|
Count Roland posted:Wiki tells me 5000+ and 7000+ died in the two Chechen wars. That number seems way too high, unless the Ukrainian military's forces have suffered on the same scale. He probably means rate of casualties among the fighters. Also, casualty does not mean dead it's injured and dead. There were surely more than 5000 and 7000 soldiers injured during the chechen wars.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
Cheatum the Evil Midget posted:Probably because that sounds like total horseshit. Russia has more than a few nuclear reactors. Just having a nuclear reactor doesn't mean you can turn a spigot and pump out some bomb juice, dude. You need specialized processing facilities to finish off that sort of stuff and assemble a working nuclear weapon.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Cheatum the Evil Midget posted:My point is Russia has a massive amount of nuclear infrastructure, has been a nuclear power for 65 years, still invests massive amounts in its nuclear forces and has the nuclear arm as its #1 defense priority, everyone believes they have nukes, everyone acts like they have nukes, they act like they have nukes, the fact their nukes don't work anymore would be a big fuckin deal and hard to keep quiet, and that the argument entails Russia not having a capability that north loving korea has, means the balance of probabilities suggest that the idea that russia's nuclear weapons are all inert is the most out-there of conspiracy theory nonsense The fact that they may not be able to maintain them in the future however, is a fact.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
It's always important to remember that the collapse of Soviet power was taken as a sign that Capitalism Really Was Right by a ton of people, so no surprise that it was easy to convince people in positions of power afterwards to try to go whole hog recreating it. At the same time higher ups were playing shock therapy, lower levels of society were falling into one multi-level marketing scam or ponzi scheme after another, many honestly not understanding the rules of how to invest in a capitalist world and thus suckered easily.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Gaj posted:In my Ukrainian circles its part of an old Czarist-House of Gotha alliance. We Russians will refer to conquered peoples in X manner, just like the British speak about their conquered peoples. like "the Welsh". The paranoia is centered around the belief that "The" Ukraine reduces the nation state to that of a territory, or smaller geographical area within a larger one. Think of how Americans call it "the South" and not "the former lands of the Confederacy and Cree peoples". Well for one thing, a whole rear end load of Americans still refer to it as the Confederacy. For another, it was never confederate land.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:No they don't. That's really stupid. Yes they do, you hear it from sneering northerners on these forums and others pretty often.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Mans posted:In the middle of rear end loving austerity i imagine a lot of people would be pretty upset if their cost of living further ballooned in the name of political posturing and MIC spending (because we won't actually do anything more than that). Sure didn't stop Germans from doubling down on a boneheaded solar and cancel nuclear power scheme that's jacked up prices and pollution for electricity.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Also, Russia tried to join NATO at a time when NATO was still actually hesitant to include the Baltics and many other eastern countries.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Fabulous Knight posted:No, CIS is just this really useless association of post-Soviet states. I'm not sure what they do exactly. It was meant to be a sort of Commonwealth equivalent, but it's not even that. You are perhaps thinking of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, which is a Russia-led military alliance of sorts, featuring the usual suspects in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. They don't make a lot of noise. Several post-Soviet states were members in the 90s but left for different reasons. The most major thing the commonwealth was involved in over the past 2 decades or so was participating in international sporting events as a unified team.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
If Russia seizes the Ukranian coastline, I think Turkey would be well within its moral rights to break the straits treaties and bar Russian sea traffic through their straits and their new canal (once it opens).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Can't we just give them money and let them buy the stuff from someone? The best thing to do if we give them money is to straight up give money to run the government. Not a loan either.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Someone who supports Russia aka someone who thinks the only thing wrong with the Iraq War was who led the coalition.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Malleum posted:I see the term "collective punishment" means nothing to you. In order to harm a small minority of Russians you want to make every Russian suffer. How about instead of crippling a country you uplift the populace and help them see how horrific their current regime is and help them not fall into the same pit again? I guess that wouldn't fulfill your childish revenge fantasies though. How exactly are you going to uplift the populace of a hostile country?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Malleum posted:Not by crippling it and make them hate you. Make steps to not appear as hostile to them, starting with the dropping of "EVERY RUSSIAN IS A SUBHUMAN MONSTER OUT TO EAT AND RAPE ALL GOOD WESTERN BABIES" dogma. We tried to not be hostile to them for two decades, they invaded Ukraine over it. Boy that sure was helpful! It especially doesn't help that there is minimal meaningful electoral outlet for the population as a whole. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Malleum posted:And "we" did nothing more than that. There was an opportunity in those twenty years to uplift the populace and show them that the West is not an enemy anymore. They did that many of the the ex-Soviet states. The West successfully integrated them into the greater whole. Maybe we should ask ourselves why Russia is the odd man out. Maybe take a step forward once in awhile instead of saying that because some Russians did some bad things that every Russian is an untrustworthy subhuman unworthy of life or aid. Seriously? Neither Putin nor Yeltsin was interested in submitting to the same sort of reduced decision making roles required to join the EU or NATO; further the eastern countries themselves had to wiat quite a bit to join up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Malleum posted:And during their trial period there was a policy of integration. The West made a concerted effort to win over the hearts and minds of the people. Admittedly, it was easier in Poland than it would be in Russia, but why did the west's attempt to educate the Russians against the dangers of autocrats fail? Why was giving up power Yeltsin's bridge too far? The difficulties you are describing are the exact reasons that the Peace Corps exists. Yeltsin refusing to give up power made it impossible for Russia to join EU or NATO: accession to both requires giving up some measure of local control to become part of the overall. Hence, impossible for Russia to get the benefits of either.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Malleum posted:Why? Do you understand the reasons behind Yelstin's reluctance to give up that power? Do you have any inkling of why he wouldn't give up his power even in the face of the 90's? It means nothing to know that a thing happened without understanding the context behind it. The reason was that Yeltsin thought Russia could go it alone and remain a strong power, instead the actual Yeltsin administration happened. Sorry, Russia lost their chance then, and refused chances ever since.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Wee Tinkle Wand posted:Too bad Germany and others flipped out because of Fukishima and started scrapping all their nuclear energy plans. Nah Germany had that whole idiot movement going on for a much longer time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
TeodorMorozov posted:You can lol if you want but 13% taxes in rubles is really more expensive than 15% in hrivna. And this only one factor that makes Makarevich rear end burning like a blast furnace. The second factor is... who do you think gave Makarevich all his business and all real estates in Crimea? $) Can you try writing something coherent here, ivan?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, what the West underestimated was how vital the Kremlin considered Ukraine's alignment to be for Russia's interests. That misconception arose in the Bush Administration, but the fact that Obama hasn't corrected it is one of the biggest disappointments I have in his presidency. Uh, what is there to correct? Obama thought Russia wasn't a mindless bad guy and that they could be trusted to behave like adults, unlike Bush very nearly including them in his stupid Axis of Evil thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, but Obama, up until now, hasn't abandoned Bush's incredibly stupid policy of fast-tracking Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. I honestly think this crisis would not have happened if Obama had made that part of the Reset. Neither Ukraine nor Georgia have or had been fast tracked into NATO. This crisis would solely not have happened if Putin's pet dictator wasn't deposed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
The membership action plan nomination was in no way a fast track. It's literally the normal track. Ukraine and Georgia had already reached the inensified dialogue stages and thus the MAP was the next step. The only mistake the western governments made was trusting Russian leadership to not be invasion happy morons.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Actually it isn't the new york times was just writing lazily. All countries have to have a membership action plan before joining NATO, at least after the Soviet Union collapsed. The normal previous state is intensified dialogue i.e. the state both Ukraine and Georgia were in when MAPs were offered. It's like saying I put you on the fast track to college by offering you the chance to enroll at high school after middle school ended! Or saying that if you're driving a car, if you're parked and shift to drive, you're on the fast track to 60 mph. You simply can't keep saying this stuff that isn't true. Fast tracking would be skipping the MAP (and might I remind you again that neither actually got one, the closest thing they got was the US proposing it at a NATO meeting?) I'm sorry but there's simply nothing fast about what happened.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I just posted a bunch of examples of people saying the same thing. Any idea why that may be, fishmech? They're all being lazy, it is objectively not a fast track when it's the regular goddamn track and indeed slower than many other countries had done.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Given that pretty much everybody who has written on this subject for the last six or so years uses the term "fast-track," and the only person sperging out about it is you, I'm going to chalk this one up to you being fishmech. By this same logic, Iraq had WMDs and conservative capitalism is good, and poor people should die because welfare is immoral. Check and mate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Look, call it what you will - my point still stands: pushing for a Membership Action Plan for Ukraine and Georgia was a horrific mistake on the Bush Administration's part, and it was a mistake on the Obama Administration's part not to reverse that policy. It was in no way a mistake: the only "push" came in the form of bringing up a standard motion in the NATO council, which was dicussed and turned down as dozens of them have been in the past. There was no loving policy to reverse: the proposal happened exactly once, years before Obama took office. Is Obama expected to step into a time machine to keep it from happening?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Apparently not. Biden's comments in 2009 suggest to me that the US hasn't given up the dream. The dream of eventually someday getting Ukraine in NATO? Russia just proved an actual fast track would have been the correct move, you realize.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's actually kind of proven the opposite: that promising to expand NATO into Ukraine sooner rather than later makes them react aggressively. Please explain how Russia would invade Ukraine in alternate 2014 where Ukraine is already in NATO and Russia would put itself at war with the majority of the world's military power immediately by doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I really, strongly doubt that most NATO countries, the US included, would go to war with Russia over the status of the Donbas - regardless of their Article V obligations. Which is a big part of why France and Germany aren't letting them in in the first place - why let in a country that you're not willing to protect? So you don't believe in NATO at all then? Look, the whole reason Russia was scared of Ukraine joining NATO in the first place is Ukraine in NATO meaning they can't push it around the way they want to. Because they are quite rightfully I might add concerned that loving with a NATO country at that level means Russia gets hosed back with with full military force. Also you seem to be claiming the Crimean seizure didn't involve Russian troops here... McDowell posted:Why would Georgia even be a NATO member other than to troll Russia? In what tortured geographic logic can it be considered a North Atlantic state? Italy was in NATO from day 1. Italy has absolutely no territory touching the Atlantic, northern or otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I believe it served a tremendously important purpose during the Cold War, and I think if it had transitioned to a purely peacekeeping organization, a la its role in Kosovo, it would continue to be relevant. But the fact that it never really has given up its "Contain Russia" mission has only fanned the tensions between the West and Russia. No, answer the question dude. You're claiming NATO doesn't defend anything, you don't get to back that up by saying "well it's outlived its usefulness" especially since it hasn't, as Russia is literally invading countries. The "tensions" with Russia have been fanned solely by Russia being led for over 10 years by the same violent expansionist guy. But look what they got: an actually straight up anti-Russian government soon to be armed by at least some members of NATO on their doorstep. That's what loving happens when you seize one chunk of a country and have an ongoing mission trying to seize another chunk. All Russia had to do to not have anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine was to not, essentially, act like Russia has been acting towards Ukraine. Deteriorata posted:Nobody is loudly pursuing a policy of making them members. Everybody knows Ukraine is decades away from being eligible to join, so it's all just so much posturing. The US's consistent position is that Ukraine is free to apply for membership whenever it is ready, rather than telling them they'll never be allowed to join whatever they do.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I just posted a quote of John Kerry saying that the US wants to do this with Georgia. Here it is again: That's not loudly promoting it! That's him saying "yeah we'd love if they joined". Notice how there's no forcing going on? McDowell posted:You can arguably say the Mediterranean is part of the Northern Hemisphere Atlantic waters. Not so with Georgia. The point is North Atlantic Treaty Organization simply refers to the fact they didn't want to call it the gently caress Commies Organization, and European Defense Organization or something similar was considered not appropriate as half of Europe was the Enemy at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I didn't say that. I just said that the willingness to defend Ukraine against Russia isn't there. Sorry if that's vexing to you, but it's pretty manifestly true. Of course the willingness isn't there. Ukraine isn't in NATO. But you claimed they wouldn't defend it if it was in NATO. Explain yourself. Wrong, Russia is invading countries because they are led by a war-loving rear end in a top hat. If you aren't defending Russia then you have a serious problem writing out your thoughts. Also, you're claiming to point out something that's manifestly untrue - NATO's policy is that Ukraine and Georgia aren't ready to join NATO soon. This has been NATO's policy since the early 90s.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Which statement do you think Russia is going to believe is true? Please show how any of the statements included is a pushing Georgia to join anything, ever. If your argument is that Russia will make up a thing to oppose, then you should realize that Russia can do that no matter what anyone says!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:NATO hasn't done anything because Germany and France won't let it. The US, on the other hand, has even pushed for Georgia to be able to bypass the MAP: A suggestion was raised, and promptly denied. Why do you keep hyping it up? You just keep proving the US isn't able to exercise unilateral will in NATO, proving NATO does not constitute a real threat to a peaceful Russia. Majorian posted:It would at the very least be a political fiasco for Europe's and the US' leaders. Nobody wants to spend the money or risk the lives necessary to face off against Russia, especially if it's over a region those country's citizens have probably never even heard of. It wouldn't be a fiasco because the invasion wouldn't happen, because Russia isn't suicidal enough to risk being at war with 70% of the world's military spending. Why don't you get this. If Russia really thought NATO wouldn't lift a finger for countries, then they would have absolutely no reason to be afraid of its expansion. Your premises contradict each other inherently. Majorian posted:You're being willfully ignorant. Russia is invading countries because it feels its security is being threatened. Because they're bunch of war hungry fuckers in government who view peace as a threat. Their view of security is war. You know who else felt threatened? George Bush.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What's especially ridiculous about this counterfactual that you're sperging out about is that it could almost certainly never happen anyway. Even if all NATO members were behind a Ukrainian MAP, its NATO accession wouldn't happen at the drop of a hat. Giving them an MAP would have pretty much guaranteed a Russian invasion. So you keep repeating exactly why Ukraine wanted to join NATO and not getting it. Here let me break it down since you have trouble understanding things. OPTION 1: NATO will defend members Results: NATO can pose a threat to Russia if Russia wants to be warmongering assholes. Russia can't attack NATO members or people actively joining though. OPTION 2: NATO won't defend members Results: NATO can't pose any threat to Russia since it can't do anything. Russia has no reason to be afraid of NATO at all. You've posited that half the results of Option 1 are true, but option 2 is also true without any of the results being true. Do you not see how this means you're full of poo poo Majorian posted:You saying it's not true doesn't make it so. No, the fact that it is true makes it true. Russia is inventing signals because they want an excuse, exactly like George W Bush invented Iraqi WMDs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:As I've pointed out time and time again, Russia's fear is that it will be encircled, and that its ability to maintain strategic parity with NATO. That has nothing to do with its ability to invade Ukraine. Russia has been encircled since the Soviet Union collapsed. If they fear it happening in the future then it's because they're too stupid to understand their own situation. It's also never, ever, had strategic parity with NATO, not even when it was the Soviet Union. Ukraine does not want neutrality. Ukraine had neutrality and look how much Russia respected that! The only thing that can protect Ukraine is staunch non-neutrality. You really do need to remember that on the north side there's the US and Canada, on the eastern side there's the US and Japan, and on the western and southern sides there's been at the very least absolute control of the sea routes to Russia by NATO members. And the existence of missiles means that mere land distance doesn't improve Russia's chances. Russia fuckin' delenda est Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:"Strategic parity" refers to nuclear weapons. The USSR did effectively have strategic parity with the US, and Russia continues to do so. So according to you NATO expansion does not change strategic parity then! No one's treating them like a vanquished enemy: we got into this mess by pretending Russia could be treated as an equal who wouldn't gently caress around. Perhaps we should try treating them like a vanquished enemy for once, see if that gets different results? No, Ukraine's neutrality was undercut by Russia immediately invading territory as soon as Putin's pet president was ousted from power. That and nothing more. Unless you believe Lil' Putin's government was secretly in league with the west? Which would be loving bizarre.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Russia's fear is that it will, over time. Planting ABM sites in Poland do not exactly inspire confidence in that regard, even if they were intended to shoot down medium-range missiles from Iran and other rogue states. Then Russia's fear is absolutely unjustified, as America can nuke their cities into the ground within the same amount of time no matter where some alternate missile sites are located. This is fact. Wrong, we got Putin because Yeltsin was a senile gently caress who got to pick a successor. It is you who has a black and white conception of the world. Russia unambiguously undercut neutrality by invading Ukraine. And anything you can possibly claim about the west undercutting neutrality by supporting Maidan, Russia did 10 times over by literally backing and supporting their little Quisling president for years beforehand.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Like, in seriousness, Russia has always been encircled since the end of World War II when Japan was forcibly brought into the Western orbit. The only side without continuous "Western" allied countries is the southern part of the Asian segment, which itself presents problems for expansion due to various strong countries and countries that are weak but difficult to invade. Even if NATO never expanded past West Germany, they'd still be encircled in practice, with every major port they have either easily blocked by closing some straits, or still relatively easily blocked by patrolling nearby seas.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
Majorian posted:It seems to me that you don't understand the point behind a second-strike capability... America's second strike capability is the fleets of submarines we and our allies have. Land territory close to Russia doesn't help it. You don't have a point here, since you're the one who's ignorant. Why can't you admit that the only people who actually undercut neutrality were the people who literally loving invaded not to mention backed the regime in power until days before the invasion? Not the countries who kinda said "yeah we kinda like the opposition! have a fiver maybe!" The fact of the matter is, NATO has made no mistakes. All the "mistakes" you claim to have happened are literally things you made up, or things Russia made up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 05:30
|
|
