Ultranationalism

[Vapymid]

Is it more comfortable to support a near blatant invasion of a sovereign nation?

 

Not sure which country you're talking about... Iraq? Lybia? Afghanistan, perhaps?

 

Is it more comfortable to support an obvious lie?

 

Apparently, it is for a lot of people. Easier to cling on to a convenient scary tale about some far-away land than to admit the unpleasant truth that your own place may not be much better morally, if not materially.

 

You know, a bit like "Luke, I am your father!", "Noooooooo!!!!" only with worse consequences

 

Regards

[ThePest179]

Is it more comfortable to support a near blatant invasion of a sovereign nation?

 

Not sure which country you're talking about... Iraq? Lybia? Afghanistan, perhaps?

 

Is it more comfortable to support an obvious lie?

 

Apparently, it is for a lot of people. Easier to cling on to a convenient scary tale about some far-away land than to admit the unpleasant truth that your own place may not be much better morally, if not materially.

 

Regards

 

Are you referring to the West, or Ukraine? I know the West has done immoral things (and I'd name more than a few except it would derail the thread further) but that DOES NOT justify blind support of Russia and its actions.

 

Something else I have to ask: how many war crimes/crimes against humanity has the Ukrainian side been committing? Aside from shelling civilian areas (which the "rebels" CHOOSE to fight in) the UA has done next to nothing. Where are the mass graves, the massacres, and all the other atrocities in areas that the Ukrainians have occupied? For that matter, there wasn't any real resistance against the UA when they occupied several areas, so what does that say about them?

[Vapymid]

My "support" for Russia in the Ukrainian situation is not so much a support of Russia as criticism of the Western position and the actions of the official Ukrainian authorities. It's certainly not "blind" and I explained my reasons for it in many previous posts in this thread and so won't go through all of that again.

 

As to the atrocities - both sides have committed them. The actual number of casualties is not known and the information is suppressed. There are reasons to believe that the official number of casualties among the Ukrainian army is particularly heavily under-reported.

 

It is clear, however, that casualties among the civilian population run in the thousands, many more are displaced, the economy of the region - not in a very good shape to start with - is ruined and all of that has happened for no rational reason at all.

 

The Ukrainian government must carry most of the blame and responsibility for this because -

a) they did not have to start the military action, they could negotiate instead;

b) they will negotiate in the end as there is no other way out of it;

c) they could have achieved the (b) without the (a) above.

 

The US is to blame because they have encouraged (if not forced) the Ukrainian government to resort to the (a), thus knowingly condemning thousands of people to death in exchange for scoring some short-term political goals against Russia and the EU.

 

The EU is to blame because they have stupidly allowed themselves to be drawn into an economic war with Russia, sleepwalking into a disaster.

 

The UK is to blame because they have acted as a US puppet, helping to undermine both the EU and the Russian positions in the hope of scoring some short-term political points.

 

And Russia is to blame for... well, for behaving in exactly the way the US have been expecting them to behave and so walking right into the diplomatic trap set out for them. Also, for doing that not exactly without knowledge of the likely consequences, in order to achieve some short-term domestic policy aims.

 

Regards

[ThePest179]

My "support" for Russia in the Ukrainian situation is not so much a support of Russia as criticism of the Western position and the actions of the official Ukrainian authorities. It's certainly not "blind" and I explained my reasons for it in many previous posts in this thread and so won't go through all of that again.

 

Oh, ummm, can you direct me to those, because I didn't get them.

 

As to the atrocities - both sides have committed them. The actual number of casualties is not known and the information is suppressed. There are reasons to believe that the official number of casualties among the Ukrainian army is particularly heavily under-reported.

 

It is clear, however, that casualties among the civilian population run in the thousands, many more are displaced, the economy of the region - not in a very good shape to start with - is ruined and all of that has happened for no rational reason at all.

 

As long as you admit the "rebels" have committed war crimes, I'll admit the UA has committed them. We're just going to have to disagree on the scale and number of them.

 

The Ukrainian government must carry most of the blame and responsibility for this because -

a) they did not have to start the military action, they could negotiate instead;

b) they will negotiate in the end as there is no other way out of it;

c) they could have achieved the (b) without the (a) above.

 

While they did not have to start military action, they were attacked first, just had Crimea taken over by Russia, and had areas out of their control declared independent under an untrustworthy referendum. If you think that they acted irrationally, that's fine, but I can understand why they would act like they did.

 

The US is to blame because they have encouraged (if not forced) the Ukrainian government to resort to the (a), thus knowingly condemning thousands of people to death in exchange for scoring some short-term political goals against Russia and the EU.

 

A blatant lie for which you have little to no proof.

 

The EU is to blame because they have stupidly allowed themselves to be drawn into an economic war with Russia, sleepwalking into a disaster.

 

Even though Russia's economy is the one dropping right now.

 

And Russia is to blame for... well, for behaving in exactly the way the US have been expecting them to behave and so walking right into the diplomatic trap set out for them. Also, for doing that not exactly without knowledge of the likely consequences, in order to achieve some short-term domestic policy aims.

 

Regards

 

An interesting position.

[BTGBullseye]

Even though Russia's economy is the one dropping right now.

Last I checked, Russia's economy was on the mend, if not particularly strong.

 

The EU economy is tanking like a boss, and the EU media is ignoring it, trying to make it look like it isn't as bad as it is. Many countries in the EU are going to be 3rd world if something isn't done soon.

[ThePest179]

Even though Russia's economy is the one dropping right now.

Last I checked, Russia's economy was on the mend, if not particularly strong.

 

The EU economy is tanking like a boss, and the EU media is ignoring it, trying to make it look like it isn't as bad as it is. Many countries in the EU are going to be 3rd world if something isn't done soon.

 

Where is your sources?

[BTGBullseye]

Where are yours?

[ThePest179]

Where are yours?

 

If you cannot provide me with evidence contrary to my position, then The only compelling evidence you have is your own text.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11266746/Capital-controls-feared-as-Russian-rouble-collapses.html

 

More related to the oil price drop, but still relevant.

[Vapymid]

Yes, the oil price is what is going to screw Russia's economy now, not so much sanctions - those hurt the EU and UK the most. Putin's government is using the sanctions to put pressure on the remaining "oligarchs" and to consolidate the power of the real oligarchy - the "siloviky"-based circle around himself.

 

As to the other stuff - it's difficult to argue on political matters with a believer. All I can do is to point at obvious conclusions and motivations of the parties involved. Proof? If you want proof in the matters of diplomacy and foreign policy - we need to wait a few years until a whistleblower leaks the relevant facts and documents...

 

Although, wait a second - there was a proof of the nefarious involvement, when Nuland was caught red-handed in behind-the-scenes power play, but you have already rationalised that away as not meaning what it means and not being what it seems and not being anything other than the ordinary planting of the flag of freedom in a far-away land, anyhow

 

But it's funny, talking about an "untrustworthy referendum" in Ukraine, at the time when the country did not even have a legitimate government. But, of course, it is very convenient where other arguments are lacking.

 

Regards

[ThePest179]

Yes, the oil price is what is going to screw Russia's economy now, not so much sanctions - those hurt the EU and UK the most.

 

Could you please go into detail?

 

As to the other stuff - it's difficult to argue on political matters with a believer.

 

That is exactly how I think of you.

 

I need to work on my "convincing" skills.

 

Although, wait a second - there was a proof of the nefarious involvement, when Nuland was caught red-handed in behind-the-scenes power play, but you have already rationalised that away as not meaning what it means and not being what it seems and not being anything other than the ordinary planting of the flag of freedom in a far-away land, anyhow

 

I simply thought that they were discussing who they liked, not "how do we get him in power at all costs?"

 

But it's funny, talking about an "untrustworthy referendum" in Ukraine, at the time when the country did not even have a legitimate government. But, of course, it is very convenient where other arguments are lacking.

 

Regards

 

Just because an elected leader (who severly abused his power I might add) was overthrown bloodily does not = the Donbass elections as legitimate or trustworthy.

[BTGBullseye]

Where are yours?

If you cannot provide me with evidence contrary to my position, then The only compelling evidence you have is your own text.

And yet, you refuse to provide your sources to me...

[Vapymid]

Could you please go into detail?

 

German automobile, EU agricultural industries, winemakers, livestock producers - all are losing the market they were counting on for growth for the economic recovery.

 

Germans have to forget about importing electricity from Ukraine for the foreseeable future as the fuel is either the Russian gas or Donbass coal.

 

The French have built a whole aircraft carrier for which they may now not have a customer AND have to pay compensation for breach of contract. Not to say that never again anyone in the world will trust them with a contract like that if they finally reneg on the Russians (I doubt they will, though).

 

Scoittish fisheries are losing mackerel supply contracts to Iceland (having supplied Russia since before the break-up of the USSR).

 

UK hi-tech underwater ROV and exploration equipment manufacturers have lost contracts with Russia overnight.

 

These are just a few off the top of my head...

 

That is exactly how I think of you.

 

That's too bad... I am giving here my opinion and analysis based on my knowledge and/or personal experience of living in both worlds - Russia and the West. But getting "you lie" or "you're a mouthpiece of RT" in response to anything that goes outside your comfort zone is growing old very quickly.

 

Regards

[ThePest179]

Where are yours?

If you cannot provide me with evidence contrary to my position, then The only compelling evidence you have is your own text.

And yet, you refuse to provide your sources to me...

 

Epic fail. Vapy at least gave some reasonable analysis as to why. Instead, you pretend that people will be convinced by a sentence, which provides nothing compelling or convincing.

 

Could you please go into detail?

 

German automobile, EU agricultural industries, winemakers, livestock producers - all are losing the market they were counting on for growth for the economic recovery.

 

Germans have to forget about importing electricity from Ukraine for the foreseeable future as the fuel is either the Russian gas or Donbass coal.

 

The French have built a whole aircraft carrier for which they may now not have a customer AND have to pay compensation for breach of contract. Not to say that never again anyone in the world will trust them with a contract like that if they finally reneg on the Russians (I doubt they will, though).

 

Scoittish fisheries are losing mackerel supply contracts to Iceland (having supplied Russia since before the break-up of the USSR).

 

UK hi-tech underwater ROV and exploration equipment manufacturers have lost contracts with Russia overnight.

 

Sounds rational, and depressing.

 

There is one big issue though: if Russia can't sell gas to the Europeans, then they have to sell to China, and at lower than normal prices. So Russia isn't going to come out of this unscathed, either.

 

Everyone loses.

 

That's too bad... I am giving here my opinion and analysis based on my knowledge and/or personal experience of living in both worlds - Russia and the West.

 

Regards

 

We must just agree to disagree, because it isn't like we're going to get anywhere with each other.

 

Truce?

Edited December 12, 2014 by Guest (see edit history)

[BTGBullseye]

Epic fail. Vapy at least gave some reasonable analysis as to why. Instead, you pretend that people will be convinced by a sentence, which provides nothing compelling or convincing.

Now you're resorting to veiled insults instead of showing sources.

[ThePest179]

Epic fail. Vapy at least gave some reasonable analysis as to why. Instead, you pretend that people will be convinced by a sentence, which provides nothing compelling or convincing.

Now you're resorting to veiled insults instead of showing sources.

 

This started because you made a claim and didn't back it up. You're the one who needs to provide a source.

[BTGBullseye]

Epic fail. Vapy at least gave some reasonable analysis as to why. Instead, you pretend that people will be convinced by a sentence, which provides nothing compelling or convincing.

Now you're resorting to veiled insults instead of showing sources.

 

This started because you made a claim and didn't back it up. You're the one who needs to provide a source.

Except you have made many claims yourself, with no backing either. You also need to provide sources.

[ThePest179]

Except you have made many claims yourself, with no backing either. You also need to provide sources.

 

Here's what I do:

 

-Make a claim

A. If a source is on hand, use it, otherwise, step 2:

-See if someone disputes said claim

-Stand by it if no facts/sources/logic disputes my claim, or:

-Admit I'm wrong if the facts/sources/logic show my claim is horseshit

 

Are you going to dispute my claim with facts, or not? Hell, you can just quote Vapy* and I'll accept that as your source.

 

*As he reasonably and logically disputed my claims.

[BTGBullseye]

Except you've always said that I have to have sources to back up any claims I make, and you never do unless I have sources. Quite being a hypocrite.

[ThePest179]

Except you've always said that I have to have sources to back up any claims I make, and you never do unless I have sources. Quite being a hypocrite.

 

Okay, fine, that's fair, but don't expect me to believe you when your evidence is just your own text.

[BTGBullseye]

Same.