NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 13 2022 18:34 pmh wrote: Split the whole country alone ethnic lines. Or have the conflict going on forever.
This is the choice there is.
70-80% Ukraine 20-30% Russia
Now the thing is that all the resources are in the eastern part of Ukraine and the territorial waters. Which would make this a very bad deal for Ukraine. So we split those resources as well with the same ratio. 70-80% Ukraine. 20%-30% Russia. And we then also agree that exploration of those resources will have to be done in a joint venture between Ukraine and Russia,again with these ratios.
Its wrong,it is bad,but this is the reality. The ethnic Russian population of Ukraine does want to be part of Russia. We can ignore this reality but it wont make this reality go away.
So we either make a deal like this or have the conflict go on forever. Personally i would rather not have this conflict go on forever. It leads to a pointless and immense suffering where in the end neither side will gain anything.
The 3rd option,which is probably the most likely option.
A ceasefire without any agreement. Not all that beneficial for Ukraine because this would de facto put the resources under Russian control. But they can have hope for a better and more permanent solution years or decades later.
We have to get away from beeing stuck in an ideological position where only the very best outcome is acceptable. We have to move towards a more pragmatic position where we accept certain realitys.
And just to be clear:i do not support Russia. And i do think the situation should return to what is was before the war. But the reality is that this will not happen
This assertion that “the reality is that the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine wants to be part of Russia” is unsupported by any evidence. People extrapolate far beyond their votes arguing that because they voted for one Ukrainian party over another they must desire the border to be changed. That’s not how any of this works.
Right now we are seeing in real time that millions of ethnic Russians within Russia don’t want to live under autocratic Russian rule. The idea that Russians outside of Russia desperately crave it needs a significant amount of evidence.
Ok this is a decent point. And i agree my assumption about this is not well founded and maybe even wrong. But i do think,that after everything that has happened,it would be better to split the population along ethnic lines. I cant imagine Russians beeing in a good position under a Ukraine government after all that has happend. And i cant imagine Ukrainians beeing in a good position under a Russian government after all that has happend either. The option to peacefully coexist i think is no longer there. It wasnt even there before the war because there was the seperatist movement in the east.
So going by the reality (again my asumption,feel free to challenge this) that peacefull coexistence in wich both ethnic groups are equally treated and have equall opportunitys is no longer possible. A split along ethnic lines would be the pragmatic solution.
I dont think this is a great solution,on the contrary. I think that in general this is a very bad solution that should be avoided (i would prefer peacefull co-existance and further integration). But i do think such a solution is better then having this conflict go on for many years to come. Then in the long run,maybe the 2 ethnic groups can come closer together and eventually a shared and peacefull co-existance is possible.
The 2 ethnic groups are very close to eachoter. They are not enemies by nature. The groups have peacefully co-existed for most of modern history. Splitting really is a bad solution but i cant think of anything else unfortunatly.
I tend to agree with most of what you write here, but there's one important matter: this war is not about ethnics, it is about civil allegiance. There are tons of ethnic Ukrainians fighting for Russian army and vice versa. And even more, Ukraine is heterogenous, but with the degree of ethhic origin changing gradually; many people in the center regions are of mixed origin. So I don't know any objective criterion to differ them ethnically other than self-determination
On the subject other than political shit-throwing. First recorded UAV on UAV combat. Definetly brings up early WW1 vibes, when airplanes didn't even have armament yet. https://t.me/anna_news/41042
On October 13 2022 18:34 pmh wrote: Split the whole country alone ethnic lines. Or have the conflict going on forever.
This is the choice there is.
70-80% Ukraine 20-30% Russia
Now the thing is that all the resources are in the eastern part of Ukraine and the territorial waters. Which would make this a very bad deal for Ukraine. So we split those resources as well with the same ratio. 70-80% Ukraine. 20%-30% Russia. And we then also agree that exploration of those resources will have to be done in a joint venture between Ukraine and Russia,again with these ratios.
Its wrong,it is bad,but this is the reality. The ethnic Russian population of Ukraine does want to be part of Russia. We can ignore this reality but it wont make this reality go away.
So we either make a deal like this or have the conflict go on forever. Personally i would rather not have this conflict go on forever. It leads to a pointless and immense suffering where in the end neither side will gain anything.
The 3rd option,which is probably the most likely option.
A ceasefire without any agreement. Not all that beneficial for Ukraine because this would de facto put the resources under Russian control. But they can have hope for a better and more permanent solution years or decades later.
We have to get away from beeing stuck in an ideological position where only the very best outcome is acceptable. We have to move towards a more pragmatic position where we accept certain realitys.
And just to be clear:i do not support Russia. And i do think the situation should return to what is was before the war. But the reality is that this will not happen
This assertion that “the reality is that the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine wants to be part of Russia” is unsupported by any evidence. People extrapolate far beyond their votes arguing that because they voted for one Ukrainian party over another they must desire the border to be changed. That’s not how any of this works.
Right now we are seeing in real time that millions of ethnic Russians within Russia don’t want to live under autocratic Russian rule. The idea that Russians outside of Russia desperately crave it needs a significant amount of evidence.
Ok this is a decent point. And i agree my assumption about this is not well founded and maybe even wrong. But i do think,that after everything that has happened,it would be better to split the population along ethnic lines. I cant imagine Russians beeing in a good position under a Ukraine government after all that has happend. And i cant imagine Ukrainians beeing in a good position under a Russian government after all that has happend either. The option to peacefully coexist i think is no longer there. It wasnt even there before the war because there was the seperatist movement in the east.
So going by the reality (again my asumption,feel free to challenge this) that peacefull coexistence in wich both ethnic groups are equally treated and have equall opportunitys is no longer possible. A split along ethnic lines would be the pragmatic solution.
I dont think this is a great solution,on the contrary. I think that in general this is a very bad solution that should be avoided (i would prefer peacefull co-existance and further integration). But i do think such a solution is better then having this conflict go on for many years to come. Then in the long run,maybe the 2 ethnic groups can come closer together and eventually a shared and peacefull co-existance is possible.
The 2 ethnic groups are very close to eachoter. They are not enemies by nature. The groups have peacefully co-existed for most of modern history. Splitting really is a bad solution but i cant think of anything else unfortunatly.
I tend to agree with most of what you write here, but there's one important matter: this war is not about ethnics, it is about civil allegiance. There are tons of ethnic Ukrainians fighting for Russian army and vice versa. And even more, Ukraine is heterogenous, but with the degree of ethhic origin changing gradually; many people in the center regions are of mixed origin. So I don't know any objective criterion to differ them ethnically other than self-determination
This war is about good old fashioned imperialism. Get out of here with that 'civil allegiance' nonsense.
Any negative claim on a nation as a whole is racism by definition
Just to clear that up: it's not a definition of racism. It would be categorized as hate speech and a form of xenhophobia but more specific. In this case being derogatory towards Russia would be rusophobia I think.
It might be, if it weren't a well documented and objectively true phenomenon that is being described.
Ok, tell what country you're from - and I'll play a role of KwarK for you by accompanying my posts by random stupid stereotypical statements about it - so you'd know a little better what racism is and what is not
There have been literal scientific papers on this very phenomenon in Russian culture.
It isn't just a baseless accusation, this is a thing that is verifiably true.
I'm a scientist myself, and a specialist in empirical research. So just give me the name - and I'll find you some "scientifical" evidence.
Or I can bring you a paper by Wozniak and Spolaore, who argue that you're country's development rate is due to its genetic closeness to the US (absolute bullshit idea, but published in one of the top economics journals)
You seriously just can't stop yourself from proving what Kwark is saying, can you?
Why should I care? He is a lost case imo, so I wont spend time on it. I've done my time proving stupid racial bullshit ideas to be false - some of which have even been published in top journals. All I'm simply saying is that you shouldn't involve yourself in accusations of whole nations. The easiest way to undestand that it is simply stupid - is to mirror the accusation to your own country, and see how falsifiable the claim is.
On October 13 2022 19:32 pmh wrote: Yes i think they can.
All Russia needs is low tier artillery and ammo. They have virtually unlimited suplies of ammo,definitely more then Nato at this point. They dont have the high tech but they dont need that. China also does not want Russia to fall,so they do have some support from other industrial nations. And they always have the threat of the nuclear option as a last resort.
1. Russia does not have unlimited supplies of artillery ammunition. As a matter of fact they're running low on it as they've attempted to buy artillery ammo from North Korea recently. Also, low tier artillery has already proven to not be effective as it's outranged by NATO artillery.
2. China does not support Russia. They don't really like Russia, that's why they pulled their credit card support etc.
As it stands, it's pretty much Russia alone vs almost the entire world and Russia's resources are dwindling at a rapid pace. It's not a fight they can win.
I really don't know where all those notions of Russia being this limitless behemoth of military might come from. Sure, Russia is big and has large military but by comparison UK alone has more military funding than Russia and NATO overall has military funding over 100x bigger than Russia.
Any negative claim on a nation as a whole is racism by definition
Just to clear that up: it's not a definition of racism. It would be categorized as hate speech and a form of xenhophobia but more specific. In this case being derogatory towards Russia would be rusophobia I think.
It might be, if it weren't a well documented and objectively true phenomenon that is being described.
Ok, tell what country you're from - and I'll play a role of KwarK for you by accompanying my posts by random stupid stereotypical statements about it - so you'd know a little better what racism is and what is not
There have been literal scientific papers on this very phenomenon in Russian culture.
It isn't just a baseless accusation, this is a thing that is verifiably true.
I'm a scientist myself, and a specialist in empirical research. So just give me the name - and I'll find you some "scientifical" evidence.
Or I can bring you a paper by Wozniak and Spolaore, who argue that you're country's development rate is due to its genetic closeness to the US (absolute bullshit idea, but published in one of the top economics journals)
You seriously just can't stop yourself from proving what Kwark is saying, can you?
Maybe he is one of those famous Russian bots I have hard time having him passing the turing test as the content of answers seem not to be processed.
On October 13 2022 19:32 pmh wrote: Yes i think they can.
All Russia needs is low tier artillery and ammo. They have virtually unlimited suplies of ammo,definitely more then Nato at this point. They dont have the high tech but they dont need that. China also does not want Russia to fall,so they do have some support from other industrial nations. And they always have the threat of the nuclear option as a last resort.
1. Russia does not have unlimited supplies of artillery ammunition. As a matter of fact they're running low on it as they've attempted to buy artillery ammo from North Korea recently. Also, low tier artillery has already proven to not be effective as it's outranged by NATO artillery.
2. China does not support Russia. They don't really like Russia, that's why they pulled their credit card support etc.
As it stands, it's pretty much Russia alone vs almost the entire world and Russia's resources are dwindling at a rapid pace. It's not a fight they can win.
I really don't know where all those notions of Russia being this limitless behemoth of military might come from. Sure, Russia is big and has large military but by comparison UK alone has more military funding than Russia and NATO overall has military funding over 100x bigger than Russia.
Ironically those are the same people who say that arms support for Ukraine is running low. But Russia's own supply somehow isn't. It makes perfect sense in some alternate reality, I don't know which one. The laws of the nature would have to change.
Neither side can keep this up forever. Like kwark said,its probably wait and see who folds first. Either way this is my last post about the situation,at least for now.
Russian high command has issued orders to suspend offensive operations, reportedly.
Russian forces have begun to receive orders from top military leaders to suspend offensive operations on several fronts – in particular, in Donetsk Oblast.
Source: General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on Facebook, information as of 06:00 on 13 October
Details: The General Staff explained that low morale among the recently arrived reinforcements, numerous acts of desertion by the recently conscripted soldiers, and refusal to carry out orders are among the reasons for the decision to suspend offensive operations.
Ukrainian units struck three S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems and their crews near Tokmak in Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Wounded Russian soldiers have been taken to a local hospital. Up to 150 Russian soldiers have been killed as a result of Ukrainian forces’ precision attacks in the vicinity of Tokarivka in Kherson Oblast.
The Russians carried out 3 missile strikes and 21 airstrikes, as well as around 104 attacks using multiple-launch rocket systems [MLRS].
More than 40 cities, towns and villages came under Russian fire, including Mykolaiv, Vinnytsia, Cherkasy, Cherniakhov, Bilohorivka, Spirne, Pavlivka, Myrne and Davydiv Brid. The Russians deployed cruise, air-to-surface, and anti-aircraft missiles, as well as Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicles, to carry out these attacks.
Ukrainian forces repelled Russian attacks in the vicinity of Bakhmutske, Ozarianivka, Ivanhrad, Bakhmut and Marinka.
Ukrainian aircraft carried out 32 airstrikes on 12 October, striking over 25 areas of concentration of Russian weapons and equipment and 7 anti-aircraft defence systems. Ukraine’s air defence units shot down 4 Russian helicopters [note that the Ukrainian Air Force reported that 5 Russian helicopters have been struck – ed.] and 26 UAVs.
Ukraine’s Rocket Forces and Artillery struck 6 Russian command posts, 7 areas where Russian military personnel, weapons and equipment were concentrated, and 4 ammunition storage points. Russian artillery and electronic warfare systems, as well as a number of other military targets, also came under Ukrainian fire.
The General Staff additionally reported that up to 30 damaged armoured vehicles arrive for repairs at a Russian repair workshop near Kalanchak in Kherson Oblast every day.
Any negative claim on a nation as a whole is racism by definition
Just to clear that up: it's not a definition of racism. It would be categorized as hate speech and a form of xenhophobia but more specific. In this case being derogatory towards Russia would be rusophobia I think.
It might be, if it weren't a well documented and objectively true phenomenon that is being described.
Ok, tell what country you're from - and I'll play a role of KwarK for you by accompanying my posts by random stupid stereotypical statements about it - so you'd know a little better what racism is and what is not
There have been literal scientific papers on this very phenomenon in Russian culture.
It isn't just a baseless accusation, this is a thing that is verifiably true.
Mein Kampf has been published under the guise of a 'scientific paper.' This is a ridiculous argument. In social psychology and anthropology, it's generally accepted that just about any measurable variable will have more variation between individuals than any arbitrary groups such as nationality, race, gender, age and so on. There's no real scientific basis for sweeping statements like 'all people of X culture are Y' and if you would like to continue arguing otherwise I'd love to see the supposed papers supporting such worldview since I imagine they'd be quite a hoot to read.
On October 13 2022 03:34 Salazarz wrote: Re: Poverty rates in Russia -- it's pretty much impossible to get any accurate numbers there because the shadow economy is incredibly prevalent. It's a poorer country than most European nations -- but not overwhelmingly so, especially if compared to less successful places like, say, Greece, Portugal, or the Balkans. Russia's PPP adjusted GDP per capita is around 30k USD on paper, for comparison Poland and Portugal are both between 35k and 40k depending on which methodology is used. Lower taxes and the above-mentioned shadow economy likely makes up for most if not all of that gap. Meanwhile Ukraine's PPP adjusted GDP per capita didn't even crack 15k USD before the war started.
Re: did Crimea want to join Russia -- it's a lot more complicated than 'bad Russia forced them at gunpoint.' Crimea is largely populated by Russians, they considered themselves to be on 'Russia's side' before and during the maidan, and they are strongly opposed to all the 'Ukrainization laws' that were happening. Good read with some important numbers on the subject:
Regardless, there were multiple independent polls carried out by Western agencies, including US government, that have all concluded that Crimeans prefer to be in Russia following the 2014 occupation. You can certainly argue that their opinions aren't important and that occupation was illegal anyway, but the endless repetition of 'its all fake the ruzzkies staged it Crimeans love Ukraine!' is tedious and not grounded in reality at all.
Can you point me to this endless repetition? I can not find it. I only see people saying that the vote was rigged after an invasion. Which is factually true.
Again, it's a lot more complicated than 'Russia invaded a peaceful and untroubled country and forced folks to vote for joining them at gunpoint.' Saying 'it's a rigged vote after an invasion' is ignoring all of the context of the situation.
On October 13 2022 05:11 Magic Powers wrote: The discussion of whether Crimeans wanted to join Russia or not is missing a few important points. 1) The vote was illegal under Ukrainian law. 2) There was no option offered to remain under Kyiv rule. The second option on the ballot was to restore the 1992 constitution, under which Crimea would be a Republic with significant autonomy. There was absolutely no legal basis for that, among other reasons because the constitution during that time was constantly being rewritten, and Putin chose an arbitrary point in time to return to - but not so arbitrary from his point of view, because, for one, it was undesirable for anyone wanting to remain under Kyiv rule, and it was not clearly stated what that option would entail. But most importantly, when put into the context of Russian occupation during this sham referendum, you may understand why many Crimeans didn't exactly have a strong desire to anger Putin. You can even see this right now in Ukraine with people in recently liberated areas abstaining from criticizing Russia and instead talking of "tragedies" and "unfortunate events", not because they likey likey Russia, but because they're afraid that the Russian troops might return any moment and punish them. They've seen what the Russian troops do to people. It was the same fear for Crimeans in 2014.
And these are just two of a list of points that made the referendum illegitimate. Other points are: no independent observers present; armed guards present at polling stations; turnout under question; result under question; UN terming the referendum invalid.
Euromaidan was also illegal under Ukrainian law. But since it's generally accepted that most of Ukrainians were okay with it, nobody is arguing about the 'legitimacy' of the outcome. Yet in Crimea, where by all indicators most of people are okay with the results of the referendum, it's 'illegitimate' because it wasn't legal under Ukrainian law, and screw the right to self-determination and all that?
On October 13 2022 05:18 Magic Powers wrote:
On October 13 2022 04:45 Ardias wrote: @Magic Powers - how did we come from comparing poverty rates in Russia and Ukraine to the assumption that there is no poor people in Russia?
Did you not pay attention? The Russian people are much poorer than people in other countries. It's more than just a huge wealth gap, it's about people having to make a choice between food - not just healthy food, but any food - on the table or the dentist's bill. It's about people having to live with rats biting their feet at night. Such living standards are exceedingly rare in countries like the US, but in Russia you can find it in many places.
Nearly 20% of UK's households are considered 'food insecure' and somewhere between 10% and 16% in the US are. There are plenty of people in every country in the world who have to make choices between food on the table or making rent or whatever (dentist bill is a bad example because healthcare is free in Russia). Russian people aren't 'much poorer' than people in other countries; typical salaries in Russia are comparable to salaries of most Central / Eastern European nations while cost of living is also similar or lower.
Let’s say Euromaiden was illegitimate, what does that have to do with the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government which is, as I’m sure you’re aware, not the same one as came into power from Euromaiden.
What does legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government have to do with a separatist movement that happened 8 years ago?
Estimates I've seen from some engineers analyzing the footage were in the 2-3 months range. Not sure if that was for fully repaired state or just making it usable.
Any negative claim on a nation as a whole is racism by definition
Just to clear that up: it's not a definition of racism. It would be categorized as hate speech and a form of xenhophobia but more specific. In this case being derogatory towards Russia would be rusophobia I think.
It might be, if it weren't a well documented and objectively true phenomenon that is being described.
Ok, tell what country you're from - and I'll play a role of KwarK for you by accompanying my posts by random stupid stereotypical statements about it - so you'd know a little better what racism is and what is not
There have been literal scientific papers on this very phenomenon in Russian culture.
It isn't just a baseless accusation, this is a thing that is verifiably true.
I'm a scientist myself, and a specialist in empirical research. So just give me the name - and I'll find you some "scientifical" evidence.
Or I can bring you a paper by Wozniak and Spolaore, who argue that you're country's development rate is due to its genetic closeness to the US (absolute bullshit idea, but published in one of the top economics journals)
You seriously just can't stop yourself from proving what Kwark is saying, can you?
Why should I care? He is a lost case imo, so I wont spend time on it. I've done my time proving stupid racial bullshit ideas to be false - some of which have even been published in top journals. All I'm simply saying is that you shouldn't involve yourself in accusations of whole nations. The easiest way to undestand that it is simply stupid - is to mirror the accusation to your own country, and see how falsifiable the claim is.
...what?
Just because something is true for country A doesn't mean it has to also be true for country B.
This game could be played by the both sides. Like, as many of Americans are descendants of European exiled criminals or slaves, don't you think the genetics have to be inferior to the law-abiding guys who've stayed home in Europe?
(Sorry to the rest of the US guys, thats not how I think of you, just an example of stupid racist bullshit, same as this guy is consistently bringing here)
Bro when you're trying to deny or deflect that you're not the facists Don't start making random unsupported suppositions about somehow the United states has Inferior genetics and thats why they went across the ocean.
They went to America because America has insane geography and was offering free land to whoever wanted some. My family was paid by Germany to go to America even.
Oh you didn't like that? And is that ok when your countryman writes racist bullshit here? Btw, I'm interested, how a single person can be a "fascist"? Is that not something related to social order, or "fascist" is a curse word you learnt from some propaganda video on Youtube?
1. Kwark isn't from the US, he merely lives here.
2. Kwark wasn't being racist. Reading comprehension is hard though, I know.
3. Even if he was, Sermokala didn't put their stamp of approval on what Kwark said so don't be all uppity when they call you out like they're being a hypocrite or contradicting themself.
4. People who follow fascist ideology are fascists, just as people who follow communist ideology are communists. Not a difficult concept to grasp.
1. -ok, didn't know. 2. It was. Claims like "russians have no concept of truth" or "Stalin broke the culture" (meaning it is some kind of a persistent effect) are 146% racist gems worthy of Hitler himself. 3. in my offensive post I wrote that this is not how I truly think of Americans, just an example of a racist bs. Its interesting though, how you and Sermokala reacted. Did you even read the post till the end? 4. To follow a fascist ideology you have at least to be a nazi and to follow a rule of a dictator. At least the first quality is not met in the case of Russian society. And seeing how eager you are at blaming Russians in all sins, you're much closer to that title.
It is very easy to argue that Putin is in fact a dictator, for example as there is no way to remove him in free and fair elections. But then again, Russia has never had a leader who was removed by an election afaik, so some version of dictatorship is the norm.
Fascism is a very problematic word to define, but "at least to be a nazi" is a wrong place to start. The very word as a political term originated in Italy, not in Germany.
Both "fascism" and "nazism" get thrown around at anything people don't like or fear. Russians eagerly uses "nazism" that way, not the least about Ukrainians.
If you are not far right yourself, "fascism" tends to include any "authoritarian, anti democratic, right-wing movement", which can certainly include the January 6th congress storming. As such, it will look different in each country and each era, If you don't want to be called a fascist, you can choose a narrower definition and to point how you differ from the original fascists, Mussolini and Franco.
-yes, one definition (in lines with U.Eco) is vague and could be applied too indiscriminately; the other definition ("dictatorship of nationalists") is due to a Soviet writer Boris Strugatskiy - and he argues that this is the necessary and sufficient condition to have all the other usual features of fascism. So, by nazi I meant not the orginal NSDAP ones, but all sorts of nationalists; sorry if that was misleading
Use the word nationalist instead of nazi then, those two are not the same.
And it sounds to me as if current Russia fits that definition.
It is a dictatorship, since Putin is in power, and there is no way to remove Putin from power. And it is definitively nationalist.
And which nation is hated in Russia in this case? Let me guess, the Ukrainians - 1.5 million (UN data) of whom has fled to Russia after the start of the war? Those should be true masochists, to intentionally come to the place where'd they'll be hated
a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
Nothing about hate in there. Just Russia, Russia above everything else. And this is definitively the case, as can be seen by basically all of the rhetoric around this.
Nevertheless, the obvious nation that Russia hates is the US/Nato? It seems as if the US is at fault for everything according to Kremlin propaganda. Especially the insidious evil act of allowing other nations to collectively defend against Russia is absolutely horrific, evil and aggressive.
-Never met in my life a nationalist who'd not into (secretely) hating some other nations. Or maybe I wouldn't even notice him being a nationalist in this case..
Russia above what? My university best friend is from Vinnitsa, Western Ukraine; recently I've become a godfather of his son (bad irony, as he asked me exactly on 23th of Feb). One of the groups where I teach math consists of students from former USSR countries - and I don't even know which exact one, as those guys speek Russian well - so I visually cannot distinguish them from Russians. With regards to Ukrainians wanting to have their own state - only an imperic-driven idiot in Russia would like to deny it. I even endorsed for the 2014 Maidan revolt in the first place - before the new government has started to stir hatred in the fragile country. With regards to the USA - I think that for a very long time it has been a true world leader in most of the sciences - so why'd I hate it, if it has given the world and my profession so much?
>>Especially the insidious evil act of allowing other nations to collectively defend against Russia is absolutely horrific, evil and aggressive
I cannot understand, whether my writing is so bad (probably), or you guys read what you want, not what is actually written. The problem is not with helping Ukraine to defend, but being slow, indecisive and malicious. Even covering the sky in the spring would likely suffice to stop the war, but your governments failed it (btw, compare to Russia moving troops to Serbia in 1999 to stop NATO bombings). 15bn of military aid in more than half-year is like boiling a live frog in water, and the cost is higher on Ukrainians, as they trade what they have comparative advantage in - the soldiers. But after NATO has failed to intervene, you have no courage to push to stop the war; and instead promoting continuation, perhaps hoping for a possible public uprising of Russians uncomfortable with the war. There certainly is some, but if you think that we differ a lot in this sense from Ukrainians, who've already withstood four waves of mobilization and even preparing to start mobilizing women (initially planned at October 1st, but was postponed\cancelled in September) - youre dead wrong.
Estimates I've seen from some engineers analyzing the footage were in the 2-3 months range. Not sure if that was for fully repaired state or just making it usable.
Any negative claim on a nation as a whole is racism by definition
Just to clear that up: it's not a definition of racism. It would be categorized as hate speech and a form of xenhophobia but more specific. In this case being derogatory towards Russia would be rusophobia I think.
It might be, if it weren't a well documented and objectively true phenomenon that is being described.
Ok, tell what country you're from - and I'll play a role of KwarK for you by accompanying my posts by random stupid stereotypical statements about it - so you'd know a little better what racism is and what is not
There have been literal scientific papers on this very phenomenon in Russian culture.
It isn't just a baseless accusation, this is a thing that is verifiably true.
I'm a scientist myself, and a specialist in empirical research. So just give me the name - and I'll find you some "scientifical" evidence.
Or I can bring you a paper by Wozniak and Spolaore, who argue that you're country's development rate is due to its genetic closeness to the US (absolute bullshit idea, but published in one of the top economics journals)
You seriously just can't stop yourself from proving what Kwark is saying, can you?
Why should I care? He is a lost case imo, so I wont spend time on it. I've done my time proving stupid racial bullshit ideas to be false - some of which have even been published in top journals. All I'm simply saying is that you shouldn't involve yourself in accusations of whole nations. The easiest way to undestand that it is simply stupid - is to mirror the accusation to your own country, and see how falsifiable the claim is.
...what?
Just because something is true for country A doesn't mean it has to also be true for country B.
Have you not studied in university? K.Popper's falsifiability criterion is one of the basic ideas how to check whether a statement is just a random bullshit, that cannot be proved or proved wrong (like it is the case with "Stalin broke the culture"). Apply KwarK's statements to your country (to get more involved and informed), and think how you'd try to reason whether it could be right or wrong. If you find no way of even discussing the truthfulness of the idea - it is very likely that it has no actual value or meaning.
Any negative claim on a nation as a whole is racism by definition
Just to clear that up: it's not a definition of racism. It would be categorized as hate speech and a form of xenhophobia but more specific. In this case being derogatory towards Russia would be rusophobia I think.
It might be, if it weren't a well documented and objectively true phenomenon that is being described.
Ok, tell what country you're from - and I'll play a role of KwarK for you by accompanying my posts by random stupid stereotypical statements about it - so you'd know a little better what racism is and what is not
There have been literal scientific papers on this very phenomenon in Russian culture.
It isn't just a baseless accusation, this is a thing that is verifiably true.
I'm a scientist myself, and a specialist in empirical research. So just give me the name - and I'll find you some "scientifical" evidence.
Or I can bring you a paper by Wozniak and Spolaore, who argue that you're country's development rate is due to its genetic closeness to the US (absolute bullshit idea, but published in one of the top economics journals)
You seriously just can't stop yourself from proving what Kwark is saying, can you?
Why should I care? He is a lost case imo, so I wont spend time on it. I've done my time proving stupid racial bullshit ideas to be false - some of which have even been published in top journals. All I'm simply saying is that you shouldn't involve yourself in accusations of whole nations. The easiest way to undestand that it is simply stupid - is to mirror the accusation to your own country, and see how falsifiable the claim is.
...what?
Just because something is true for country A doesn't mean it has to also be true for country B.
Have you not studied in university? K.Popper's falsifiability criterion is one of the basic ideas how to check whether a statement is just a random bullshit, that cannot be proved or proved wrong (like it is the case with "Stalin broke the culture"). Apply KwarK's statements to your country (to get more involved and informed), and think how you'd try to reason whether it could be right or wrong. If you find no way of even discussing the truthfuless of the idea - it is very likely that it has no actual value or meaning.
Are you sure YOU went to university? That is not how falsifiability works. You don't disprove "X is part of Russian culture" by proving X is not a part of German culture.
That might just be the dumbest justification you've tried to argue in this thread, and that really is saying something considering the competition.
Any negative claim on a nation as a whole is racism by definition
Just to clear that up: it's not a definition of racism. It would be categorized as hate speech and a form of xenhophobia but more specific. In this case being derogatory towards Russia would be rusophobia I think.
It might be, if it weren't a well documented and objectively true phenomenon that is being described.
Ok, tell what country you're from - and I'll play a role of KwarK for you by accompanying my posts by random stupid stereotypical statements about it - so you'd know a little better what racism is and what is not
There have been literal scientific papers on this very phenomenon in Russian culture.
It isn't just a baseless accusation, this is a thing that is verifiably true.
Mein Kampf has been published under the guise of a 'scientific paper.' This is a ridiculous argument. In social psychology and anthropology, it's generally accepted that just about any measurable variable will have more variation between individuals than any arbitrary groups such as nationality, race, gender, age and so on. There's no real scientific basis for sweeping statements like 'all people of X culture are Y' and if you would like to continue arguing otherwise I'd love to see the supposed papers supporting such worldview since I imagine they'd be quite a hoot to read.
On October 13 2022 12:18 KwarK wrote:
On October 13 2022 12:14 Salazarz wrote:
On October 13 2022 03:49 JimmiC wrote:
On October 13 2022 03:34 Salazarz wrote: Re: Poverty rates in Russia -- it's pretty much impossible to get any accurate numbers there because the shadow economy is incredibly prevalent. It's a poorer country than most European nations -- but not overwhelmingly so, especially if compared to less successful places like, say, Greece, Portugal, or the Balkans. Russia's PPP adjusted GDP per capita is around 30k USD on paper, for comparison Poland and Portugal are both between 35k and 40k depending on which methodology is used. Lower taxes and the above-mentioned shadow economy likely makes up for most if not all of that gap. Meanwhile Ukraine's PPP adjusted GDP per capita didn't even crack 15k USD before the war started.
Re: did Crimea want to join Russia -- it's a lot more complicated than 'bad Russia forced them at gunpoint.' Crimea is largely populated by Russians, they considered themselves to be on 'Russia's side' before and during the maidan, and they are strongly opposed to all the 'Ukrainization laws' that were happening. Good read with some important numbers on the subject:
Regardless, there were multiple independent polls carried out by Western agencies, including US government, that have all concluded that Crimeans prefer to be in Russia following the 2014 occupation. You can certainly argue that their opinions aren't important and that occupation was illegal anyway, but the endless repetition of 'its all fake the ruzzkies staged it Crimeans love Ukraine!' is tedious and not grounded in reality at all.
Can you point me to this endless repetition? I can not find it. I only see people saying that the vote was rigged after an invasion. Which is factually true.
Again, it's a lot more complicated than 'Russia invaded a peaceful and untroubled country and forced folks to vote for joining them at gunpoint.' Saying 'it's a rigged vote after an invasion' is ignoring all of the context of the situation.
On October 13 2022 05:11 Magic Powers wrote: The discussion of whether Crimeans wanted to join Russia or not is missing a few important points. 1) The vote was illegal under Ukrainian law. 2) There was no option offered to remain under Kyiv rule. The second option on the ballot was to restore the 1992 constitution, under which Crimea would be a Republic with significant autonomy. There was absolutely no legal basis for that, among other reasons because the constitution during that time was constantly being rewritten, and Putin chose an arbitrary point in time to return to - but not so arbitrary from his point of view, because, for one, it was undesirable for anyone wanting to remain under Kyiv rule, and it was not clearly stated what that option would entail. But most importantly, when put into the context of Russian occupation during this sham referendum, you may understand why many Crimeans didn't exactly have a strong desire to anger Putin. You can even see this right now in Ukraine with people in recently liberated areas abstaining from criticizing Russia and instead talking of "tragedies" and "unfortunate events", not because they likey likey Russia, but because they're afraid that the Russian troops might return any moment and punish them. They've seen what the Russian troops do to people. It was the same fear for Crimeans in 2014.
And these are just two of a list of points that made the referendum illegitimate. Other points are: no independent observers present; armed guards present at polling stations; turnout under question; result under question; UN terming the referendum invalid.
Euromaidan was also illegal under Ukrainian law. But since it's generally accepted that most of Ukrainians were okay with it, nobody is arguing about the 'legitimacy' of the outcome. Yet in Crimea, where by all indicators most of people are okay with the results of the referendum, it's 'illegitimate' because it wasn't legal under Ukrainian law, and screw the right to self-determination and all that?
On October 13 2022 05:18 Magic Powers wrote:
On October 13 2022 04:45 Ardias wrote: @Magic Powers - how did we come from comparing poverty rates in Russia and Ukraine to the assumption that there is no poor people in Russia?
Did you not pay attention? The Russian people are much poorer than people in other countries. It's more than just a huge wealth gap, it's about people having to make a choice between food - not just healthy food, but any food - on the table or the dentist's bill. It's about people having to live with rats biting their feet at night. Such living standards are exceedingly rare in countries like the US, but in Russia you can find it in many places.
Nearly 20% of UK's households are considered 'food insecure' and somewhere between 10% and 16% in the US are. There are plenty of people in every country in the world who have to make choices between food on the table or making rent or whatever (dentist bill is a bad example because healthcare is free in Russia). Russian people aren't 'much poorer' than people in other countries; typical salaries in Russia are comparable to salaries of most Central / Eastern European nations while cost of living is also similar or lower.
Let’s say Euromaiden was illegitimate, what does that have to do with the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government which is, as I’m sure you’re aware, not the same one as came into power from Euromaiden.
What does legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government have to do with a separatist movement that happened 8 years ago?
A sepratist movement does not require a invading foriegn army and once that happens it delegitimizes the movement.
Here we had Quebec want to seperate at times tge popularity was over 50%. Had the US invaded started sending a bunch of the pro Canada people to camps in Texas and then had a referendum that said 96% to join the US, would that be OK?
No one is arguing the strawman you keep saying "everyone " is which is why I asked you for examples. People are saying that because of how it happened, factually, it is not legitimate and can not be.
Your example is not even remotely close to actually reflecting the reality of what happened, though. For it to be comparable, French would have to lose its standing as an official language in Canada, and then you'd have to have an uprising that called for abandoning NATO in favor of establishing closer ties with China or something, instead. If you genuinely believe the US wouldn't send a bunch of their own little green men to organize referendums against the new government wherever they could in that situation, I don't know what to tell you.
Modern politics are still happening under a 'might makes right' principle; we just keep making narratives that suit us / our countries' interests whenever it's our might having its way. War in Iraq was not 'legitimate' under international law, nor was NATO's involvement in Syria, or countless other adventures. We don't mind those, though, because reasons. Well, in Crimea Russia had their reasons too, we just happen to be on the other side of the fence so we call their reasons illegitimate and their actions criminal.
For me on a personal level, the actual results and the opinions of people are what matters significantly more than whatever politician babble. Syria turned a somewhat poor but reasonably stable and safe (by their region's standards, anyway) country into a hot mess, so it was bad. Crimea is mostly populated by Russians who in the aftermath seemed to be content or even happy with the outcome, so I didn't particularly care about it. Russkies ongoing invasion? Fuck that with a flaming rake, for obvious reasons.
EPT
I have hard time having him passing the turing test as the content of answers seem not to be processed.
