Wierre posted:New webpage of the Hungarian President's Office: http://www.keh.hu/ spot the problem. I don't see anything. Someone say what it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't see anything. Someone say what it is. Are you blind?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
my dad posted:The gently caress? How? What, you don't see one ethnicity of a one multi-ethnic country being encouraged to re-unite with their mother country they were until recently part of by said country? Of course there are differences in the details, but I said this was an analogous, not an identical situation. illrepute posted:THE Y COMES AFTER THE B IN LIBYA  Try not to get a brain aneurysm. How are you supposed to get proper names "right" in a different language that doesn't even have the right letters or sounds? Russians can get pissed off when calling their country Russia, since that sounds a lot like 'Rasha', which is nowhere close to the proper 'Rossiya'. And they call the US 'Pindostan' for crying out loud, and no-one is worse for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
This was posted in comments https://news.pn/ru/criminal/108421
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
UA forces held the airport last night Another assault is happening now. livecam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eTRSk_FulY
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Are you blind? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Your and Majorian's "realist" view completely ignores Ukraine as an actor and simplifies the conflict as the clash of superpowers, which is far from truth. I realize this, and I do have a lot of sympathy for the Ukrainian people, particularly those who have been caught between the various factions and suffered. Ukraine has really been hosed over by Russia in all of this, and it sucks that there's not much that the US and its allies can do to reverse the situation. But trying to bring the country more into the US' orbit is only going to make it more of a no man's land in a big proxy war between NATO and Russia, and that would serve the Ukrainians even less. A Buttery Pastry posted:Let's not mince words. We're not talking about mistakes (necessarily), we're talking about deliberately putting your own self-interest ahead of other people to a massive degree. The US government should consider the US' geopolitical interests - that's what we elect them to do. Here's what I think you need to answer here: what options, exactly, does the US have? And which of those options is going to cause the least amount of damage and upheaval to the greatest number of Ukrainians? My money's on the "making Ukraine as neutral as possible" option, personally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah you kinda are. No, fishmech, trying to understand your adversary is not making excuses for him. Just as criticizing the Treaty of Versailles is not making excuses for Hitler. quote:In mroal terms it does not matter. It is absolutely impossible to determine what things will be perfectly fine with Russia one day and then justification for invasion and seizure the next. They don't behave in any sort of consistent matter outside of not invading countries strong enough to fight them or countries with buddies strong enough to fight them. Russian policy has utterly capricious especially in recent years. You say this because you haven't been paying attention. I and lots of scholars much more seasoned than myself have shown that there is a consistent guiding logic behind it, and it's not just "conquer everything in sight." I know oversimplifying the situation makes it a lot easier for you to hate your enemy, but that's not what we're here to do. We're here to learn. quote:This is again to overinflate how far they got - they're literally in the same stage as Russia with the addition of "talking more" occasionally. Russia never got an Individual Partnership Action Plan, and the Additional Dialogue is, in fact, a concrete stage in NATO accession. Stop talking out of your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, fishmech, trying to understand your adversary is not making excuses for him. Just as criticizing the Treaty of Versailles is not making excuses for Hitler. We already understand Russia. No, I've been paying attention just fine. The consistent guiding logic is: Russia is violent under the current leadership and they're getting more and more desperate all the time. So they finally started invading places. Russia is in Partnership for Peace as are Ukraine and Georgia. Ukraine doesn't have an Individual Partnership Action Plan (neither does Georgia). Russia doesn't have intensified dialogue because they rejected negotiating to join NATO themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
The Pope has declared a "piecemeal World War III," and feel it is difficult to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:We already understand Russia. That's an incredibly shallow understanding, driven by willful ignorance. I'm glad there are less stubbornly stupid people negotiating with the Russians on behalf of our government - if people like you were in control, we would be well into Cold War II already. quote:Russia is in Partnership for Peace as are Ukraine and Georgia. Ukraine doesn't have an Individual Partnership Action Plan (neither does Georgia). They both do, you unbelievable tard. Georgia's came into effect in October 2004, and Ukraine's was adopted in November 2002.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's an incredibly shallow understanding, driven by willful ignorance. I'm glad there are less stubbornly stupid people negotiating with the Russians on behalf of our government - if people like you were in control, we would be well into Cold War II already. Correct, Putin's government policy is guided by willful ignorance. Glad you can finally admit it. If you'll look at that page it explicitly states neither Georgia nor Ukraine have Individual Partnership Action Plans! Like it's right there! Amazing how you link a source that directly contradicts you. They have intensified dialogue but do not have IPAPs - i.e. they have precisely the status Russia would hold now if they hadn't broken off negotiations in the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Correct, Putin's government policy is guided by willful ignorance. Glad you can finally admit it. You're a child, fishmech. quote:If you'll look at that page it explicitly states neither Georgia nor Ukraine have Individual Partnership Action Plans! Your reading is terrible: quote:As of 2009, Individual Partnership Action Plans are in implementation with seven countries:[14] Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Moldova, and Montenegro. Ukraine's was called the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan, since it existed before the Individual Partnership Action Plan came about, but it's effectively the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're a child, fishmech. You're a child, kommissar. That section specifically states that Georgia's IPAP is gone because they are now in intensified dialogue, and Ukraine never had one, but is also in intensified dialogue. Russia couldn't get an IPAP because they didn't exist until several years after they rejected joining NATO. It was called something different because it was something different. It is not effectively the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That section specifically states that Georgia's IPAP is gone because they are now in intensified dialogue, You're so dumb, seriously: quote:Intensified Dialogue is viewed as an additional stage before being invited to enter the alliance Membership Action Plan (MAP), that may complement that country's Individual Partnership Action Plan. Also, you were wrong to say that Georgia and Ukraine are on the same level as Russia in NATO accession.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're so dumb, seriously: Nope, Russia chose to abandon all its progress. They were on the same level before Russia poo poo itself and went home. If I hand you and your brother each an ice cream cone, and you throw it away while he keeps his, you're on the same level as your brother even though you decided to be a petulant child-nation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nope, Russia chose to abandon all its progress. They were on the same level before Russia poo poo itself and went home. That's not what you said here: quote:This is again to overinflate how far they got - they're literally in the same stage as Russia with the addition of "talking more" occasionally. Stop moving the goalposts. Just admit you were wrong. Be a big boy for once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not what you said here: I haven' moved the goalposts once, however you've moved them into the loving baseball stadium.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I haven' moved the goalposts once I just showed you how you did! Like, I literally quoted you and showed you how you moved the goalposts. You said that Russia is on the same level as Ukraine and Georgia. I showed you that you were wrong. Now you're saying, "Well, they WERE on the same level at one time!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I just showed you how you did! Like, I literally quoted you and showed you how you moved the goalposts. You said that Russia is on the same level as Ukraine and Georgia. I showed you that you were wrong. Now you're saying, "Well, they WERE on the same level at one time!" Look I'm extremely sorry you're unable to read, but that's really on you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
jesus christ shut up
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:jesus christ shut up
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Majorian and Nintendo Kid need a relationship reset. Stop trying to invade each other's spheres. It's gay
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm sorry I engaged fishmech at all. If he isn't going to admit he's wrong here, I'm just going to ignore him.Kurnugia posted:Majorian and Nintendo Kid need a relationship reset. Stop trying to invade each other's spheres. It's gay As Discendo Vox pointed out, it's not gay if spheres don't touch. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:jesus christ shut up all of you
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:55
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
And so another just asking questions for poor little Russia defender admits defeat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And so another just asking questions for poor little Russia defender admits defeat. Please die of ebola~
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Marjorian, your entire Russian apologism comes down to NATO enlargement, it seems, and that's quaint. What I'm not clear on, and maybe you can elaborate further, is why NATO enlargement is a bad thing for Russia. It seems like the primary cause you state that NATO enlargement is harmful to Russia is that it would affect their 'sphere of influence' or 'encircle' them. Ok. Now, NATO's primary(if not only) purpose is to act as a mutual defense agreement. This is not an offensive alliance. What offensive actions have involved NATO member nations(and been dubbed as 'NATO actions') they were not combined NATO forces and in both modern cases(Afghanistan & Iraq) huge chunks of the Alliance simply didn't participate(and non-NATO members did!) So if you're predicating your apologism upon Russia feeling like NATO might invade, it's a baseless argument and clearly nonsense. Now to reiterate, NATO is a defensive alliance. The only reason to feel directly threatened by a defensive alliance is if you have designs for the areas that alliance may grow to cover. If I was, say, Russia - and I wanted to behave aggressively(either directly or simply via threat of force) towards one of my smaller neighbors - naturally I would feel threatened if said neighbor signed up with an alliance that promised to protect them if I, lets say, instigated an insurrection and invasion. Your entire argument can only be logically validated if it is true that Russia has aggressive, imperial designs for the world. In which case enlargement of a purely defensive alliance against this aggression is the only logical action. What riles myself, and most other posters arguing with you, is that it does not need to be this way. Europe spent just as much time in hostilities with Russia as Russia did with Europe. But through the 90's and 00's there's been a huge attempt from The Western Devil to reconcile and include Russia. All Russia needed to do was go the way of the rest of many other ex-Pact and ex-Soviet states and play along. But your argument suggests strongly that we should sympathize with the fact that Russia doesn't want to play Europe's game, it wants Europe to play its game and it'll get violent if that doesn't happen. This isn't 'understanding your opponent' because there's so little to understand or rationalize. Russia wants direct, military empire(a distinction I draw from the economic empire that Western nations build) to become a threatening superpower again and is willing to bleed its own citizens for that dream. It's a bad dream, run by bad people, and the only rational, logical option for states like Ukraine is to attempt to find protection from the thug in the neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:Marjorian, your entire Russian apologism comes down to NATO enlargement, it seems, and that's quaint. What I'm not clear on, and maybe you can elaborate further, is why NATO enlargement is a bad thing for Russia. I agree with you that NATO is intended to be a defensive alliance, but there's the thing: defensive alliances can become offensive ones fairly quickly. Look at the Delian League for example. The fear that Russia feels with regard to NATO expansion is that things like ABM sites in former Warsaw Pact states will be able to put a dent in Russia's second strike capabilities. If the US attains nuclear superiority over them, they worry that it will allow NATO to push them around, as they think happened in the 90's. Again, this isn't something I'm creating out of whole cloth; Kennan observed it in 1998: (quoted in Mearsheimer's piece) quote:“I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies,” he said. “I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anyone else.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And so another just asking questions for poor little Russia defender admits defeat. You act like a child who seem pissed that he won your stupid slapfight by agreeing to leave your unproductive circular lovely discussion before you did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree with you that NATO is intended to be a defensive alliance, but there's the thing: defensive alliances can become offensive ones fairly quickly. Look at the Delian League for example. The fear that Russia feels with regard to NATO expansion is that things like ABM sites in former Warsaw Pact states will be able to put a dent in Russia's second strike capabilities. If the US attains nuclear superiority over them, they worry that it will allow NATO to push them around, as they think happened in the 90's. "Defensive alliances can become offensive alliances very quickly, look at Ancient Greece literally 2400+ years ago!" Zudgemud posted:You act like a child who seem pissed that he won your stupid slapfight by agreeing to leave the your unproductive circular lovely discussion before you did. It's only circular because he was arguing based on untruth with a thesis with inherent contradiction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:"Defensive alliances can become offensive alliances very quickly, look at Ancient Greece literally 2400+ years ago!" While yours seem to be held up by an apparent problem in accounting for historical factors in international relations and looking at an issue from another point of view. Even if that view is not as consistent with the facts you know and assume.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:While yours seem to be held up by an apparent problem in accounting for historical factors in international relations and looking at an issue from another point of view. Even if that view is not as consistent with the facts you know and assume. Not true, there is no other point of view here. Russia knows they want to take some territory, and the West assumed they didn't for years but changed their minds after they started doing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The US government should consider the US' geopolitical interests - that's what we elect them to do. Majorian posted:Here's what I think you need to answer here: what options, exactly, does the US have? And which of those options is going to cause the least amount of damage and upheaval to the greatest number of Ukrainians? My money's on the "making Ukraine as neutral as possible" option, personally. Maybe now you can finish replying to me previous post. Majorian posted:The fear that Russia feels with regard to NATO expansion is that things like ABM sites in former Warsaw Pact states will be able to put a dent in Russia's second strike capabilities. If the US attains nuclear superiority over them, they worry that it will allow NATO to push them around, as they think happened in the 90's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:Marjorian, your entire Russian apologism comes down to NATO enlargement, it seems, and that's quaint. What I'm not clear on, and maybe you can elaborate further, is why NATO enlargement is a bad thing for Russia. I find it incredible that Washington spent much of the 90's and 00's ringing Russia with military bases and trying to reduce it's influence in the neighborhood, and there are people seriously surprised that the Russians see this as an hostile act and are trying to counteract that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I find it incredible that Washington spent much of the 90's and 00's ringing Russia with military bases and trying to reduce it's influence in the neighborhood, and there are people seriously surprised that the Russians see this as an hostile act and are trying to counteract that. And I find incredible that Russia's response to all its former satellite and client states bailing for the West was to get more hostile and controlling toward the ones that remained. NATO letting those former Warsaw Pact and SSR states join was antagonistic, but the fact that all those states wanted into NATO in the first place is the actual problem that Russia has only made worse through its behavior. It's like an abusive mother being furious that a bunch of her kids prefer to hang out at the house next door, so she beats the ones that are left to teach them a lesson.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I find it incredible that Washington spent much of the 90's and 00's ringing Russia with military bases and trying to reduce it's influence in the neighborhood, and there are people seriously surprised that the Russians see this as an hostile act and are trying to counteract that. So they counteract it by committing actual unambiguous hostile acts that were precisely what everybody who joined up with NATO was worried about happening to them. Smart move!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I find it incredible that Washington spent much of the 90's and 00's ringing Russia with military bases and trying to reduce it's influence in the neighborhood, and there are people seriously surprised that the Russians see this as an hostile act and are trying to counteract that. What military bases? NATO's militaries in Europe nosedived after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the US has been closing bases in Europe left, right, and center. A large portion of this very thread has been discussion of how hilariously atrophied NATO members have become so it's not exactly a huge secret that it's been going on. Eastern Europe has never been a host to major NATO bases or concentrations of troops (I guess unless you simply count the existing bases/troops of new members?) and the closest thing I can even think of that caused a stir with Russia was the idea to plop down a small base for 10 anti-ballistic missile interceptors in Poland. Aside from that you've got a few KFOR camps in Bosnia (which shrunk to insignificance after the end of hostilities) and a joint exercise range in Bulgaria (a NATO member)? The major country parking its own troops and new bases in other countries around Russia has been...Russia? Abkhazia (Georgia), Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, South Ossetia (Georgia), Tranistria (Moldova), Tajikistan, and Ukraine (Crimea). Note that three of those (now four including Crimea) are regions chopped off the host country in Russian-sponsored/assisted rebel movements as early as loving 1992. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree with you that NATO is intended to be a defensive alliance, but there's the thing: defensive alliances can become offensive ones fairly quickly. Look at the Delian League for example. The fear that Russia feels with regard to NATO expansion is that things like ABM sites in former Warsaw Pact states will be able to put a dent in Russia's second strike capabilities. If the US attains nuclear superiority over them, they worry that it will allow NATO to push them around, as they think happened in the 90's. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there were zero indications that NATO or any of its members wants to attack Russia. European countries significantly reduced their defense budgets and made the Russian Federation an important business partner. The fate of the ABM sites, which you brought up as a proof of NATO duplicity, was uncertain exactly because the US didn't want to antagonize their former enemy. No sane person could have believed that NATO was gearing up for war with Russia, especially after 2001. Putin, most likely, doesn't believe it himself, as his entire plan of annexing parts of Ukraine and Georgia works only because the West is extremely reluctant to fight Russia. Either Russia has some state-level equivalent of paranoid schizofrenia and literally believes the West breaks every night into their apartment to coat their toothbrush with a near-invisible layer of feces, or their "fear of encirclement" is simply a rhetorical tool to paint themselves as victims of Western aggression. Given their track record, I'm more inclined to believe the latter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Despite the assurance a few days ago, Gazprom now says it will only be able to supply Poland with the minimum gas flow they are contractually obligated to. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/13/ukraine-crisis-poland-natgas-idUKL5N0RE0DK20140913 For the time being this apparently does not mean Poland has to refrain from reverse supplying Ukraine with gas, because it's increased its own import from Germany and the Czech Republic (which are mostly from Russia as well, afaik). What a silly dance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 00:50
|
|