So what? I'm not writing about anything that's discussed in the report, and I'm sure these media organisations are aware of the concept of publishing stories at a time when there's the most interest in the subject. Their faux astonishment such a thing is possible is comical.

To a naive or uneducated reader it sounds like you knew about it before the event was reported; further proof of the homonazi American conspiracy to shoot down MH17 and blame it on Russia. That's the insinuation I took from it at least. A lot of readers are probably not aware that the official report is a specific thing that is taking a long time to come out.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 08:31

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

SA_Avenger posted:

Ugh in my opinion Europe is already antagonizing Russia way too much and forgetting that everything they do now will have long term consequences. I'd have much more preferred for Europe to negotiate deals with Russia and let it do whatever they wanted in Ukraine than what they do now. The end result will be the same anyway for Ukraine but at least in the long term we would have had better ties with Russia and less economic harshness down the drain. Ukraine is not part of NATO nor EU, Russia will do anything for it not to join either and noone is going to stop that except if we are willing to go for WW3 (I hope noone is). Russia is a local power but it's a power that is rising back and we may regret all this 20-30 years from now.

Where did Neville Chamberlain find a time machine?

I know :godwin:

and all, but Jesus. The EU or NATO should seek to appease Russia despite its increasingly aggressive and nationalistic foreign policy because otherwise the Russians will be sad and in a few decades they might still be sore about not getting to invade their neighbors on a whim?

Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Sep 10, 2014

# ? Sep 10, 2014 08:34

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

confused posted:

I think the big issue for Russia with their retaliatory actions is that they seem to be predicated on the idea that the world can't live without Russia. I think that it may cause the opposite result and drive home the fact that besides dropping nuclear bombs, Russia can't do much outside of its region except inconvenience people.

The world can live without Russia, but I wouldn't minimize their strengths at this point in Europe, there is a reason why EU sanctions have been so light. In addition, Russia seems to have continuing if not increasing influence in the Middle East. Russia at this point has ties with Iran and Syria, and now Iraq and Egypt.

Yeah, they aren't a super-power but they are a major power than does have influence outside the former Soviet Union.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 08:36

Bip Roberts: Mar 29, 2005

Brown Moses posted:

It's reassuring that this appears to be the only level of debate they can reach. That, and claiming everything is photoshoped.

One thing this can mean is that they accept your premise from the evidence, they just think the evidence was fabricated. This sounds like they know their narrative doesn't have basis.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 08:40

Raygereio: Nov 12, 2012

Ardennes posted:

The world can live without Russia, but I wouldn't minimize their strengths at this point in Europe, there is a reason why EU sanctions have been so light.

I'd say the fear of tanking EU nation's economies if they cut off Russia completely has more to do with that, then direct Russian influence.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 09:14

Killer-of-Lawyers: Apr 22, 2008; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

Demiurge4 posted:

drat that's scummy. But we shouldn't have become 100% reliant on Russian space craft.

Considering we paid for the parts of the ISS they built, we should just respond by repossessing the Russian modules.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 09:14

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Raygereio posted:

I'd say the fear of tanking EU nation's economies if they cut off Russia completely has more to do with that, then direct Russian influence.

In a sense, that is still leverage Russia has on Europe, it is certainly more than a "inconvenience" even if Russian troops aren't marching across Frankfurt. There are real limits to what the Russians can do, but if they become a true pariah state it would certainly be very destabilizing for not just the former Soviet Union.

quote:

Considering we paid for the parts of the ISS they built, we should just respond by repossessing the Russian modules.

The only way to get humans up there is with Russian spacecraft in the first place.

# ? Sep 10, 2014 09:25

Slashrat: Jun 6, 2011; YOSPOS

Ardennes posted:

The only way to get humans up there is with Russian spacecraft in the first place.

Isn't NASA's Commercial Crew Development program getting to the point where there'll be a commercial way to get crews to the ISS within the next year or two?

# ? Sep 10, 2014 09:42

Killer-of-Lawyers: Apr 22, 2008; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

Ardennes posted:

In a sense, that is still leverage Russia has on Europe, it is certainly more than a "inconvenience" even if Russian troops aren't marching across Frankfurt. There are real limits to what the Russians can do, but if they become a true pariah state it would certainly be very destabilizing for not just the former Soviet Union.

The only way to get humans up there is with Russian spacecraft in the first place.

You mean moonraker lied to me?!

# ? Sep 10, 2014 09:49

HUGE PUBES A PLUS: Apr 30, 2005

Look out Batka, Putin is muscling in on your turf.

http://belarusdigest.com/story/no-longer-last-dictatorship-europe-19253

# ? Sep 10, 2014 11:58

jaete: Jun 21, 2009; Nap Ghost

Nato expansion unlikely before late 2015

Last paragraph:

quote:

Asked by EUobserver if Rasmussen�s mention of late-2015 means no new members until that time, the Nato official said �unless of course Finland or Sweden opt to join � if they do, they would walk in within a week�.

I certainly hope Finland & Sweden will decide to apply sometime soon...

# ? Sep 10, 2014 12:37