Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[smjjames]

Lol sergarr, and yeah massive derail.

[Owlbread]

Nationalism is a crime in Russia, and for good reasons.

What do you mean by "nationalism", exactly? Putin is a Russian nationalist. The entire United Russia Party is Russian nationalist. Are you referring to separatism? Because separatism is certainly illegal in Russia.

[smjjames]

Nationalism is a crime in Russia, and for good reasons.

What do you mean by "nationalism", exactly? Putin is a Russian nationalist. The entire United Russia Party is Russian nationalist. Are you referring to separatism? Because separatism is certainly illegal in Russia.

And yet they are supporting separatists. I suspect that maybe it meant like ethnic nationalism like Chechen nationalism or any other ethnic group in Russia which aren't ethnic Russian.

[Guardian G.I.]

Nationalism is a crime in Russia, and for good reasons.

What do you mean by "nationalism", exactly? Putin is a Russian nationalist. The entire United Russia Party is Russian nationalist. Are you referring to separatism? Because separatism is certainly illegal in Russia.

By the way, have you ever heard of the 282th Article of the Russian Criminal Code? It was around much longer than the ban on separatist sayings.
The majority of people prosecuted under that article were... Russian nationalists.

[Owlbread]

Have you ever heard of the 282th Article of the Russian Criminal Code? It was around much longer than the ban on separatist sayings.

That has nothing to do with "nationalism". Again, there seems to be some misunderstanding of terminology.

Article 282. inciting hatred or hostility, and humiliation of human dignity

1. Actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity, as well as the humiliation of a person or group of persons on grounds of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, religion, or membership of a particular social group, committed publicly or with using the media -

punishable by a fine of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income for a period of one to two years, or deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term up to three years, or by compulsory works for a term up to one hundred hours, or corrective works for the term up to one year, or by imprisonment for up to two years.

2. The same acts committed:

a) the use of violence or threat of violence;

b) a person using his official position;

c) by an organized group, -

punishable by a fine of one hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income for a period of one to three years, or deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term up to five years, or by compulsory works for a term from one hundred and twenty to two hundred forty hours, or corrective works for the term from one year to two years, or imprisonment for up to five years.

This is just a basic law against discrimination of any sort. Any civilised country in the world should have it. We have it in the UK, that doesn't stop the BNP from existing.

[Descan]

Also, define nationalism. Like "fascism", or "socialism", it's a very VERY nebulous term. What do you mean when you say "Nationalism"?

NOTE: I am NOT saying for you to break out the dictionaries and say "This is nationalism, therefore you are stupid for saying it is something else." I am not asking for a definition fight. In fact, if you can, define nationalism without using other such nebulous terms, like "nation" (does that mean ethnic group, or state, or what? Who knows!).

Otherwise, it'll be a circular argument, working at cross-purposes, going nowhere fast.

[Owlbread]

My idiomatic definition is the following:

"Nationalism" is what is created when patriotic feelings and sentiments become politicised. This can be deliberate or involuntary. This is in contrast to chauvinism which is the belief that your country is better than another country. "Ethnic nationalism" is when this becomes an issue of ethnicity and blood.

I would consider a political party that exploits patriotic feelings and sentiments for their own gain, such as United Russia in Ukraine and Crimea, to be nationalist. I would also consider the opposition to United Russia to be nationalist, specifically those that call for an end to Eurasianism and a restoration of "true Russia" as opposed to retaining the North Caucasus as possessions and the like. My understand is that these are the nationalists that Ukrainian Ranger refers to.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

"Nationalism" is what is created when patriotic feelings and sentiments become politicised.

I'd call that Patriotism  I disagree that Nationalism is some form of concentrated patriotism.

My vision is simple:

Nationalism is a devotion to a nation (whatever a person defines as his nation.)

Patriotism has two somewhat distinct definitions
a) devotion to some territory
b) devotion to some country

While related nationalist is not always a patriot and vice versa

And as a nationalist I believe that unconditional patriotism is among the worst deceases that can hit a society

[scrdest]

"Nationalism" is what is created when patriotic feelings and sentiments become politicised.

I'd call that Patriotism  I disagree that Nationalism is some form of concentrated patriotism.

My vision is simple:

Nationalism is a devotion to a nation (whatever a person defines as his nation.)

Patriotism has two somewhat distinct definitions
a) devotion to some territory
b) devotion to some country

While related nationalist is not always a patriot and vice versa

And as a nationalist I believe that unconditional patriotism is among the worst deceases that can hit a society

Not concentrated - Owlbread's point is that nationalism is patriotism + political action motivated by it.

[GlyphGryph]

Is there any proof of them actually fighting?

In Ukraine? Not yet. They are there, but I haven't actually heard any reports of them in combat - but I'm not sure if we would, for the most part?

What do you mean by western separatists?

These  Pro-Russians are not the first seperatists Ukraine has ever had, you know...

[palsch]

In the end the referendum came to nothing, although a lot of that is still on Labour failing to support the vote

Labour was not the ones that the Libs cut a deal with.  The Tories were.  The same Tories who actively campaigned against it.  The law didn't prevent the Tories from doing that but the law didn't compel the Liberal Democrats to play ball either.  Nick Clegg was an idiot to pay such a high price for an empty gesture.  His party will never have that opportunity again and for good reason, they showed they didn't deserve it.

OK, this makes no sense. The 'price' here was entering government with the Conservatives, something that I doubt the party viewed as a price at the time, given the alternatives. What should they have done? Refused to enter the coalition? Weak Lib-Lab coalition or Tory minority government? Should they have somehow forced the Conservatives to flip their ideological (and pragmatic) opposition to AV and support the Yes vote on the referendum? Should they have somehow won the referendum anyway, despite the lack of unity of the other parties behind the Yes vote? I'm not sure what having a spine here would have looked like.

Again, I think this is mixing up being spineless and doing something you didn't like (eg, forming the coalition). Ideologically and pragmatically they secured a good deal for the party. A lot of it later fell through through a lack of support, but that doesn't make the actions spineless.

Tuition fees, for one.

Also the promised 2.5 billion for struggling students.

House of Lords hasn't been reformed yet, has it?

More the answer I was looking for, although I'd say it's more powerlessness than spinelessness. They couldn't get the type of tuition fee reform they wanted against the opposition of both other parties especially past the agreed upon economic policies of the coalition. They've recently been trying to claim a moderating influence but it rings hollow after they had to apologise for backing down on their pledge). The absurd statement that it was a progressive package is only compared to the unlimited fees suggested by the Browne Review.

I'd also say that their vote on student fees was tricky and arguably the worst thing they have done in government. They had pledged to abstain but not vote against the bill in the coalition agreement. Except that enough Lib Dems threatened to (and in the end did) rebel and vote against that the front bench had to vote for to shore up the numbers. That put every Lib Dem minister in a position of breaking their campaign pledges to pass the bill and keep the coalition together, at a time when they still had most of their own promised benefits in the future.

I don't know if betraying a substantial power base of yours to improve your chances of governing for five years is spineless, but it's certainly not good by any measure.


The Lords reform bill went down to a Tory rebellion, acting against a three line. That's Conservative weakness, not Lib Dem. They couldn't even implement their coalition pledges without losing 100 votes (81 against, 19 abstained). Labour voted against it despite supporting the bill simply to humiliate the Lib Dems. In return the Lib Dems sank Conservative proposed boundary changes. Not a fair trade at all, and arguably more spite than effective politics, but not complete spinelessness. Arguably the only spineless thing here is that neither side completely broke the coalition, especially after the Lib Dems actively whipped against the government on that second vote.


The £2.5bn was implimented as the Pupil Premium, which reaches the £2.5bn funding level this financial year. Tim Farron recently hailed it as one of their biggest successes in government and called for an expansion to cover higher education as well. There is currently a bit of a credit war being fought between Clegg and Gove, but given how unpopular Gove is (including in the party, but particularly among teachers) I'm expecting people to attribute it to Clegg just to spite him. For sure it was a Lib Dem pledge rather than a Conservative one.

[Guardian G.I.]

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, things are getting hotter and hotter:

Ukrainian forces have launched a massive artillery strike against pro-Russian forces in Slavyansk. Residential areas in the city have been hit by the Ukrainian shelling.

Videos showing the aftermath of Ukrainian artillery fire:
Smoke rising from the city.
Blocks of flats and shops damaged by the shelling.
A motorcyclist cruising around the city filming the burning and destroyed buildings.
Gutted warehouses.
A closer look at burning buildings from the end of the second video.

[TheDarkStar]

I wonder how long it will take for them to actually stop escalating things? Multiple people have said that they will work force peace since February or March, and very little has actually happened - some peace agreements have been ignored on the very day that they were made (like that Easter one).

[10ebbor10]

You know, I always thought artillery would do more damage.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Well, there are information that terrorists use their mortars to shoot in civilian targets to creatre a  picture for Russian TV and blame Ukrainian army but I hope it is an example of Ukrainian counter-propaganda... Don't want to believe in that level of cynicism...

For sure that is not a heavy bombardment like Strelok and Russian media claim. They say that Ukrainian army uses 240mm(!!!!) howitzers  and BM-21 Grad to attack civilian targets.