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

[Sergarr]

The animosity between Russia and the West isn't the invention of bloodthirsty Putin's/Stalin's/"insert last name here" propaganda - it's based on centuries of endless conflicts which were not started by Russia.

The history of which is being exploited by Putin for propaganda.

It's rather hard to incite hatred against someone who hasn't been at your throat. The best course of action for everyone would be the West simply ceasing their attempts at subjugating Russia and just doing their own business without doing stuff like putting missiles at the Russian border. Simple peaceful coexistence, without any mandatory "westernizations". Unfortunately, it's not even remotely feasible.

The West is not trying to subjugate Russia, this is your fantasy. Allowing LGBT people to have the same rights as everyone else and having a democratic society isn't "mandatory westernisation".

Natural state of humanity is hunterers-gatherers with average life span of 25-30 years. You cannot possibly want that, do you?

Being an anarchist does not necessarily involve wanting to return to a hunter-gatherer society. I certainly don't want that, no.

But you see, hunterers-gatherers is the natural state! You've just declared that you want the world to return to it's natural state! How can you imagine a society where everything is independent and natural and stuff, and yet can achieve high quality of life? It's impossible without vast technological achievements and production facilities, and those are fucking impossible without major centralization! Aargh!

Dividing Russia? Not on my watch. Last time that happened, we got conquered and vassaled by Mongols for 300+ years, which, I can tell you, was not good.

Wasn't that before Muscovy united the Russian lands anyway?

Also, the Mongols steamrolled everybody who crossed them, so.....

Yes, it was. it was also the very reason for WHY the Muscovy has united the Russian lands.

[Dutchling]

Yeah, Muscovy was a backwater shit-stain compared to Kiev before the Mongols ( / Venetians) took care of that IIRC.

[Owlbread]

But you see, hunterers-gatherers is the natural state! You've just declared that you want the world to return to it's natural state! How can you imagine a society where everything is independent and natural and stuff, and yet can achieve high quality of life? It's impossible without vast technological achievements and production facilities, and those are fucking impossible without major centralization! Aargh!

Sustaining technological advancement and retaining the production facilities necessary for a country to survive and survive well are very possible without major centralisation. There are many small countries in the world today (by Russian standards) that are holding their own very nicely in those regards; even better than Russia.

The way I see it, the purpose of "states" should be to serve the people of their respective nations. If we're going to have states at all, I mean. It is very possible for a "state" to serve its people well and be small; the only problems start to arise when you want that state to rule the world or something, or become a superpower.

[Sergarr]

So, what do you actually want is national states for every nation in the world... What about areas which are populated by several nations? Who gets to have them? If you cannot answer that question clearly, then border wars between those states are going to be inevitable.

[Frumple]

It's impossible without vast technological achievements and production facilities, and those are fucking impossible without major centralization! Aargh!

Not so much anymore, what with the whole technology thing that currently exists. Centralization isn't so much a necessary thing as it is a results of previous logistic constraints -- constraints which are dissolving ever more rapidly as communication and transport technology continues to develop, and largely no longer exist. You see it ever more often where even smaller scale units of organization -- businesses and whatnot -- will strongly decentralize their operations as they do business. It's even increasingly common for businesses to come together ad-hoc to complete projects rather than bother to centralize any particular aspect of the process involved (see: virtual groups and whatnot). There's absolutely zero reason beyond xenophobia for countries to not operate in the same manner.

Beyond that, "major" centralization hits the sufficient point for enabling that sort of thing on a considerably smaller scale than, y'know, russia.

[Sergarr]

It's impossible without vast technological achievements and production facilities, and those are fucking impossible without major centralization! Aargh!

Not so much anymore, what with the whole technology thing that currently exists. Centralization isn't so much a necessary thing as it is a results of previous logistic constraints -- constraints which are dissolving ever more rapidly as communication and transport technology continues to develop, and largely no longer exist. You see it ever more often where even smaller scale units of organization -- businesses and whatnot -- will strongly decentralize their operations as they do business. It's even increasingly common for businesses to come together ad-hoc to complete projects rather than bother to centralize any particular aspect of the process involved (see: virtual groups and whatnot). There's absolutely zero reason beyond xenophobia for countries to not operate in the same manner.

Beyond that, "major" centralization hits the sufficient point for enabling that sort of thing on a considerably smaller scale than, y'know, russia.

The reason why things like that can exist is because of complete centralization of monetary system. And centralization of English language. Centralization is not limited to states, you know. Oh and while we're at it don't forget about Big Corporations. Clearly not centralized.

[mainiac]

It's rather hard to incite hatred against someone who hasn't been at your throat. The best course of action for everyone would be the West simply ceasing their attempts at subjugating Russia and just doing their own business without doing stuff like putting missiles at the Russian border. Simple peaceful coexistence, without any mandatory "westernizations". Unfortunately, it's not even remotely feasible.

Ok I propose a deal:
Russia gets:
-Security Council membership
-The most nuclear weapons in the world
-Membership in the G8, specially expanded to include Russia
-Host the Olympic games
-Host the world cup
-Military drill partnerships with NATO
-Normalization of trade relations with the west

Russia promises:
-To not invade it's neighbors and act like it's in the goddamn 21st century

[Ukrainian Ranger]

*claps*

[Owlbread]

So, what do you actually want is national states for every nation in the world... What about areas which are populated by several nations? Who gets to have them? If you cannot answer that question clearly, then border wars between those states are going to be inevitable.

Areas that are populated by several nations/tribes that cannot be divided into separate states are very problematic. In those cases I would be tempted to create a Union with equal democratic representation to those constituent parts. Africa is the main problem in that case - it's actually an example of why the "state" idea doesn't always work.

Ok I propose a deal:
Russia gets:
-Security Council membership
-The most nuclear weapons in the world
-Membership in the G8, specially expanded to include Russia
-Host the Olympic games
-Host the world cup
-Military drill partnerships with NATO
-Normalization of trade relations with the west

Russia promises:
-To not invade it's neighbors and act like it's in the goddamn 21st century

Thank you.

[GreatJustice]

It's impossible without vast technological achievements and production facilities, and those are fucking impossible without major centralization! Aargh!

Not so much anymore, what with the whole technology thing that currently exists. Centralization isn't so much a necessary thing as it is a results of previous logistic constraints -- constraints which are dissolving ever more rapidly as communication and transport technology continues to develop, and largely no longer exist. You see it ever more often where even smaller scale units of organization -- businesses and whatnot -- will strongly decentralize their operations as they do business. It's even increasingly common for businesses to come together ad-hoc to complete projects rather than bother to centralize any particular aspect of the process involved (see: virtual groups and whatnot). There's absolutely zero reason beyond xenophobia for countries to not operate in the same manner.

Beyond that, "major" centralization hits the sufficient point for enabling that sort of thing on a considerably smaller scale than, y'know, russia.

The reason why things like that can exist is because of complete centralization of monetary system. And centralization of English language. Centralization is not limited to states, you know. Oh and while we're at it don't forget about Big Corporations. Clearly not centralized.

I'm coming at it from a completely different angle from Owlbread, but I'd disagree on that one, depending on what you're referring to. A lot of the time, centralization is only beneficial because of very specific external factors. For example, massive corporations benefit from a large, centralized state with a complex regulatory/tax system simply because it can afford the legions of lawyers necessary to navigate such a system at significantly less cost than a smaller competitor. However, without such a system, larger corporations have many problems ranging from a comparative lack of innovation to diseconomies of scale. It's entirely possible to have a very functional system with relative decentralization.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Meanwhile sanctions start to work.

Want to see the same for the whole Aeroflot, because that bastards break all possible rules of civilian airspace and ignore Ukrainian ban to fly over Crimea, not mentioning landing there

[Helgoland]

So what you're saying is Russians live in the past?

With such a historical record of bloody wars, there are no guarantees that it won't happen again.
It's simple precaution, and not living in the past.

Liebelein, that argument is entirely invalid. Germany and France don't fight any more, and we even had an Erbfeindschaft! Neither do England and France, for that matter. Although I do remember a Yes Prime Minister episode about nuclear deterrence...

The way I see it, the purpose of "states" should be to serve the people of their respective nations. If we're going to have states at all, I mean. It is very possible for a "state" to serve its people well and be small; the only problems start to arise when you want that state to rule the world or something, or become a superpower.

Owl, when you find me on the same side as maniac and our Far Eastern Europeans you know there's something wrong. For example, would you advocate splitting up Germany? Because just today I made a joke that we should have given the Soviets West Berlin, and in exchange they'd have to take Bavaria. And how do you cope with areas with mixed population? Sure, you talk about democracy, essentially describing a modern state - but why does this not apply to homogenous areas? Or rather, why make the distinction if you're going to give them the same system anyway? What you really want, deep down, is federalism. A system in which Western Ukrainians can coexist with Eastern Ukrainians, Serbs with Bosniaks, Germans with Bavarians. And why not apply the same system on higher levels? In short: Why not separate the nation from the state, eradicating the original sin of the long 19th century?

[Mr. Strange]

Ok I propose a deal:
Russia gets:
-Security Council membership
-The most nuclear weapons in the world
-Membership in the G8, specially expanded to include Russia
-Host the Olympic games
-Host the world cup
-Military drill partnerships with NATO
-Normalization of trade relations with the west

Russia promises:
-To not invade it's neighbors and act like it's in the goddamn 21st century

I see no way how this could go wrong.


Since Russia likes authority so much, maybe west should give it to them and treat Russia like spoiled baby throwing temper tantrum. Good old time-out and "not talking to you" untill one-sided propaganda starts looking too pathetic for even Putin to continue might do the trick...
Except that would require EU to actually have an functional common foreign policy.

Liebelein, that argument is entirely invalid. Germany and France don't fight any more, and we even had an Erbfeindschaft!

Speaking not!English is verboten. Or at least frowned upon, especially when it's just few words. Germany is full of ominous sounding words. Verboten...

[Helgoland]

Hey - the first word was just for flavor, and the second one is intranslatable, with its meaning being apparent from context. Wenn ich Deutsch sprechen würde, sähe das so aus.

[martinuzz]

Past May, a law was passed in Russia, obligating blog services and social network sites to store the online activities of their users, and if so demanded pass those on to authorities.
source: Tanya Loksjina, director of Human Rights Watch in Moscow in this article: www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/30/russias-backward-roll

You know things really start to get scary when Russia tries to be more like the US.

Seems Snowden is a bad influence on Putin.