Russian-Ukrainian war

[MutantScalper]

I actually meant media in general. Don't know why i wrote social media.

Ok fair enough. Although it does seem that social media is playing a fairly big part in this conflict, with 'activists' from both sides trying to flood the media and net with their slant on the events.

As far as i know we already have some kind of military collaboration with Sweden, at least as far as joint military exercises and air defense go. And i hope it goes beyond that, meaning tighter trade and energetic relationships, because kgb agent P knows really well, the value of divide and conquer.

I wonder how is Finlands defense these days? Could you still wage a guerrilla type of warfare like you did in the winter war with stalin?

Well we have a big reserve that we rely on, and more artillery then UK. Could we fight a guerilla war? Yes I suppose so. Although with most young guys these days more interested in cpu and console games then exercise and work outside, it's a bit uncertain.

I'd say that fighting a winter time war against Finnish troops in Lapland which is in the north of Finland is difficult for any country due to harsh climate and tough conditions. Then again, the invader might be happy with taking over the capital and the big cities in the south.

See, i think that's the type of stuff that putin wants everybody to believe. Here you have a huge country super rich in natural resources and despite the fact that they live better than they did in drunkards rule, as far as life quality index goes, they are far bellow even my country for god's sake. We have Russian business fleeing to baltic countries because of all the corruption in Russia. Could anyone really do that much worse than that?

Well there are folks like Zhirinovski who have quite a bit of support and power in Russia. His comments make Putin look like the better option. As for a clearly better option and a better 'vision' for Russia, can't think of any. I'm sure there are some in the smaller parties like the Russian green party etc.

 

[SnapSlav]

If you deny anthropogenic global warming, you're denying facts. The amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses pumped by us into the environment has accelerated natural climate change far beyond what would normally occur.

And that is denying a great many facts, not the least of which is the PROPORTION of greenhouse gas that exists naturally, versus what is man-made. The numbers change, but they've hovered around 2% man-made greenhouse gases and 98% naturally-occurring greenhouse gases. Even with the massive population booms over the last few centuries, those numbers have barely moved at all. Volcanic activity and natural decay of organic material makes up the insurmountable majority of CO2 emissions. Also when you factor in that CO2 is "the currency for life" (as many non-partisan scientists, such as Patrick Moore, would tell you, and any high school biology text book would reaffirm) and that global climates have varied FAR more drastically over the past thousand years, you start to recognize the importance of context when you wave around numbers. If you take away the context, they start to seem very alarming, when put into context they're completely benign.

That mankind HAS an impact should be a given, but the degree to which is what's cast into doubt, and what has been absurdly exaggerated with said exaggerations taken advantage of by interest groups. Sadly, how simple the discussion really is has been totally eclipsed by the political parties trying to manipulate public opinion, hence how we get groups of people saying "It's all our fault" and others saying "It doesn't even exist!". It's not so much a question of "when 2 people are at odds, one must be wrong" as much as that both are tragically being misled.

 

[Crni Vuk]

So the Ukraine hasn't been liberated by Russia yet? Its been pretty quiet here. Just like I thought. A few weeks of "crying" and "bitching" and its back to day-to-day buisness. Neither do you hear anything about the Ukraine anymore nor do the people here (Germany) care about it. Not really a surprise ... I hate the western media so much.
@SnapSlav.
Who cares if we are the cause for this Co2 or not, since we have to get away from it either way.

 

[SnapSlav]

@SnapSlav.
Who cares if we are the cause for this Co2 or not, since we have to get away from it either way.

Did you miss the "currency for life" part?

But to answer your question more directly, you're treating it as if it's still some impending doom. Like I said, when you take away the context of the figures, then those figures seem alarming, but in context they're mundane. Ice caps melting, out of context, sounds very dangerous, and when you pair that mental image with the mental image of lands flooding (which is happening RIGHT NOW, by the way) out of context, then put together it sounds like it's definitely a deadly problem, and blown up to a global scale this becomes a world-ending problem. But if you put those melting glaciers into the context of, "yes, they're melting, it happens every Spring," then suddenly you realize this is a natural, cyclically repeating process, and we're all still here. Alive. Alive but still scared shitless that we're going to die tomorrow- a perfectly natural, if totally irrational, fear. I'm simply advocating approaching thins rationally.

A melted glacier one year is replaced by a newly frozen one another year. Large satellite photos of receding ice from one period of time ignores another set of photos of the same location having grown MORE ice at another time- all of these times recent. It's not a matter of "we have to get away from [the CO2]" as much as NO WE DON'T. It's alarming thinking that makes people arrive to these conclusions, and this alarming thinking only results in bad decision making. Yes, humans don't breathe high concentrations of CO2; except there is no shortage of Oxygen in our atmosphere, so there's no worry for that. Yes, changes in climate gives rise to deadly weather conditions that DO kill human beings, such as typhoons, droughts, floods, and so on; but those have been unavoidable across all of human history, so why start figuring that we have any power over that now? It's remarkable hubris combined with stellar ignorance, and that's the point of caring about the cause: If you pay any amount of attention, you're trying not to be so arrogant and stupid.

Again, let's just be rational about things, not clouded by primitive fear responses.

 

[Tagaziel]

And that is denying a great many facts, not the least of which is the PROPORTION of greenhouse gas that exists naturally, versus what is man-made. The numbers change, but they've hovered around 2% man-made greenhouse gases and 98% naturally-occurring greenhouse gases. Even with the massive population booms over the last few centuries, those numbers have barely moved at all. Volcanic activity and natural decay of organic material makes up the insurmountable majority of CO2 emissions. Also when you factor in that CO2 is "the currency for life" (as many non-partisan scientists, such as Patrick Moore, would tell you, and any high school biology text book would reaffirm) and that global climates have varied FAR more drastically over the past thousand years, you start to recognize the importance of context when you wave around numbers. If you take away the context, they start to seem very alarming, when put into context they're completely benign.

That mankind HAS an impact should be a given, but the degree to which is what's cast into doubt, and what has been absurdly exaggerated with said exaggerations taken advantage of by interest groups. Sadly, how simple the discussion really is has been totally eclipsed by the political parties trying to manipulate public opinion, hence how we get groups of people saying "It's all our fault" and others saying "It doesn't even exist!". It's not so much a question of "when 2 people are at odds, one must be wrong" as much as that both are tragically being misled.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism

These two links above should help debunk any claim you have, particularly the "Oh, anthropogenic CO2 is just 2%" one. As you said it yourself, context is necessary.

 

[SnapSlav]

These two links above should help debunk any claim you have, particularly the "Oh, anthropogenic CO2 is just 2%" one. As you said it yourself, context is necessary.

Yes, Context is important.* "It's the whole, or it's nothing."

* Citing partisan articles (from wikipedia, no less) that side with you isn't very contextual. Citing testimony that you disagree with because of their veracity, by contrast, at least demonstrates an acceptance of dissenting approaches.

. . . . .

Now, to stop deviating to discussions that have no place here (I was always bringing up those other matters as examples of political corruption, which IS pertinent to this subject) this topic is still called the "Russian-Ukrainian war" thread, and there's still no WAR. My very first contribution to this thread was asking that the topic name be changed because of how it undermines the complexity of the actual situation, much to the sarcastic chagrin of naysayers. I still hold that it's oversimplifying a far less cut-and-dry series of current events, and that the "advertisement" of that term is dangerous to the overall public approach, so can it be changed, please?

 

[zegh8578]

What do we call it then?
I agree to some extent, that this is not a war as we know wars, but

1. There is national army- and paramilitary groups involved
2. There has been lethal hostilities, with paramilitary and/or army groups (details unclear)
3. Territorial take-overs

It has been argued that this is just a new brand of war, a new kind of conquest. Yesterday Crimea was a region of Ukraine, today is has been conquered by Russia - and by no means of conventional war - but still soldiers marching in, and taking over rivals bases! So, it is not outright war - but it is definitely in the ball-park of war!

 

[SnapSlav]

What do we call it then?
I agree to some extent, that this is not a war as we know wars, but

1. There is national army- and paramilitary groups involved
2. There has been lethal hostilities, with paramilitary and/or army groups (details unclear)
3. Territorial take-overs

It has been argued that this is just a new brand of war, a new kind of conquest. Yesterday Crimea was a region of Ukraine, today is has been conquered by Russia - and by no means of conventional war - but still soldiers marching in, and taking over rivals bases! So, it is not outright war - but it is definitely in the ball-park of war!

Colloquially speaking, there's many pertinent reasons to use the term "war", not the least of which is how brief and simple it is to roll off the tongue. But the qualms I have with the term are not verbal or grammatical but ideological and subliminal. A word used to sway an opinion can be useful or dangerous, depending on its application. Growing up in the U.S. I've just seen too many instances of words (not speeches, not phrases, SINGLE words- "clever advertising" as it were) being used to terrifying effect in changing people's minds, and "war" is one of the most prevalent. The more you use it, the less consequential the concept it defines becomes, and the notion that the concept of WAR growing inconsequential is very dangerous.

As I mentioned before, it also introduces the subconscious premise into the minds of readers that the situation was always a war, so hypothetically if all-out war did indeed break out, then nobody would care because subconsciously they've already accepted the idea from the very beginning, vis-a-vis the title, that it was already a war. Whether the conflict escalates into the "ballpark" of more easily definable war or not (and I sincerely doubt that it will), that's not where the situation stands right now, so I'm just arguing that it's prudent to approach it for what it is, which is not a war. Doing so allows comers to the debate to approach it with less of an expectancy for something in particular, and the few predetermined premises there are in circulation, the better the discussion.

That's to say nothing of the absolutely rampant misuse of the word, like "War on Terror" (what an oxymoronic contradiction), "War on Drugs", and so on. But that's a separate discussion...

so can it be changed, please?

This is getting pretty ridiculous, just make your own thread with any title you wish - problem solved.

Nobody cares about your bitching, least of all me.

 

[Crni Vuk]

What do we call it then?
I agree to some extent, that this is not a war as we know wars, but

1. There is national army- and paramilitary groups involved
2. There has been lethal hostilities, with paramilitary and/or army groups (details unclear)
3. Territorial take-overs

It has been argued that this is just a new brand of war, a new kind of conquest. Yesterday Crimea was a region of Ukraine, today is has been conquered by Russia - and by no means of conventional war - but still soldiers marching in, and taking over rivals bases! So, it is not outright war - but it is definitely in the ball-park of war!

its what I would call "protecting your interests" or "gaining colonies". Its a conflict, not a full war, because both sides, the Ukraine and Russia know that a war between them would take 5 minutes. At best. Russia saw some oportunity here where they could gain a lot with minimal effort (in terms of military actions).

Curious how things would be today if the Ukraine didnt gave up on their nuclear arsenal in the past.

 

[naossano]

Then, we are sending soldiers in multiple african countries, but when something happen in Europa, there nothing but verbal complain agains't Russia.

 

[Crni Vuk]

^This.

What happens in the Ukraine is a tragedy. No doubts about that. But if people really see that as "war" compared to what a typical war is, you know Afghanistan (1980s), Vietnam, Iran-Iraq, WW2 etc. then what happens in the Ukraine is not more then a small conflict. People die all the time in the shit holes of this world. Of course for someone in the Ukraine this must be like a war. But if you ask Putin, he might not see it like that, and I tend to agree that its not really a "war", you would see a much different Situation if the Russians SERIOUSLY wanted to wage a war here against the Ukraine as whole.

In my opinion, what the Russians do here is nothing more then to secure their colonies. A war between the Ukraine and the Russians would be equal to a child stopming some ants. I know someone from the Ukriane doesnt like to hear that, but its the reality. They have neither the men nor the resources to be of a real military threat to the Russians.

 

[naossano]

Especially without international support, which isn't currently enough to protect them.
Fighting agains't Russia is like fighting agains't multiple countries at once. You don't do this alone.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It shocks me still, that people think this is somehow ok, not good, but not that big a deal. It's not like ukraine is some dictatorship or some fucked up country where people are gassed. It was a country with problems, but not unlike the rest of europe, or russia itself, and now they are being taken over by russia infront of the whole world - a peaceful european country... Yeah ok, it's not a war, let's call it something fuzzy, so we could feel better about ourselves.

now, com on I think that many people believe what happens in the Ukraine is wrong. I definitely do believe that the Russians have neither any rights to be there nor any real claim, If the choice would be mine, I would rather see them leave the Ukraine alone. But what does that change? Dont blow the Ukraine to some proportions it simply isnt. They are neighbours to the Russians, and this is ... difficult. Ask the Fins, they can tell you a thing or two about it. The sad fact is that the Ukraine is not in the range of sphere of influence for the european Union and it simply has become now obvious. The western politicals HAVE to react, so they dont look that hypocritical, but what you hear is only talking, nothing else. And you will never hear or see anything more, because no one over here is going to send Soldiers over there, eventually to fight Russians and creating a shit load of tensions for the Ukraine. That's simply the reality. Neither would you see the Russians rushing to the aid of Iran for example if the US starts to push them around a little.

If the Ukraine would have any kind of value for the US or Europe, then you would never see the Russians doing anything serious down there. In all their pride and propaganda the Russian leadership is not stupid, they understand very well that they can not exist without the US and the European Union because they depend on them so much on a global scale, Europe is the main customer for Russian gas we depend on them but they also need us, but if they stop supporting, Europe can always fall back on the US when the chips are down.

As a serbian, I feel for the Ukraine, I really do. I dont hate Russia, but I know what its like when a power simply decides that you need some lesson. Its always the common people that suffer, the small people, the poor. Those that are innocent. Neither the Russian politicans or the one in Ukraine have to really move out and do something. And neither did the politicans or generals in Serbia. But ... well. All you can do is to move on. I would not be surprised actually if the fate of the Ukraine was already sealed months ago, if not even much sooner, because someone in the US told someone in Russia that they can do what they want with the Ukraine or that they can go so far and do this and that, with a bit of outrage in the western media. Happens all the time.

 

[34thcell]

Ukrainian military is especially shit. Keep in mind Russian soldiers deployed there are probably specialists and Chechnya veterans.

 

[Crni Vuk]

who was stabbed in the heart because of a tattoo. People are killed for shit reasons everyday now. How is this so much different in scale, from afghanistan?

Because you are comparing apples and oranges here. Show me the pictures of MASSES(!) like BRIGADES of paratroopers deployed in the central cities of the nation, regular military personal partroling the borders, whole tank formations cruising around the landscape, spetnatz units operating behind enemy lines. Show me those in the Ukraine. Did you forget that Afghanistan was completely occupied (well almost, at least all key cities), by the Soviet military who comminted all kinds of atrocities agains the Afghan population?

It was simply a war. What you have in the Ukraine is not comparable at least from the SCALE. When 100 000 regular military personal are crossing your borders completely anhilitating the Ukraine with carpet bomging, then we can talk again. This might happen at some point. Who knows what will be tomorrow, or in 1 month or 1 year. But for now, what you have in the Ukraine is not a war scenario as we saw it with no clue Vietnam for example.

And please, if you try to argue about it (which is alright) then don't show me some totally insubstantional pictures of dead people that tell me exactly nothing and links to articles in languages that I cant even read. I do not want to attack you, if you're very close to the Ukraine, then I understand your position, but you are blowing this totally out of proportions. So far I am not seeing half a million Russian soldiers marching over your borders. Talking about a "war" scenario here in the traditional sense is a bit ... well, its simply wrong in my opinion, we all understand that its really a very bad situation for the Ukraine and for THEM it might feel like a war. But if Russia would be seriously in war with the Ukraine determined to crush any kind of resitance, then it all would look a bit different, and it would be a war that lasted 5 min.

 

[Crni Vuk]

You are talking about nuclear holocaust, genocide, annihilation levels here! By that scrutiny, history of warfare would be a pretty short one and Crni man, i wouldn't want to live in your view of the future, if this is what it takes to be a war,

Yeah well, thats simply because what happens in the Ukraine right now ... isnt a war.

Vietnam was a war for example. Do you think the Ukraine is like Vietnam? That the Russians do the same down there right now? If you do (who knows, we dont hear everything here!), then show me some evidence. Its just that from what I see so far in the media, then I would say the Ukraine is a nation on the BRINK of a civil-war, sure, a place with a lot of tensions. But a real war? Like lets say the Soviets did in Afghanistan (1980s)? Nope.

If everybody would keep their heads nodding in harmony with the saying "they are protecting their interests", 10-20 years from now we might be facing the shadow of big brother watching over us. So when it comes to wars and deaths i think nothing is blowing out of proportion.,

I never said that its "alright". Do you love to ignore the part where I said, that I would make the Russians leave the Ukraine alone if I had the power to do it? Its a sad situation for the Ukraine right now, as a Serbian I feel with you, I really do. I believe the Ukraine should have the freedom to deal with their INNER problems by them self without any influence either by the west or Russia. But thats simply not the reality. When I talked about interests then I was arguing from a Russian point of view, even if I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM, I understand their reasoning. The Russians (their leadership at least) has definitely a totally different view about the situation in the Ukraine like the leadership in The Ukraine has. Thats pretty much obvious. Even if you see the Russians as your enemy, you should still try to understand them. Doesnt mean you have to accept it.

 

[zegh8578]

I think Russian and Ukrainian leadership see the exact same situation, just that one of them also sees an oportunity for conquest they simply cannot let by.

Wether or not this is outright "war", per definition, it is a territorial take-over. Which is a conquest. And it is definitely hostile.
Russians have been dick-swinging a lot lately, and none of it is good. Finland has been outright mentioned, not in official matters, but still mentioned as something to re-take. That's not nice AT ALL. One Russian official of some sort mentioned that Norway has seen too much peace lately. These mentions are on sites like Twitter and whatnot, but still, thanks for the inclusive mention Russian official-of-some-sort. I hope you were drunk!

Whatever they are up to, it is most definitely war-mongering.

 

[Orzie]

Aw damn. It's discussed everywhere.

 

[zegh8578]

Aw damn. It's discussed everywhere.

Russia is in the good company of U-S-A now! Now all they have to do is make a lot of TV-series, movies and computer games about the validity of their military quest!

 

[SnapSlav]

I never said that its "alright". Do you love to ignore the part where I said, that I would make the Russians leave the Ukraine alone if I had the power to do it? Its a sad situation for the Ukraine right now, as a Serbian I feel with you, I really do. I believe the Ukraine should have the freedom to deal with their INNER problems by them self without any influence either by the west or Russia. But thats simply not the reality. When I talked about interests then I was arguing from a Russian point of view, even if I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM, I understand their reasoning. The Russians (their leadership at least) has definitely a totally different view about the situation in the Ukraine like the leadership in The Ukraine has. Thats pretty much obvious. Even if you see the Russians as your enemy, you should still try to understand them. Doesnt mean you have to accept it.

I'm not sure why you'd "feel with him", since he doesn't even live in the Ukraine (unless his profile info is out of date). He's just been objecting vehemently every chance he's got in a manner that SOUNDS like he's affected by the situation... but he's not. Maybe he's got family there that causes an indirect effect, like it was with me during the Balkan Civil Wars (but mostly the NATO bombing of Beograd in '99), but really it just seems that he's being very vocal. And that's fine, us slavs are typically predisposed to opining about global political matters. =) However from what I've seen of his comments, none of them appeared to be personal, just very "outgoing" of him. I believe it would be the equivalent of my being hypothetically concerned with what happens to Greece; I have no stake in such a matter, and practically zero family to be concerned over, but I'd care out of natural human empathy and my own sense of morality.

Yeah well, thats simply because what happens in the Ukraine right now ... isnt a war.

Vietnam was a war for example. Do you think the Ukraine is like Vietnam? That the Russians do the same down there right now? If you do (who knows, we dont hear everything here!), then show me some evidence. Its just that from what I see so far in the media, then I would say the Ukraine is a nation on the BRINK of a civil-war, sure, a place with a lot of tensions. But a real war? Like lets say the Soviets did in Afghanistan (1980s)? Nope.

I think Russian and Ukrainian leadership see the exact same situation, just that one of them also sees an oportunity for conquest they simply cannot let by.

Wether or not this is outright "war", per definition, it is a territorial take-over. Which is a conquest. And it is definitely hostile.
Russians have been dick-swinging a lot lately, and none of it is good. Finland has been outright mentioned, not in official matters, but still mentioned as something to re-take. That's not nice AT ALL. One Russian official of some sort mentioned that Norway has seen too much peace lately. These mentions are on sites like Twitter and whatnot, but still, thanks for the inclusive mention Russian official-of-some-sort. I hope you were drunk!

Whatever they are up to, it is most definitely war-mongering.

No, it really isn't. There is no war. It's not bordering on war. Russia is not the U.S.A. with interests in sparking up wars in nations FAR REMOVED from them; these are their borders we're talking about. They have a vested interest in keeping them OUT of wars, regardless of how "swiftly" they might be capable of quelling such matters. It's not a hostile takeover or a conquest, at worst it's annexation. You might argue that I'm splitting hairs, but as I've mentioned before (and as I indicate in my sig) there's a good reason that there are different words for concepts that seem alike: they're different. There's no civil war, and thanks to Russia it doesn't looks like it will move towards a civil war, but there are hostilities and there's been plenty of rioting. Getting the proper terminology down is vital, cause as I've pointed out before, when you enter in the wrong terms, you inundate bystanders to a concept that subliminally "prepares" them for that inescapable eventuality that you've artificially introduced via discourse. If it never happens, then they either don't care or exhibit mild surprise. If it ever does come to that, they simply roll over and accept it because "it was always that way, wasn't it?" If we recklessly toss around terms such as "civil war" and "conquest" in simple discussion, things we should NOT be encouraging, we're preparing anyone who participates in the discussion to expect it, rather than oppose it. That's a crucial misstep that should be avoided.

If you want to look at the situation from every possible angle, be it "the corruption that's the truth of the matter" or "the naive idealism about 'why this is the right thing to do' regarding the matter", then you could argue that Russia has been intervening in a series of violent riots to protect an ethnic population that it recognizes (a sentiment that is reciprocated) as its own citizens, and yet in doing so is able to secure territory that provides it a valuable tactical military base. Clearly one of the notions sounds just and benevolent, while the other sounds opportunistic and unconcerned with the well-being of its neighbors. If you're not making the decisions, you can't say which is which, though you can clearly speculate what the case may be through prudent observation. Whatever the case may be, Ukraine has been a mess LONG before Russia moved into Crimea, and it's arguable that Russia's presence hasn't helped. The key word being "arguable". I for one believe that Russia has the best interest of its neighbors at heart, NOT because of some naive fair tale notion that they're purveyors of justice, but because a secure and peaceful Ukraine means a quiet and safe Russian border, and wars cost money. Maybe that sounds nasty, but the cold hard truth is that's how the world works. Not silly day dreams of morality, but what's best for your own interests.