Print

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

[miljan]

Sometimes I wonder do people read at all or not what thye post.

False. Look at GDP. Norway ranks very, very high, higher than even the US. If you look at nominal GDP, Sweden and Denmark are also high up there and higher than the US. Finland ain't too shabby either. They are resource-rich and have excellent economies and are some of the best, if not flat-out the best, countries for quality of life.

Now, if you're instead saying "Now that Russia is expanding and it looks to gobble up the Scandinavian countries, what can they do?", you're also wrong about them not being able to do anything. Why? Diplomatic relations. Russia will not expand into those countries one-by-one, because if it tries the whole world is going to piss all over Russia's party. Sure, if Russia did face each country one-on-one, they might win (though it should be noted that the environment in Scandinavia is atrocious for waging an offensive war), but that is never a situation that will happen. Things haven't escalated into global war because everyone's hoping Putin will stop at Crimea and urges everyone to join collective defense treaties in order to prevent such things in the future.

Not correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
They can not do anything on their own because they are not strong/big enough, that was my point when we talked  about it.

That is an absolutely disgusting viewpoint. I'm sorry, but it is. "If you don't think you can win, just bend over for whoever wants to make you their slave!"
So by the same point of view, no one should ever fight against the US if the US just decided to take over the world?
Not only that, your comment is in response to World War 2, where you are especially saying that all of the countries should have just sat on their knees and allow the subjugation and mass-murder of their friends and family with no issue. Just take it on the chin.
That sentiment also completely ignores one of the key facets of war: make an objective so costly to the enemy that they hesitate at taking that objective or decide not to do it altogether. If everyone is simply to lay down, there is no cost, there is nothing preventing an enemy.

Its not disgusting viewpoint, its the smartest thing to do.
Sorry, I care more about my family and friends than to throw people lives on something stupid like we are talking here about UK and crimea.

Also, WTF are you even talking about? USA, WW2? WTF man? If USA attacks you and says i will bomb the shit out of you, if you do not do this, this and this, what will you do if you are in small country? Throw your family on them, so they all die and the end result will be same or even worse? Think a little dude.

The same thing we are talking here about ukraine, would they get anything from war, or would they actually lose more?

Oh? And what do you think of the previous 3 years' worth of polls over the very same subject that show an absolutely overwhelming non-pro-Russia attitude, as well as the population demographics putting the ethnic Russians at less than 18%, with probably everyone else not willing to be on their side on the issue?
So when it comes to Ukraine, like it or not miljan, it sounds like the whole Crimean situation is absolutely saturated with Russian propaganda.

Dude, stop posting things that are simply not correct, and check what you post. All polls show more than 50% russian people. The thing that polls showed back than is they do not want a separated state.

Also is it a russia propaganda or not, the fact is you don't know, same as me. Because after the thing that happend in ukraine a lot can change in little time. But from the looks of it, and people protesting/celebrating i think there is a majority of pro russian support. So yes, like it or not, it looks like they want to be in russia, and I guess i should use the work looks like, so that was my error in the post.

[mainiac]

Yes, but assuming that all the countries were smaller, it would be much easier to band together to fight off a single same size aggressive neighboring country.

So country A threatens country B so countries B and C band together.  Then countries B and C realize they can squash A so they decide to strike first.  Or there is political unrest in country D so suddenly A, B and C all want to make sure the right side wins.

A multipolar world means more conflict not less because it means that aggression or the fear of aggression from many more parties is enough to trigger war.  People say that the US is irresponsible but the numbers disagree; the post Cold War era has been the safest era in history in terms of people dying from inter-state and intrastate war.  And before that the bi-polar world of the Cold War was was safer then the wars everywhere free for all environment of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Its not disgusting viewpoint, its the smartest thing to do.

I THINK
We should move this particular discussion into PMs.

[Chaoswizkid]

Sometimes I wonder do people read at all or not what thye post.

False. Look at GDP. Norway ranks very, very high, higher than even the US. If you look at nominal GDP, Sweden and Denmark are also high up there and higher than the US. Finland ain't too shabby either. They are resource-rich and have excellent economies and are some of the best, if not flat-out the best, countries for quality of life.

Now, if you're instead saying "Now that Russia is expanding and it looks to gobble up the Scandinavian countries, what can they do?", you're also wrong about them not being able to do anything. Why? Diplomatic relations. Russia will not expand into those countries one-by-one, because if it tries the whole world is going to piss all over Russia's party. Sure, if Russia did face each country one-on-one, they might win (though it should be noted that the environment in Scandinavia is atrocious for waging an offensive war), but that is never a situation that will happen. Things haven't escalated into global war because everyone's hoping Putin will stop at Crimea and urges everyone to join collective defense treaties in order to prevent such things in the future.

Not correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
They can not do anything on their own because they are not strong/big enough, that was my point when we talked  about it.

False. Look at GDP. Norway ranks very, very high, higher than even the US. If you look at nominal GDP, Sweden and Denmark are also high up there and higher than the US. Finland ain't too shabby either.

You uh, missed a very important couple words in that statement. Those words being "per capita".

I did forget to post "per capita". My apologies. Still, per capita GDP is a good indicator of economic strength. I did agree with you that, paired off with Russia in a 1 on 1 they may not fair that well, but they would not stand alone (At least Norway and Denmark wouldn't as-is. I'm thinking that the countries of NATO, if not the organization itself, would just say "fuck it" and help out Sweden and Finland if they don't join NATO before a hypothetical hostile situation), so it's a moot point in if they can do anything individually or not.

Its not disgusting viewpoint, its the smartest thing to do.
Sorry, I care more about my family and friends than to throw people lives on something stupid like we are talking here about UK and crimea.

"on something stupid" is a very, very key part of what you just said.

Also, WTF are you even talking about? USA, WW2?

One of the posts I quoted you on was your response to BlindKitty, a Pole who was talking about WW2 and post-WW2. I brought up the US as a country you'd probably not want to see control the entire world to challenge your point of view of "Lesser states should just roll over and die."

WTF man? If USA attacks you and says i will bomb the shit out of you, if you do not do this, this and this, what will you do if you are in small country? Throw your family on them, so they all die and the end result will be same or even worse? Think a little dude.

If they are a small country, I'd expect them to fight for their freedom, yes. I would expect them not to sit idly by and watch a large nation stroll right into their country and subjugate them. Even if it meant many lives would be lost, even if they likely wouldn't win, it would show that the aggression of a large nation is not tolerated, on any level, by anyone. If it would not save more lives in that singular country by the actions of the patriots of that small nation, then it may save the lives of more countries that would be in the path of aggression, as it would cause them to bond together, find hope, and submit to the US that there is a price for aggression that they will be forced to pay.
And again, there is international relations to keep in mind. If everyone is a pacifist, the world will think "They are okay with this." and will allow the gross subjugation without much problems stirred at all. If they fight, there will be perceived injustices, which will align more countries against the aggressor.

The same thing we are talking here about ukraine, would they get anything from war, or would they actually lose more?

If they win, they deal an absolutely massive blow to the pride of Russia, severely undermine the political power of Putin, regain sovereignty of Crimea, quell the political instability of Ukraine ("Pro-Russian" political instability anyway) and gain the respect of pretty much every non-Pacifist for at least one generation. (Note: from my point of view outside of Ukraine, obviously)
If they lose, well, that'd depend on the terms of war Russia would be fighting on.
In either case, many lives would be lost. It's up to those willing to fight to determine if the cost of victory is too high or not.

Dude, stop posting things that are simply not correct, and check what you post. All polls show more than 50% russian people. The thing that polls showed back than is they do not want a separated state.

On the population: ... Okay, I just checked again, and I swear that when I looked at Crimean populations, and Crimea specifically, it did not have that. Apparently whatever I looked at before was just the Ukraine population statistics copy-pasted for Crimea. I'm actually pretty upset about this. Sorry. You're right, on what I can find, ethnic Russians compose more than half of the population.

The thing that polls showed back than is they do not want a separated state.

Spoiler: some old polls (click to show/hide)

 

Now think how plausible the result is

Not according to that. Granted, when I saw those poll results (also I'd need a good source, not sure where UR got them), I mistook the "Secede to Russia" section for one of the other sections, so it's a lot bigger than I thought it was. Still, ~30% and ~20% is very, very far away from the results that were obtained recently.

[MarcAFK]

The Russian Federation on the other hand, even though most of it is constructed on land stolen from natives just like in the USA, is explicitly a federation of entities including ethnic "Republics", almost like little statelets with "titular nationalities". That is very different from the USA where New York or Oregon wouldn't have something like a "titular nationality". There's no "State of Lakotah", for instance.

This means though that in Russia there are actually little European-Style "nations" with their own governments. Toothless, but the illusion is there.

It's interesting, because many of the largest countries in Europe like France and Germany were like this up until 200-100 years ago, but for the most part were assimilated into a single national identity due to active government interference such as standardising the language used in schools, media, all government printings etc. and not to mention treating minority's and minority languages as if they were inferior as well as other more oppressive policy's (not I'm not talking about nazi Germany or any if the forced migrations of the 20th century, however these policy's would have had an effect causing somewhat voluntary migration of oppressed minority's to countries they identified more closely with culturally)
Hell Germany was dozens of independent states with fractured legal codes, language variations, different currencies, measurements etc not too long ago.

[smjjames]

The Russian Federation on the other hand, even though most of it is constructed on land stolen from natives just like in the USA, is explicitly a federation of entities including ethnic "Republics", almost like little statelets with "titular nationalities". That is very different from the USA where New York or Oregon wouldn't have something like a "titular nationality". There's no "State of Lakotah", for instance.

This means though that in Russia there are actually little European-Style "nations" with their own governments. Toothless, but the illusion is there.

It's interesting, because many of the largest countries in Europe like France and Germany were like this up until 200-100 years ago, but for the most part were assimilated into a single national identity due to active government interference such as standardising the language used in schools, media, all government printings etc. and not to mention treating minority's and minority languages as if they were inferior as well as other more oppressive policy's (not I'm not talking about nazi Germany or any if the forced migrations of the 20th century, however these policy's would have had an effect causing somewhat voluntary migration of oppressed minority's to countries they identified more closely with culturally)
Hell Germany was dozens of independent states with fractured legal codes, language variations, different currencies, measurements etc not too long ago.

Especially Germany, it was split up into a great many small states which made up the Holy Roman Empire.

Italy is another example, it consisted largely of a collection of city-states and Italy as an unified state didn't arise until the 19th century.

[MarcAFK]

A lot of States were like this around the 18th-19th centuries, interestingly large destructive wars became vastly more common as they started coalescing into large states( or they became larger because of said wars)later these states started pesecuting "minorities" and forcing their migration all over Europe, yet these minority populations for the most part had been in the majority as small independent entities which had been absorbed during the imperialist era, all this had the effect of making the 19-20th century the bloodiest in history (technology had a role also due to the speed at which people could be moved/slaughtered, historically wars were limited by the ability of the aggressor to feed his army and the high pestilence mortality, now wars always tend to consume 10-20 times as many "civilians" as they do soldiers , but really even soldiers are still civilians being wasted during the course of conflict.

[olemars]

Ukrainian combat dolphins defect to Russia, will be reinforced by Spetsnaz sea lions.

[MarcAFK]

I know military dolphins are real, but I have trouble believing this.

[Guardian G.I.]

According to Russian pollster Levada-Center, President Putin's approval rating in Russia has reached the mark of 80% — RIA Novosti

[miljan]

I did forget to post "per capita". My apologies. Still, per capita GDP is a good indicator of economic strength. I did agree with you that, paired off with Russia in a 1 on 1 they may not fair that well, but they would not stand alone (At least Norway and Denmark wouldn't as-is. I'm thinking that the countries of NATO, if not the organization itself, would just say "fuck it" and help out Sweden and Finland if they don't join NATO before a hypothetical hostile situation), so it's a moot point in if they can do anything individually or not.

That was the point, they can not stand alone as they are small and not powerful. Together you are stronger. That was my point all along.

Its not disgusting viewpoint, its the smartest thing to do.
Sorry, I care more about my family and friends than to throw people lives on something stupid like we are talking here about UK and crimea.

"on something stupid" is a very, very key part of what you just said.

As I said if there is nothing you can win from a fight, and fighting can only make you lose more than it is stupid.

Also, WTF are you even talking about? USA, WW2?

One of the posts I quoted you on was your response to BlindKitty, a Pole who was talking about WW2 and post-WW2. I brought up the US as a country you'd probably not want to see control the entire world to challenge your point of view of "Lesser states should just roll over and die."

Lesser state should go with the flow and try to survive,not throw themselves and die like you are trying to say. And your ww2 comment and usa doesnt have to do anything with my post, as I was talking specifically of when you should fight or not.

WTF man? If USA attacks you and says i will bomb the shit out of you, if you do not do this, this and this, what will you do if you are in small country? Throw your family on them, so they all die and the end result will be same or even worse? Think a little dude.

If they are a small country, I'd expect them to fight for their freedom, yes. I would expect them not to sit idly by and watch a large nation stroll right into their country and subjugate them. Even if it meant many lives would be lost, even if they likely wouldn't win, it would show that the aggression of a large nation is not tolerated, on any level, by anyone. If it would not save more lives in that singular country by the actions of the patriots of that small nation, then it may save the lives of more countries that would be in the path of aggression, as it would cause them to bond together, find hope, and submit to the US that there is a price for aggression that they will be forced to pay.
And again, there is international relations to keep in mind. If everyone is a pacifist, the world will think "They are okay with this." and will allow the gross subjugation without much problems stirred at all. If they fight, there will be perceived injustices, which will align more countries against the aggressor.

I fully disagree, and lets stay on that. When you are in war, and lose some people you may understand it better.

The same thing we are talking here about ukraine, would they get anything from war, or would they actually lose more?

If they win, they deal an absolutely massive blow to the pride of Russia, severely undermine the political power of Putin, regain sovereignty of Crimea, quell the political instability of Ukraine ("Pro-Russian" political instability anyway) and gain the respect of pretty much every non-Pacifist for at least one generation. (Note: from my point of view outside of Ukraine, obviously)
If they lose, well, that'd depend on the terms of war Russia would be fighting on.
In either case, many lives would be lost. It's up to those willing to fight to determine if the cost of victory is too high or not.

There is no if they win. They would lose. And they would lose a lot more than just crimea.

Dude, stop posting things that are simply not correct, and check what you post. All polls show more than 50% russian people. The thing that polls showed back than is they do not want a separated state.

On the population: ... Okay, I just checked again, and I swear that when I looked at Crimean populations, and Crimea specifically, it did not have that. Apparently whatever I looked at before was just the Ukraine population statistics copy-pasted for Crimea. I'm actually pretty upset about this. Sorry. You're right, on what I can find, ethnic Russians compose more than half of the population.

Not according to that. Granted, when I saw those poll results (also I'd need a good source, not sure where UR got them), I mistook the "Secede to Russia" section for one of the other sections, so it's a lot bigger than I thought it was. Still, ~30% and ~20% is very, very far away from the results that were obtained recently.

Oh I am sure that 93% was a scam, as there is no chance there is that huge support for it, but there is a good chance that majority of people do support it, and it is not a simple occupation of territory where population is fully against it.

Anyway let's just say we disagree with each other so I dont need to post so much

And back  on topic, it looks like crimean tatars will do a referendum also. Not only them, but Venice province did a online poll where more than 2 million people signed that they want to be independent, so they will think about doing a referendum also. Alnd catalonia in spain is interested in a referendum.

Argentina accuses world powers of double-standard over crimea
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-03-19/argentina-accuses-world-powers-of-double-standard-over-crimea

[Ukrainian Ranger]

There is no if they win. They would lose. And they would lose a lot more than just crimea.

But who said that Putin doesn't want more than Crimea? More and more troops are concentrated on Ukrainian border

[da_nang]

Argentina accuses world powers of double-standard over crimea
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-03-19/argentina-accuses-world-powers-of-double-standard-over-crimea

Eh, I don't remember there being turmoil and foreign occupational forces in the Falklands during that vote.

[smjjames]

A NON-BINDING online poll mind you.

Someone said something a while ago about St. Petersburg wanting to secede. Don't know what became of that though.

As for the Falklands, Argentina has been wanting them since the 19th century.

[Sean Mirrsen]

There is no if they win. They would lose. And they would lose a lot more than just crimea.

But who said that Putin doesn't want more than Crimea? More and more troops are concentrated on Ukrainian border

Considering that viewpoints like yours are, at least to some extent, popular (if you are taken as a reasonably typical current-day Ukrainian), I think "to guard against potential action by Ukraine" is a reasonably possible - and prudent - reason for that.