|
Baronjutter posted:So my Russian in-laws who live in Ukraine want to move "back" to Russia because they feel like 2nd class citizens in Ukraine and don't have great job prospects. I have no idea why 2 retirement age people would want to move country for "job prospects" but it's all mostly emotional. Since they have family abroad, have they considered moving West instead? No idea how pensions would work in that scenario (but apparently they are Russian citizens receiving pensions in Ukraine? or something weird like that?) Do they perceive the western country where their daughter resides as worse than Russia? If so, they are lost to civilization.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2016 23:11 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 17:15 |
|
They'd love to move here, but we can't afford to pay their rent and totally support them. They don't speak english and are retirement age so their job prospects are pretty much nil. I don't think we actually legally make enough money to sponsor them. All their family and support network is in Kiev. They both think of them selves as professionals and working retail or something would be below them, but they don't quite seem to understand that without fluent english they aren't going to even get retail jobs let alone anything else. There isn't exactly a huge Russian film industry in Canada, nor does my town have much if any of a russian-speaking community. I think they just aren't happy and think a move will fix everything. They've moved a lot in the past for similar reasons. They moved from Kiev to moscow for "opportunities" and then moved back to Kiev to become homeowners and be around their family but now hate being homeowners and hate Ukraine so want to move somewhere else and really the only other place they could move is back to Russia. They'd have slightly better pensions in Russia though so there's that at least. If we were rich I'd be happy to try to bring them over here, but I think they'd manage to be miserable here since their main complaint about Ukraine is feeling like outsiders and lack of friends and connections. But we're busy trying to pay our own rent.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2016 23:24 |
|
It sounds like their job prospects are nil anywhere they go. Even if they're old Mosfilm vets back when Ukrainian SSR was part of the Soviet Union, I don't see them really being any use in the modern film/TV production in Russia. I can't even see the pension in Russia being that much better. Sorry to hear about this, Baronjutter, that's a really tough place.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2016 23:49 |
|
https://twitter.com/TheBankova/status/751805795180969984
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 00:24 |
|
Well, if they are homeowners, it would probably be worth asking them if they could turn their current home into enough capital to buy an equivalent in a Russian city equivalent to Kyiv. I would expect not, and if that's the case, they would be moving down without improving their prospects of upwards mobility.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 00:28 |
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/07/09/obamas-tough-remark-about-polish-democracy-gets-twisted-on-polish-tv.htmlquote:WARSAW—Amid fears of a rollback of Poland’s democratic freedoms, President Barack Obama had a harsh message of concern during a trip here for a NATO summit. But viewers of Poland’s main evening news program saw exactly the opposite.
|
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 06:06 |
|
Can we just give Poland to Russia since they want to turn into a lovely church backed conservative dictatorship?
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 06:32 |
|
This graphic if true makes me think the US will have some interesting times with Poland.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 13:34 |
|
RT made a cool super deceptive map about the new NATO deployment.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 14:19 |
So, Red Hot Chili Peppers flew to Belarus:
|
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 14:48 |
|
slavatuvs posted:RT made a cool super deceptive map about the new NATO deployment. That 10,000 on Ukrainian border is on the wrong side, for one.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 14:53 |
|
slavatuvs posted:RT made a cool super deceptive map about the new NATO deployment. So basically the NATO deployment will not really change anything to the balance of forces, except perhaps in Estonia? So it's a purely symbolic gesture of solidarity between allies? Thanks Russia, it's nice of you to recognize that.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 15:01 |
|
Cat Mattress posted:So basically the NATO deployment will not really change anything to the balance of forces, except perhaps in Estonia? So it's a purely symbolic gesture of solidarity between allies? Thanks Russia, it's nice of you to recognize that. I think the idea is that it will make any conflict involve Western troops, which hopefully acts as a deterrent as it makes it less likely that the West will renege its NATO obligations.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 15:03 |
|
Cat Mattress posted:So basically the NATO deployment will not really change anything to the balance of forces, except perhaps in Estonia? So it's a purely symbolic gesture of solidarity between allies? Thanks Russia, it's nice of you to recognize that. So is Russia actually preparing to invade other countries or is it just saber rattling. it seems like they are making motions of taking over Belarus kalstrams posted:https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/07/09/obamas-tough-remark-about-polish-democracy-gets-twisted-on-polish-tv.html How bad is Poland right now? I assume they are still anti russia at least.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 16:27 |
Dapper_Swindler posted:How bad is Poland right now? I assume they are still anti russia at least.
|
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 16:37 |
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:So is Russia actually preparing to invade other countries or is it just saber rattling. it seems like they are making motions of taking over Belarus Since Belarus and Russia routinely hold military training exercises together, it seems unlikely Russia would need to invade Belarus.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 16:46 |
|
Cat Mattress posted:So basically the NATO deployment will not really change anything to the balance of forces, except perhaps in Estonia? So it's a purely symbolic gesture of solidarity between allies? Thanks Russia, it's nice of you to recognize that. The map is flawed. There are a lot more than 30,000 troops in the west of Russia.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 16:46 |
|
slavatuvs posted:The map is flawed. There are a lot more than 30,000 troops in the west of Russia. They're on uniformed leave.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 16:55 |
|
OddObserver posted:I think the idea is that it will make any conflict involve Western troops, which hopefully acts as a deterrent as it makes it less likely that the West will renege its NATO obligations. See, South Korea and the "tripwire" of U.S. Marines.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 17:01 |
|
slavatuvs posted:The map is flawed. There are a lot more than 30,000 troops in the west of Russia. Well of course, plus there are Russian troops in Crimea and Moldova (Transnistria), to say nothing of Donbas. I'm just talking about the blue forces here, the light blue NATO dots are insignificant compared to the dark blue dots. Even with Russia's exaggerations and lies, the NATO reinforcement does not provide a meaningful change to the balance of power in the region, making it purely a token gesture of solidarity, even though Russia is trying to portray it as mean old nasty Uncle Sam preparing to savagely invade poor defenseless and peaceful Mother Russia.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 17:27 |
|
Cat Mattress posted:Well of course, plus there are Russian troops in Crimea and Moldova (Transnistria), to say nothing of Donbas. I'm just talking about the blue forces here, the light blue NATO dots are insignificant compared to the dark blue dots. Even with Russia's exaggerations and lies, the NATO reinforcement does not provide a meaningful change to the balance of power in the region, making it purely a token gesture of solidarity, even though Russia is trying to portray it as mean old nasty Uncle Sam preparing to savagely invade poor defenseless and peaceful Mother Russia. Which is the whole problem with the deployment it's a provocative move without changing anything. Didn't that NATO General say that Russia could roll through the Baltic States in 20-60hrs? That's not going to be enough time for NATO to react to any "trip wire". After Russia takes the Baltic States what's the plan angry words and sanctions? Nuclear weapons? It's basically asking Russia to call our bluff. If we are going to defend the Baltic states then spend the resources to do it. If NATO can't convince it's people to pay for the cost then why are we there? If the plan is to use Nuclear weapons then we drat well need to make that clear to the Russians. Again NATO is going to have to convince it's citizens that having all it's cities turned to ash is worth defending the Baltics. This deployment is just the worst security theater. The Baltic states are less safe after this move.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 18:16 |
|
There's a difference between Russia rolling over a baltic state & Russia rolling over a baltic state AND killing American troops. The Latter will guarantee a war.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 18:26 |
|
axelord posted:Which is the whole problem with the deployment it's a provocative move without changing anything. Didn't that NATO General say that Russia could roll through the Baltic States in 20-60hrs? That's not going to be enough time for NATO to react to any "trip wire". After Russia takes the Baltic States what's the plan angry words and sanctions? Nuclear weapons? There's this thing called "armies" that exist. I hear they can be used against Russians.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 18:28 |
|
The point of a tripwire is that the allies can't back out when Russia just killed a battalion* of their own guys. *or whatever
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 18:29 |
|
Doesn't HATO account for like 70% of world defense spending?
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 18:29 |
Defense contractors gotta eat man.
|
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 18:31 |
|
fishmech posted:There's this thing called "armies" that exist. I hear they can be used against Russians.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 18:43 |
|
kalstrams posted:They are more anti-Russia than ever, but otherwise it's a rather peculiar reenactment of the dark ages. Its much more like the communist era just without the actual communism than the dark ages, but yeah, shits not good.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 18:54 |
|
axelord posted:Which is the whole problem with the deployment it's a provocative move without changing anything. Didn't that NATO General say that Russia could roll through the Baltic States in 20-60hrs? That's not going to be enough time for NATO to react to any "trip wire". After Russia takes the Baltic States what's the plan angry words and sanctions? Nuclear weapons? Hmm. Yes. Back in '39 when the Germans blitzkrieged Poland, there was nothing anyone else could do except wait for a nuclear bomb to be developed. If Russia invades a Baltic country, NATO goes to war with conventional forces until it's recaptured. It's not really very complicated. NATO does not lose their chance to respond if the Russians invade fast enough.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 18:58 |
|
axelord posted:Which is the whole problem with the deployment it's a provocative move without changing anything. Didn't that NATO General say that Russia could roll through the Baltic States in 20-60hrs? That's not going to be enough time for NATO to react to any "trip wire". After Russia takes the Baltic States what's the plan angry words and sanctions? Nuclear weapons? There's likely nothing that can be done in the case of the Baltics being actually invaded. The Russians can field an army with more men than the populations of the individual Baltic countries and they all lack an airforce and can field maybe 100,000 troops between them. If Russia wants them, it will take them. The point is to make it so that Russia doesn't want them and even the potential of thermonuclear war is a strong deterrent. The troops are a message to Russia that NATO is committed to the region and are willing to put their own troops in the way of Putin's ambitions (whatever they may be). Unless Trump wins, I have to assume for my own sanity that the Americans are as good as their word, or at least that Russia believes they are.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 19:00 |
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:How bad is Poland right now? I assume they are still anti russia at least. Also while PiS is a piece of poo poo government nothing changed in Poland that much...yet. There's the constitutional tribunal thing but nothing was achieved using that, PiS did some outrageous things but it's all more show than some actual dictatorship decisions. Racism against refugees/Muslims would have also been here no matter what party would have won the election.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 19:05 |
|
Palpek posted:I don't know, could you deduce that Poland is anti-Russia after reading an article about a NATO summit organised there? Yeah, they just broke the constitution by refusing to publish the binding opinion of the Constitutional Tribunal, paralyzed said tribunal completely, politicized the civil services, turned the public media into a propaganda organ that would make the Russians blush (now with censoring the President of the United States), routinely conduct their business in the middle of the night when the public is asleep and force through legislation without even the pretense of giving a poo poo what anyone else has to say about it and recently passed a sweeping "anti-terrorist" law that gives the government full and complete access to all communications transmitted within the republic of Poland without any judicial oversight or need for warrants. Not to mention they politicized the prosecutors office by subordinating it to the Ministry of Justice and are attempting to do the same to the judiciary. I mean what the gently caress is wrong with your head? These aren't just warning signs, they're huge flashing loving red warning signs in 50 meter letters.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 19:18 |
|
Deteriorata posted:Hmm. Yes. Back in '39 when the Germans blitzkrieged Poland, there was nothing anyone else could do except wait for a nuclear bomb to be developed. It would not be possible to free the Baltic countries without taking actions that would degrade Russia's ability to respond to a nuclear attack. Let alone without having a massive American army on the Russian border that has just defeated the Russian army. Personally I think it would be surprising that the conflict doesn't go nuclear. Poland in 39 is an interesting example because the British and French plan to defeat Germany was by blockade.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 19:19 |
|
A Pale Horse posted:There's likely nothing that can be done in the case of the Baltics being actually invaded. The Russians can field an army with more men than the populations of the individual Baltic countries and they all lack an airforce and can field maybe 100,000 troops between them. If Russia wants them, it will take them. The point is to make it so that Russia doesn't want them and even the potential of thermonuclear war is a strong deterrent. The troops are a message to Russia that NATO is committed to the region and are willing to put their own troops in the way of Putin's ambitions (whatever they may be). Unless Trump wins, I have to assume for my own sanity that the Americans are as good as their word, or at least that Russia believes they are. Yeah, my problem is that NATO isn't being clear to Russia or to it's own people. If we are going to use our Nuclear deterrent to defend the Baltic states than make that clear to everyone.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 19:22 |
|
axelord posted:It would not be possible to free the Baltic countries without taking actions that would degrade Russia's ability to respond to a nuclear attack. This is completely bullshit, their nuclear arsenal still has tons of missile submarines to launch from and sites way the gently caress away from the western borders. axelord posted:Yeah, my problem is that NATO isn't being clear to Russia or to it's own people Uh, no, NATO is being very clear.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 19:25 |
|
axelord posted:Yeah, my problem is that NATO isn't being clear to Russia or to it's own people. If we are going to use our Nuclear deterrent to defend the Baltic states than make that clear to everyone. Do you want like a public announcement or something? I think the implication is if they're willing to put their troops in Russia's potential path they're willing to go further which gives Russia something to think about. I also forgot to add to my previous post that PiS also funneled millions of zloty to Rydzyk and through passing laws on land heredity and sale potentially billions to the church at large as well as deciding to chop down a large chunk of the last primeval forest in Europe.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 19:26 |
|
fishmech posted:This is completely bullshit, their nuclear arsenal still has tons of missile submarines to launch from and sites way the gently caress away from the western borders. To Free the Baltic countries we would need to take out Russian AA, Radar and Air units. Making a first strike nuclear attack on Russia easier. In the middle of a war it's going to be impossible to see the difference between attacks made for freeing the Baltics and attacks made as a prelude to a nuclear strike.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 19:42 |
|
A Pale Horse posted:Do you want like a public announcement or something? I think the implication is if they're willing to put their troops in Russia's potential path they're willing to go further which gives Russia something to think about. Honestly yes, but this is more because the American debate about Russia has been more how we need to talk tough and that's all we need to do. There hasn't been any discussion about the actual cost to defend Eastern Europe at all.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 19:50 |
|
axelord posted:To Free the Baltic countries we would need to take out Russian AA, Radar and Air units. Making a first strike nuclear attack on Russia easier.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2016 19:52 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 17:15 |
|
axelord posted:To Free the Baltic countries we would need to take out Russian AA, Radar and Air units. Making a first strike nuclear attack on Russia easier. None of this makes a first strike nuclear attack on Russia any easier. The things that detect ICBM launches or approaches are not the things that detect or shoot at planes. Anyways Russia would have an easier time figuring out whether NATO counterattacks in the Baltic states are meant as a prelude to a nuclear strike than NATO would have figuring out whether Russian attacks to invade said Baltic states are a prelude to a nuclear attack. Also: How can a thing be both provocative and not change anything? If it doesn't change anything why should it be viewed as provocative? How is a symbolic gesture toward honoring a defensive treaty provocative? Warbadger fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jul 10, 2016 |
# ? Jul 10, 2016 19:56 |