Print

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

[miljan]

http://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-resurrects-the-kgb-moscow-security/

It's like Soviet Russia never went away and it kind of sounds like it'll be worse than it's previous incarnation.

Great comment from that article:

"I probably shouldn’t write on Putin’s plan for their intelligence services but truth to be told vast majority of news on that are equally as wild speculations as mine. My three thoughts are these:

1) The increment of manpower and resources in intelligence services is a global effect, not as the article implies a Putin’s phenomenon. Just compare the dismaying increase of these operatives, let alone budget in the USA in the last decade, US has now 16 spy agencies! Just this week the freedom-lover Swiss got the boot to do a boost on that arena too.

2) “The aim in all cases seems to be to replace old-guard Putin allies with younger, more loyal…” I had read this phrase plenty this last month in other media. Sorry, but I don’t recall any power-hungry leader that replaces his allies with generations younger ones looking for “more loyalty”. This argument errs misleads in two areas;

a. One, it is natural for a leader to look for loyal managers, tell me which President in the world choose to pick non-loyal cabinet members!

b. Two, after some time, it is only normal to replace your managers to give an impression of a renewed era. The reason why Putin select all new is because the society was demanding for newer generations and not the old guard. Putin just did that.

3) It is tiresome reading of the “KGB Putin”. Putin was a low operative member so hardly has he embodied the culture, let alone responsible. But even if so, why we don’t refer to “CIA Bush senior”, at least he was the director.

Not much of a Putin fan here, but denigrating his leadership with these repetitive arguments seems rather pitiable."

http://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-resurrects-the-kgb-moscow-security/

It's like Soviet Russia never went away and it kind of sounds like it'll be worse than it's previous incarnation.

Well fuck.

I remember watching something that talked about how if we can just go for a century without a major war, we'll probably have pulled off large-scale peace and shit.

Stop pushing towards WW3, Putin, I want to believe it doesn't have to be inevitable

If anyone would start wold war 3 it would probably be the one that already used the nuke, as they are the ones constantly invading others and doing all kind of war crimes

[Rolepgeek]

...So, US is more likely to start WW3...while Russia takes over Crimea, has invaded Georgia essentially specifically for territorial gains, and the US is pulling out of the middle east

Sounds legit.

After all, there have never been war crimes under Putin. Certainly not. Those were all domestic citizens, you can't commit warcrimes against traitors

[miljan]

...So, US is more likely to start WW3...while Russia takes over Crimea, has invaded Georgia essentially specifically for territorial gains, and the US is pulling out of the middle east

Sounds legit.

After all, there have never been war crimes under Putin. Certainly not. Those were all domestic citizens, you can't commit warcrimes against traitors

No, US is more likely to start WW3 because they invaded or bombed several countries during the last 20 years. They also supported bombing and arming of terrorist from libya to syria, indirectly was involved in creation of ISIS. Are know for huge war crimes, from slaughtering  and raping huge number of civilians during vietnam war, like My Lai Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre#Courts_Martial

And they didn change one bit, as we know from iraq ocupation, where they tortured prisoners, raped and killed like in Abu Ghraib
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Repercussions

Or invading, blocking, killing protesters and raze to the ground iraq towns like destruction of Falluja
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/10/usa.iraq

Or massacre in Azizabad Airstrike in afghanistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azizabad_airstrike

And many, many more.

The fact that unlike russia they invaded whole countries, destroyed millions of lives, bombed other nation, going far away from their border. Yes, they are 100% more possible to start a world war 3 than russia. Because facts are, they are much more aggressive around the world, had much more wars where they attacked and occupied compared to russia. For fuck sake they occupied whole country, world war 2 style like what german did, put a puppet government, steal everything you can, destroy the country and then make them use credits from you to try and rebuild it and so many other shit.

Not saying the russia didnt had war crimes, they are the same scum bags, but they act on local level as they are not strong as USA, and lot more defensively. Georgia happened because it was interested in joining NATO, Crimea hapened after legal government get overthrown and in place of russia puppet, west puppet put in place, and ignoring the Crimea population always wanted to join back to russia, had referendum few times even while it was still in ukraine. USA is the one going around the world and invading, killing for the last 50 years now and more.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[Reelya]

As for the My Lai massacre, that is presented as a "one off" but there's good evidence it was part of a widespread thing that was tacitly approved of by senior command as a way of destabilizing the rebellion by attacking civilians.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/one-my-lai-a-month_b_6037482

"One My Lai a month" sounds pretty bad by itself. That's the equivalent of 12 My Lai massacres a year! And we only hear about one of them! But then you read the original statement by the soldier who leaked it:

"A batalion [sic] would kill maybe 15 to 20 [civilians] a day. With 4 batalions in the brigade that would be maybe 40 to 50 a day or 1200 to 1500 a month, easy. If I am only 10% right, and believe me it's lots more, then I am trying to tell you about 120-150 murders, or a My Lay [sic] each month for over a year."

So "one My Lai a month" is per-brigade and assumes 10% active time. There were 11 active divisions in Vietnam, and divisions are generally 3+ brigades. Assuming 150 civilian murders a day by US troops in Vietnam at the peak is no stretch of the imagination.

[Starver]

We're into territory where someone temporarily blind to Vietnam can be argued against by someone temporatily blind to all the various Hungarian Revolution-type oppressions, and Afghanistan hasn't been good for either 'side', either time.

Toppling regimes, propping up regimes and outright taking over control of countries has happened both ways.

Now, the US has not recently claimed territory of another sovereign nation, unlike Russia, although both have 'intervened' abroad to advance some cause or other in their own (direct or indirect) interests. And the cold light of history may well colour the various incidents (and fill in with currently unknown details) differently from how either side's supporters currently understand the situation.

Charitably, Russia is not actually interested in personal expansion but doesn't want various non-Russian influences to encroach from various directions, so is doing what it can to understandably prevent that. America is absolutely averse to border chamges but has been required to react against groups (governmental or non-governmental) within those borders whom they see as most disrupting the trans-border situation in various ways.  But each aim tends to clash indirectly in many ways, and the biggest problems are where the attempts may directly clash.

The modern world (arguably after the rise of independent media coverage in Vietnam, for the west, not so sure about Russia, but perhaps post-Soviet glasnost, and China is an interesting question that I'm not sure there's yet a definitive answer for in this form) is different from what came before, mostly now being small atrocities (as if they are any better) where large ones may once have been, and...  I'm going into difficult discussion territory, well beyond my intended point.

(Which was that I can't see agreement on who will start WW3. But it probably will be best ascribed to at least two parties, neither of whom intended to start it.)

[Reelya]

Bush sort of came close to that however, with the gigantic fortress they built in the center of Iraq. The "embassy" they built in Baghdad is larger than the Vatican City, has room and facilities for thousands of intel agents and troops, cost almost a billion dollars to build. The thing clearly dwarfs any government building in Iraq, now what message is that sending? Imagine if China invaded America, then build an "Embassy" 10 times the size of Capital Hill 20 miles from The Hill, then said "no we haven't invaded at all." How would Americans view that?

The main difference is that the USA prefers puppet governments to installing their own governors because it's cheaper and you can deny culpability when shit hits the fan. Also, the local government can collapse with massive debts and then USA can walk away: "not our debt".

[Sergarr]

http://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-resurrects-the-kgb-moscow-security/

It's like Soviet Russia never went away and it kind of sounds like it'll be worse than it's previous incarnation.

Well fuck.

I remember watching something that talked about how if we can just go for a century without a major war, we'll probably have pulled off large-scale peace and shit.

Stop pushing towards WW3, Putin, I want to believe it doesn't have to be inevitable

First of all, this "large-scale peace" is impossible as long as Africa and Middle East exist. They won't be peaceful, ever. It'd take a massive series of genocides to make them peaceful.

Second, WW3 is inevitable by definition. It can take more than a thousand years, but some day it will happen. Unless humanity gets wiped out before it happens due to some natural cataclysm.

...So, US is more likely to start WW3...while Russia takes over Crimea, has invaded Georgia essentially specifically for territorial gains, and the US is pulling out of the middle east

Sounds legit.

After all, there have never been war crimes under Putin. Certainly not. Those were all domestic citizens, you can't commit warcrimes against traitors

I'm looking on a map and, as hard as I look, I don't see Russian territorial gains in Georgia that weren't de-facto already there before that "invasion".

Also, USA is pulling out of Middle East so hard that there are airstrikes every few days and USA spec ops team are being embedded within FSA ranks. Combined with Kerry going all "terrorists will hit Russian cities" and threatening to suspend talks on Syria, with growing attempts towards establishing a de-facto no-fly zone in Syria...

Well, my current pessimistic expectations are that, within the next year or two, we're going to have direct clashes between Syrian government forces & Russian air support vs FSA & USA spec ops with Coalition air support, which will quite probably result in a declaration and an attempt to enforce a no-fly zone over the entirety of Syria, which is almost immediately followed by a direct confrontation between Russian and Coalition air forces, potentially starting off a conventional phase of a WW3.

[WealthyRadish]

Well, my current pessimistic expectations are that, within the next year or two, we're going to have direct clashes between Syrian government forces & Russian air support vs FSA & USA spec ops with Coalition air support, which will quite probably result in a declaration and an attempt to enforce a no-fly zone over the entirety of Syria, which is almost immediately followed by a direct confrontation between Russian and Coalition air forces, potentially starting off a conventional phase of a WW3.

Syria isn't important enough, a war between Russia and the US could only start under those circumstances if both sides wanted it (or one side really wanted it). Even if the US military shot down a Russian plane in broad daylight, one of the governments would need to be willing to declare war for anything to come of it, and I think that's extremely unlikely.

Sticking to the anti-Assad stance is more a matter of embarrassment for the US, and in that respect Russia is on track to inflict a minor humiliation out of this. Assad just happened to be on the US government's shitlist for harboring anti-Israel terrorists, him gassing civilians and committing other atrocities would be forgotten very quickly if he does end up pulling through this.

[Loud Whispers]

Shit's fucked
If we WWIII soon, it has been an honour posting here mateys
In all likelihood though, WWIII will be forecasted for tomorrow's world

[Strife26]

As for the My Lai massacre, that is presented as a "one off" but there's good evidence it was part of a widespread thing that was tacitly approved of by senior command as a way of destabilizing the rebellion by attacking civilians.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/one-my-lai-a-month_b_6037482

"One My Lai a month" sounds pretty bad by itself. That's the equivalent of 12 My Lai massacres a year! And we only hear about one of them! But then you read the original statement by the soldier who leaked it:

"A batalion [sic] would kill maybe 15 to 20 [civilians] a day. With 4 batalions in the brigade that would be maybe 40 to 50 a day or 1200 to 1500 a month, easy. If I am only 10% right, and believe me it's lots more, then I am trying to tell you about 120-150 murders, or a My Lay [sic] each month for over a year."

So "one My Lai a month" is per-brigade and assumes 10% active time. There were 11 active divisions in Vietnam, and divisions are generally 3+ brigades. Assuming 150 civilian murders a day by US troops in Vietnam at the peak is no stretch of the imagination.

But what about the assumption of all the active divisions that never went to Vietnam? Or the non-US divisions? And all the national guard and state guard formations? Veterans groups? Navy personnel?

I estimate, conservatively, that the US military murdered approximately 9,000 civilians per day throughout the course of the Cold War. This could be as high as 1.8 billion (everyone on earth) total, but it's difficult to know for sure with numbers pulled out of someone's ass and extrapolated with no sense of reason or understanding of the Vietnam War.

[Rolepgeek]

Vietnam was pretty bad, but as far as I think anyone is aware, the rate of civilian casualties in Afghanistan caused by US involvement directly is several orders of magnitude different (still not great, mind you). But of course, it depends greatly on your definition of civilian, and if one thinks that involvement there is necessary to prevent further destabilization (knocking out a pillar so you can replace it with your own will destabilize a structure; pulling that pillar out without having built one nearby will destabilize it more).


But yes, dehumanization (or at least lots of drilling) is very important if you want someone to kill someone else without being in a close-up knife-or-death situation. Artillery gets the advantage there by not seeing who they're shooting at. Infantrymen can be drilled to shoot to kill even in high tension situations (your midbrain (the part that takes over in high-stress situations like combat) usually really dislikes killing it's own species unless it thinks it's in personal danger of being killed at that instant, but training can compensate). Vietnam is the worst, not the typical.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Mass civilian casualties are the consequence of all forms of warfare. We in the modern era simply believe we should be exempt from this, because we're conceited.

[Culise]

Mass civilian casualties are the consequence of all forms of warfare. We in the modern era simply believe we should be exempt from this, because we're conceited.

Rather, because we've come to think of death in general as something to be avoided rather than a notional fact of life, except where it is to be deliberately and specifically targeted.  Death as an incidental side-effect is viewed as immoral from a moral perspective, or from a pragmatic one, wasteful.  It may be a conceit, but I do not believe it a matter of being conceited to hold such an ideal.

[Loud Whispers]

Rather, because we've come to think of death in general as something to be avoided rather than a notional fact of life, except where it is to be deliberately and specifically targeted.  Death as an incidental side-effect is viewed as immoral from a moral perspective, or from a pragmatic one, wasteful.  It may be a conceit, but I do not believe it a matter of being conceited to hold such an ideal.

Though it does get rather annoying when you deal with coddled adults who don't have any comprehension of death and the certainty in which death comes for them

[Sheb]

I'm looking on a map and, as hard as I look, I don't see Russian territorial gains in Georgia that weren't de-facto already there before that "invasion".

Your map ain't precise enough. South Ossetia used to be about 40-50% Georgian controlled, with a mix of small villages. The Georgians were ethnically cleansed and it's now 100% Georgian-free.

As for the Abkhaz, there also was some minor territorial gain. I still got a t-shirt my dad brought me in 2007 from the NATO information center in the Kodori gorge. That's not a thing anymore.