Print

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

Petro Poroshenko

5 (29.4%)

Yulia Tymoshenko

2 (11.8%)

Oleg Lyashko

2 (11.8%)

Anatoly Hrytsenko

2 (11.8%)

Serhiy Tihipko

0 (0%)

Mykhailo Dobkin

0 (0%)

Other

6 (35.3%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[Sergarr]

That is one of the laws of dialectic materialism btw.

[Knit tie]

The impression I was getting was that you were putting the US involvement at the same level as the Russian involvement.  Are you saying that in fact the US involvement was far, far lesser then the Russian involvement?

I wouldn't be so categorical as to say, "far, far less". First of all, the circumstances were different - the USA heavily supported the rebels in Maidan with everything they might need for a peaceful revolution, and the Euromaidan, as we all know, succeeded with just 100 casualties and the conflict never growing beyond a series of police clashes. Russia, on the other hand, got a pro-Russian movement that has already declared independence of Donetskaya and Luganskaya oblasts and was branded as "terrorists" by Ukraine, with Ukrainian forces already on the move for a counterinsurgency operation, and so the help that the separatists required was not money or propaganda, but rather arms and training. If the sides were reversed, I am fairly confident that the USA would've armed and drilled the rebels as well. And secondly, Russia doesn't really support the war - rather than helping the rebels invade the parts of Ukraine that aren't Donbass, Kremlin, with its Minsk agreement and various shady dealings, as mentoned in the link I provided in the post above as well as in many other interviews with the rebels and their commanders posted on Colonel Cassad's blog (which is pro-Russian, and thus unlikely to exagerrate such revelations), has actually been detrimental to the Novorossian war effort. My theory is that this is because Putin has no real desire for this war to continue or for Ukraine to fall, and so he prevents the separatists from making any significant territorial advances, but at the same time, he cannot let them be defeated because that would be suicide for his "defender of Russians who is not scared of the USA" public image and, subsequently, popularity. For the same reason, he cannot give in to Obama and Merkel's demands and has to continue the current political standoff, even though Russia has absolutely nothing to gain from the ruined Novorossiya. So Putin is as concerned with putting wrenches in the rebels' works as he is concerned in not making it blatantly obvious that he doesn't want them to succeed.
[/quote]

That is one of the laws of dialectic materialism btw.

True - attributing "quantity has a quality of its own" to Stalin is like attributing "Our Father, who art in Heaven" to pope Francis. They both were just quoting their holy texts.

[mainiac]

Giving moral support to a free trade agreement and tens of thousands of dollars to a media outlet is exactly the same thing as sending paratroopers to fight a war.

And then we get to the really stupid stuff... The classic debating strategy for someone without evidence is to say that it's plausible for something to be true without proof.  Then when someone calls you a liar you just say "oh no I was just speculating".

I personally believe that for you to engage in this sort of rhetoric is extremely disrespectful.

[Sheb]

Yeah, you whine about the decline in the quality of the discussion, but I think you're the main culprit here Knit Tie. When faced with a choice between intelligent discussion or continuing support for your country, you chose the latter.

[Knit tie]

Giving moral support to a free trade agreement and tens of thousands of dollars to a media outlet is exactly the same thing as sending paratroopers to fight a war.

And then we get to the really stupid stuff... The classic debating strategy for someone without evidence is to say that it's plausible for something to be true without proof.  Then when someone calls you a liar you just say "oh no I was just speculating".

I personally believe that for you to engage in this sort of rhetoric is extremely disrespectful.

Evidence of what exactly would you like me to provide?

Many interviews in which the rebel commanders bash the Minsk agreement and the Kremlin's interference can be found on this English translation of Colonel Cassad's blog. Suffice to say this blog is very pro-Russian, so when colonel posts about how Russia didn't help the rebels, you can be sure that this information is not exagerrated or fabricated.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

so when colonel posts about how Russia didn't help the rebels, you can be sure that this information is not exagerrated or fabricated.

It's almost as if he has a reason to lie

[Sergarr]

Yeah, you whine about the decline in the quality of the discussion, but I think you're the main culprit here Knit Tie. When faced with a choice between intelligent discussion or continuing support for your country, you chose the latter.

wait I though I was the main culprit for decline in quality of discussion?

Or was it ivze?

[mainiac]

It's almost as if he has a reason to lie

Typical western fanaticism.

[Knit tie]

so when colonel posts about how Russia didn't help the rebels, you can be sure that this information is not exagerrated or fabricated.

It's almost as if he has a reason to lie

He has, but not against Russia, and Novorussia by proxy. He has a reason to exagerrate the rebels' successes and downplay the Ukrainian ones, but when he talks about how the separatists failed, he obviously has no interest in exagerrating that.

Yeah, you whine about the decline in the quality of the discussion, but I think you're the main culprit here Knit Tie. When faced with a choice between intelligent discussion or continuing support for your country, you chose the latter.

Thank you, that was a very nice thing of you to say. My refusal to unequivocally condemn Russia for the Ukrainian crisis is obviously born out of blind partiotism, and not out of a different interpretation of the facts.

It's almost as if he has a reason to lie

Typical western fanaticism.

[mainiac]

It's called a joke.

[Sergarr]

#rekt

[Knit tie]

It's called a joke.

No, seriously, if an official employee of Novorussia and a Russian supporter, such as Cassad, posts information about how the war wasn't successful for the rebels and how their forces are divided and disorganised, why would he exagerrate that? Downplay, sure, but not exagerrate.

@Sheb: Besides, most of the time this discussion is I vs you, Helgoland and mainiac, 3 on 1. Sergarr and UR weigh in occasionally, everybody else is rarely seen.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

[Because they're not supposed to be getting soldiers and equipment from Russia like they are]

[mainiac]

How about you use some of that crazy paranoia you direct towards the US and point it at Russia for about two damn nanoseconds?

[Baffler]

I think you're just as guilty, Sheb. Over the last 3 or so threads, I've seen everything pro-Russian or even several middle ground sort of posts say dismissed as unreasonable, jingoism, or "just a conspiracy theory" regardless of the quality of that post. Who doesn't want to have a discussion here? I don't see anything outlandish or even particularly contentious about this post, a frank summary of the Kremlin's dilemma with almost no stance given:

I wouldn't be so categorical as to say, "far, far less". First of all, the circumstances were different - the USA heavily supported the rebels in Maidan with everything they might need for a peaceful revolution, and the Euromaidan, as we all know, succeeded with just 100 casualties and the conflict never growing beyond a series of police clashes. Russia, on the other hand, got a pro-Russian movement that has already declared independence of Donetskaya and Luganskaya oblasts and was branded as "terrorists" by Ukraine, with Ukrainian horses already on the move for a counterinsurgency operation, and so the help that the separatists required was not money or propaganda, but rather arms and training. If the sides were reversed, I am fairly confident that the USA would've armed and drilled the rebels as well. And secondly, Russia doesn't really support the war - rather than helping the rebels invade the parts of Ukraine that aren't Donbass, Kremlin, with its Minsk agreement and various shady dealings, as mentoned in the link I provided in the post above as well as in many other interviews with the rebels and their commanders posted on Colonel Cassad's blog (which is pro-Russian, and thus unlikely to exagerrate such revelations), has actually been detrimental to the Novorossian war effort. My theory is that this is because Putin has no real desire for this war to continue or for Ukraine to fall, and so he prevents the separatists from making any significant territorial advances, but at the same time, he cannot let them be defeated because that would be suicide for his "defender of Russians who is not scared of the USA" public image and, subsequently, popularity. For the same reason, he cannot give in to Obama and Merkel's demands and has to continue the current political standoff, even though Russia has absolutely nothing to gain from the ruined Novorossiya. So Putin is as concerned with putting wrenches in the rebels' works as he is concerned in not making it blatantly obvious that he doesn't want them to succeed.

But the response was dismissal:

Yeah, you whine about the decline in the quality of the discussion, but I think you're the main culprit here Knit Tie. When faced with a choice between intelligent discussion or continuing support for your country, you chose the latter.

Or misrepresentation:

Giving moral support to a free trade agreement and tens of thousands of dollars to a media outlet is exactly the same thing as sending paratroopers to fight a war.

And then we get to the really stupid stuff... The classic debating strategy for someone without evidence is to say that it's plausible for something to be true without proof.  Then when someone calls you a liar you just say "oh no I was just speculating".

I personally believe that for you to engage in this sort of rhetoric is extremely disrespectful.

leading to blatant ad hominem:

How about you use some of that crazy paranoia you direct towards the US and point it at Russia for about two damn nanoseconds?