I'm sorry that everything I've seen in the last year or so said 100,000. It doesn't mandate that you be an asshole though.
Wait, calling you out on unjustified "cockiness" makes me an asshole? Maybe tone down your ego, stop statements like "i know all about xxx", or at least confirm that you're correct? I bet you didn't even read where that number came from (otherwise you would not have cited it, because the actual source of that number states that there's estimates up to one million as well, and it's linked in the very first source you posted - clear case of medias cherrypicking).
I tend to be cocky myself, nothing wrong with that - but being salty after getting called out for it is low.
I'm sorry that everything I've seen in the last year or so said 100,000 until you posted. I'm sorry that I get Internet sources too, despite your attitude that only you do.
I'm not claiming that only i do. I'm claiming that you didn't read the sources that were linked in the very articles you just linked me.
To your credit though, I didn't know Germans were capable of passive-aggressive sarcasm. Bravo.
In fact, doesn't Russia have a better fertility rate as of 2013/2014 than most places in Europe, Japan, and South Korea (especially South Korea), and improving (while other places are getting worse)? .
That seems to be as much a function of importation of fast breeding Central Asian immigrants, the core Russian population still seems to be declining, and when women who were born in the 1990s, the lowest birth cohort in the Russian census, enter their childbirthing years even if they somehow birth more kids than their predecessors from the 1980s there still will be less kids born over all.. meanwhile Russian males have just caught up to Soviet males of the Krushchev years in life expectancy, so good work there. Which is all bad news for paleman, more scary dark people are coming!
Lol "scary dark people" XD. Well, one thing to consider is a lot of immigrants IIRC from Central Asia are ethnically Russian
Yea in the 1990s, not today.
Another thing to consider about "scary dark people" is a lot more people than you would expect from these places are technically 'white'.
Not to paleman and his ilk. People from the caucauses, who to me seem pretty damn white, are 'black asses'.
An opinion of the situation which i think is the correct one, which the majority seems to ignore. Gregor Gysi from German Bundestag from Left Wing i believe.
German with English subtitles (be sure to enable this option in youtube player) :
You must be really one blind to not agree with him. Now, he doesn't offer ofcourse a solution, now that both side made they errors , since the speech is dated at 18 march, and the Eastern Ukraine escalation wasn't "active" back then i believe.
I'm sorry that everything I've seen in the last year or so said 100,000. It doesn't mandate that you be an asshole though.
Wait, calling you out on unjustified "cockiness" makes me an asshole? Maybe tone down your ego, stop statements like "i know all about xxx", or at least confirm that you're correct? I bet you didn't even read where that number came from (otherwise you would not have cited it, because the actual source of that number states that there's estimates up to one million as well, and it's linked in the very first source you posted - clear case of medias cherrypicking).
I tend to be cocky myself, nothing wrong with that - but being salty after getting called out for it is low.
I'm sorry that everything I've seen in the last year or so said 100,000 until you posted. I'm sorry that I get Internet sources too, despite your attitude that only you do.
I'm not claiming that only i do. I'm claiming that you didn't read the sources that were linked in the very articles you just linked me.
In fact, doesn't Russia have a better fertility rate as of 2013/2014 than most places in Europe, Japan, and South Korea (especially South Korea), and improving (while other places are getting worse)? .
That seems to be as much a function of importation of fast breeding Central Asian immigrants, the core Russian population still seems to be declining, and when women who were born in the 1990s, the lowest birth cohort in the Russian census, enter their childbirthing years even if they somehow birth more kids than their predecessors from the 1980s there still will be less kids born over all.. meanwhile Russian males have just caught up to Soviet males of the Krushchev years in life expectancy, so good work there. Which is all bad news for paleman, more scary dark people are coming!
Lol "scary dark people" XD. Well, one thing to consider is a lot of immigrants IIRC from Central Asia are ethnically Russian
Another thing to consider about "scary dark people" is a lot more people than you would expect from these places are technically 'white'.
Not to paleman and his ilk. People from the caucauses, who to me seem pretty damn white, are 'black asses'.
Ah I see. Also, interestingly, Kazakhstan still has a large Russian minority.
And well, there seems to be some type of belief that if you're Muslim, then you can't be white. From what it appears to me, the situation in Russia is more culturo-religious based than it is racial though. But it's always convenient to paint people you don't like as not white, even if we assume ~100% of a group is not, like perhaps Chechens.
Anyhow, in light of current circumstances, there should be concern for Tatars in Crimea, who being Muslim and being historically on bad terms with Slavic folks (see Crimean Khanate slave trade), it puts them in a bit of a precarious situation.
He's actually wrong on a couple of things. But yes, it was way before the eastern escalation (iirc it was pretty close after euromaidan took over?). I wont go that far and say he's entirely wrong, but he's extremely strong in "rethoric speeches", half of it is ignoring things that were apparent even back then. @greem
edit
I respectfully accept my faults.
So do i. Gracefully. Don't get too worked up, you pretty much dish out worse than me (-> HAHA etc). We all do.
i'm not as concerned with russia, i'm not a russian (you chastise putin enough for the both of us anyway).
more interesting to look at how the west again has failed at capitalizing on protests that could have led to democratic change, but instead devolved into violence because of the strange bedfellows they made.
Yes, theoretical fascists with no power are always scarier than actual fascists with actual power.
washington pr-team not done apologizing for euromaidan fascists yet? deb already (a month too late) adjusting to realities, figured he'd be the last. sad to see cheerio not responding to allegations of being a bandera apologist. makes sense though.
yes, thx oneofthem. that is the sad consequence of your foreign policy. putin be poppin.
i'm not as concerned with russia, i'm not a russian (you chastise putin enough for the both of us anyway).
more interesting to look at how the west again has failed at capitalizing on protests that could have led to democratic change, but instead devolved into violence because of the strange bedfellows they made.
Yes, theoretical fascists with no power are always scarier than actual fascists with actual power.
washington pr-team not done apologizing for euromaidan fascists yet? deb already (a month too late) adjusting to realities, figured he'd be the last. sad to see cheerio not responding to allegations of being a bandera apologist. makes sense though.
yes, thx oneofthem. that is the sad consequence of your foreign policy. putin be poppin.
Nope, it is not. It is a sad consequence of Russian mentality. If anything, the policy you speak of just added fuel to the fire.
On April 20 2014 08:50 Greem wrote: An opinion of the situation which i think is the correct one, which the majority seems to ignore. Gregor Gysi from German Bundestag from Left Wing i believe.
You must be really one blind to not agree with him. Now, he doesn't offer ofcourse a solution, now that both side made they errors , since the speech is dated at 18 march, and the Eastern Ukraine escalation wasn't "active" back then i believe.
A well argued point but I disagree. The argument is basically that the West has violated international law also so what Russia is doing is understandable. Arguments such as "the West supported separatism in Kosovo" and thus broke international law, so Russia in Crimea is "understandable".
Another part of his argument was that the West drove Russia into it's aggressive stance by taking advantage of the fall of the USSR and allowing E. European countries to join NATO. This argument ignores the fact that these countries felt legitimately threatened by Russia and wanted guarantees to their freedom. NATO only means that if a country attacks, then it attacks all NATO members. Then if Russia doesn't attack, it shouldn't have a problem with NATO (unless it is stuck in cold war mentality). You can't assume that just because the Soviet Union fell apart, that the West must suddenly stop protecting itself from an unpredictable power with a huge military and a constant history of military aggression and political control. It's up to Russia to restore it's image to the West, not up to the West. Until Russia decides to befriend the West, then Russia will always remain a rogue power.
As to plans for a missile shield in E. Europe, it's only effect was to agitate Russia so I agree that it was a mistake.
On April 20 2014 08:50 Greem wrote: An opinion of the situation which i think is the correct one, which the majority seems to ignore. Gregor Gysi from German Bundestag from Left Wing i believe.
You must be really one blind to not agree with him. Now, he doesn't offer ofcourse a solution, now that both side made they errors , since the speech is dated at 18 march, and the Eastern Ukraine escalation wasn't "active" back then i believe.
A well argued point but I disagree. The argument is basically that the West has violated international law also so what Russia is doing is understandable. Arguments such as "the West supported separatism in Kosovo" and thus broke international law, so Russia in Crimea is "understandable".
Another part of his argument was that the West drove Russia into it's aggressive stance by taking advantage of the fall of the USSR and allowing E. European countries to join NATO. This argument ignores the fact that these countries felt legitimately threatened by Russia and wanted guarantees to their freedom. NATO only means that if a country attacks, then it attacks all NATO members. Then if Russia doesn't attack, it shouldn't have a problem with NATO (unless it is stuck in cold war mentality). You can't assume that just because the Soviet Union fell apart, that the West must suddenly stop protecting itself from an unpredictable power with a huge military and a constant history of military aggression and political control. It's up to Russia to restore it's image to the West, not up to the West. Until Russia decides to befriend the West, then Russia will always remain a rogue power.
As to plans for a missile shield in E. Europe, it's only effect was to agitate Russia so I agree that it was a mistake.
Now this is legitimate candite to Budestag ladies and gentleman. Well all the irony apart, i dont think he says its allowed, he just say that US pusehd to this, and now that the situation arrived at our gate it is what it is, no point of blaming anyone, he does not offer a solution either. He mentions that Gorbachev offered some solutions before which NATO rejected, its just a speech with some facts, he dont take sides here, thats why i told is hard to disagree with this speech is politicaly neutral, and tries to look objectively at situation.
On April 20 2014 08:50 Greem wrote: An opinion of the situation which i think is the correct one, which the majority seems to ignore. Gregor Gysi from German Bundestag from Left Wing i believe.
You must be really one blind to not agree with him. Now, he doesn't offer ofcourse a solution, now that both side made they errors , since the speech is dated at 18 march, and the Eastern Ukraine escalation wasn't "active" back then i believe.
A well argued point but I disagree. The argument is basically that the West has violated international law also so what Russia is doing is understandable. Arguments such as "the West supported separatism in Kosovo" and thus broke international law, so Russia in Crimea is "understandable".
Another part of his argument was that the West drove Russia into it's aggressive stance by taking advantage of the fall of the USSR and allowing E. European countries to join NATO. This argument ignores the fact that these countries felt legitimately threatened by Russia and wanted guarantees to their freedom. NATO only means that if a country attacks, then it attacks all NATO members. Then if Russia doesn't attack, it shouldn't have a problem with NATO (unless it is stuck in cold war mentality). You can't assume that just because the Soviet Union fell apart, that the West must suddenly stop protecting itself from an unpredictable power with a huge military and a constant history of military aggression and political control. It's up to Russia to restore it's image to the West, not up to the West. Until Russia decides to befriend the West, then Russia will always remain a rogue power.
As to plans for a missile shield in E. Europe, it's only effect was to agitate Russia so I agree that it was a mistake.
Now this is legitimate candite to Budestag ladies and gentleman. Well all the irony apart, i dont think he says its allowed, he just say that US pusehd to this, and now that the situation arrived at our gate it is what it is, no point of blaming anyone, he does not offer a solution either. He mentions that Gorbachev offered some solutions before which NATO rejected, its just a speech with some facts, he dont take sides here, thats why i told is hard to disagree with this speech is politicaly neutral, and tries to look objectively at situation.
Yes he does mostly state facts but at points he does say things like "Everything that NATO and the EU could have done wrong, they have done wrong". He clearly has a political argument he is trying to make, with which I disagree with.
He is trying to be politically neutral (like a lot of Germans), by equating Russian behaviour with Western behaviour. A lot of the comparisons he draws have key similarities, but he ignores all the differences. Furthermore, pointing out Western hypocrisy as a means to understanding Russian action, doesn't mean that the West is responsible for Russian aggressiveness (as he basically says and definitely implies). The other part that's missing is the big "what if": What if the EU/NATO tried to be as conciliatory as possible to Russia post USSR? Would that have been effective? You can't argue that "Russian aggression is caused by the West not appeasing to Russian interests in E. Europe" because we don't know if Russia would have been non-aggressive if we did appease to it's demands. If we look at recent history, it would suggest Russia would remain aggressive regardless of Western action.
It's kinda like dealing with a school bully. The bully demands a boy's lunch money, boy says no, and the bully punches the boy in the face. Now Germany seems to blaming the boy for getting punched in the face, because it didn't give it's lunch money. NATO non-expansion, no missile shield, maintaining 'sphere of influence', are all things that Russia demands but if neighboring countries don't give it Russia, Russia will act aggressively towards them (via economy, politics, and in some rare cases military). Russian aggression is to blame, not a lack of Western acquiescence to Russian demands.
The prevailing view in the West Wing, though, is that while Mr. Putin seems for now to be enjoying the glow of success, he will eventually discover how much economic harm he has brought on his country. Mr. Obama’s aides noted the fall of the Russian stock market and the ruble, capital flight from the country and the increasing reluctance of foreign investors to expand dealings in Russia.
They argued that while American and European sanctions have not yet targeted wide parts of the Russian economy, they have sent a message to international businesses, and that just the threat of broader measures has produced a chilling effect. If the Russian economy suffers over the long term, senior American officials said, then Mr. Putin’s implicit compact with the Russian public promising growth for political control could be sundered.
That may not happen quickly, however, and in the meantime, Mr. Obama seems intent on not letting Russia dominate his presidency. While Mr. Obama spends a lot of time on the Ukraine crisis, it does not seem to absorb him. Speaking privately with visitors, he is more likely to bring up topics like health care and the Republicans in Congress than Mr. Putin. Ukraine, he tells people, is not a major concern for most Americans, who are focused on the economy and other issues closer to home. Source.
This guy was previously in Georgia, the Ukraine and Lithuania. His appointment will be severely disliked by the Kremlin.
So there is a shootout, and before anyone knows Russian press already has a detailed article. Also they supposedly found leaflets of Right Sector in one of the cars of the perpetrators. Quite convienient.
i'm not as concerned with russia, i'm not a russian (you chastise putin enough for the both of us anyway).
more interesting to look at how the west again has failed at capitalizing on protests that could have led to democratic change, but instead devolved into violence because of the strange bedfellows they made.
Yes, theoretical fascists with no power are always scarier than actual fascists with actual power.
washington pr-team not done apologizing for euromaidan fascists yet? deb already (a month too late) adjusting to realities, figured he'd be the last. sad to see cheerio not responding to allegations of being a bandera apologist. makes sense though.
yes, thx oneofthem. that is the sad consequence of your foreign policy. putin be poppin.
http://lifenews.ru/news/131635 Watch the video. So on the ground spread out by one of the dead bodies, are perfectly crisp 100$ bills and uncreased google map print outs of the region. Clearly the first thing a Ukrainian nazi does before a confrontation, is gently lay out his $ bills and google map print outs on the sidewalk in front of him?
On April 20 2014 23:33 Mc wrote: http://lifenews.ru/news/131635 Watch the video. So on the ground spread out by one of the dead bodies, are perfectly crisp 100$ bills and uncreased google map print outs of the region. Clearly the first thing a Ukrainian nazi does before a confrontation, is gently lay out his $ bills and google map print outs on the sidewalk in front of him?
Anybody got a translation of the video?
Only Ukrainian nazi who is sponsored by Obama and Google. Product placement went to a next level today. Oh wait.
On April 20 2014 08:50 Greem wrote: You must be really one blind to not agree with him. Now, he doesn't offer ofcourse a solution, now that both side made they errors , since the speech is dated at 18 march, and the Eastern Ukraine escalation wasn't "active" back then i believe.
Hardly, his rant is typical non-interventionist pacifism. He thinks the West should of just sat back and watched the massacre take place in former Yugoslavia.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img0.joyreactor.cc/pics/post/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%8B-%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F-1191585.jpeg)
