Similar with international situation. First it was just Czeczenia, it's ok, it's inside Russian Federation, there are some reasons, might be worse. Then it was Georgia, not so clear situation anymore, doubts start to arise. Now we move into Ukraine, sovereign state that wanted to get out of corruption relation with Russia. This escalates, and West needs to be ready for it. Next will be what? A NATO country being invaded by green men?
Boris Nemtsov Killed - Page 9
Forum Index > General Forum |
Narw
Poland884 Posts
Similar with international situation. First it was just Czeczenia, it's ok, it's inside Russian Federation, there are some reasons, might be worse. Then it was Georgia, not so clear situation anymore, doubts start to arise. Now we move into Ukraine, sovereign state that wanted to get out of corruption relation with Russia. This escalates, and West needs to be ready for it. Next will be what? A NATO country being invaded by green men? | ||
Nerfed
Russian Federation1132 Posts
On February 28 2015 19:01 Narw wrote: Russia dosn't like him, Russia loves him. They will stand united around their leader and against enemies as long as political propaganda from Kremlin is strong enough to convince ordinary people that there is external threat to Fedaration that wants Russia on it knees. You need to understand that real events have little meaning there, it's what kind of narration about those events is used matters. I just wanted to remind you that it's better to separate people from the government. Our government is apeshit and needs to be prosecuted that's not a question. But there are a lot of people in Russia who oppose Putin and who hate him - like me, for example - so you can not say that all russians love him. There were around 50 thousand people yeasterday at the Nemtsov memorial march which is quite massive number for Moscow - we've had higher numbers twice in the modern history. Hes approval is absurdly high right now, like 85%+, but you have to consider the effects of propoganda on that. Probably hes core electors represent about 50-60%. These people are mostly rather poor people from more eastern regions and smaller cities who doesn't have any source of information except for the federal TV. It's very hard to oppose such a system because it silences you. | ||
Elroi
Sweden5474 Posts
It is not unlike the recent surge of right-wing xenophobic parties in Europe and such blatantly corrupt politicians as Berlusconi. It really shows the importance of teaching people critical thinking I guess,- or is it something deeper inside us that makes us give up our own understanding of the world in favor of the great leaders regardless of education? | ||
hfglgg
Germany5372 Posts
On March 02 2015 18:42 Saumure wrote: You should read Brzezinski: USA has to keep Europe or else they are dead. Therefore they need a weak Russia so Europe doesn't ditch USA for Russia. Moreover, Ukraine is what he call a geopolitical "pivot" that should be pro American. why do people always assume that russia is an alternative to the usa for europe? compared to europe russia is a piss poor borderline 3rd world country with a highly inefficent administration, a weak market, sub par capital and no relevant scientific advancement on a wider scale. there is literally nothing russia has to offer. if anything, its the other way around. russia should seek out closer relations with europe so they can benefit from europes superior technology, markets, administrations and capital. | ||
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
REyeM
2674 Posts
On February 28 2015 19:02 Erasme wrote: afaik a part of russia longs the days of stalin, a time when the URSS was the second world power nvm | ||
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On March 02 2015 18:30 zeo wrote: Cherry picking data from countries who are not in good relations with the US and ingnoring glaring violations of human rights in countries close to the US does not mean they are 'un-biased' so, Freedom House data, the US friendly one, ranks russia low and reporters without borders, the anti US one (according to the article you provided), ranks russia low too. what does that tell you? | ||
Nerfed
Russian Federation1132 Posts
On March 02 2015 19:57 Elroi wrote: Thank you for your input Nerfed. - It is nice to see that you can actually look through this net of propaganda. I find this whole affair freightening. It shouldn't be so easy to control people's minds in this modern time with internet and information technology. I don't understand how Putin can become such a strong symbol for the country by such blunt means! It is not unlike the recent surge of right-wing xenophobic parties in Europe and such blatantly corrupt politicians as Berlusconi. It really shows the importance of teaching people critical thinking I guess,- or is it something deeper inside us that makes us give up our own understanding of the world in favor of the great leaders regardless of education? Well, i come from the family of scientists who were critical of USSR govt. (probably excluding Gorbachev for emotional reasons - you know, he put a real end to terror state) and Russia govt. (except for Gaidar's office and their continuators who became absent from federal level politics sometime around 2004). Also i live in Moscow - i mean it wasn't hard for me and for my friends who came from "intelligentsiya" families and completed school education during the most democratic time in russian history - to form system of social beliefs very similar to the european ones and maintain some level of critical political thought. But if you consider other people - the majority who got really screwed by povetry in the 90s (while it was OK in Moscow and Saint-Petersburgh and several other regional centers, it was horrible in most of the Russia), by banditism which grew once the USSR-built police system collapsed. For those people the democratic changes correlated in time with severe lowering in life quality, so it's understandable if they formed some form of negative relation towards people who were prominent in the politics of the 90s. Just imagine, for example, you are like 15 y.o., you have nearly nothing to eat, there is no work in your region, you have some kind of internal problems in the family - it would be very hard for you to associate with the western tradition of criticism enough so, later on, you could blame someone who leads you to prosperity in expense of "freedom" (see later). And you never ever tasted that freedom really since during the 90s most of the currently somehow-functioning social institutes were just forming. To bitter the picture - war in Chechnya and default in 1998. And after all of that comes a man named Putin and it coincides with the global rise of consumption and Oil prices sky rocketing. Now the oligarchy spreads a little ammount of its income to the population and the majority is happy. The majority praises Putin because they do not really understand WHY they are living far more prosperous than ever. And propaganda never sleeps. I would say that there are two most important parts of Putin's propaganda. The major part is TV, during the last 3-4 years it was made mostly state-controlled and 100% state-controlled on the federal level. The internet plays not that a significant of a role as i understand - only about 1/4 of Russian people have access to the internet and they mostly represent more educated and more prosperous classes which are not the main targets of propaganda. Ofc there a lot of govt. supported bots on the internet and all that stuff. And the second part is so called administrative resource. What it means is the following. All of our state-managed organisation are built in a way that there is a strict line of chiefs and subordinates which spans from ministers to regular people like school teacher. And each one of subordinates depends on her chief in terms of job, salary etc. So when the undisclosed order comes from, say, minister of education and science (or someone from the president office), to the heads of regional departments to "maintain" high voting activity or anything - it gets fucking done. Like, when you are working on the state-paid job in Russia it's not the tax payers who you keep in mind as your superiors - it's the state itself because you are defenseless against it (our courts do what police expects them to do - there's 99.7% of verdict "guilty" during criminal cases). What i want to say is that we should not really hate and blame those people who support Putin - we should try to educate them or wait for the next generations and hope for the best (which is rather depressing i should say). The problem is that the state system is moving towards the closed mode (in Popper's sence) so it's getting harder and harder to reason with govt. supporters.I really think that sanctions will help to deal with that to some degree. But, for example, if US ships weapons to Ukraine it's gonna be another proxy war and spiraling down for Russia. | ||
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On March 02 2015 18:44 Random() wrote: Oh man, do you really think the US cares about some random country's right to self-determination? Well I guess they do, as long as that self-determination directly benefits them. They wanted to have a pro-Western country next to Russia with the prospect of installing a military base there, they wanted to kick Russia out of Sevastopol and deny them access to the Black Sea. That's the only reason they gave the go-ahead for the violent takeover of governmental buildings back in 2014 by promising their support, just a few days after a compromise agreement was signed by Yanukovich and the opposition (that included early elections), and they even had the cheek to admit as much. I thought this "democracy" storyline was old after Yugoslavia and Iraq. Sorry, this is quickly de-railing and I didn't mean to add to the flames. its funny how there is nothing said about the violent takeover of governmental buildings in the part of the article you posted. It is said though that + Show Spoiler + By late afternoon, hundreds of riot police officers guarding the presidential compound and nearby government buildings had vanished.[228] Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski described the withdrawal of forces as "astonishing," noting it was not part of the agreement. ... After the riot police officers had vanished, Andriy Parubiy reported Euromaidan self-defence had peacefully gained control over Kiev and its Government buildings,[235] and that the military was standing with the opposition Again, dozens of governmental buildings were left unguarded. The situation was turbulent and there were people with dubious motives on both sides, so the more organized part of Euromaidan had to respond by providing at least some protection to the institutions. Control over most of the governmental institutions at the time didn't matter at all since the only place where decisions were actually forged was the Parliament, and it was never taken by force. The only time through all Euromaidan that armed people got inside (and who were not supposed to be there) was when the MVD officers guarding it got in "to have a chat" with MPs after the latter ordered them out of the city, they left shortly after. | ||
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On March 02 2015 20:10 hfglgg wrote: why do people always assume that russia is an alternative to the usa for europe? compared to europe russia is a piss poor borderline 3rd world country with a highly inefficent administration, a weak market, sub par capital and no relevant scientific advancement on a wider scale. there is literally nothing russia has to offer. if anything, its the other way around. russia should seek out closer relations with europe so they can benefit from europes superior technology, markets, administrations and capital. Europe and Russia both feel superior to each other because they are competing in different categories. Europe wants to improve life for its citizens. Russia wants to project power. If both were going with the European model, both would be able to live peacefully. But projection of power means taking it from others. EU has 500 million people to the US's 300 million, and their economies are about the same size. So Europe ought to have a military about as strong as the US, maybe a little stronger. But they don't. They're basically demilitarized. I mean, yeah, even without US involvement, Putin would have trouble pushing to Lisbon, but that's not actually how war works, or ever has. Putin has been using Ukraine as a testing ground to see how willing Europe is to fight him militarily (not at all) or with its comparative strength, economically (barely any more). It's basically only the threat of the US that keeps Putin off of the Baltics, or off of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Europe cannot protect its own lunch money, and so either it has to give it to the bully or call for the teacher to help it. That is why Europe's alternatives are Russia or the US. | ||
Incognoto
France10234 Posts
On March 03 2015 02:19 Yoav wrote: Europe and Russia both feel superior to each other because they are competing in different categories. Europe wants to improve life for its citizens. Russia wants to project power. If both were going with the European model, both would be able to live peacefully. But projection of power means taking it from others. EU has 500 million people to the US's 300 million, and their economies are about the same size. So Europe ought to have a military about as strong as the US, maybe a little stronger. But they don't. They're basically demilitarized. I mean, yeah, even without US involvement, Putin would have trouble pushing to Lisbon, but that's not actually how war works, or ever has. Putin has been using Ukraine as a testing ground to see how willing Europe is to fight him militarily (not at all) or with its comparative strength, economically (barely any more). It's basically only the threat of the US that keeps Putin off of the Baltics, or off of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Europe cannot protect its own lunch money, and so either it has to give it to the bully or call for the teacher to help it. That is why Europe's alternatives are Russia or the US. It's been that way since... 1930? E: LOL europe has better technology than russia? what on earth Russians are geniuses, the hell | ||
always_winter
United States195 Posts
In the same article, the author spoke of Putin's sky-high 86% approval rating, and even quoted a Russian civilian as saying the like of: "I wasn't aware of the situation until I watched the news, and found out the US is trying to steal half of Russia, so I support Putin's actions in Ukraine." Related: | ||
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On March 03 2015 02:19 Yoav wrote: That is why Europe's alternatives are Russia or the US. Yes, good point, but the choice you are describing has very little to do with what Saumure was having in mind by saying "therefore they need a weak Russia so Europe doesn't ditch USA for Russia". | ||
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
No, it's more recent than that. Europe had a large number of powerful armies before WWII. The Nazis dismantled the French and Polish ones and got the German and Italian ones destroyed, leaving mostly just the UK, which always had a mediocre ground force. So it was after 1945 that the dependence on the US started. It's fluctuated since then a bit based on events, but the principle has remained the same since the creation of NATO. | ||
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On February 28 2015 18:04 lolfail9001 wrote: If you think about it, Putin would not really care about Nemtsov, unless he applies the following logic: kill Nemtsov, remove a good portion of his followers from the crowd (not really), accuse Ukraine/CIA/opposition itself via propaganda machine(it already does so, Ukraine girl that was not even hurt with that amount of shots totally helps),????,PROFIT. Now, opposition has no actual reason for that either, even though he could act as a trigger. And then here is the most likely case: some batshit crazy "patriot" that went ahead and shot the hated man. Why he would leave the girl alive is beyond me... actually never mind, leaving her alive would be perfect, considering that it was most likely planned. Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Putin can kill Nemtsov just because he finds the guy to be annoying and wants to get rid of him. If you don't believe Putin can do whatever the hell he pleases to people who are in his way, look up Alexander Litvinenko and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Nemtsov is just the latest of Putin's opponents to be removed from his way in extremely questionable circumstances. | ||
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On March 03 2015 01:18 Cheerio wrote: its funny how there is nothing said about the violent takeover of governmental buildings in the part of the article you posted. It is said though that + Show Spoiler + By late afternoon, hundreds of riot police officers guarding the presidential compound and nearby government buildings had vanished.[228] Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski described the withdrawal of forces as "astonishing," noting it was not part of the agreement. ... After the riot police officers had vanished, Andriy Parubiy reported Euromaidan self-defence had peacefully gained control over Kiev and its Government buildings,[235] and that the military was standing with the opposition Again, dozens of governmental buildings were left unguarded. The situation was turbulent and there were people with dubious motives on both sides, so the more organized part of Euromaidan had to respond by providing at least some protection to the institutions. Control over most of the governmental institutions at the time didn't matter at all since the only place where decisions were actually forged was the Parliament, and it was never taken by force. The only time through all Euromaidan that armed people got inside (and who were not supposed to be there) was when the MVD officers guarding it got in "to have a chat" with MPs after the latter ordered them out of the city, they left shortly after. You're right, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't double-check the Wikipedia article that I linked because I was sure I saw reports of people storming the govt. buildings in Feb 2014. I didn't realise they were simply abandoned. | ||
Narw
Poland884 Posts
| ||
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 02 2015 20:10 hfglgg wrote: why do people always assume that russia is an alternative to the usa for europe? compared to europe russia is a piss poor borderline 3rd world country with a highly inefficent administration, a weak market, sub par capital and no relevant scientific advancement on a wider scale. there is literally nothing russia has to offer. if anything, its the other way around. russia should seek out closer relations with europe so they can benefit from europes superior technology, markets, administrations and capital. Because people like conspiracy theories and the theory that Europe -- all 500 million except for a few brave people who see 'the truth' -- is enthralled by evil imperialist Americans is appealing in some circles. For various lefties, Russia is just a convenient cutout for Soviet Union and they pay as little attention to the details to the internal situation in Russia as their predecessors in the 60s and 70s did to the USSR. It stands up to evil American pigs therefore it is good, or at least no worse than the US and because it stands up to the US that they hate its 'better'. For the right Putin's Russia is what they want, wise leader, 'collectivism', nationalism, scaring everyone with big military budgets, minorities who are 'taught their place', and 'disgusting homosexuals beaten into their place'. The fact that both the anti-EU far right and far left are tripping themselves over Putin is a sign that this isnt really about Russia at all, its about the internal dialectic of the fringe and its relationship to the EU/Liberal-Democracy/Capitalism. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On March 02 2015 10:38 LegalLord wrote: lol? There are people who still beleive that those "self defence forces" in Crimea weren't russian soldiers? I mean they revealed themselves months ago. It's not really debateable.1. There was an invasion of Ukraine. There were certainly volunteers, most of them from Russia, but even many European leaders say that there is no proof of an invasion. This is speculation paraded as fact by biased parties. 2. MH17. Frankly I see no reason why this would be blamed on Russia unless you just wanted to pin it on Russia. No evidence and it seems that the investigation has basically stopped? Until there is evidence that Russia played a hand in this, no reason to assume there is. 3. This shooting. Once again, no evidence, little reason to assume involvement unless that is the interpretation of events you find most suitable to hold. The fact that all of these are pinned on Russia despite the lack of evidence is quite telling. The reasonable, though less interesting, thing to do would be to simply wait until reliable evidence appears before placing the blame on someone. Isn't that how the whole Syrian chemical weapons charade played out? | ||
| ||