Shadow of the President Prevents Air Travel

[SuAside]

Oh come on, it's all in good fun...

Nature even provided you a spare copy of your president, so what are you worried about anyway?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Totally! Russia's just poised and cackling to take over. It's not like they are just now recovering from 20 years of problems of political decentralization and the ensuing political and economic weakness, or that they have a lot more immediate concerns than expansions. Nah, they're big and bad and evil, they must be dying to invade their neighbours!

I guess most people forget that Russia as nation just suffered under the SU just like many of the other nations.

Russia was part of the SU but Russia was not "the" SU.

 

[Silencer]

Wow, that stings. I realize it's satire, but isn't it almost libelous to attribute that to two world leaders?

I bet they were just taking about east and west part of the North Pipeline construction site.

Nature even provided you a spare copy of your president, so what are you worried about anyway?

I think it's broken.

 

[iii]

Wow, that stings. I realize it's satire, but isn't it almost libelous to attribute that to two world leaders?

Titanic is ridiculously political incorrect...

A couple of months a well known an loved soccer player killed himself (he had a very tragic family history, depressions)...

Titanic put this on their title page:

Loved by all but still lonely

DEPRESSIONS

When VIPs break on the pressure to perform

 

[Silencer]

LMAO

Although Hitler's case was more of a denial than depression, per this acclaimed documentary:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv0yhLx6Kds&feature=related[/youtube]

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Oh totally! Let's ignore the fact that it's not Russia but the SU acting there, and also ignore how the SU wasn't yet dissolved during the January Events!

Judging by the number of KGB aparatchiks currently occupying positions of power, I'd say modern-day Russia is a lot more similar to Soviet Union than most people realize.

Nah, they're big and bad and evil, they must be dying to invade their neighbours!

You can take a man out of KGB, but you can't take KGB out of the man. No amount of rebranding will make honest, trustworthy people out of amoral sociopaths.

 

[Brother None]

You're...joking, right, Ratty?

 

[Crni Vuk]

LMAO

Although Hitler's case was more of a denial than depression, per this acclaimed documentary:

Depends about what kind of depression we are talking about. It is believed by some historians that Hitler might have been a Bipolar Depressive personality with manic and depressive stages.

 

[CloudlessDruid]

Hitler is the personification the DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) according to LOTS of people.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

You're...joking, right, Ratty?

Absolutely not. You may have been deceived by their reformist facade, but I know what chekists are like. Staunch soldiers of the State, indoctrinated into serving the State and its Bolshevik ideology with unwavering loyalty. Violence, oppression and deception are their way, and they can never change their ways. They cannot, because they were morally deficient before they became chekists, because nobody would willingly become part of something so depraved unless they suffered from some serious personality disorder.

This clique is in control of Russia. Beside Putin as the most powerful and prominent figure, there are tens of thousands of other former KGB officers and operatives now occupying positions of power in Russia. FSB is nowadays by far the country's most powerful organization, and it is run by the same people and operates on the same principles as it did back when it was still called KGB.

For these reasons, it is not unreasonable to examine any Russian foreign policy move as aimed at restoration of the Soviet Union - or rather, reassertion of Russian hegemony over former Soviet republics. Subterfuge, expansionism, revanchism and military aggression are the modus operandi of chekists, and they now hold the levers of power in Russia, perhaps even more than they did in the Soviet Union. With that in mind, any nation that has lived under the Soviet boot has every cause to be wary.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Yeah, look how they attacked the country after Georgia started bombing neutral zones and Russian government buildings in autonomous regions in an attempt of "national reunification". So evil.

Yeah, because Medvedev's account of the war is what really happened there. Russia has no business in South Ossetia, and the war wasn't quite the war of retaliation and liberation of the poor national minorities that it was supposed to be presented as. I also loved the Russian news reports - staged "journalism" at its finest.

 

[Silencer]

Damn, Ratty. You're wasting your talents, you could easily make an MP in Poljska.

 

[Brother None]

Yeah, because Medvedev's account of the war is what really happened there.

Medvedev's account? I didn't know he made an account.

Russia has no business in South Ossetia,

Right. Because the occupation of South Ossetia didn't follow an attempted genocide by Georgian forces in the early 90s, and together with Abkhazia wasn't sanctioned and monitored by international institutions from the EU and NATO. Oh wait, yes it was.

Yand the war wasn't quite the war of retaliation and liberation of the poor national minorities that it was supposed to be presented as.

Liberation? There was no liberation of poor national minorities. By anyone who follows CIS politics knew this war was coming the moment Saakashvili was elected. He's not an ally you can trust in, being unreliable on several points the US was never happy with, including his national reunification rhetoric.

The only reason Abkhazia and South Ossetia are even a part of Georgia is due to lines kept from the fall of the SU. Borderlines that make no sense, but no one dares tamper with them. That gives the Georgia the right to invade areas held by CIS missions because....?

A good impression of a paranoid Russophobe.

Amusing, but I'm not falling for it. Troll better next time.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

So Georgia invaded areas held by CIS missions? From where I stand, it looked like Russia invading parts of Georgia. Whether someone thinks the borderlines make sense or not, that's not something that should be done. If there's a problem, let the UN get involved, there's no reason for Russia to take the initiative. They have no right, legal or moral.

There was no liberation of poor national minorities.

That's not what the Russian media was saying at the time, nor what Medvedev was saying. "News reports" of special forces wearing white gloves, heroes liberating the oppressed minorities who proceed to cry the tears of joy on screen, just like a Hollywood flick. Then change the channel to a different country's news report (be it Ukrainian Channel 5 or BBC) and get an almost opposite report. Damn straight there was no liberation, it was an act of aggression by Russia that they tried to cover up with flowery rhetoric, as usual.

Medvedev's account?

He gave a speech about it during the time, iirc, (or a few official statements on TV or w/e) but I forget the details. Was something along the lines of what you said, which made me chuckle. He also accused our gov't of making a secret deal to sell Georgia weapons to fight Russia, which was just full of shit.

As for Saakashvili, I can't really blame him. At least he tried to do something. Georgia was and is a mess, with the so-called autonomous regions basically not answering to the capital. So OK, he made some poor decisions which we could in hindsight speculate to be the reason of the conflict. So what business does the Russian Army have there, again? They only left the place a bigger mess than it was before the war.

 

[Loxley]

. If there's a problem, let the UN get involved, there's no reason for Russia to take the initiative. They have no right, legal or moral.

Actually if someone is about to initiate a genocide I think they would have a very legal and moral reason to intervene. Also. UN intervention in the early nineties? Considering how the UN fucked upp back then. I think it is good that russia did what they did.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

A good impression of a paranoid Russophobe.

Amusing, but I'm not falling for it. Troll better next time.

It isn't Russophobia, but spook-o-phobia. A healthy democracy cannot be built in a post-communist country as long as former members of the Party's intelligence apparatus wield political and economic power. We have the same problem here in Croatia, except secret services in former Yugoslavia were not nearly as mastodontic or influential as KGB. Nonetheless, many figures in Croatian political and economic life are known to have been operatives and informers for UDBA and KOS, and they are without exception self-serving despots completely devoid of morals. Now compare that with Russia, where as many as three quarters of all functionaries in federal and state administrations are believed to have affiliations with the security apparatus. Not very reassuring for anyone who understands what kind of a moral miscreant the average chekist is.

 

[Brother None]

So Georgia invaded areas held by CIS missions?

The war started when Georgia invaded South Ossetia, yes. The Russian mission in South Ossetia has always been a CIS mission, from 1992 onwards, sanctioned by different internetional institutions (but not the UN, for obvious reasons). The original 1991-1992 conflict was definitely internationally sanctioned, since it was pretty obvious Georgia was just looking to ethnically purge Abkhazia and South-Ossetia.

One of the first buildings to go in Tskhinvali was the HQ of the Russian/CIS peacekeeping mission

That's an act of war.

From where I stand, it looked like Russia invading parts of Georgia.

They did, in retaliation. That was foolishness, as were the rumblings in Abkhazia. But the first strike was Georgia's. The country claims to have been baited into attacking by Russia, and that's not impossible, it was certainly quickly accepted as a reason by Western media, but in the meantime Saakashvili's warmongering rhetoric of national reunification makes the other theory at least as likely.

Regardless, the interesting thing is that there's no doubt that the sequence of events saw Georgia strike first. And as you'd no doubt say, they have no right, legal or moral.

That's not what the Russian media was saying at the time.

*shrugs* I care not what the Russian media choses to highlight, any more than I care for the way Western media twisted the facts.

As for Saakashvili, I can't really blame him.

You're hilarious. You get all upset and chuckly about Medvedev and his rhetoric, yet somehow when Saakashvili bombastically spouts war-rhetoric of "national reunification", bringing back to the minds of Ossetians and Abkhazians the events of '91, and ends up starting a war in his megalomaniac attempt to distract from internal problems, you can't really blame him.

Funny thing is he seems to think his allies would bail his ass regardless. He's a dangerous powder keg in an unstable region, and the US would be wise to reconsider if it's worth is. But it's kind of too late for that, since the Georgian conflict already redrew a lot of political maps.

Now compare that with Russia, where as many as three quarters of all functionaries in federal and state administrations are believed to have affiliations with the security apparatus. Not very reassuring for anyone who understands what kind of a moral miscreant the average chekist is.

I'm still kind of assuming you're kidding. Just in case you're serious: this kind of rhetoric is on Palin's level of political analysis. I can't really reply to it because it assumes something nonsensical of the bat: that the future of a country and its political future depends completely on the past of its intelligentsia. "Spook-ism" is the right word for it, it's not relevant political analysis, it's just meant to sound scary. And I bet it does. But it's not relevant.

Though no doubt your unique insight in the "Chekist" mind allows you insights not available to us misinformed masses. But allow me to simple consider it from a political angle; a country with a decade of terrible mismanagement and corruption swings the other way to over-centralization and de-democratization, worrying reforms of the electoral code and constitution, and general lack of checks and balances. What does the future hold? Dunno, but I'd never even try to analyze it based on "Chekist" rhetoric. That way demagogery lies.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

*shrugs* I care not what the Russian media choses to highlight, any more than I care for the way Western media twisted the facts.

Well, since the discussion came from the hypocrisy of the Russian gov't in the first place, I thought it relevant. As for the "facts", they're pretty obscure in this case. But I somehow doubt Georgia would decide to openly attack Russia out of its own volition. That's like Taiwan attacking Mainland China. Whatever one thinks of Saakashvili, the guy doesn't look like a complete idiot.

You're hilarious. You get all upset and chuckly about Medvedev and his rhetoric, yet somehow when Saakashvili bombastically spouts war-rhetoric of "national reunification",

Perhaps has something to do with Georgia being very unlikely to forcefully attempt to control us anytime soon. Well, I never claimed to be unbiased. Quite the opposite.

Funny thing is he seems to think his allies would bail his ass regardless. He's a dangerous powder keg in an unstable region, and the US would be wise to reconsider if it's worth is. But it's kind of too late for that, since the Georgian conflict already redrew a lot of political maps.

And do what, give Russia a green light for expansion? Or start a war of its own? Happy friendship b/w Russia and US isn't happening anytime soon, and neither is an open conflict.

Regardless, the interesting thing is that there's no doubt that the sequence of events saw Georgia strike first.

Naturally, well-played by Medvedev, there.


As for Ratty's stuff: while he's no doubt kidding around and exaggerating, the problem with former Soviet officials and apparatchiks holding positions of power in modern-day Russia is by no means invented. The "Checkist rhetoric" may be off, but the point is completely right. It just has little in relation to the topic at hand.

 

[Silencer]

It isn't Russophobia, but spook-o-phobia. A healthy democracy cannot be built in a post-communist country as long as former members of the Party's intelligence apparatus wield political and economic power. We have the same problem here in

...the entire post-Warsaw Pact bloc.

 

[iii]

*shrugs* I care not what the Russian media choses to highlight, any more than I care for the way Western media twisted the facts.

Well, since the discussion came from the hypocrisy of the Russian gov't in the first place, I thought it relevant. As for the "facts", they're pretty obscure in this case. But I somehow doubt Georgia would decide to openly attack Russia out of its own volition. That's like Taiwan attacking Mainland China. Whatever one thinks of Saakashvili, the guy doesn't look like a complete idiot.

http://www.ceiig.ch/Index.html

The commission found that all parties violated international law during the conflict. While the report acknowledged the presence of some non-peacekeeping Russian troops in South Ossetia, their presence did not justify the initial Georgian attack. The EU Report found that the Georgian actions were disproportionate as a response to low level attacks by South Ossetian forces. The EU Report didn't find enough evidence to support the Georgian claim of self-defense.[92]

The report also stated that "the use of force by Georgia against Russian peacekeeping forces in Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August 2008 was contrary to international law". The report said that "if the Russian peacekeepers were attacked," then "the immediate [Russian] reaction in defense of Russian peacekeepers" was justified, as "Russia had the right to defend her peacekeepers, using military means proportionate to the attack" (the report did not have facts to substantiate the claimed attack on the peacekeepers, but found it "likely" that Russian PKF casualties occurred). The later, second, part of Russian actions, is characterised as "the invasion of Georgia by Russian armed forces reaching far beyond the administrative boundary of South Ossetia", and is considered to be "beyond the reasonable limits of defence". With respect to the war's second theater, the report found the Abkhaz/Russian attack on the Kodori Gorge was not justified under international law.

“It was clear to me that the [Georgian] attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation,” he said. “The attack was clearly, in my mind, an indiscriminate attack on the town, as a town.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5114401.ece