Print

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

[Knit tie]

Yes, it'll still be above 60, and has opened a new trading corridor to the 80's.

http://www.rferl.org/contentlive/power-vertical-feed/26613237.html

Good summary/live feed.

Well the source is obviously pro-Western, I'll give you that. Not that there's much alternative, though, as everybody takes sides on Russia.


And speaking of taking sides, how's this version of my "why I support Russia" rant, this time with less passive-aggressiveness:

Because I believe that the USA's claim to moral superiority has ended when it started openly supporting the Donbassian ATO and violence as a response to the secession of Novorossiya, thus choosing to pursue noble goals with ignoble means and showing that it doesn't really care about peace or civilians, but rather just wants to put Russia down for opposing its interests. Thus, the conflict is not one of an attacker and a defender, but rather one of two powers, each trying to further its own political interests. Thus, there is no significant moral difference between the two sides, and I support Russia due to it, ceteris paribus, being my country.

[Helgoland]

Why do you fixate on the US so much? Lately Russia has seemed to me more and more like a crazy stalker ex who still hasn't gotten over the fact that America's doing (cmparatively) well.

[Knit tie]

Why do you fixate on the US so much? Lately Russia has seemed to me more and more like a crazy stalker ex who still hasn't gotten over the fact that America's doing (cmparatively) well.

And herein lies our most fundamental differnce in views: you and Sheb and other anti-Russians here view everything that's going on as a product of Russia's madness, a whim of a tinpot dictatorship of sorts, while yours truly and Sergarr and Guardian and other pro-Russians view the conflict as a power struggle between Russia and NATO, which USA enthusiastically supports. Western idealism vs. Russian cynicism, naive sheeple vs. loony conspiracy theorists - call this difference in views what you will, but it appears that "Russia-NATO power struggle" vs. "Russia's mad whims" is a central motif of all the Russia-themed discussions lately.

For example, this article, posted by Sinistar, exemplifies the "power struggle" view, while The Guardian, as a whole, tends to exemplify the "mad whims" view of the Russia's actions.

Just an observation.

EDIT: If anything, I consider the "mad whims" model to be overly simplistic and naive, and I am sure that you, Helgo, consider the "power struggle" model to be overly paranoid and conspirationist to approximately the same extent.

[Sheb]

Well, I see three problems with your argument. One of logic, two of warped facts.

First of all, even if we accept facts as you present them (which I do not, more on that latter), the fact that both sides are equally corrupt doesn't mean it's ok to support one of them for the hell of it. The correct position would be to reject both of them, condemning both US and Russia. Can you imagine me saying "Thus, there is no significant moral difference between Assad and IS, and I support Assad due to it, ceteris paribus, I like mustachioed men"?

I think you actually don't understand how me (and Helgo, although I don't like to speak for him) think. Sure, we are willing to defend our "country" (the EU in this case) in case of aggression. But we are equally willing to oppose our governments if we feel they are morally wrong, no matter who the other side is. True, I'd be on a barricade if Russians troops start popping up in Estonia. But I'd also be on a barricade if Belgium was participating in a NATO effort to pull that kind of shit in Russia, this time a barricade in front of my own government.

This I feel is the fundamental error of your position.

Then they are the factual mistakes. First of all, that obsession in seeing this as a contest between the US and Russia. The US doesn't care that much about Russia. All it wants is Russian help in dealing with stuff like Syria and Iran, and for Russia not to invade countries in Europe so it can focus on Asia. The US is willing to forgive a lot to get Russia's cooperation (For example, the proposed "reset", only a year after Russia invaded a US ally), but at some point has to take a stand.

Second, you vastly mischaracterize the US's and Russia's actions. For example, the sanctions were started not because of Donetsk, but of Crimea. Surely, you cannot blame the US for the takeover of Crimea?

You blame the US for taking too much steps to support the Ukraine army. The US has not even sent weapons. It also has very little says on what strategies the Ukrainian Army takes.

You blame the US for not reigning in Ukraine's ATO, but Ukraine already tried the peaceful approach. And lost Crimea for that. How could we know that reigning in the attacks on Donetsk would defuse the situation rather than just cause the DNR to declare independence in another fake referendum? You argument is essentially that the fight is our fault because we didn't give everything up to Russia.

Finally, I just love how in your narrative it's the US and not Russia who is fuelling the third-party conflict, despite the fact that Russia sent weapons and soldiers, and the US never even sent a gun.

[Erkki]

Why do you fixate on the US so much? Lately Russia has seemed to me more and more like a crazy stalker ex who still hasn't gotten over the fact that America's doing (cmparatively) well.

And herein lies our most fundamental differnce in views: you and Sheb and other anti-Russians here view everything that's going on as a product of Russia's madness, a whim of a tinpot dictatorship of sorts, while yours truly and Sergarr and Guardian and other pro-Russians view the conflict as a power struggle between Russia and NATO, which USA enthusiastically supports. Western idealism vs. Russian cynicism, naive sheeple vs. loony conspiracy theorists - call this difference in views what you will, but it appears to be a central motif of all the Russia-themed discussions lately.

Just an observation.

Western idealism didnt make half a million people lose their homes and over a million have their nationality changed this year. If nukes didn't exist there wouldnt be a "power struggle" because Russia just isn't a match for EU, NATO, USA and their allies. Its sad that Russia has to underline that by flying Tu-95s back and forth from St. Petersburg to Kaliningrad over the Baltic, which didnt happen even during the Cold War, now almost every other day.

[Sergarr]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/viewing-russia-inside#axzz3MD8AbNxU

This is spot-on. High quality professional at work right here. Read this if you want to know more about Russia.

[Erkki]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/viewing-russia-inside#axzz3MD8AbNxU

This is spot-on. High quality professional at work right here. Read this if you want to know more about Russia.

Because you happen to agree with him?

Understanding does not equal acceptance. I can understand your will to "secure your interests" and need to create buffer nations to "protect" from the West that is perceived a threat, but the line will have to be drawn somewhere so I will still shoot you in the face should you try case Ukraine here.

[Knit tie]

Well, I see three problems with your argument. One of logic, two of warped facts.

First of all, even if we accept facts as you present them (which I do not, more on that latter), the fact that both sides are equally corrupt doesn't mean it's ok to support one of them for the hell of it. The correct position would be to reject both of them, condemning both US and Russia. Can you imagine me saying "Thus, there is no significant moral difference between Assad and IS, and I support Assad due to it, ceteris paribus, I like mustachioed men"?

I think you actually don't understand how me (and Helgo, although I don't like to speak for him) think. Sure, we are willing to defend our "country" (the EU in this case) in case of aggression. But we are equally willing to oppose our governments if we feel they are morally wrong, no matter who the other side is. True, I'd be on a barricade if Russians troops start popping up in Estonia. But I'd also be on a barricade if Belgium was participating in a NATO effort to pull that kind of shit in Russia, this time a barricade in front of my own government.

This I feel is the fundamental error of your position.

Again, we see things differently here, and I think it's likely that you don't understand my thoughts just as you say I don't understand yours. I, and most pro-Russians, do not view Russia's actions as fundamentally reprehensible, because we believe that we are merely responding to the unlawful actions of the USA, which has supported an unlawful coup in Ukraine and has since pressured it to become a part of NATO. Also, we believe that the current war in Ukraine was started by the Ukrainian government, not rebels, and is being fueled by, again, the USA, via political pressure and material support of Ukrainian troops, and that our support of Novorossiya is, again, merely a response to that aggression. Thus, we do not think about protesting against Russia's actions for the same reason you don't think about protesting against American support of the Ukrainian army and of the armed conflict in general - both sides believe that the other side started it first.

Then they are the factual mistakes. First of all, that obsession in seeing this as a contest between the US and Russia. The US doesn't care that much about Russia. All it wants is Russian help in dealing with stuff like Syria and Iran, and for Russia not to invade countries in Europe so it can focus on Asia. The US is willing to forgive a lot to get Russia's cooperation (For example, the proposed "reset", only a year after Russia invaded a US ally), but at some point has to take a stand.

As much as I would like to claim that my opinion is formed on solid facts, it's not - I cannot say that I am privy to the talks that go on in the White House, and so my opinion about the US's government's motives and opinions is based upon interpretation of facts instead. And I believe that your opinion about American government's thoughts and attitudes towards Russia is based upon interpretation as well, that you, can make no better and no worse a claim of your views being objective than I can.

Second, you vastly mischaracterize the US's and Russia's actions. For example, the sanctions were started not because of Donetsk, but of Crimea. Surely, you cannot blame the US for the takeover of Crimea?

I can blame them for the takeover of Kiyv, at least in my opinion, which may or may not be, objectively, closer to the actual truth than your opinion, seeing how both of our opinions are based around differing interpretations of the same facts.

You blame the US for taking too much steps to support the Ukraine army. The US has not even sent weapons. It also has very little says on what strategies the Ukrainian Army takes.

You blame the US for not reigning in Ukraine's ATO, but Ukraine already tried the peaceful approach. And lost Crimea for that. How could we know that reigning in the attacks on Donetsk would defuse the situation rather than just cause the DNR to declare independence in another fake referendum? You argument is essentially that the fight is our fault because we didn't give everything up to Russia.

And your argument is that the fight is our fault because we didn't give everything up to NATO. And before you start calling me a fool, please remember Baffler's comment about how both of us were equally irrational in our debate.

Finally, I just love how in your narrative it's the US and not Russia who is fuelling the third-party conflict, despite the fact that Russia sent weapons and soldiers, and the US never even sent a gun.

No, but it sent money, advisors, drill instructors, non-weapon equipment and tons of political pressure to continue fighting. In my opinion, this is because it didn't have to send military help - the rebels are a small group on a shred of territory, while Ukraine has exponentially more men and guns, and can wage war on its own.


In essence, I am just trying to state that no matter how firmly we believe in our differing opinions, we are both biased and irrational, and that means that our opinions, based upon different interpretation of the same events, are most likely equally detached from objective truth.

[LordSlowpoke]

If nukes didn't exist there wouldnt be a "power struggle" because Russia just isn't a match for EU, NATO, USA and their allies. Its sad that Russia has to underline that by flying Tu-95s back and forth from St. Petersburg to Kaliningrad over the Baltic, which didnt happen even during the Cold War, now almost every other day.

i recall there being an argument of the "west wants to remove russia from the premises" nature that used exactly these lines

i think it was sergarr's

juss' getting blonde spiky hair here

[Knit tie]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/viewing-russia-inside#axzz3MD8AbNxU

This is spot-on. High quality professional at work right here. Read this if you want to know more about Russia.

Because you happen to agree with him?

Understanding does not equal acceptance. I can understand your will to "secure your interests" and need to create buffer nations to "protect" from the West that is perceived a threat, but the line will have to be drawn somewhere so I will still shoot you in the face should you try case Ukraine here.

What about the other point that the article makes, that Russians and Westerners are both misinterpret and fear each other?

If nukes didn't exist there wouldnt be a "power struggle" because Russia just isn't a match for EU, NATO, USA and their allies. Its sad that Russia has to underline that by flying Tu-95s back and forth from St. Petersburg to Kaliningrad over the Baltic, which didnt happen even during the Cold War, now almost every other day.

i recall there being an argument of the "west wants to remove russia from the premises" nature that used exactly these lines

i think it was sergarr's

juss' getting blonde spiky hair here

The case in this thread is that two pro-Russians, two becuase Guardian appears infrequently and usually refrains from commenting on politics, yours truly and Sergarr, are being dogpiled by a bunch of anti-Russians, and so you are not likely to hear pro-Russian thoughts from anyone else but me or him.


http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/viewing-russia-inside#axzz3MD8AbNxU]http://]http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/viewing-russia-inside#axzz3MD8AbNxU - and this article is really rather good, please read it. For one, it refuses to take sides.

[smjjames]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/viewing-russia-inside#axzz3MD8AbNxU

This is spot-on. High quality professional at work right here. Read this if you want to know more about Russia.

Because you happen to agree with him?

Understanding does not equal acceptance. I can understand your will to "secure your interests" and need to create buffer nations to "protect" from the West that is perceived a threat, but the line will have to be drawn somewhere so I will still shoot you in the face should you try case Ukraine here.

What about the other point that the article makes, that Russians and Westerners are both misinterpret and fear each other?

If nukes didn't exist there wouldnt be a "power struggle" because Russia just isn't a match for EU, NATO, USA and their allies. Its sad that Russia has to underline that by flying Tu-95s back and forth from St. Petersburg to Kaliningrad over the Baltic, which didnt happen even during the Cold War, now almost every other day.

i recall there being an argument of the "west wants to remove russia from the premises" nature that used exactly these lines

i think it was sergarr's

juss' getting blonde spiky hair here

The case in this thread is that two pro-Russians, two becuase Guardian appears infrequently and usually refrains from commenting on politics, yours truly and Sergarr, are being dogpiled by a bunch of anti-Russians, and so you are not likely to hear pro-Russian thoughts from anyone else but me or him.

Oh come on, most people here aren't hating Russia just because it exists, they (and me) dislike Russia because they're being an asshole and invading a soveriegn country.

Also, you can have pro-russian thoughts without spewing conspiracy stuff or being tainted by propoganda, which is why people are dogpiling on you.

[Phmcw]

merely responding to the unlawful actions of the USA, which has supported an unlawful coup in Ukraine

I'm not saying that the US didn't do anything in the region, but it's pretty clear that the west of Ukraine was against Yakunovitch, and it since proved so much of an idiot that even Putin put him in a fridge. If you want your puppet regime to hold, stop using bigger moron than the US's.

So then Russia took back Crimea. Well no one gave a shit, not even Ukraine. It was, at the end of the day, a drunken gift of Khrushchev to his wife, and they didn't seems as happy as the rest of the country of the fall of the old regime, so the west did NOTHING.

But now Russia is attacking Ukraine's soil, and that we cannot tolerate. So the price of oil will become "mysteriously" low untill Russia behave. If need be, NATO can also stop selling Russia crucial technology and medicines, and dump the price on remaining Russian exports.

[Knit tie]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/viewing-russia-inside#axzz3MD8AbNxU

This is spot-on. High quality professional at work right here. Read this if you want to know more about Russia.

Because you happen to agree with him?

Understanding does not equal acceptance. I can understand your will to "secure your interests" and need to create buffer nations to "protect" from the West that is perceived a threat, but the line will have to be drawn somewhere so I will still shoot you in the face should you try case Ukraine here.

What about the other point that the article makes, that Russians and Westerners are both misinterpret and fear each other?

If nukes didn't exist there wouldnt be a "power struggle" because Russia just isn't a match for EU, NATO, USA and their allies. Its sad that Russia has to underline that by flying Tu-95s back and forth from St. Petersburg to Kaliningrad over the Baltic, which didnt happen even during the Cold War, now almost every other day.

i recall there being an argument of the "west wants to remove russia from the premises" nature that used exactly these lines

i think it was sergarr's

juss' getting blonde spiky hair here

The case in this thread is that two pro-Russians, two becuase Guardian appears infrequently and usually refrains from commenting on politics, yours truly and Sergarr, are being dogpiled by a bunch of anti-Russians, and so you are not likely to hear pro-Russian thoughts from anyone else but me or him.

Oh come on, most people here aren't hating Russia just because it exists, they (and me) dislike Russia because they're being an asshole and invading a soveriegn country.

Also, you can have pro-russian thoughts without spewing conspiracy stuff or being tainted by propoganda, which is why people are dogpiling on you.

I never said that you guys hated Russia - just that you didn't support it. And I have an equal urge to dismiss your comments and views as conspiracy and propaganda, trust me.

merely responding to the unlawful actions of the USA, which has supported an unlawful coup in Ukraine

I'm not saying that the US didn't do anything in the region, but it's pretty clear that the west of Ukraine was against Yakunovitch, and it since proved so much of an idiot that even Putin put him in a fridge. If you want your puppet regime to hold, stop using bigger moron than the US's.

So then Russia took back Crimea. Well no one gave a shit, not even Ukraine. It was, at the end of the day, a drunken gift of Khrushchev to his wife, and they didn't seems as happy as the rest of the country of the fall of the old regime, so the west did NOTHING.

But now Russia is attacking Ukraine's soil, and that we cannot tolerate. So the price of oil will become "mysteriously" low untill Russia behave. If need be, NATO can also stop selling Russia crucial technology and medicines, and dump the price on remaining Russian exports.

Russia is not attacking Ukrainian soil, I believe. Russia is supporting the Ukrainian rebels, who are the ones being shelled by the Ukrainian army, by the way.

[Sergarr]

Hey, I'm not being dogpiled!

And about invading sovereign countries:

Every country that considers itself to be great must invade some other sovereign country at least once per 50 years, or else risk losing the title!

[smjjames]

merely responding to the unlawful actions of the USA, which has supported an unlawful coup in Ukraine

I'm not saying that the US didn't do anything in the region, but it's pretty clear that the west of Ukraine was against Yakunovitch, and it since proved so much of an idiot that even Putin put him in a fridge. If you want your puppet regime to hold, stop using bigger moron than the US's.

So then Russia took back Crimea. Well no one gave a shit, not even Ukraine. It was, at the end of the day, a drunken gift of Khrushchev to his wife, and they didn't seems as happy as the rest of the country of the fall of the old regime, so the west did NOTHING.

But now Russia is attacking Ukraine's soil, and that we cannot tolerate. So the price of oil will become "mysteriously" low untill Russia behave. If need be, NATO can also stop selling Russia crucial technology and medicines, and dump the price on remaining Russian exports.

The current drop in oil prices is due to supply and demand.

Also, people did give a shit about Russia occupying Crimea, it's just that Ukraine, in an utterly fail way, tried to take the peaceful route and ended up looking like they outright surrendered.