|
Count Roland posted:When this recent "invasion" talk started (a week ago, maybe?) there was a lot of talk of Russian armour rolling openly into Ukraine. I haven't seen any confirmation or follow-up on that; did it happen, or was this propaganda from Kiev? It almost certainly happened, if anything the proof is simply how overwhelmed the Ukrainian army is at the moment, and there has been video of Russian units in Ukraine. I think they are broad estimates based on the front, the Ukrainian army I assume has a way to calculate opposing forces. Unfortunately the Russians are "tight-lipped" about it and the Ukrainians aren't talking about how many troops they are putting into action. Wikipedia has said "30 to 50 thousand" but I suspect that is pretty high, the Ukrainians have taken pretty heavy losses recently including captured troops.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:If Russia sees these actions as imperative to its long term survival then what's plan B if they fail? If direct military intervention doesn't get them what they want, what else do they have? Plan B would probably be to wait until new elections and keep on hammering Ukraine economically until a new more favorable government is elected. It seems ridiculous, but that is the way it more or less worked out in Georgia, the present government is actually mildly friendly to the Russians at this point. Also yeah Russia's survival isn't at stake anyway, it is imperative to their self-esteem though or at least their self-esteem is being manipulated over the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
DrPop posted:All throughout this push by Russian forces on Mariupol and other parts of eastern Ukraine, you keep hearing "we didn't have any heavy weapons/tanks" from the retreating Ukrainian soldiers/volunteer battalions. Now that I'm following a couple different folks in Mariupol on Twitter, I'm hearing the same thing--and many seem to wondering where the UA armor/heavy weapons have gone. Are they simply not deployed in the area, and is the UA straight up just avoiding a fight? That's what it seems to be based on what I'm reading. Well there has been evidence Ukrainians have heavy weapons, however there has been considerable attrition on them. A bunch were captured in Crimea, the war in Donbass has been dragging on (and the separatists were probably initially using captured weapons themselves) and the Russians have now been pumping in weapons to replace lost ones. There has been numbers of reports amount entire Ukrainian columns being knocked out, those might irreparable losses. Furthermore, the Ukrainian army in completely awful shape before the war started and I suspect much of their equipment are rusted out 25+ year hulks sitting in random yards. That said, there is evidence of other working equipment such as the Independence Day parade in Kiev but I suspect it may be kept around as a reserve to protect the capital. Kiev isn't that far away from Belarus. However, the Ukrainians are starting to run out of places to retreat the Donbass itself, they can always move to more friendly provinces but would allow Putin to take the two provinces and have complete bargaining power. It is a pretty desperate position to be in, at least a Russian soldier is going to have armored support and artillery backing him while the Ukrainians seem to be having to rely more and more as you say on light infantry versus mechanized units. The Russians have been taking causalities, Soviet era weapons have plenty of bite but the Ukrainians may be in a tight spot. I guess you could the bright spot in all of this is that the Russians are moving fairly cautiously and haven't pushed strongly outside the Donbass yet. That said, if Mariupol falls, it is the big transportation hub and population center there and the Russians would much freer to push along the coast with it. Edit: As for the volunteers, yeah they were internal ministry troops that were quickly trained and lightly armed. The telling thing is that they are being sent to man strategic points without equipment, if anything it seems these are the guys that are frequently on the frontlines. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Present posted:Yeah, the army not releasing heavy weapons to volunteer battalions was a hot topic for a while. Thankfully they're getting their rear end in gear and making changes. There was a news release about one battalion getting tanks and Grads, etc, recently, I want to say Donbass but not 100%. I suspect one reason very well may be that the stuff in the stockpiles may not be in working order, it is quite common in former Soviet states for working equipment to be only a fraction of the paper total. I don't know how much actual working equipment is being held back by actual bureaucracy and how much just isn't properly working, some of it could be sabotage or simply parts have been sold or rusted over by the years.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I think the weak link is the tritium needed for the fusion core. It's got a half-life of 12.5 years, so it has to be renewed periodically. I guess the fission part of the bomb would still work, but the yield would be far lower. quote:Since Rosatom consolidated its weapons-related activities, GKhK is no longer formally involved in the production of nuclear warheads. Its last plutonium production reactor was shut down in 2010. [2] Its radiochemical plant reprocessed the remnants of this reactor's fuel in 2012, thereby officially ending weapons-grade material production in Russia (this material is stored in a U.S.-monitored facility). [3] Studies suggest that, despite the halt of all weapons-related production activities, GKhK retains a facility for the storage of weapons-usable fissile materials. [4] Never the less according to the description of this facility: http://www.nti.org/facilities/894/ quote:It sounds like Russia still has Tritium production capability. It very well may be that the Russians don't enrich Uranium or produce Plutonium (239 has a high half life) but keep up the production of Tritium. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
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 Also in addition, the US actually does still cooperate with Russia on nuclear safety, waste disposal and checking stockpile. I think I would need to see some evidence that the Russians no longer have the ability to produce Tritium for their arsenal. (Also, as said above, the weapons would be much smaller yield but wouldn't be "inert.")
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Yeah, I have a feeling the Russians wouldn't go out quietly, also population growth has stabilized. That said, it is interesting to see how the discussion has turned toward hatred/desire of death of ethnically Russian people themselves. It is pretty interesting to "justifiable xenophobia." As far as shock therapy, it didn't just have a mixed result in the former Soviet Union, not all of Eastern Europe did very well with it especially Hungary. I am also skeptical that Western advisers didn't foresee some of the problems with it and urged the Russians to push on anyway. Either way, a big part of shock therapy was that unprofitable state firms would be shut down immediately, considering the number of factory towns in the former Soviet Union that meant numerous communities would instantly be flattened and it is pretty predictable the political influence such an event is going to have on a population. The IMF made it worse and Russia only recovered largely in part (ironically enough) of Glass-Steagall and energy speculation in the 2000s. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Forgall posted:Oh gently caress off you sanctimonious poo poo. No one is as gung-ho about a bit of ethnic cleansing as russians are. It isn't ethnic cleansing to wish someone would die out but neither did I say it was, the desire was for natural extinction. That said, it is obvious the discussion is becoming more about the "nature of Russians." quote:Nobody said anything about hypothetical Russian deaths either except natural ones. The discussion was actually about ethnic Russians not reproducing much. That's perfectly fine by me. Also, the issue wasn't just academic discussion of birthrates either. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
I would bet it is very much Western governments don't want to be boxed in by the definition of an invasion. The Western response despite some strong words has been pretty muted including the NATO reaction force, which is something that probably should have been around in the first place.
Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Still below replacement rate without immigration though, plus the impending echo of the collapse of the USSR. The latest data from 2013 actually shows that the birthrate is higher than the death rate, granted non-Russian nationalities probably have higher fertility rates and there will be likely be a "echo" from the 1990s. That said, overall the fertility rate is higher than the US at this point. Much of Western Europe is doing worse now demographically. (I am leaving immigration aside.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
lovely tuna snatch posted:See, that's exactly the problem with Russia - instead of focusing on your internal problems (like a hosed up demography) the country has found it easier to find an external enemy to divert the attention from its own issues. Furthermore, Russia as a political entity has 0 moral right to play the victim card in light of having hosed and continuing to gently caress over its neighbours for hundreds of years now. Russia as an historical and political entity is a separate issue though, and to be honest I think Russia's issues are much larger than demographics at the moment. The demographic picture is actually not that bleak compared to the issues of income, availability of quality medical care and alcoholism among others. Unfortunately, a lot of that has to do with the break-up and its effect. Breaking up a state like the USSR coupled with shock therapy was indeed a predictable recipe for disaster and if anything it is surprising it has taken so long for Russia to predictably turn outward in the name of expansionism. Anyway, an important thing to also remember is that most of Eastern Europe wasn't doing that well until they were about to join/or were in the EU. Obviously, joining the EU provides a massive boost to economies by providing cheap labor in a common market, Romanians for example can easily outbid Spainards and Frenchmen. Estonian gdp for example really took off 2004-2009 which is quite a bit after 1991. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
farraday posted:If you don't understand demographics ardennes and you refuse to read any posts form people who do, why should anyone bother to respond to you? If you read my post, I stated that there very much was going to be a "echo" from the collapse. That said, it needed to be restated that from the 2000s there has been a recovery in fertility rates and demographics. I don't disagree there will very likely be a drop soon again but that isn't the same thing as saying there is a drop currently. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Guaranteeing Ukraine's neutrality is hardly appeasement. Stop misusing that word, it makes you sound like a neocon. Admittedly, it is really too late for that from the perspective of NATO, if they promise neutrality (ie promise to deny an application) at this point after Russian actions, they implicitly validate them. I think Ukraine's chances for joining NATO at this point are pretty slim though but NATO more or less can't shut the door to them...at least not publicly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
farraday posted:Very likely? Yeah you don't know anything. You're picking a point on the graph and saying ti looks okay at this point and ignoring trends because it suits you to. I explicitly agree about this trends though. To be honest, I think you skimmed my post and wrote a response anyway since you are arguing about a point that I very clearly said. quote:So what exactly is the point you're trying to make here? Russia's aggressions didn't start with the break-up of USSR and if that pile of poo poo regime had not existed, my country (Estonia) would be as well off as Finland. Should I be sad about the dismantling of the Soviet Union or something? This point Russia's influence over the future of Estonia is in fact limited, but if shock therapy had been much more muted and Russia's economy had stabilized, a guy like Putin might not have had a chance to come into power in the first place. My point about Estonia is that shock therapy wasn't a solution for it either, the real turn about was in 2004 when Estonia joined the EU. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This. Russian nationalism probably would not have reached this boiling had NATO not fanned the flames. The US and its allies believed that everybody perceived them as a benevolent hegemon in the 90s. This turned out to be erroneous, and now we're in this mess partly due to that misconception. NATO expansion probably helped the rise of nationalism, but to be honest I think economics was more of a decisive factor. Honestly, I think NATO expansion was unavoidable, if only because the expansion of the EU was likely to coincide with it and Eastern European wanted in to both. That said, I do think NATO should have had a stronger game plan for Ukraine especially after "intensify dialogue" stalled after 2005.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
farraday posted:This is a lie. Even with the prop in fertility rate in the US as a result of the Great Recession the US has a fertility rate much higher than Russia's. The thing that you're confused with is the natality, or birth rate, which is just the number of births ina year. This is just a point and it reflects the underlying demographics. If the underlying demographics were similar you could compare them but since they're nor it's a way to lie with statistics. You are right, the fertility gap closed only somewhat. However, that said, Russian fertility rates are higher than Germany. While I don't disagree there is going to be a big drop coming up, on the other hand I am skeptical the wish of the Russians "dying out" will be fulfilled. Fertility rates in comparison were: US - 1.869 (2013), Russia - 1.708 (2013), Japan - 1.43 (2013), Germany - 1.378 (2012) Fabulous Knight posted:I mean, I do hope you're right and Russia continues dying out. I've been worried about this trend possibly being reversed Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:]On appeasement, I don't know if I'd agree that it NATO doesn't need to "rearm." However instead of being in the traditional sense in this case its more like it needs to "reorganize". The Russian military is already there right on or over the Ukrainian border, most of NATO's heavy hitters are west of the Oder. If there had been bases in Romania, Poland and such then they'd be in a much better position to react. Assuming that they actually wanted to, of course. If NATO were serious about defending its eastern members and would-be members from a potential Russian invasion they should open bases there and close superfluous ones in Germany, Italy and the UK. They won't though because that is expensive, a Russian invasion of NATO members still seems unlikely despite what just occurred and its questionable how united NATO actually is in perusing its defensive mission in places like the Baltics. Granted, it probably needs to do both unless the US takes up much more of the burden, from what I have heard about Western European militaries is that the aren't really in the shape for the large active contributions it would take and if anything that is why the NATO reaction force is quite small. If anything the US would have to not only move what other remaining assets it has in Europe and probably contribute more. I get the feeling in the long term, if anything NATO regardless of what happens will probably will have a less active military presence overall regardless of what happens. quote:Then why did this all start with an EU trade deal? Yeah, I don't think the issue (at least currently) was really ever about NATO but the EU. The protests happened because Yanukovich shut down the EU association agreement, if he had just signed it and moved on he mostly certainly would be still the President at the moment. I think it was a stupid mistake from pretty much every angle, not only was it undemocratic and completely unpopular but even from the "cynical sphere of influence" angle it was pushing the Ukrainians way too hard. EU association didn't mean membership in even the EU either much less NATO. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The rebels are claiming that it's Ukraine doing it. Which is in their interests. It doesn't make much sense for the Ukrainian government to order it either, at best it could be some volunteers fire some shells off on their own but it certainly wouldn't be in their nation's best interest. On the other hand the Separatists/Russians certainly want Mariupol for strategic reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Bizarre seeing the "Ceasefire largely holding" story spreading around the media while Mariupol is literally getting shelled. WaPo's just-published story doesn't even mention it. I think it is largely just the Western especially American media being continually flatfooted through this whole affair. I don't think there are even many Western journalists out there, the footage I have seen has pretty much been from Vice. I know it took the NYT a while to figure out that whole "ceasefire or not" issue.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
I suspect the whole point for the ceasefire in the first place was to re-position separatist/Russian forces for a new offensive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
toe knee hand posted:There, I fixed it. Rather predictably right now Russia 24 is only showing funny youtube/dashcam videos.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
At least in this thread, he has posted like that more or less for a while. Meh. Is there any updates on the current situation in Mariupol? Shelling or an assault still going on? The NYT still doesn't have anything of note beyond a story pretending the cease-fire is still in effect (just as an example of how invested the Western media is in the situation).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:This may have been already posted as fast as the thread is moving, but here is a very interesting article on Russia's unique cause of death statistics. Has some bearing on the Russian birth rate discussion from the last few pages: It is interesting, (but a bit all over the place) obviously morality during the 1990s is a big issue and morality among Russians under the Soviet Union was also quite high. One issue that isn't discussed is the health care system, and the severe budget cuts it went up to present, to the point it is effectively privatized. If you walk in with just your government id, prepared to wait and/or get the most minimal treatment possible. The only way to really get decent care from what I heard is to pay out of pocket or go to a private hospital. Also, alcoholism is still unstoppable in Russia and it is rather amazing how many men especially die in accidents (which is sort of touch on in the article). I don't know if it is really beatable either, because to be honest life for a lot of Russians is quite miserable and the only outlet much of the time is to drink, I guess the positive thing is beer has become the drink of choice rather than vodka (part of that just might be minimum pricing on beer is lower). Also, a lot of it is the climate, Russia has some of the most severe extremes of weather on the planet especially in Siberia. While other countries like Canada/Norway/Sweden/Finland also has some extreme weather, they also are developed countries with relatively stable civil societies and a social safety net, even then I know historically there was (maybe still is?) a problem with alcoholism in Finland and Sweden at least and they have pretty tight restrictions on liquor. There are a lot of things going wrong in Russia but I don't think they are unknowable issues either or really unfixable. If Russia had gone from Soviet authoritarianism to stable social democracy, to be honest I don't think a lot of going on would have happened. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:^^^^ Their access to information though is significantly more limited than most Americans though, in Moscow you still had as of 2014 some liberal/free outlets but largely they serve a niche audience otherwise much everything else is controlled by the Kremlin. Furthermore, the state channels actually have quite a bit of money poured into them to make them attractive and a lot of people get their news that way. While there is still the internet but knowledge of other languages especially English is limited and once you get out of the major cities, it gets even worse. Ultimately, outside of Moscow Putin has an very firm handle on access to information. Also, I have noticed some weird stuff with my internet connection .I am getting warning pages going to certain sites (Ualivemap and somethingawful ironically enough) that required Captcha tests, which seems a bit odd. I do think there was strong support for Crimea but support for the current conflict is more difficult to figure out. Also, I think "creating lists" of posters is a really terrible and authoritarian idea. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Sep 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:You might want to run a malware scan. Unless your country is taking a page from China and having internet police pop ups. I am currently in Moscow, so maybe? I wasn't having a issue with it 2 days ago when I was in the states. It might be DOS related though. As far as the EU, it wouldn't have ever been an option for Russia, Russia is way way too large of a country and would have skewed the union as a whole far more towards it and away from Frankfurt and Brussels. Also, I suspect NATO wouldn't have worked out either for a variety of reasons, especially since in the minds of Russians they were "the bad guys." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Sep 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
From the article though it is rather unclear where it is happening, whether they are in Moldova proper or are just in Transnistria. http://www.unian.ua/world/960306-zeleni-cholovichki-zyavilisya-na-teritoriji-moldovi-rnbo.html Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Sep 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:I thought that was in Transdnstnstrnsdstnria. Ironically enough, not even Russia recognizes Transnistria as a state, although every other breakaway state in the region does. They are on de jure Moldovan soil as far as the international community is concerned, it just hasn't been news for over 20 years. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Sep 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Well, the article is that Ukrainian officials claim that local powers are recruiting militias in Transdniester for something, which they assume would be aggression towards Moldova (except any such groups could clearly be used against Ukraine just as well); at any rate the headline on that twitter link sure is misleading. Yeah, true but that is a rather different story that the headline/tweet, it is still interesting obviously. I suspect they be shipping them over to the front rather than open up anything in Moldova itself though. I guess there is also the theory that Russia would attempt to take Odessa at some point too. That said, it is rather ambiguous since supposedly recruited from "southern Moldova," trained in "Moscow, Transnistria and Rostov" and sent off to who knows where. I wonder if they are from Gagauzia? Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Sep 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I am going by the definition in the actual book "Clash of the Civilization" by Samuel Huntington. The guy is an armchair nerd but he did predict it a good 10 year before everybody else. Yeah Huntington and his ideas aren't a secret, they just are basically essentialist to the point of racism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I just don't see Russia and "The West" integrate economically and cooperate politically in any alternate timeline of the history, short of an alien invasion. They compete for the same world resource and market, and geopolitical influence. The issue is that they just doesn't much have to do with "civilizations," culture or religion when it is rather predictable political differences. If anything according to Huntington the Balkans pretty much all fall under the "Orthodox" world when they really have nothing to do with the current conflict. If his theory made sense then Bulgaria and Romania would be on Russia's side when they clearly aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:I don't think that's that uncommon a sentiment in eastern/central Europe. Except Russia is usually seen as one of the reasons to be banding together, rather than the one they're rallying behind. If anything Hungary's transition to free market capitalism has been quite rough compared to the rest of Eastern Europe, there still is a dislike for the Soviet Union but growing displeasure to the "Western system" as well. If anything authoritarian national conservatism has become their "third way" which lines up in many ways with Putin. Putin's use of Soviet symbolism is usually as thin as the flags that are being waved around and Hungary itself isn't under real threat of expansion. If anything together they break away a lot of the essentialist characteristics about Russian culture that have been brought up, Hungary isn't in the "Orthodox" world and isn't "Neo-Soviet" but nevertheless they facing many of the same issues for very similar reasons. Hungary like Russia had a rough experience with shock therapy this coupled with a pre-existing legacy of revanchism pushed them both of similar trajectories but at different rates and times. Hungarian GDP per Capita took a pretty big dip during the 1990s, saw strong growth during the prime 2004-2009 era but after 2009 dripped again and didn't really recover. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:I have a hard time believing most Hungarians see it as a coalition of mutual empathy. The West may have made the growing pains worse than they should have been and exploited them along the way, but it was only because of the five decade long dump their oppressor took over their country that they had to make the transition in the first place. (Furthermore, the dilapidated state it was left in was what made much of that exploitation possible). As said, you could say they have other fish to fry at this point, specifically Trianon and the fact ethnic Hungarians are in neighboring countries (mostly in EU member states though). Admittedly, I don't think Hungarians are legitimately being oppressed but it is completely still a thing in Hungary, cars still have license plates with the pre-1920 borders...and not a few of them either. Memory of the Soviet period is still a thing and there isn't much love for Russian but you could say the Soviets were a temporary enemy and they are now back focusing on Trianon and the EU in general. Also, communism in Hungary (Goulash Communism) was actually relatively soft compared to Romania for example *and ultimately the transition during the 1990s was a pretty real drop in at least income. There was a growth spurt with EU accession but many felt that growth wasn't shared equally and the post-2009 period has been pretty miserable, this has been contributed to in large part by Fidesz and their rather reactionary economics. In addition, Orban has manipulated the voting system with by adding more single member districts which means it will be very difficult to dislodge him, his party actually lost 8% of the votes and only 1% of the seats and can still change the constitution to their wishes with 66% of the vote. Also present day Russia and the Soviet Union are different entities anyway and Putin's Russia is very much reactionary/right-wing. Fidesz politics in many ways has turned out not to be pro-democracy but anti-left.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:I don't really disagree with anything you said, but I don't know whether that's enough to give Orban a mandate of coziness with Russia (some of the links posted earlier show Fidesz has a very tight grip on Hungarian media). As in I have no idea because I don't follow Hungarian affairs closely enough currently (I had a very good friend in high school). 1956 does but Trianon is just bigger and also it is very possible to look at 1956 as a Soviet invasion not necessarily a Russian one. One thing is that Hungary doesn't have a common border with Russia, so they have actual had a break with the past as far as relations goes. The Baltic States and Poland still border Russia and while Romania doesn't, Moldova is still a big issue for them. In addition, remembrance of 1956 very much became an anti-left/anti-Soviet issue which for Hungarians doesn't necessarily mean anti-Russian, if anything I suspect East Germany is similar in that regard. The Slovaks also don't seem to be particularly upset. As far as "mandates" who knows, but Fidesz does have a tight rein on the media and are still getting a plurality of the vote. That said, Jobbik actually increase their share of the vote and they don't have a problem with Putin either, together they have 64% of the vote. Jobbik itself started with the memory of 1956 as a pretty big part of their message, but not only has the emphasis shifted but that link between Putin, the Soviet Union and 1956 isn't really there from what I remember. From what I heard Hungarian elections are still fairly normal and monitored. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
Wierre posted:While international monitoring did agree that the Hungarian elections were legal, they did report that it was unfair and unbalanced. Especially that Fidesz rewrote the constitution and the election process, making it completely to be in their favour. I still can't stomac the fact that Fidesz got 40% of the total votes which gave them 2/3 majority in the parliament. How does that work? Yes, the elections were legal but everything else was slanted. Fidesz wrote into the new constitution a greater emphasis on single member districts ie FPTP (first pass the post) and like most FPTP systems, a strong plurality can easily give you a majority or super-majority. Hungary isn't a full FPTP system but it is now much more of one and the more parties that split the vote, the easier it is for Fidesz to hold its districts since it just needs more than any other party. Unfortunately, a two party system isn't going to be possible because of Jobbik and the center-left will never cooperate on a electoral level, so Fidesz will have control until the party or Orban completely meltdown/revolution. Of course, the issue is that Hungary is has been in the EU 10 years at this point and if anything is less democratic than since 1989, being a member of the EU doesn't necessarily mean you're much of a democracy, or have freedom of the press. quote:
I think a quite bit has change among the European hard right/far-right since 2000 though, in that time Putin has consolidate power and has become a model and big supporter for reactionary parties across Europe. In that sense, Russian and Soviet for these groups (which control 2/3rds of the vote in Hungary) have become separated in rhetoric from what I have seen, although in a sense it still takes a fair amount of double-think. That said, I do a fair amount of support is genuine at this point looking at polls regarding Putin/Russia specifically. Also, to be fair, the Soviet Union and Putin's Russia genuinely very much are different things even if they are both expansionist, Putin's regime on a ideological level is a nationalist grab bag of a lot of different strains of thought.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Zohar posted:To a large extent Orbán is a perfect example of Caesarism: he smashed the previous constitution on a wave of immense popular support, and he can still rely on a fairly decisive plurality of voters. He doesn't need to outright manipulate elections -- yet, anyway -- though he's implemented constitutional tricks to fortify his rule and looks to be importing the forms of 'political engineering' that are popular in the former Soviet countries, where democracy is manipulated and subverted in various ways but you don't necessarily have actual ballot-stuffing and the like. The usual example is the trick where the government sets up fake opposition parties to siphon popular support away from the real opposition. Something similar did happen in the last Hungarian elections, though it didn't end up being especially successful. (Of course there is also some merit to the idea that Jobbik fills this role.) Yeah more or less that is the way I have heard it going so far, Hungary at this point is a "managed democracy", there are elections but the result is predictable and the constitution is so tweaked that Orban has completely gamed the system. The EU itself has shown that it doesn't have teeth even when it comes to countries it (or especially so), part of the reason I absolutely expected it to do less than the minimum regarding Ukraine. That said, I think Hungary will remain in a zombie-like state and while the center-left may make some gains, the vote will be split in such a way that Fidesz will remain untouched. I don't know if Jobbik will overcome the center-left itself or simply the opposition vote will remain split between them making Orban PM for life. Personally though, it is hard for me not to see many comparisons between Putin and Orban: both used the unpopular economic liberal policies of a previous administration to gain power while retaining them in power, then gutted civil society and used a grab bag of nationalist rhetoric to gain power. I don't think Orban is going to be invading Romania or Slovakia soon, but you can see Trianon-centric rhetoric still plays a big part in the body politic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
On a cross-thread issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/w...WT.nav=top-news quote:Iran’s Talks With Russia May Strike at Sanctions Something I suspected that would happen (or at least would be an issue), isolation of Iran only effectively work as long as they didn't have a patron and they effectively may have one now. One thing is Russia certainly has the technology and equipment to make airstrikes difficult if not impossible, S-300/400 systems and SU-30s would make things messy. That said, it is mostly about leverage and what type of concessions the West would be interested in giving up, that said Obama especially may not have much to give. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Are airstrikes even on the table anymore? I thought that was more or less past. Well the question is if Iran can break out of sanctions, the West may scramble for some other form of leverage. They have been off the table for a while, but I suspect at least a discussion about them will come up. That said, with the situation in Iraq, it would actually be nuts especially since we are already devoting air assets to bomb what is still their enemy and cooperation with Baghdad would completely meltdown. In addition, Iran most likely has been beefing up their air defenses over time, and the US might actually have to try and achieve air superiority, I don't think a one off strike or cruise missiles would be enough. It just gets worse if Russia gives them more-modern equipment, modern Israeli/US F-16s and newer models of the SU-30 are pretty comparable matches.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I think SAMs would be more likely in the near term than aircraft. I'm not quite sure how long it takes to build a competent Su-30 squadron but for other aircraft types Russia has sometimes been kind of slow to build them in big numbers. In the short term, certainly SAMs would be the effective way to negative a possible responsible. However, beyond new fighters, Russia reportedly has been helping modernized Iran's F-14s and once was working with them on a 4th generation fighter which supposedly became the Saeqeh. Certainly, active Russian assistance would allow the Iranians to accelerate their own fighter programs beyond buying Russian aircraft themselves. The MIG-29s were from the Soviets, I don't know if they have been upgraded or not. Ultimately, it is up to the US and how much they are going to responsible to Iran's possible leverage. If the US maintains a hardline, and keeps up ramping up sanctions while negotiations are happening, Iran may very well just go for plan B.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
confused posted:I think the big issue for Russia with their retaliatory actions is that they seem to be predicated on the idea that the world can't live without Russia. I think that it may cause the opposite result and drive home the fact that besides dropping nuclear bombs, Russia can't do much outside of its region except inconvenience people. The world can live without Russia, but I wouldn't minimize their strengths at this point in Europe, there is a reason why EU sanctions have been so light. In addition, Russia seems to have continuing if not increasing influence in the Middle East. Russia at this point has ties with Iran and Syria, and now Iraq and Egypt. Yeah, they aren't a super-power but they are a major power than does have influence outside the former Soviet Union.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
Raygereio posted:I'd say the fear of tanking EU nation's economies if they cut off Russia completely has more to do with that, then direct Russian influence. In a sense, that is still leverage Russia has on Europe, it is certainly more than a "inconvenience" even if Russian troops aren't marching across Frankfurt. There are real limits to what the Russians can do, but if they become a true pariah state it would certainly be very destabilizing for not just the former Soviet Union. quote:Considering we paid for the parts of the ISS they built, we should just respond by repossessing the Russian modules. The only way to get humans up there is with Russian spacecraft in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2014 09:25
|
|