|
Plan Z posted:It's strange suddenly getting information challenging the norm with these conflicts. For years, Russia bragged that Abrams cannot hurt T-90 xaxaxa)))) and it seemed legit, but there are videos in Syria of TOW-2s cutting right through T-90 Shtora and ERA for kill hits. Do you mean that video where a TOW hits a T-90, and the a member of the crew comes out ? It didn't look like a kill and it certainly didn't penetrate. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Mar 8, 2016 |
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
BattleMaster posted:[citation needed] on that place ever having been beautiful, let alone one of the most beautiful places in the world. Crimea is genuinely actually beautiful, one of the few places in the former Soviet Union [politics aside] that has a Mediterranean[ish] climate. As for some random crumbling concrete building, who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
That target is also very flexible depending on the budget itself and how the percentage the government extracts form operations. One thing the cheap Ruble is helping the Russian government in certain ways since the government pays salaries in rubles but gets paid in dollars. Also, other estimates I have seen range closer to around $65 dollars a barrel, As for the Russians running out of money, it is pretty unlikely due to the fact the government still has plenty of room to raise taxes and Russian Central bank still has plenty of reserves. The actual budgetary reserves have been hit but it is one of multiple funds the Russian government manages, sort of like how some state governments keep buffer funds when revenues are lower. Push comes to shove, the Russian Central Bank could just hand the government a loan until oil prices stabilize. Also, I guess it should be also mentioned that oil prices are starting to stabilize around fifty a barrel, which means the government will still be in the red but the deficit is going to be more manageable. edit http://www.reuters.com/article/russia-economy-budget-rule-idUSL5N17L1BE The Russian government itself is saying it is looking at $40 and $50 a barrel, which maybe is too low but certainly there is a big different there. --------------------- As for Russian attitudes, I do think there are a fair amount of people in Moscow/St. Petersburg unhappy with the current circumstance, but at the same time there doesn't seem any consensus about getting rid of Putin because there literally isn't anyone to replace him with. Part of this due to the fact there is little love between liberal and left opposition, liberals in Russia tend more to hard right economically and rarely see eye to eye with the rest of the population. Then there is the rest of the country who backs Putin far more fully. Part of this state propaganda and part of it is just that people in the countryside really despise the Moscow opposition and has no desire to see them in power. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:53 on May 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:That article sound silly, not the part that Russian units could defeat NATOs Baltic forces, but that this would constitute a win in the eventual war, like the war would stop at the destruction of NATOs Baltic units and that no reinforcements, counter offensive or insurgency would occur. Not to mention the absurdity of Russia risking nuclear war and extreme economical sanctions for some relatively unproductive clay around the Baltic with a predominantly hostile population. Well first a Baltic war isn't going to happened, nevertheless the fact that local NATO forces can easily being overwhelmed at this point highlights danger that the rest of NATO wouldn't be able to react before issue was decided. Also, Russia may assume an invasion would happen too quick and would be too low of a priority to NATO for the threat of nuclear weapons to come to play. Usually a RAND study commands quite a bit of weight and is heavily quantitative, but of course it doesn't Russia would actually do it. That said, it does also show that Russian military is more of a force than people think it is, and probably shouldn't be taken too lightly.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Why did Netherlands vote no to the Ukraine association treaty again? There was a referendum in the Netherlands that deep-sixed it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
slavatuvs posted:Missile interceptors don't work at all at the moment. Maybe they would be able to stop a few warheads, but in a nuclear exchange between the NATO and Russia their effect would be moot. Basically, there is no way to shoot down their missile by the time they get to orbit, the Russian Federation is simply way too vast. The only thing we can do is try to shoot down the missile in space MIRV warheads "rain" over a target. However, the issue is that hitting a missile with a missile is hard enough as it is (and it is debatable if we can really do this reliably), it gets even harder when the Russians can add as many decoy as they can fit on a missile. There is basically no way for us to separate decoys from active warheads, and they would ultimately give us so many targets that trying to stop them any meaningful number of them is hopeless. Basically, all missile defense adds up to is that we hope to catch a could real warheads before they get to their target but ultimately there is no way to destroy even a fraction of them. Missile defense really isn't worth the money and it is highly debatable why we were (and now are) putting launch sites in Eastern Europe, even if it is just to "stick it to the Russians." Also, the it doesn't really cost the Russians that much to re-design their warheads with more decoys (at least compared to what we are spending). Furthermore, the Russians have a point that launch sites are valid targets even if they are fairly useless in the grand calculus of nuclear war. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:
Yup quote:TBF, Russia only has less than 300 ICBM launch vehicles, a third of which are mobile launchers. They do have quite a few tactical medium and short-range launchers, like a 100 Iskanders that can be fitted with nuclear warheads. The Russians have a higher number of warheads though, which means the missiles that get through (almost of all of them) would wreck a similar amount of damage. It doesn't effect MAD. quote:But, you're wrong about redesigning warheads to fit more decoys. It's not cheap, especially with the budget getting slashed due to falling oil prices and sanctions. The Russians are already doing that with stuff like the Bulava and the Sarmat and the Rubezh, but have trouble getting them to work properly, production issues, overspending, and the like. Supposedly, they're to enter the field this year, but it's more like 2020 or so. It is still cheaper than the tens of billions we spent on missile defense system, and 2020 is adequate timing. I mean if you want to talk about production issues and overspending starting looking in Boeing's direction. That said, the Russians may have spent a bigger portion of their economy, but to be honest it is rather nebulous. More less, the entire enterprise was a Cold-War era boondoggle that meant the Russians had to spend some money re-designing missiles and made some aerospace companies very happy. (Also, Western sanctions never really affected the Russian economy much in a post-analysis. If anything self-inflicted sanctions had more of an effect and generally those were mostly imposed autarky.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It had nothing to do with Gulen in all likelihood. The manifesto put out by the coupers was bog-standard Kemalist Ataturk worship stuff, not a whiff of Gulen in it. As for the opposition the HDP are not fans of the Kemalist military and the CHP has been mostly defanged and cowed into submission by the AKP over the years Though the CHP and MHP would probably be happy to be "pick up the pieces" after the coup. As for the true victor out of all of this is probably yet again....Putin.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Anos posted:The failure of liberalism and the EU isn't really useful for Russia though. It's useful for Putin and his kleptocracy as it eliminates alternatives to it - but it's not actually going to make Russians better off or raise their standard of living. It seems Russia is focused on simply being powerful without really formulating a vision for what to do with that power or an alternative system. In some ways it is debatable, I think the Russian vision is actually quite clear which is to dominate the countries near it and their economies (Eursian Union)and to gradually tear the EU apart, an outcome which may eventually lead to an end of sanctions and an increase in bilateral trade with "friendly" European nations. To be fair, Russia was never going to join the EU, and Russia's alternative is a world where it has a significantly more political power and the rest of Europe is too divided to really stand up to it. To be fair, most Russians believe a weaker Russia is going to a less economically prosperous one. That said, the problem with the Russian economy more than anything else is its addiction to oil/gas and it is unclear if any of this this would help. It is possible a weaker Europe is probably going to be more reliant on Russian gas and Putin probably hopes to eventually turn his political and military influence in the Middle East into some type of leverage on oil prices. Ultimately, more than anything the Russians need the Saudis to stop oversupplying the market and everything else is sort of a sideshow to that. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jul 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I think the other goal is to reduce the West and his competition to oligarchic autocracies, because it's easier to negotiate with or bribe a single leader like Erdogan or Trump than it is to deal with democratic voters, parties, representatives, factions, etc. I guess you could say it is more "certain", once he owns someone it seems to stay that way. It is going to be interesting to see what happens in Italy (which may have a banking crisis/early elections) and France. it is likely both second round French presidential candidates (Sarkozy/Le Pen) are pro-Putin. Merkel and the CDU may not last in Germany either.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:He has a lot of the right enemies, and I like the War Nerd, but Ames seems pretty personally loathsome and is so far up Putin's rear end that he defends Trump from accusations that he's too close to Putin by calling his critics Russophobes and McCarthyites. I'm sympathetic to the realpolitik view that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a natural response to continual Western encroachment on what they at least see as their sphere of influence, and to the idea that the West (even if by accident) did a lot to gently caress over Russia in the 90's, but it's still really weird to see someone lurch to the extreme contrarian position that right-wing Russian nationalism and militarism is somehow good instead of just an inevitable consequence. He really strikes me as one of the most bitterly nihilistic people I've encountered on social media. Granted, bitter nihilism is probably a fairer response to the issue than simply being pro-Putin, pretty much very side involved seems to be trapped into a unsolvable morass of hatred.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:
Also, the 1940s was the decade when the Soviets saw their greatest expansion of geopolitical power even if after everything that happened. Oh and Russia experienced a far greater economic decline in the 1990s than the 1980s. I guess every 40-50 (ish) years something bad happens to Russia? It isn't a good cartoon.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's specifically labeled "economy" so I don't think criticizing it for not properly representing Russian geopolitical power is proper. The stand the bear is balancing on its label "economy" but how did the Soviet Union "topple over" during the 1940s though? You could easily say the economy was poo poo because half of it was destroyed by Nazis but the Soviets expanded their power immensely during that period. I know the point is hoping the Russians will collapse but it doesn't make any sense beyond the fact the Soviet Union fell apart. OddObserver posted:Lumping is in as "1940s" is in bad taste, though, given what was going on in the first half of the decade. Summing up the death of 10+ million people as an "economic collapse" seems nutty as well. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Thing is here is that he still just plans it, they can just make a bureaucratic slog out of it and continue exchange of passive-aggressive statements over the social media. Yeah, and that may be acceptable to the Kremlin. They know his popularity even in Moscow took a big hit, and that he has never had much sway outside of it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
DangerousDan posted:Have actually considered writing a paper on the weird crossover between Tsarist-era nostalgia and Stalin-era nostalgia. It seems so bizarre to Western outsiders.. simultaneously fetishising Cromwell's Protectorate and Charles the first's bumbling absolutism? It makes a lot more sense when you consider the fact that Stalin actually backed off his anti-religious campaign during the WW2 and allowed the partial rehabilitation of some groups such as Cossacks. Even relatively minor things from our perspective (like bringing back St.George Ribbons) mattered quite a bit from a symbolic perspective at that point. Furthermore, Stalin began pushing Russian language and culture much more than Lenin did (who had favored far more linguistic and cultural autonomy for ethnic minorities). If you look at Stalin through simply the frame of hard right/far-right Russian nationalism there is plenty to find acceptable including the brutality he inflicted. From a Western perspective, he as bad or worse than Hitler, from a Russian nationalist perspective he was the savior of the nation that defeated both Russia's internal and external enemies and "returned" Russian language and culture to its rightful place. It also indicates how much revanchism is at the heart of present-day Russian nationalism considering how much present-day Russian nationalism focuses on territorial extent of the Russian Empire at its height as well as the amount of influence the USSR had after the Second World War. It is also brings up some of the present complications of Russian politics, especially the connection between United Russia and a syncretic form of Russian nationalism (that relies both Tsarist and Soviet callbacks). To Russians it doesn't matter as much formally if something is communist, monarchist or capitalist but how it relates to Russia's history. Someone being "pro-monarchist" and "pro-Stalinist" really means they are a right-wing nationalist that is cherry picking "when Russia was great." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
DangerousDan posted:I understand this - he was "the great Russian chauvinist", etc. Nonetheless the quasi-rehabilitation of the Church & appeals to nationalism during WW2 were political contingencies rather than an ideological turn. Although the heights of paranoia during the yezhovshchina weren't reached after the war ended, coded comments made by Solzhenitsyn were enough to get the man sent off for 're-education'. I understand that fringe / nationalist figures will do all they can to cherry pick history in order to fit their world-view, but this Czarist Stalinism seems a particularly egregious example of weird history. There's been a consistent movement (in the west and in Russia) to 'de-ideologisize' Stalin, to paint him simply as an authoritarian brute, a power-hungry madman. I don't personally buy this line - I think that everything he did was more or less guided by an (admittedly warped) ideological imperative. See: Socialist Realism, the Caucuses banditry period, etc. The issue for Russian Nationalists is there is no way to forget or write off the Soviet period completely especially since the Soviets were once a super-power. Elevating Stalin is a way of co-opting that history while ignoring most of the ideological baggage. As for the insanity part, nationalism especially revanchist nationalism is all about creating a narrative of the past, one that often is both a historical and emotionally bound. As for everything Stalin did being entirely ideologically bound, that isn't true. I mean look at everything that happened as far as Soviet foreign policy from the mid-1930s to 1946 and how many times it shifted depended of realpolitik. If anything Stalin flip-flopped constantly. Russian nationalists just take they want out of him and ignore everything else.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:BTW, this is a couple weeks old but it gives you how much Putin's Russia has left to live: an chart on the remaining cash reserves, directly from the Russian Minister of Finance and the International Institute of Finance. Yeah, the url of that article is misleading, it is talking about primarily the budget reserve not FX reserves. The FX reserves are the actual issue but they are fairly stable, while the much smaller budget reserve (there to cushion the budget during a recession) is running out due to Russia running a 3% budget deficit. Supposedly, the solution is probably going to be higher taxes on Russia's energy industry to stabilize the budget, but we will see.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Yeah, that's going to work. How much is a percentage of zero income? Energy companies, especially natural gas companies in Russia are still making a profit even if it is only a potion of what it was two years ago. http://seekingalpha.com/news/3206141-gazprom-q2-net-profit-falls-less-expected-ruble-strengthens Gazprom for example still had a net income of $3.8 billion in Q1 2016, it is debatable if expect enough to really plug the budget. That said on average natural gas prices have been rising from their low in 2015. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:The other issue is if they can even pull off a tax increase on the energy sector. It's needed but it alone isn't going to stem the bleeding, so I'm wondering if the oligarchs are going to go for it or they will rebel in their own ways. As far as the energy industry goes, Putin has nearly completely consolidated control over it and to be honest there aren't many oligarchs left to oppose him. It is almost to the point the Russian energy industry is practically an extension of the state, so basically the state taxing another portion of itself. If it will be enough to plug the Russian deficit is far more debatable. The Russian deficit at this point is 3.3% and will likely eat up the budget reserves next year, although very tepid growth might shave it down a bit. After that the Russian state is probably going to rely on a combination of energy taxes, raiding other reserve funds and budget freezes. That said, as far as the Russian state running out of money, Russia currently has 400 billion in FX reserves. It is fairly unlikely. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Dwesa posted:Their reserves dropped by quite a bit since 2014 though http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/foreign-exchange-reserves The Central Bank tried to actively defend the Ruble then gave up because it acts completely as a proxy for oil prices and it was just throwing good money after bad. Azerbaijan learned that lesson far more slowly and nearly spend all of their reserves before they let the Manat float. The Bank of Russia actually made the right decision in that case. While devaluation of the Ruble is what has caused consumer prices to spike, but in all likelihood spending their reserves probably wouldn't have stopped that. Also, the FX reserves the "ultimate backup" of the state and they are going to wait until they absolutely need to liquidate them. woodenchicken posted:Either sales or income taxes are going to increase next, Ministry of Finance keeps proposing one or the other constantly lately. There has been talk, they may wait until after the presidential elections to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Jesus Christ, Lamb of God and Light of the World, has become the king of Poland. Well him also being the King of the Jews has got to make this a bit awkward for the Poles.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
I currently live in Moscow, and from what I have seen bread prices are still dirt cheap, the export tax if anything keeps bread prices artificially low. Pretty much all root vegetables are also pretty cheap as well. If Russia lifted an export tax, production may rise but at the cost of higher spending for consumers for their most basic staple. Basically, if you want to have a basic Russian diet prices haven't changed much if you want foreign goods, prices have increased substantially. Also, beef is quite expensive while chicken and pork is pretty reasonable. Looking at the export data and prices for bread/grain in Russia, it sounds believable. One thing is export data is very difficult to falsify because there are other countries receiving those goods, it would be easy to check to see if that grain never arrived. Also, I think buckwheat is pretty good with just a bit of salt and seasoning, it has a surprising filling quality to it you wouldn't expect (maybe do to the fact it is both high in carbohydrates and protein).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Rice is cheaper, and more common. I haven't seen almost any buckwheat west of Latvia, excluding Slav food stores in western Europe. At least in Portland Oregon it is slowly becoming more common, but so is a bunch of "weird" alternative foods. It is a much more complete grain than rice too, it is pretty fiber in fiber and it has enough protein you can go vegan off of it. To be honest, most Eastern Europe food including Russian food, is not exactly exciting but serviceable especially for the winter. In the former Soviet Union, you also get more exposure of food from the Caucasus/Central Asia that breaks up the cuisine to some extent. I wanted to mention food prices, I just check at a store and a loaf of bread was around 15 cents, the same for a kilo of potatoes and onions were around 20 cents for a kg. Milk was 50 cents a liter. Foreign goods including imported cheese was closer to Western prices.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I don't know how much longer he has, seems extremely depressed and checked out, given up. Baron, you have to admit this is more or less the exact opposite tone you have taken for the past two years. I have heard similar stories, but not in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
I think it is fair to say the political class in both Ukraine, the West and Russia have endeavored to gently caress over the populace of Ukraine. That said, I think the Russian strategy has been the most cynical of the three. However, the economic nightmare of what is happening in Ukraine is definitely than just due to the war, the war is part of it but the epidemic corruption in the country really never stopped but its revenue streams simply changed hands. Moreover, various tax code reforms and austerity measures have beaten the spending power of the population to a pulp, a neutral survey has repeatedly shown that the effect poverty is 50-60% with 15-20% of the population being food insecure. In addition, gas privatization has unloaded more of the costs of the population simply does not have the money to pay for increased costs. Putin certainly has a hand to play here by playing a cynical geopolitical game over pipelines, but where is everyone else while this is happening? Then you have guys like Saakashvili who comes off rightfully at this point as a complete opportunist. Odessa is notoriously corrupt for sure but he was essentially thrown the governorship and lasted barely a year before he moved on to something else. I don't blame most Ukrainians for being fatalistic at this point because I think everyone has lied and taken advantage of them, especially Russia, the IMF and their own political class. Best case scenario for most young Ukrainians is probably overstaying a visa somewhere in the EU where they will be taken advantage of like other group of undocumented workers. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
The big issue for the Kuznetsov is that it badly needs its refit, which has been delayed for at least 4 years. (A big part of that refit was replacing its high pressure boilers with gas turbines). Instead the Kuznestov has been repeatedly pressed into service since it is Russia's only carrier and basically has been nearly run into the ground since its boilers have always been temperamental and its other facilities haven't been seriously upgraded.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Pierogi posted:In all honesty, his analysis of Poland makes me wonder if he's as off base about other countries too. Or we are indeed ruled by master diplomats who will arrange for Poland to go back to its XVI century glory days. Yeah, I think much of the Caspian Report is what he would prefer to happen rather than anything else. Admittedly, he puts effort into his reports but the conclusions he makes seem to rest more than anything else on wishful thinking. Having spent time in Azerbaijan, I can understand his perspective but I really wouldn't suggest it as a general analysis. I could go on much further obviously, but it is hard to really get into it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Weren't they just bragging about have a wheat surplus this year? The difference is they making much larger quantity of "4th class wheat" and a smaller quantity of "3rd class wheat" (used for bread making) so bread makers are starting to substitute inferior wheat. Also, wheat prices have hit rock bottom, so what is probably going on is producers are now exporting more 3rd class wheat in order to get some type of profit leaving more 4th class wheat in domestic surplus. I guess the topic of the overall state of the Russian economy should come up, while it is still quite a mixed bag, unfortunately it looks like it has stabilized and may start to grow again. It looks like inflation has dropped to acceptable levels (5%), while growth may have been positive in the 4th quarter of 2016. This is likely due to one big factor: one oil prices have recovered to some extent and so has the ruble. While the Ruble (right now at 57.9 to the dollar) is still weak versus the dollar, it has closed the gap with the Euro quite a bit (now to around 61 versus 45-47 pre-crisis). This has meant (mostly) non-food imports) from the EU have dropped in relative price to 2015. In addition, the price inflation for food (which spiked in 2015) has slowed as the ruble relatively strengthens. However, food prices higher than it would be without counter-sanctions. Also, this has meant a relatively positive outlook for the Russian budget since it gets so much from oil revenue, and may actually beat deficit projections for 2017, the budget reserve may not run out this year or in in 2018 either. (This is very much up in the air and reliant on oil prices through 2017-2018 staying above $55 Brent. However, the higher Brent prices goes so does the likelihood Russia will be able to stabilize its budget this year). I am just saying this from what I have gleaned from recent statistics, the Russian economy isn't soaring but doesn't seem on the edge of collapse either. The Russian Central Bank at this point may start lowering interest rates in 2017 in order to avoid inflation dropping below 2-3%. I don't think that Caspian Report clip was all that accurate if you want to get a picture of the nuts and bolts of what is happening. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:He's as invulnerable as any powerful ex-spy turned world leader with an extensive network including most high level business types, oligarchs and crime syndicates. Backed up with nuclear weapons. The real way to undermine Putin would actually have Russians a real option to vote for, even then I have a hard time seeing any future Russian government (even a left-wing one) being not revanchist in some capacity. Navalny doesn't really cut it, he is better as a source of pressure than an actual replacement. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:21 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:
Btw, it depends on the ISP, I know about half of them allow SA and half of them don't (and I don't really feel like specifying).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
fez_machine posted:What's even more amusing is that Orban was Soros funded in the 80s: Hell, thats arguably why he is so paranoid.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2018 11:14
|
|
|
catfry posted:Do you think Orbán thinks that he owe his position to his education funded by Open Society grants, and that others receiving such grants can displace him? Or do you mean something else? Well he was around in 1989 and knows how a group like Fidesz (which was originally a libertarian youth group) can make inroads quickly, and that is certainly feeding into his paranoia. I mean his rise from 1988 to 1990 happened in the blink of an eye. (Btw, a combination of factors led to the rise of Orban and Fidesz but they did start on the ground running in 1989-1990 and his fear is the right combination of factors could supplement him as well.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Feb 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
catfry posted:He would have to be deranged to think like that. That he was enabled by his education grants to receive some 'super secret special knowledge' that no one else had, that allowed him to rise to the top. I wouldn't say it is knowledge, but let's be honest here the guy went from a college student to a major political figure in the space of a year. It wasn't a specific class, but probably a combination of political access and being in the right place at the right time by being a young libertarian Hungarian at Oxford. It had to be factor. Anyway, it isn't specifically educational grants he is concerned for, but that there could be another one of him and that isn't irrational. At the same time, authoritarians do like clamping down on education because it gives them more control, but the answer is why he is so concerned about Soros specifically because Soros does have a mission to promote more political and economically liberal societies (and doesn't hide it) which lets be honest contrasts with Orban's style. I have no idea if Open Democracy/Open Society is actually any real threat to Orban, but Orban clearly thinks so. The irony is US conservatives absolute didn't have a problem when the target was the Soviets, but when their own variant of authoritarianism was questioned. That said, Open Democracy has always been very economically liberal/free market, so the divide is mostly on social issues and civil society. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Feb 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
catfry posted:The open society does not provide grants that give political access or enable being in the right place at the right time any more than anything else. They enable education. They did not create Orbán, or were even a major factor. It is not sensible to point to such a generic thing as an education grant in a persons life and say, "this thing shaped who they are, it will surely shape others similarly". The issue isn't that it shaped his life in a generic fashion, but he very very quickly became a major political figure. Part of education, especially elite institutions, is access and being able to meet the right people at the right time (like I said especially for a right-libertarian Hungarian in the late 1980s at Oxford). To be fair, we don't know what happened in every minute of his life, but it isn't unreasonable to say it probably had a major impact on his political career looking at the very specific timing of when it happened and what Orban was doing at the same time. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Feb 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
catfry posted:Lots of paths lead to meeting the right people. If you want to prevent people meeting the right people, where do you even begin? Attacking education grants has to be a drop in the bucket, in the sea of people meeting the right people in all sorts of ways. One thing I suspect he is going after more than educational grants (including CEU), but I suspect he views the type of young libertarian he once was (ironically enough) as a threat and attacking education (especially NGO grants) it is a way to disincentive that threat (from his perspective). Orban probably doesn't want politically motivated student studying at elite foreign institutions since there is a fundamental incapability the right-authoritarian line Orban is pushing and classic liberalism. Personally, I think Soros' influence is exaggerated and the thing migrant issue has become a game of bait and switch.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
Granted, the issue is probably greater than the incorrect use of "Polish concentration camps" but it is also targeting histories of the actual anti-Semitic policies of pre-war Poland, the action/inaction of Polish collaborators, and the rocky relationship between Jewish fighters and the Home Army. Of course, none of this was to the scale of the actual Nazis, but once a state (any state really) takes up coming up with a definitive history, it is right to wonder. I can't help but think one of the targets is Jan Gross. Th wide-spread criticism of Timothy Synder's works for minimizing if not revising less savory aspect of Poland's past (well one of many criticisms) I think has merit, history can't be in isolation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:Citation needed for those claims, especially your implication that it was a larger issue in Poland than in other countries, which independent studies have found to be not the case. Either way, it's a tough subject. Anti-semitism was widespread throughout Europe in the 1800s/early 1900s, and Poland was one of the largest homes for the Jewish People prior to WW2. Pure math says that there will be some anti-semitic activity. Btw, I don't know how you get I saying Poland was especially bad. I personally don't think Polish was that much of a standout considering many of its neighbors, but the law in particular is cutting across the board. The law is taking a hard line position on something is just indefensible from a historical perspective since it doesn't have any nuance to it, because lets admit things did happen that should be remembered. Should it be to anywhere on the same scale as what the Nazis did? Perhaps not, but it should be in the history books. (If anything I said in that quote it wasn't to the scale to the Nazis...I don't know what you want me to say.) Also, I don't know if Vichy France gets much of a pass, maybe from the FN and elements of the French right?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:From my understanding (and perhaps I'm wrong on this), the entire issue here is that there is nuance to this law. The law in question makes it illegal to accuse the Polish State/Nation as a whole of being complicit in the Holocaust, not anyone Polish across the board. If I'm reading it correctly, it'll still be ok to accuse an individual of aiding the Nazis, just not the entire nation. It seems something like that is so broad it could effectively mean anything, basically like "insulting Turkishness." If you point to a particular event or aspects that involves more than a few individuals, what happens? Like I said what about Jan Gross and Neighbors?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
I have to speak up on this point, it is almost certainly about the pensions. Everyone is livid about the pension situation and there is a palatable level of anger in the air. Honestly, I don't think the spy issue is seriously on the minds of most people. It is just not something Russians seriously care about. On the other hand, once the pension cuts were announced even Putin's approval rating has dropped 20%. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Oct 17, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2018 09:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Paladinus posted:I wouldn't say it causes the unrest, but it definitely contributes it. Right now Russian news cycle is dominated by the spy row, and Ukrainian autocephaly. In both cases, at least from my experience, even when propaganda lands with people (e.g. people believe that Bellingcat and Patriarch Bartholomew work for CIA specifically to undermine Russia), many still see Russia's reaction to those events as failure caused by incompetence, and serious damage to the country's prestige. When average people don't know it happened in the first place or it is just some Western hoax, there isn't much bite. Also, Ukrainian autocephaly is not really a thing that many people care about (it is an internal church issue and most Russians aren't that religious to begin with). Pensions, in contrast, are something everyone cares about. I mean are most Americans that upset when the CIA bungles something or the US does something incompetent overseas (it took years for polling on the Iraq War to change)? A few are, but most people only care about what is immediately important to them, bread and butter issues like inflation, pensions, health care, unemployment etc. Russia is no different. Also, the polling more or less lines up with the pension issue and its consequence. Vlad self-owned himself by screwing with the live wire of Russian politics. Is everything else good for the Kremlin? No, obviously, but Vova could get away with screwing with the outside world, it is when the issue suddenly became something everyone had a stake in, then it got a lot "real." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Oct 17, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2018 11:19
|
|