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

[mainiac]

NATO and Russia with their respective allies, obviously. Or did you expect all parties to off-source all the prospective fighting to the Chinese? 

So "full to the brim" means 1 MBT per how many kilometers?  Are these tanks going to be spread out to bristle all parts of the border equally or will some brims be more full then others?

[Sergarr]

That won't happen. Neither Russia nor NATO are interested in actually going to war with each other, unlike in Cold War, so there won't be any big permanent military build-up.

[nenjin]

In fact, the US itself referred to this deployment of tanks as "symbolic" and that its levels are the same as what we stationed in Europe during the Cold War: 1 Battalion.

[Culise]

I just said it was a product, not that the trade language always needs to be the lingua franca.  I mean just the phrase "lingua franca" gives us a pretty good hint at that.

Ah.  I read your wording as implying that scriver's statement that Greek was a lingua franca of Rome was entirely unnecessary as it was contained in the MarcAFK's post as a "natural" (in such quotes because it was the component I thought implied) product, and responded in order to clarify that the former was not automatically something that followed from the latter, but rather that the converse could have just as likely been the case.  In particular, such a bald statement of the latter being a product of the former didn't seem to follow from that statement alone, and thus I also gave counterexamples in the very same region in order to demonstrate logically that the persistence of a lingua franca after conquest is not automatically a product of the conquest itself.  My apologies if I misunderstood your post's intent. 

And as for whether Greek, during the centuries it was carried on Roman spears, spread through "peaceful migration and trade," I would suggest otherwise.

I'm confused by your wording.

Don't mind it; it was born of the same fruit as the earlier misunderstanding.  Just implying that Greek did not spread through peaceful means alone, hence the allusion to "Roman spears."

EDIT:
That said, I agree with scriver.  The preponderance of Greek does not owe much to its status as a lingua franca in the era of Greek colonization; this, at best, would extend only to Mediterranean region.  The primary driver is due to its status in the Roman Empire, from high to low, as a language of education, learning, status, and trade, especially after the Roman conquest of Greece.

[MarcAFK]

We're all just the romangreek empire funny accent edition then.
Edit: actually my argument is that Greek spread further than the mediterranian by the time of tge Romans, it's widespread adoption through Europe for trade is why it became Romes lingua Franca. It's all quite fascinating really.

[lijacote]

I take a long break from the thread, and I return to the same discussion that I left. Life is a mystery.

In less meta news, I am delighted that the "liberal" illusion is being shed, at least in some circles, here in Finland. "Liberal". Ugh. A large protest is being organised against the government and its right-wing policies and plans, and a wider section of the public is engaging in political discourse. There persist many other illusions, the liberal illusion not being the least of them (though it is way weaker than in the United States). Unity with the far right, unity with the government (while opposing the government, what?), the ejection of ideology and isms (as if that was possible!) among others. It is depressing to see how low our struggle is, and inspiring to see it rising, if at least marginally.

It is not however the case that Finland has never seen forceful protest. As recently as 1994...

[redwallzyl]

Enough said.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/06/25/417511636/u-s-army-begins-training-ukrainian-soldiers

[Sheb]

That won't happen. Neither Russia nor NATO are interested in actually going to war with each other, unlike in Cold War, so there won't be any big permanent military build-up.

And no big Power was interested in going to war with each other in WWI, yet the war still happened.

[Helgoland]

Well, they were interested in going to war, but they wanted it to be a short one. Nobody intended the butcherfest that was WWI.

[Sergarr]

That won't happen. Neither Russia nor NATO are interested in actually going to war with each other, unlike in Cold War, so there won't be any big permanent military build-up.

And no big Power was interested in going to war with each other in WWI, yet the war still happened.

Lol no, wars don't just happen if neither side isn't interested. Life is not a Paradox Game, countries aren't forced to go to war by simple agreements.

[Sheb]

The thing is, mistakes happens. In WWI, no one wanted a major war, but Austria really wanted to kick some Serbian asses. They calculated that Russia would be scared by Germany and stay out of the war. Russia mobilized, Germans panicked, and we had four years of joyous bloodshed.

Neither Russia nor NATO wants a full-scale war, and we're (rightly) more scared of war now that we were in 1914. However, miscalculations and escalation could still happens. Russia doesn't want to take on NATO, but what if it tries to invade (possibly using fake rebels) one of the Baltic states, calculating that NATO wouldn't fight over that, just like Austria though it could get away with invading Serbia?

[Sergarr]

The thing is, mistakes happens. In WWI, no one wanted a major war, but Austria really wanted to kick some Serbian asses. They calculated that Russia would be scared by Germany and stay out of the war. Russia mobilized, Germans panicked, and we had four years of joyous bloodshed.

Germany definitely wanted a major war, its economical situation required it in order to secure markets for German goods from France, England and Russia. There were even plans of pre-emptive strike on Russia among German government, as mainiac has recently provided in this very thread.

Neither Russia nor NATO wants a full-scale war, and we're (rightly) more scared of war now that we were in 1914. However, miscalculations and escalation could still happens. Russia doesn't want to take on NATO, but what if it tries to invade (possibly using fake rebels) one of the Baltic states, calculating that NATO wouldn't fight over that, just like Austria though it could get away with invading Serbia?

Explain me, what would Russian government gain from conquering Baltic states, that would not be lost upon the inevitable embargo afterwards?

[Sheb]

Well, the threat of sanctions didn't work in Donbass and Crimea. Anyway, no matter the exact path, I'm just saying that sometime, situation escalates through miscommunication and mistakes, even if no party want a full-scale war with the other.

[Sergarr]

And those times are non-existent if both sides don't actually want war against each other.

Example: Cuban Missile Crisis. Specifically, the part where U-2 was shot down over Cuba:

We had to send a U-2 over to gain reconnaissance information on whether the Soviet missiles were becoming operational. We believed that if the U-2 was shot down that—the Cubans didn't have capabilities to shoot it down, the Soviets did—we believed if it was shot down, it would be shot down by a Soviet surface-to-air-missile unit, and that it would represent a decision by the Soviets to escalate the conflict. And therefore, before we sent the U-2 out, we agreed that if it was shot down we wouldn't meet, we'd simply attack. It was shot down on Friday. ... Fortunately, we changed our mind, we thought "Well, it might have been an accident, we won't attack." Later we learned that Khrushchev had reasoned just as we did: we send over the U-2, if it was shot down, he reasoned we would believe it was an intentional escalation. And therefore, he issued orders to Pliyev, the Soviet commander in Cuba, to instruct all of his batteries not to shoot down the U-2.

Mistakes don't cause major wars, if both sides don't want war.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Explain me, what would Russian government gain from conquering Baltic states, that would not be lost upon the inevitable embargo afterwards?

Implying that Russian government is rational....