Eastern Europe: Olivier's sphere of influence

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Eastern Europe: Olivier's sphere of influence

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Can't post for 36 minutes!; Soiled Meat

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.

The problem is, I'm never going to Russia, ever. The idea of traveling there scares the poo poo out of me, specially since I spend a lot of my time poo poo-talking Russia, it's church, and its various disgusting policies on the internet. I'm also vocally involved with some organizations and causes that would be flat out illegal in Russia. No I don't think the KGB is going grab me at the airport and send me off to some gulag for people who talk poo poo about russia or spread gay propaganda on the internet but they don't seem too far off from that either. I also wouldn't want my wife visiting Russia either, she's a Canadian citizen now but technically she still has Russian citizenship too and getting rid of it officially is hard. Her plan was just "never go to Russia ever again because gently caress Russia". She's also quite outspokenly anti-russia and anti-putin.

We've tried to explain that if they move back to glorious russia they are never going to see me ever again, and seeing their daughter might be tough too. I'm certainly not sending over any grandkids either. They don't get it though, they see Russia as this nice stable motherland vs the war-torn nazi-sympathizing russian-hating Ukraine. They're shocked we'd rather visit them in Kiev than Russia or feel safer there.

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 22:51

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

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

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

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

HUGE PUBES A PLUS: Apr 30, 2005

https://twitter.com/TheBankova/status/751805795180969984

# ? Jul 10, 2016 00:24

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Can't post for 36 minutes!; Soiled Meat

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

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/07/09/obamas-tough-remark-about-polish-democracy-gets-twisted-on-polish-tv.html

quote:

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.

The twisted message would not instill confidence in the new Polish government’s protestations that its press institutions remain independent. Add one more fear to American concerns that a major U.S. ally is turning in a new direction after the right-wing Law and Justice party won a sweeping victory in October.

Since its election, the new government has taken steps that critics say eliminate the independence of Poland’s top court, the Constitutional Tribunal, taken control of the main public broadcaster by installing a former politician as its head, and initiated prosecutions of members of the former ruling party.

Obama’s tough message on Friday, standing alongside Polish President Andrzej Duda, was that he “expressed to President Duda our concerns over certain actions and the impasse around the Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal.”

“More work needs to be done,” Obama said. “And as your friend and ally, we’ve urged all parties to work together to sustain Poland’s democratic institutions.”

But viewers of Telewizja Polska, the main public broadcaster, saw a very different suggestion on the evening news.

“Ninety-five per cent of the meeting was about issues of NATO and security, but Obama praised Polish efforts at democracy,” the reporter said. “Concerning the issue of the constitutional tribunal, he said he is sure that spreading democratic values in Poland will not stop.”

Then the broadcaster played a clip of Obama’s friendly cushioning of his criticism, while skipping the substance of the message.

In the clip played on Polish television, Obama was also translated by a dubbed voice-over as saying that “Poland is and will be an example of democracy for the whole world.”

What he actually said was that “Poland stands and needs to continue stand as an example for democratic practices around the world.”

More than 100 journalists have been dismissed or have resigned from Poland’s public broadcaster this year, a measure of the major changes underway there. Some journalists say that anyone perceived as critical of the Law and Justice party is now under threat. Shortly after the party took office, it changed laws giving Poland’s Finance Ministry the direct power to appoint the head of the broadcaster. The new head is Jacek Kurski, a member of the Law and Justice party and a former member of European Parliament.

# ? Jul 10, 2016 06:06

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Can we just give Poland to Russia since they want to turn into a lovely church backed conservative dictatorship?

# ? Jul 10, 2016 06:32

HUGE PUBES A PLUS: Apr 30, 2005

This graphic if true makes me think the US will have some interesting times with Poland.

# ? Jul 10, 2016 13:34

ass struggle: Dec 25, 2012; by Athanatos

RT made a cool super deceptive map about the new NATO deployment.

# ? Jul 10, 2016 14:19

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

So, Red Hot Chili Peppers flew to Belarus:

# ? Jul 10, 2016 14:48

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

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

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

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

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

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

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

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

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Dapper_Swindler posted:

How bad is Poland right now? I assume they are still anti russia at least.

They are more anti-Russia than ever, but otherwise it's a rather peculiar reenactment of the dark ages.

# ? Jul 10, 2016 16:37

HUGE PUBES A PLUS: Apr 30, 2005

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

ass struggle: Dec 25, 2012; by Athanatos

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

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

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. :v:

# ? Jul 10, 2016 16:55

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

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

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

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

axelord: Dec 28, 2012; College Slice

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

Issaries: Sep 15, 2008; "Negotiations were going well. They were very impressed by my hat." -Issaries the Concilliator"

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

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

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

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

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

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Doesn't HATO account for like 70% of world defense spending?

# ? Jul 10, 2016 18:29

az: Dec 2, 2005

Defense contractors gotta eat man.

# ? Jul 10, 2016 18:31

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

fishmech posted:

There's this thing called "armies" that exist. I hear they can be used against Russians.

Yeah, and I don't imagine the Poles are going to sit on their hands if the Russians roll into the Baltics, even if some Western Europeans would prefer that they did.

# ? Jul 10, 2016 18:43

A Pale Horse: Jul 29, 2007

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

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

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?

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.

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

A Pale Horse: Jul 29, 2007

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?

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.

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

Palpek: Dec 27, 2008; Do you feel it, Zach?
My coffee warned me about it.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

How bad is Poland right now? I assume they are still anti russia at least.

I don't know, could you deduce that Poland is anti-Russia after reading an article about a NATO summit organised there?

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

A Pale Horse: Jul 29, 2007

Palpek posted:

I don't know, could you deduce that Poland is anti-Russia after reading an article about a NATO summit organised there?

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.

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

axelord: Dec 28, 2012; College Slice

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.

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.

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

axelord: Dec 28, 2012; College Slice

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

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

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

A Pale Horse: Jul 29, 2007

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

axelord: Dec 28, 2012; College Slice

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

axelord: Dec 28, 2012; College Slice

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

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

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.

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.

You know, nuclear warheads generally come in missiles now, not bombers.

# ? Jul 10, 2016 19:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 22:51

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

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.

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.

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

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Eastern Europe: Olivier's sphere of influence

«‹›463 »