|
|
On March 04 2014 03:45 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:40 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 03:39 Sub40APM wrote:What a surprise, the English prefer laundering Putin's money than defending an emerging democracy's borders. Nick Robinson Political editor tweets: BREAKING Government will not curb trade with Russia or close London's financial centre to Russians an official document reveal The EU response so far is deeply depressing. The EU knows, that in the long term one more bunker to defend a cheese and then turn it into a macrogame is the way to win, as superior player... Countercheesing can occasionally go horribly wrong. And the Russian economy is on a suicide mission against the EU...
Err.... the EU is opening with triple CC and there is a Bane bust...
They are hoping to talk their opponent down.
|
On March 04 2014 03:43 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:40 Saumure wrote:On March 04 2014 03:20 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 03:16 Saumure wrote:lol, do you really think Russia would invade Poland or something? Putin blocked the invasion of Syria (and what would have followed) and nobody finds it strange that another riot escalates next to russia immediatly after that?  Its all a Western plot, I knew it. Democracy always has such a dirty Western bias and must be prevented at all costs. Please, tell me more about how you brought democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia. How about Poland, Czehia, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia instead?
How many of those involved a military conflict?
There is not a single example of military intervention advancing democracy, and it was tried quite a few times in the last few decades
|
On March 04 2014 03:41 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:31 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 03:08 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 04 2014 03:03 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 03:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 04 2014 03:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 02:56 r.Evo wrote:
...lead America to where exactly this time? Also FYI you just called the NATO pointless. Read what I wrote again. Even if Ukraine was in NATO, no one in Europe would help (I meant Europeans). America isn't in Europe. NATO isn't pointless because of the United States. NATO works on the basis of consensus votes. Either everyone acts or no-one. I'm confident that the Baltic states and Poland would do everything to help, if not, they're next. NATO has never been tested to this degree. When the going gets tough, a lot of people bail out. Remember what happened to Poland in 1939. Let me quote the Anglo-Polish military alliance again, since people don't seem to understand how politics works: ... in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. Did "His Majesty's Government feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power"? They did absolutely nothing. So you're saying that nobody in the NATO would act, except america, based on something that happened 100 years ago when the NATO didn't even exist, when there were only a few countries involved and when a monarchy instead of a democracy ruled britain? Please stop posting ill-informed opinions as facts. You want recent history? Let's talk about Georgia. This idea that NATO will do something, is based on theory, based on the ideas on a piece of paper is ignorant. It isn't based on history. Regardless, Ukraine isn't in NATO. And Europe is dismissing this the same they dismissed Hitler's annexation of Czechoslovakia. They are talking about solving this through diplomacy. The NATO had no guarantees for protecting Georgia in case one of their military gambles misfires and they suddenly have to face the result of their own attacks. It was an georgian offensive, that attacked separatist AND Russian (UN) peacekeepers... Yeah, looks like Georgia wasn't the only ones with am army around the corner... Even though the buildup of the whole scenario was quite set up, still, it was Georgia who gambled... and lost. They had requested guarantees by the west before and did not get them... So thinking, if they present facts, they would suddenly get help... yeah... smart ones.
I didn't know Dmitry Medvedev had a TL account!
Thanks for explaining the conflict!
Or we can view the crisis without Russian propaganda:
"The crisis has been linked to the push for Georgia to receive a NATO Membership Action Plan and, indirectly, the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo.[2]"
|
David Chamberlain's government has already decided for the EU.
|
On March 04 2014 03:45 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:40 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 03:39 Sub40APM wrote:What a surprise, the English prefer laundering Putin's money than defending an emerging democracy's borders. Nick Robinson Political editor tweets: BREAKING Government will not curb trade with Russia or close London's financial centre to Russians an official document reveal The EU response so far is deeply depressing. The EU knows, that in the long term one more bunker to defend a cheese and then turn it into a macrogame is the way to win, as superior player... Countercheesing can occasionally go horribly wrong. And the Russian economy is on a suicide mission against the EU...
it doesnt sound like they are responding in any way economically either, if London doesnt close its money laundering to Russian elite class then there is no real pressure. Putin and his ilk dont care about the Russian stock market or Gazprom, their wealth is in the West nice and safe.
|
So like... Ukraine has a democratically elected government. People don't like what they are doing so they force them out.
EU sides with the rebels because it's in their interest.
Russia sides with the ex-Government because it's in their interest.
Rebels decide to oppress the Russian-leaning citizens. Russia steps in to protect them, the EU complains because Russia is protecting citizens from oppression at the hands of rebels who took power by force.
And so Russia are the bad guys.
2 sides to every story.
|
On March 04 2014 03:43 Sub40APM wrote:
How about Poland, Czehia, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia instead?
What about them?
On March 04 2014 03:43 Sub40APM wrote:
And however shitty it is, its still better than the one party, one tsar state built by Russians.
Why? any arguments or are you just going to hate on everything that is different? Do you know anything about what Putin did in the last decade or do you just read your anti russian paper and quote it here?
|
On March 04 2014 03:46 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:45 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 03:40 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 03:39 Sub40APM wrote:What a surprise, the English prefer laundering Putin's money than defending an emerging democracy's borders. Nick Robinson Political editor tweets: BREAKING Government will not curb trade with Russia or close London's financial centre to Russians an official document reveal The EU response so far is deeply depressing. The EU knows, that in the long term one more bunker to defend a cheese and then turn it into a macrogame is the way to win, as superior player... Countercheesing can occasionally go horribly wrong. And the Russian economy is on a suicide mission against the EU... Err.... the EU is opening with triple CC and there is a Bane bust... They are hoping to talk their opponent down.
We may have opened triple CC... but we are also 20 minutes into the game and quite alive and kicking.
|
|
|
Confirmed: Anyone leading Great Britain with the last name Chamberlain has no backbone.
|
Starting to see reports that assault on Ukrainian naval HQ has begun. They're saying that baseball bat wielding titushki, with Russian soldiers with machine-guns backing them up.
Can anyone tell me more about this site and if my google translate is wrong?
http://glavcom.ua/news/189682.html
|
On March 04 2014 03:47 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:43 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 03:40 Saumure wrote:On March 04 2014 03:20 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 03:16 Saumure wrote:lol, do you really think Russia would invade Poland or something? Putin blocked the invasion of Syria (and what would have followed) and nobody finds it strange that another riot escalates next to russia immediatly after that? Its all a Western plot, I knew it. Democracy always has such a dirty Western bias and must be prevented at all costs. Please, tell me more about how you brought democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia. How about Poland, Czehia, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia instead? How many of those involved a military conflict? There is not a single example of military intervention advancing democracy, and it was tried quite a few times in the last few decades
The American Revolution? Germany twice was forced to become a democracy at the point of the gun, Japan became a democracy after invasion, But yes, other than three of the biggest, richest democracies there have been no other successful interventions for democracy
|
On March 04 2014 03:31 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:08 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 04 2014 03:03 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 03:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 04 2014 03:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 02:56 r.Evo wrote:
...lead America to where exactly this time? Also FYI you just called the NATO pointless. Read what I wrote again. Even if Ukraine was in NATO, no one in Europe would help (I meant Europeans). America isn't in Europe. NATO isn't pointless because of the United States. NATO works on the basis of consensus votes. Either everyone acts or no-one. I'm confident that the Baltic states and Poland would do everything to help, if not, they're next. NATO has never been tested to this degree. When the going gets tough, a lot of people bail out. Remember what happened to Poland in 1939. Let me quote the Anglo-Polish military alliance again, since people don't seem to understand how politics works: ... in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. Did "His Majesty's Government feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power"? They did absolutely nothing. So you're saying that nobody in the NATO would act, except america, based on something that happened 100 years ago when the NATO didn't even exist, when there were only a few countries involved and when a monarchy instead of a democracy ruled britain? Please stop posting ill-informed opinions as facts. Speaking of ill-informed opinions as fact. 2014 - 1939 does not equal 100 years. And there were a lot of countries involved in the events leading up to WW2. Poland, France, the Soviet Union and Germany were all involved diplomatically or military in the invasion of Poland. There isn't any more major players involved now in this crisis either. Sure every little country has given their opinion, but there are only a few major players.
Since others already gave you the obvious answer tot he rest of your post, I'll focus the attention I'm willing to give you on this one.
Comparing the political of today with the one from WW2 is ridiculous, the nations are very different and so is the political climate, comparing Putin to Hitler is just as silly, due to the difference in their motives, their rhetoric and Putin's action up to this point.
And yes, it doesn't equal 100 years, however the point still stands since I was talking about the point I was making focussed on the state in which the nations were in back then and how they handled conflicts.
The assumptions you make are baseless, you failed to bring up any kind of source, which was requested by another poster and that you have the audacity to use WW2 as proof for the scenario you made up baffles me.
|
On March 04 2014 03:50 Saumure wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:43 Sub40APM wrote:
How about Poland, Czehia, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia instead?
What about them?
They were under one party dictatorship and now they are free?
Why? any arguments or are you just going to hate on everything that is different? Do you know anything about what Putin did in the last decade or do you just read your anti russian paper and quote it here?
I hate on dictators, yes. There is no equivalency between a free country and one where one party and one leader decide everything while corruption increases and billions go missing into Western bank accounts.
|
I hope everyone who has previously given the US shit for its "abuses" as the world super power are enjoying what they're seeing. This is a nice glimpse into what the post-Pax Americana future looks like.
|
On March 04 2014 03:49 Lonyo wrote:
So like... Ukraine has a democratically elected government. People don't like what they are doing so they force them out.
EU sides with the rebels because it's in their interest.
Russia sides with the ex-Government because it's in their interest.
Rebels decide to oppress the Russian-leaning citizens. Russia steps in to protect them, the EU complains because Russia is protecting citizens from oppression at the hands of rebels who took power by force.
And so Russia are the bad guys.
2 sides to every story.
Except there has been no oppression of Russian-leaning citizens. Russia itself says it invaded to defend against the RISK of that happening, not that it IS happening.
|
On March 04 2014 03:49 Lonyo wrote:
So like... Ukraine has a democratically elected government. People don't like what they are doing so they force them out.
EU sides with the rebels because it's in their interest.
Russia sides with the ex-Government because it's in their interest.
Rebels decide to oppress the Russian-leaning citizens. Russia steps in to protect them, the EU complains because Russia is protecting citizens from oppression at the hands of rebels who took power by force.
And so Russia are the bad guys.
2 sides to every story.
This side of the story happened only in the imagination of Putin.
|
On March 04 2014 03:52 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:31 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 03:08 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 04 2014 03:03 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 03:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 04 2014 03:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 02:56 r.Evo wrote:
...lead America to where exactly this time? Also FYI you just called the NATO pointless. Read what I wrote again. Even if Ukraine was in NATO, no one in Europe would help (I meant Europeans). America isn't in Europe. NATO isn't pointless because of the United States. NATO works on the basis of consensus votes. Either everyone acts or no-one. I'm confident that the Baltic states and Poland would do everything to help, if not, they're next. NATO has never been tested to this degree. When the going gets tough, a lot of people bail out. Remember what happened to Poland in 1939. Let me quote the Anglo-Polish military alliance again, since people don't seem to understand how politics works: ... in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. Did "His Majesty's Government feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power"? They did absolutely nothing. So you're saying that nobody in the NATO would act, except america, based on something that happened 100 years ago when the NATO didn't even exist, when there were only a few countries involved and when a monarchy instead of a democracy ruled britain? Please stop posting ill-informed opinions as facts. Speaking of ill-informed opinions as fact. 2014 - 1939 does not equal 100 years. And there were a lot of countries involved in the events leading up to WW2. Poland, France, the Soviet Union and Germany were all involved diplomatically or military in the invasion of Poland. There isn't any more major players involved now in this crisis either. Sure every little country has given their opinion, but there are only a few major players. Since others already gave you the obvious answer tot he rest of your post, I'll focus the attention I'm willing to give you on this one. Comparing the political of today with the one from WW2 is ridiculous, the nations are very different and so is the political climate, comparing Putin to Hitler is just as silly, due to the difference in their motives, their rhetoric and Putin's action up to this point. And yes, it doesn't equal 100 years, however the point still stands since I was talking about the point I was making focussed on the state in which the nations were in back then and how they handled conflicts. The assumptions you make are baseless, you failed to bring up any kind of source, which was requested by another poster and that you have the audacity to use WW2 as proof for the scenario you made up baffles me.
I did not fail to bring up another source. I brought a recent and relevant source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Georgia–Russia_crisis
Listen, the fact of the matter is, this is just like WW2 in a lot ways. I'm well versed in history, I've studied it for most of life. Are there differences? Sure, but nothing is ever exactly alike. However, the reasoning for the invasion and diplomatic stance of nations is nearly exactly the same.
Hitler used the same reasoning that Putin is using to take over Czechoslovakia and Poland: to protect native Germans and German speakers.
That is the reason Russian troops currently occupy Ukraine, to protect native Russians and Russian speakers. Is it not? Don't argue, because that is the reason Russia is giving.
But now they want to annex Crimea and build a bridge from Russia to Crimea to bypass Ukraine. From protection of native Russians to annexation... where have I seen that before? Oh right, Czechoslovakia, prior to WW2.
And where I have seen the the European response for diplomacy to solve invasions? Oh right, prior WW2.
|
On March 04 2014 03:51 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:47 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 03:43 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 03:40 Saumure wrote:On March 04 2014 03:20 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 03:16 Saumure wrote:lol, do you really think Russia would invade Poland or something? Putin blocked the invasion of Syria (and what would have followed) and nobody finds it strange that another riot escalates next to russia immediatly after that? Its all a Western plot, I knew it. Democracy always has such a dirty Western bias and must be prevented at all costs. Please, tell me more about how you brought democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia. How about Poland, Czehia, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia instead? How many of those involved a military conflict? There is not a single example of military intervention advancing democracy, and it was tried quite a few times in the last few decades The American Revolution? Germany twice was forced to become a democracy at the point of the gun, Japan became a democracy after invasion, But yes, other than three of the biggest, richest democracies there have been no other successful interventions for democracy
o.O
Germany was a democracy before WW1, Japan was a democracy before WW2... (and their emperor even remained in power..)
And good that we now quote 18th century revolutions(without any outside help) as 'military intervention'
|
On March 04 2014 03:53 xDaunt wrote:
I hope everyone who has previously given the US shit for its "abuses" as the world super power are enjoying what they're seeing. This is a nice glimpse into what the post-Pax Americana future looks like.
We can still comfortably give the US shit for its abuses. Let's not pretend like the american invasion of Iraq did not undermine the pax americana (and global norms) significantly either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
