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

[reality.auditor]

We can only hope it will not end up with major european war, but I am not that optimistic. Putin want to resurrect USSR v2.0. If he manages to discredit NATO, all bets are off.

If you scrolled down

Did you scrolled even more down?

Bolton’s statement is accurate but needs clarification. We rate it Mostly True.

you'd see your very reference disagreeing with your statement.

Yes, article presented opinions of both sides. I don't know what you find surprising about that.

For me, these opposing opinions sounds awfully like denial and post-fact justification. Known to me evidence convinced me that Putin wants to resurrect USSR. He certainly rues that day and he actually is in position that gives him possibility to right that "wrong" (and steal bilions of taxpayers' money on side, but that's a little detail). There are also a lot of Russians longing to these good old days, not caring what it meant for subjugated countries in former Soviet bloc.

I predict that future actions of Russia will fall in line with that final goal. Like mentioned in previous post sudden enlightement of Russian miniority in some baltic state that they are actually under threat of ethnic cleansing or something else completely out of nowhere.
I predict that these actions will make Russia looking bad (again) and forcing certain people to lie for Motherland. Again. What these differing opinions will have to offer? More denial and handwaving?

[Sergarr]

For me, these opposing opinions sounds awfully like denial and post-fact justification. Known to me evidence convinced me that Putin wants to resurrect USSR. He certainly rues that day and he actually is in position that gives him possibility to right that "wrong" (and steal bilions of taxpayers' money on side, but that's a little detail). There are also a lot of Russians longing to these good old days, not caring what it meant for subjugated countries in former Soviet bloc.

I predict that future actions of Russia will fall in line with that final goal. Like mentioned in previous post sudden enlightement of Russian miniority in some baltic state that they are actually under threat of ethnic cleansing or something else completely out of nowhere.
I predict that these actions will make Russia looking bad (again) and forcing certain people to lie for Motherland. Again. What these differing opinions will have to offer? More denial and handwaving?

Conquering a lot of other states and forcibly satelliting them is a thing that pretty much all big colonial empires did. USSR was just the last one to do that outright. If Putin really wanted to resurrect USSR, he would have disbanded the free market economy in Russia and re-instated planned economy. That's like, #1 thing which made USSR unique and special.

Judging by the fact that he didn't do that, it looks like resurrecting USSR is not on Putin's list of things.

[Helgoland]

Depends on what you call 'resurrecting the USSR'. I think usually it's just shorthand for 'make Russia a superpower again', which is exactly what everyone's afraid of.

[Comrade P.]

Depends on what you call 'resurrecting the USSR'. I think usually it's just shorthand for 'make Russia a superpower again', which is exactly what everyone's afraid of.

Why, I'm not afraid

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Russia can't become world power. One need some ideology to do that.

But Russia can kill majority of humanity

[Helgoland]

Russia can't become world power. One need a strong economy and a large network of allies to do that.

FTFY

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I am more idealistic person and believe that idea comes first.  You can't build a strong economy without a right kind of idea, you can't have lasting allies if you don't share ideology with them.

[Il Palazzo]

you can't have lasting allies if you don't share ideology with them.

What, like the US and the Saudis?

[Darvi]

You can't build a strong economy without a right kind of idea

Knowing how the economy works and how to manipulate it is hardly an ideology.

[Sinistar]

@sinistar: MAS? Mutually Assured Stroke? Mutually Assured Stupidity? Mutually Assured Slaughter?

Hmm, I was sure it stood for "Mutually Assured Survival" but after a quick check, I can't find much info on that.

I think it might have been a thing I read in one book or study, it might have not been "Survival" but something else and apparently it's not a universally known/accepted thing as I believed. And before anyone says MAD was about "survival" too, MAS (or whatever it was) was, if I remember correctly, more along the lines of open co-operation between blocks, less/no nukes and more/just ICBM defense systems. Basically idea where superpowers co-exist not because they fear the weapons other side has but because they know both side's defenses are strong enough not to even bother launching nuclear attack. And of course just, you know, co-operation and peaceful co-existence and stuff.
I'm saying all this out of my head and thus it's all pretty vague. Can't remember where I read that as said (I have an idea though) or even if I did. Could be I just mixed bunch of stuff.

Look, I also don't like the peace to be based on fear, but there isn't any other way! Literally - there's no other way to make large groups of people be at peace with each other. Humans just work that way. We (humans) will always find some distinction to divide all humans into "us" and "them" and then start to rally for a war against "them". And if there isn't the guarantee of unavoidable destruction in case you attempt to war against "them", then the war will happen eventually.

Yeah, see, I do actually realize that use of force or just threatening to use it is sometimes needed. I'm not trying to sell you some hippie crap about love and peace and such (well, at least not today). But I still call bullshit on that humanity can't be coaxed into co-existence in any other way. I mean, take a look 2 years back - did anyone seriously consider Russia to be any sort of Big Bad back then? Apart from rare fringe radicals still going on about how "we out to nuke Russia"? Was Russia not just another big, EQUAL player in geopolitical and economical sphere? And look how situation is now! I'll tell you something you might consider crazy and you are free to say so (though it seems a completely rational to me...), but I think Crimea take-over actually strengthened NATO. And the further conflict in Ukraine escalates or is just let open, the further it will strengthen NATO! Shit, 2 years ago, people would call you paranoid if you'd say there needs to be a bigger NATO presence in Baltic. Now? I'm pretty sure you'll find completely rational people being scared of Russia. And it's no crazy talk that the more Russian representatives use rhetoric like that in Denmark, the more the other side will do the same. Not saying it doesn't go vice-versa, of course... But eh, I'm again not making much sense. Sometimes my passion get's the better of my rationality.

The point is, I guess, this saber rattling needs to be toned down by both sides lest it leads into another full-scale cold war. And before you say cold war will offer you more secure life, please just answer this - was 2 years ago your life really that worse? Worse than the one in a new cold war can be?

And this will continue to happen, until we completely overwrite our biological and social instincts which cause us to do that.

And we have to start doing that one day, no? So why not now?

[Sergarr]

I think it might have been a thing I read in one book or study, it might have not been "Survival" but something else and apparently it's not a universally known/accepted thing as I believed. And before anyone says MAD was about "survival" too, MAS (or whatever it was) was, if I remember correctly, more along the lines of open co-operation between blocks, less/no nukes and more/just ICBM defense systems. Basically idea where superpowers co-exist not because they fear the weapons other side has but because they know both side's defenses are strong enough not to even bother launching nuclear attack. And of course just, you know, co-operation and peaceful co-existence and stuff.
I'm saying all this out of my head and thus it's all pretty vague. Can't remember where I read that as said (I have an idea though) or even if I did. Could be I just mixed bunch of stuff.

You do know how Europe functioned before nuclear weapons were invented, right? There were wars every single generation or two. ICBM defense systems would basically make it so the nukes don't exist, thus reverting the situation back to the past. This means that the regular wars are also back. No amount of political alliances and kind words will make peace last long in this situation!

Look, I also don't like the peace to be based on fear, but there isn't any other way! Literally - there's no other way to make large groups of people be at peace with each other. Humans just work that way. We (humans) will always find some distinction to divide all humans into "us" and "them" and then start to rally for a war against "them". And if there isn't the guarantee of unavoidable destruction in case you attempt to war against "them", then the war will happen eventually.

Yeah, see, I do actually realize that use of force or just threatening to use it is sometimes needed. I'm not trying to sell you some hippie crap about love and peace and such (well, at least not today). But I still call bullshit on that humanity can't be coaxed into co-existence in any other way. I mean, take a look 2 years back - did anyone seriously consider Russia to be any sort of Big Bad back then? Apart from rare fringe radicals still going on about how "we out to nuke Russia"? Was Russia not just another big, EQUAL player in geopolitical and economical sphere? And look how situation is now! I'll tell you something you might consider crazy and you are free to say so (though it seems a completely rational to me...), but I think Crimea take-over actually strengthened NATO. And the further conflict in Ukraine escalates or is just let open, the further it will strengthen NATO! Shit, 2 years ago, people would call you paranoid if you'd say there needs to be a bigger NATO presence in Baltic. Now? I'm pretty sure you'll find completely rational people being scared of Russia. And it's no crazy talk that the more Russian representatives use rhetoric like that in Denmark, the more the other side will do the same. Not saying it doesn't go vice-versa, of course... But eh, I'm again not making much sense. Sometimes my passion get's the better of my rationality.

The point is, I guess, this saber rattling needs to be toned down by both sides lest it leads into another full-scale cold war. And before you say cold war will offer you more secure life, please just answer this - was 2 years ago your life really that worse? Worse than the one in a new cold war can be?

You seem to believe that wars starts because of rational reasons. They don't. Wars are a result of our biological and social instincts messing with our mind. No amount of reason will stop that.

And this will continue to happen, until we completely overwrite our biological and social instincts which cause us to do that.

And we have to start doing that one day, no? So why not now?

As far as I know, we already are starting to do that. Shame there are a lot of people who would rather kill themselves than lose their "purity" and "humanity".

[Descan]

@sinistar: MAS? Mutually Assured Stroke? Mutually Assured Stupidity? Mutually Assured Slaughter?

Hmm, I was sure it stood for "Mutually Assured Survival" but after a quick check, I can't find much info on that.

I think it might have been a thing I read in one book or study, it might have not been "Survival" but something else and apparently it's not a universally known/accepted thing as I believed. And before anyone says MAD was about "survival" too, MAS (or whatever it was)

I found "Mutually Assured Stability" through a search like "Mutally Assured MAS"

[Helgoland]

I think it might have been a thing I read in one book or study, it might have not been "Survival" but something else and apparently it's not a universally known/accepted thing as I believed. And before anyone says MAD was about "survival" too, MAS (or whatever it was) was, if I remember correctly, more along the lines of open co-operation between blocks, less/no nukes and more/just ICBM defense systems. Basically idea where superpowers co-exist not because they fear the weapons other side has but because they know both side's defenses are strong enough not to even bother launching nuclear attack. And of course just, you know, co-operation and peaceful co-existence and stuff.
I'm saying all this out of my head and thus it's all pretty vague. Can't remember where I read that as said (I have an idea though) or even if I did. Could be I just mixed bunch of stuff.

You do know how Europe functioned before nuclear weapons were invented, right? There were wars every single generation or two. ICBM defense systems would basically make it so the nukes don't exist, thus reverting the situation back to the past. This means that the regular wars are also back. No amount of political alliances and kind words will make peace last long in this situation!

Looking at the wars between 1945 and now, I think it's not clear at all that the fear of atomic warfare is responsible for this lasting peace. I'd argue that the shared trauma of WWII had (and has) a much bigger impact.

[Sergarr]

I think it might have been a thing I read in one book or study, it might have not been "Survival" but something else and apparently it's not a universally known/accepted thing as I believed. And before anyone says MAD was about "survival" too, MAS (or whatever it was) was, if I remember correctly, more along the lines of open co-operation between blocks, less/no nukes and more/just ICBM defense systems. Basically idea where superpowers co-exist not because they fear the weapons other side has but because they know both side's defenses are strong enough not to even bother launching nuclear attack. And of course just, you know, co-operation and peaceful co-existence and stuff.
I'm saying all this out of my head and thus it's all pretty vague. Can't remember where I read that as said (I have an idea though) or even if I did. Could be I just mixed bunch of stuff.

You do know how Europe functioned before nuclear weapons were invented, right? There were wars every single generation or two. ICBM defense systems would basically make it so the nukes don't exist, thus reverting the situation back to the past. This means that the regular wars are also back. No amount of political alliances and kind words will make peace last long in this situation!

Looking at the wars between 1945 and now, I think it's not clear at all that the fear of atomic warfare is responsible for this lasting peace. I'd argue that the shared trauma of WWII had (and has) a much bigger impact.

And trauma of WW1 had an exactly opposite impact, despite being literally an order of magnitude more deadly than any other European conflict before it.

Mass psychology is annoying like that. A small change in input parameters = a completely opposite result.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

WW1 had much less effect on civilians than WW2.  Death of civilians and cities turned in piles of rubble proved that a war is a bad thing

Ironically, most Russian cities were left untouched in WW2 and Russian civilians have seen very little war with few exceptions.