|
Effectronica posted:No. No! N-not in-insufferable... Please, I beg of you, do not take advantage of my ONE WEAKNESS in such a way! Try to stay on topic here and address the point. 3/4 of those polled among the general population held the opinion that Russian troops were not fighting in Ukraine. Do you believe Russian policy makers also overwhelmingly held that opinion? Hint: I have not denied that elites and the general population show convergence on some or even most opinions. Only that they show divergent opinions on some.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:55 |
|
Warbadger posted:Try to stay on topic here and address the point. 3/4 of those polled among the general population held the opinion that Russian troops were not fighting in Ukraine. Do you believe Russian policy makers also overwhelmingly held that opinion? Actually, you have just conceded my point, and thus have lost, and must now leave the thread and commit hara-kiri. Because you are agreeing that the opinions of the public are potentially relevant, in order to turn this into an argument against an absolute where you can be assured of victory. But it takes two to play that game, and I'm not interested in it.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
I just wanted to point out the extreme irony of this post:Warbadger posted:Honestly I'm pretty happy to be on the opposite side from yourself, simply because you're an insufferable pseudo-intellectual whose idiotic thrashing makes his own side look like loons. There's not enough room in the galaxy for the  this deserves, in light of Warbadger's recent posts.e: For content, I'd like to return the discussion to these polls that I found from the Levada Center, because I really do think they're illuminating: Majorian posted:Here are the Levada Center polls, in case anyone is interested: I feel like these numbers back up the point I've been making about the course that Russian public opinion has taken towards NATO, the West, and perceived external threats to Russia. There's no question, of course, that singular events like Kosovo played significant parts in the decline of relations between the US and Russia, but even so, things didn't reach their terminal phase towards the point they're at today until well into Bush's presidency. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Try to stay on topic here and address the point. 3/4 of those polled among the general population held the opinion that Russian troops were not fighting in Ukraine. Do you believe Russian policy makers also overwhelmingly held that opinion? . You have to look at the media landscape in Russia. Most people still get their information solely from TV and newspapers, which are very tightly controlled. It's not too different from a good chunk of Americans thinking Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
McDowell posted:You have to look at the media landscape in Russia. Most people still get their information solely from TV and newspapers, which are very tightly controlled. While this is well-said, I think it's even more complicated and perverse than that - the media and especially the Russian government are all responses to what the public is demanding. Those Levada Center polls really do tell a story. (for those of you who don't know, the Levada Center is a pretty reputable source of public views in Russia - basically their Pew Foundation). As disillusionment with Western socioeconomic reforms and the perceived expansion of the American empire grew, so too did support for the right-wing irredentist nationalism that Putin so perfectly encapsulates. He is merely a symptom of the broader problem with Russia, not the cause. Both the media and the government's positions on these issues have simply been attempts to tap into these widespread popular sentiments - particularly the fear-based ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:While this is well-said, I think it's even more complicated and perverse than that - the media and especially the Russian government are all responses to what the public is demanding. Those Levada Center polls really do tell a story. (for those of you who don't know, the Levada Center is a pretty reputable source of public views in Russia - basically their Pew Foundation). As disillusionment with Western socioeconomic reforms and the perceived expansion of the American empire grew, so too did support for the right-wing irredentist nationalism that Putin so perfectly encapsulates. He is merely a symptom of the broader problem with Russia, not the cause. Both the media and the government's positions on these issues have simply been attempts to tap into these widespread popular sentiments - particularly the fear-based ones. That is true to an extent, but the street runs both ways and the media (and government that tightly controls it) both capitalizes on these fears and actively feeds them. By the time ABM became an issue it's clear the government was already perfectly happy to push out fictional versions of events and the population was ready to buy into them. The question is, did the people writing the talking points/propaganda actually buy into it - or did they simply know it would play well for the audience and strengthen their own position? Warbadger fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Mmmmm, nope, Warbadger. You don't get to suddenly start posting again like we're having a pleasant discussion. You acted like an incredible jerk to everybody in this thread who dared to disagree with you, and you can't even admit you were wrong here:Warbadger posted:Yes, I am denying that the interceptors were perceived as a threat. I will not deny that Russia claimed otherwise publicly to provide for useful idiots such as yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
Majorian posted:
So, have you made up your mind or are you going to keep dissembling Majorian?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:So, have you made up your mind or are you going to keep dissembling Majorian? That's not dissembling. I've said a few times already that lifting the sanctions would be contingent upon Russia ceasing its support for the insurgents in Ukraine. e: See? Majorian posted:Take Ukraine's accession to NATO off the table, engage in confidence-building measures with the Russians (ie: new arms reduction agreements, signing back onto the ABM Treaty), make it clear that lifting the sanctions is contingent upon an end to their support of the insurgents, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not dissembling. I've said a few times already that lifting the sanctions would be contingent upon Russia ceasing its support for the insurgents in Ukraine.  Maybe you mean we should we lift the sanctions now to improve relations but on the condition that the sanctions would be put back in place if they broke the agreement?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:It's not that you haven't said that often enough, it's that when asked what the West could do to improve relations with Russia you open with "lifting the sanctions". Now you are saying that you meant after Russia left Ukraine? Did anyone ever argue that the sanctions should remain in place after Russia left Ukraine? They broke the agreement the day they negotiated it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:It's not that you haven't said that often enough, it's that when asked what the West could do to improve relations with Russia you open with "lifting the sanctions". Now you are saying that you meant after Russia left Ukraine? Did anyone ever argue that the sanctions should remain in place after Russia left Ukraine? If you read the post I was responding to, I was asked what the US could do in the present day to help ease the broader tensions between NATO and Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:49
|
|
MeLKoR posted:It's not that you haven't said that often enough, it's that when asked what the West could do to improve relations with Russia you open with "lifting the sanctions". Now you are saying that you meant after Russia left Ukraine? Did anyone ever argue that the sanctions should remain in place after Russia left Ukraine? He's saying that the sanctions are part of why there's mistrust, and that sanctions are one of the few tools we have to get Russia to withdraw from Ukraine right now. There is nothing contradictory about these statements. What it suggests is that we can't do everything all at once without sacrificing Ukraine. Happily enough, this isn't a binary continuum- we can do things to build trust and build up to the Russians leaving Ukraine, and then pull the sanctions to continue building trust.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:If you read the post I was responding to, I was asked what the US could do in the present day to help ease the broader tensions between NATO and Russia. That is indeed what it is written, what I'm asking you is to clarify what you mean by that. If someone asks you what you could do to ease the tensions and you reply "lift the sanctions" it doesn't sound like you're making it conditional on Russia leaving Ukraine. And if it is then it's not "something NATO can do", it's entirely dependent on Russia to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Happily enough, this isn't a binary continuum- we can do things to build trust and build up to the Russians leaving Ukraine, and then pull the sanctions to continue building trust. This would imply Putin is willing to reciprocate that trust. What evidence do we have for that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:He's saying that the sanctions are part of why there's mistrust, and that sanctions are one of the few tools we have to get Russia to withdraw from Ukraine right now. There is nothing contradictory about these statements. Russia invaded Ukraine because they mistrust NATO and NATO should lift the sanctions it imposed on Russia after the invasion so that there would be less mistrust. Nothing contradictory here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This would imply Putin is willing to reciprocate that trust. What evidence do we have for that? Putin will go along with an agreement if it's in his government's interest to do so. There's a reason why he abides by New-START. MeLKoR posted:That is indeed what it is written, what I'm asking you is to clarify what you mean by that. If someone asks you what you could do to ease the tensions and you reply "lift the sanctions" it doesn't sound like you're making it conditional on Russia leaving Ukraine. I'm getting the impression that you don't read my posts all that carefully, given that I had said it was conditional upon Russia leaving Ukraine only a couple hours beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Putin will go along with an agreement if it's in his government's interest to do so. There's a reason why he abides by New-START. Considering the rate at which the Ruble is falling, it would have been in his interest a long time ago. Apparently, his governments interest hasn't really swayed him in backing down other than presenting for show negotiations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm getting the impression that you don't read my posts all that carefully quote:given that I had said it was conditional upon Russia leaving Ukraine only a couple hours beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Considering the rate at which the Ruble is falling, it would have been in his interest a long time ago. Eh, it'll stabilize. It's hurting the Russian public, but it'll have to get way worse for the Kremlin to even consider unilaterally reducing its nuclear stockpile. No, the way to make Russia draw down its WMD totals has historically been to do it bilaterally with them, in a legally binding, codified manner. I think it's going to take something like that to truly defuse Russia's ongoing tensions with NATO, too - while we probably can't manage something legally binding, we can at least provide assurances to them that Ukraine and Georgia won't be joining anytime soon. quote:Apparently, his governments interest hasn't really swayed him in backing down other than presenting for show negotiations. In the case of Ukraine, why should he stop right now? He's playing a game of diplomatic chicken with us. He wants to extract the maximum amount of concessions from us and Ukraine before backing down. MeLKoR posted:This is really precious coming from you. Now now, don't get all Warbadger-y on me. I was pretty clear about what my position was on Tuesday, and it hasn't been inconsistent. quote:If it is conditional on Russia leaving Ukraine how is this something "NATO could do to ease the tension"? Because once again, I was talking about the broader issue of tensions between Russia and NATO that have existed for far longer than this particular crisis in Ukraine. If you read the exchange between me and CommieGIR, you'll see I wasn't referring specifically to the crisis in Ukraine, but to the broader issue. quote:I ask again, has anyone proposed that the sanctions that were imposed after the invasion of Ukraine should remain in place after they left? I wasn't implying that anybody was proposing this. I was using it as an example of something that could ease the overall tensions. How is this confusing? Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
e: double post
Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I wasn't implying that anybody was proposing this. I was using it as an example of something that could ease the overall tensions. How is this confusing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Mmmmm, nope, Warbadger. You don't get to suddenly start posting again like we're having a pleasant discussion. You acted like an incredible jerk to everybody in this thread who dared to disagree with you, and you can't even admit you were wrong here: Awww poor Majorian, a shame you've done much the same throughout the thread so it rings pretty hollow. You seem so upset that you just can't get anyone to agree that your awful opinion is The One Truth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:But it's not something NATO can really do as a way to ease tensions, since it's entirely contingent on Russia. It is, but my point was (and still is), if Russia leaves Ukraine and we pony up on our end of the deal, that will be a confidence-building measure towards a broader rapprochement. Warbadger posted:Awww poor Majorian, a shame you've done much the same throughout the thread so it rings pretty hollow. I'm not the one calling people stupid, idiot, moron, etc., for daring to hold a different opinion. You need to stop creating this false equivalence between people disagreeing with you, and you calling them childish names.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Now now, don't get all Warbadger-y on me. I was pretty clear about what my position was on Tuesday, and it hasn't been inconsistent. quote:Because once again, I was talking about the broader issue of tensions between Russia and NATO that have existed for far longer than this particular crisis in Ukraine. If you read the exchange between me and CommieGIR, you'll see I wasn't referring specifically to the crisis in Ukraine, but to the broader issue. Majorian posted:if Russia leaves Ukraine and we pony up on our end of the deal, that will be a confidence-building measure towards a broader rapprochement. master_of_the_obvious.jpg MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:It's confusing because if Russia left Ukraine the sanctions would be automatically lifted, why did you need to say NATO should lift the sanctions to ease the tension if Russia left Ukraine? That's a given and completely outside NATO control. It was part of a list of things that could lead to a broader rapprochement with Russia. I wasn't suggesting it as something that hasn't been proposed yet, or that people weren't already assuming would happen if Russia were to leave Ukraine. quote:Indeed if Russia leaves Ukraine it will be a confidence-building measure towards a broader rapprochement. Here's a good analogy for you: somebody asks me to list the ingredients that go into baking a pie. I give them a list, and included in that list is the pie filling. Now, obviously it was going to include the pie filling - everybody knows that pies have fillings. But I was asked to give a list of ingredients, so I gave them, including obvious ones and less-obvious ones. What you're basically doing is saying, "Why did you include pie filling on that list? Everybody knows pies have filling! Who said that pies don't have filling? No one!" Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It was part of a list of things that could lead to a broader rapprochement with Russia. I wasn't suggesting it as something that hasn't been proposed yet, or that people weren't already assuming would happen if Russia were to leave Ukraine. Just so that we get things clear, when someone asked you what NATO could do to ease tension with Russia your reply is "after Russia left Ukraine we could lift the sanctions". This is indeed a valuable observation that only someone as informed as you paint yourself could come up with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Just so that we get things clear, when someone asked you what NATO could do to ease tension with Russia your reply is "after Russia left Ukraine we could lift the sanctions". This is indeed a valuable observation that only someone as informed as you paint yourself could come up with. It was part of a list of things we could do. That was hardly the only move forward that I included. Are you sure you want to die on this hill? Because it really looks to me like you've misunderstood me because you didn't read what I wrote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:38
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Just so that we get things clear, when someone asked you what NATO could do to ease tension with Russia your reply is "after Russia left Ukraine we could lift the sanctions". This is indeed a valuable observation that only someone as informed as you paint yourself could come up with. For a second, I was wondering if there was a mosquito flitting around, but it turns out I'd accidentally set off the text-to-speech and it was reading your posts.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It was part of a list of things we could do. That was hardly the only move forward that I included.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Presenting a thing which is absolutely the plan already as a thing which can do be done to ease tensions is a bit weak though, even if technically not contradictory. I was trying to be as comprehensive as I could be at the moment. I don't get why this is a big deal. Go back to my pie analogy - are you going to quibble with me if someone asks me to list pie ingredients and I include something obvious like corn starch?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I was trying to be as comprehensive as I could be at the moment. I don't get why this is a big deal. Go back to my pie analogy - are you going to quibble with me if someone asks me to list pie ingredients and I include something obvious like corn starch?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Being comprehensive is not always a good thing, not if it's distracting (as it obviously is here) or if the addition of certain points makes for a lower average. Two good suggestions plus a blindingly obvious (and in this case practically a done deal already, as soon as Russia decides to take us up on the offer) one is not necessarily better than just the two good suggestions. It seems to me that it's distracting because you and MeLKoR are desperately trying to ding my argument on something, anything, because the main thrust of your argument is weak.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It seems to me that it's distracting because you and MeLKoR are desperately trying to ding my argument on something, anything, because the main thrust of your argument is weak. Except your reasoning around your argument tends to be pretty much just circular logic, no offense. NATO appears threatening to Russia -> Russia conducts hostile action -> NATO should improve their image in Russia -> Russia is in the wrong for their hostile action -> NATO should back off -> Sanctions are a useful tool against Russian aggression -> NATO is pressuring Russia -> Sanctions should be withdrawn -> Russia continues aggressive action -> NATO is pressuring them CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Except your reasoning around your argument tends to be pretty much just circular logic, no offense. None taken, but please explain. How is my argument based on circular logic? Did you see the Levada Center polls I posted? Because those seem to back up my argument pretty clearly. e: Ah, you edited. quote:NATO appears threatening to Russia -> Russia conducts hostile action -> NATO should improve their image in Russia -> Russia is in the wrong for their hostile action -> NATO should back off -> Sanctions are a useful tool against Russian aggression -> NATO is pressuring Russia -> Sanctions should be withdrawn -> Russia continues aggressive action -> NATO is pressuring them See, this just makes me more certain that you haven't been reading what I'm writing. This is how it actually goes: Lots of mistakes made by the US/NATO and Russia in the 90's and 2000's -> Russia invades Ukraine -> the West puts sanctions on Russia -> the US tells Russia that they'll lift the sanctions if Russia stops supporting the insurgents, and sweetens the pot by tying it into things like arms control agreements and assurances that Ukraine won't join NATO -> Russia hopefully takes the offer and pulls its support from the insurgents -> the US/NATO and Russia can get back to trying to mend their fences. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It seems to me that it's distracting because you and MeLKoR are desperately trying to ding my argument on something, anything, because the main thrust of your argument is weak. Or maybe, just maybe, it's not that we are arguing in bad faith but you write convoluted messes of naive wishful thinking that are a nightmare to parse into something concrete. It's not like it's the first or twentieth time someone has accused you of contradicting yourself and/or batting for Russia. Maybe not everyone is against you and you just write in a way that's confusing to discern what exactly you are proposing. For fucks sake, I, the guy who's arguing in bad faith against you, even batted for you in the Ukraine thread when people were accusing you of being pro-Putin. On top of that in this thread you're being smarmy as gently caress against anyone that dares disagree with you which is making a lot of people, myself included, get increasingly pissed off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It seems to me that it's distracting because you and MeLKoR are desperately trying to ding my argument on something, anything, because the main thrust of your argument is weak. e: Your 136 posts to my 19 makes you 7 times as desperate as me. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Russia hopefully takes the offer and pulls its support from the insurgents -> the US/NATO and Russia can get back to trying to mend their fences. And so far this hasn't happened, despite the, at least, apparent negotiation in good faith on the parts of the EU and US. It's why I place no faith in this idea that NATO really has any significant blame in this entire thing, because we'd have to assume that Putin was ever participating in negotiations and his aggressive actions in good faith as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:On top of that in this thread you're being smarmy as gently caress against anyone that dares disagree with you which is making a lot of people, myself included, get increasingly pissed off. All right, look - I feel like others escalated the tensions in this thread and I responded in kind; you may feel like I escalated the tensions before others. Let's just leave that aside for now and agree to take it down a notch. I'll endeavor to post less aggressively, you guys endeavor to post less aggressively. Let's all turn this back into a pleasant discussion. CommieGIR posted:And so far this hasn't happened, despite the, at least, apparent negotiation in good faith on the parts of the EU and US. You haven't given it much time to work, though. It's only been a few months since we imposed sanctions, and they started out pretty light. quote:It's why I place no faith in this idea that NATO really has any significant blame in this entire thing, because we'd have to assume that Putin was ever participating in negotiations and his aggressive actions in good faith as well. But again, these tensions began a long time before Putin came to power. Was Yeltsin also dealing with us in bad faith?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
What's the possibility of that, instead of Shock Therapy, Russia had a more gradual and more successful process of economic reform/growth that results in Russia being economically attractive enough for the Eastern European states to actually see valid market incentives to not drift too far from Russia? If the states themselves ended up in this position, and thus saw a legitimate reason to not want to economically strain relations with a far more economically powerful and healthier Russia, wouldn't there be less tensions and less desire the further east you go to join the EU, and with less tensions, less desire to join NATO?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:21
|
|
