Russia is going To Suffer Putin's Insanity

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

What I said earlier is still true. Russia has NOT invaded Ukraine, no tanks or troops have crossed the border without being invited. I will admit that some assistance may have snuck into the country to help the pro re-unification factions, but my point is that its not an invasion. If you think otherwise, you're wrong.

I wouldn't be so categoric about this though.
There has been some suspicions apparently backed up by satellites images that russian tanks may have crossed the border.

Quote:

Originally posted by omuh

...
I wouldn't be so categoric about this though.
There has been some suspicions apparently backed up by satellites images that russian tanks may have crossed the border.

Again, if there have been some tanks cross it still isn't a full fledged invasion. I have never denied that some troops have crossed into Ukraine, and if some tanks have, then I recant my statement about no tanks, but what I'm saying is that Russia has 10's of thousands of troops, thousands of tanks, troop carriers, armoured vehicles, artillery equipment, and whatever else they need to fight a ground battle. If any of this stuff has crossed the border its in limited number, while the bulk of their personal and equipment sit on their side of the border. In an invasion you'd send massive amounts of equipment and people across the border and try and take over key places as quickly as possible, this is not happening, so to call it an invasion isn't correct. They may be on the cusp of invading, but as of right now, it hasn't happened.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Again, if there have been some tanks cross it still isn't a full fledged invasion.

Exactly. In the same way that soddomy and a finger-bang aren't full-fledged rape.

Seriously, SP, I get what you're saying. Sure, many - not most (that has never been substantiated) - many, of the people in that region identify themselves as historical Russians. This is the same thing that's true of Jews that live in New York, Germans that live in the northern midwest, or Cubans that live in Florida.

That does not mean that they want to be taken by force into the nation of their heritage. It also doesn't justify invasion of those regions on the part of the nation that their heritage came from.

I keep hearing you say over and over again that this region of people wanted to be Russian - but there's ZERO evidence of that. Where were the protests before Putin's involvement asking for re-unification with Russia? Where were the calls for a vote? How come Russian spies had to kick things off and how come Russian spies have to keep intervening to keep this movement alive? How come Russia had to do it covertly, instead of making an appeal to the world, laying out their humanitarian cause, and putting pressure on Ukraine to allow separation?

How come the tanks were found sneaking into the border? How come Russia continues to deny that involvement now?

If their cause is so pure and so good, how come they've had to manage it every step of the way like a shadow government? How come it resembles more of a KGB inspired coup than any kind of revolution?

You can keep beating this drum all you like, but you're out of step with the evidence. In fact, there is NONE for your position. I've looked as well as I can, and cannot find a single shred of credible (that's a key word - "credible" evidence that the majority of people in this region wanted to be taken over by Russia. Even Texans state that they want to be their own entity, but none of them are lining up to be taken over by Mexico again.

Even if they did want to return to being a Mexican territory, that still doesn't mean that Mexico coming in and doing it would be justified or make any sense. It also doesn't make sense for the French to invade Louisiana or for Cuba to invade Florida.

And neither does the case you continually try to lay out to justify Russia's actions.

Perhaps you're playing devil's advocate - and I kind of sense that you might be doing exactly that.

Whatever your reasons for taking this stance over and over again are is irrelevant.

Your point is indeed interesting. But that's all it is: Interesting; not compelling.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

...

That does not mean that they want to be taken by force into the nation of their heritage. It also doesn't justify invasion of those regions on the part of the nation that their heritage came from.

I've never suggested that they want to be taken by force...not once.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

I keep hearing you say over and over again that this region of people wanted to be Russian - but there's ZERO evidence of that. Where were the protests before Putin's involvement asking for re-unification with Russia? Where were the calls for a vote? How come Russian spies had to kick things off and how come Russian spies have to keep intervening to keep this movement alive? How come Russia had to do it covertly, instead of making an appeal to the world, laying out their humanitarian cause, and putting pressure on Ukraine to allow separation?

If thats what you keep hearing, then you're not listening to me. I have said time and time again that some people and specifically some regions of the Ukraine want to rejoin Russia. There were less than 25,000 Russian troops stationed in Crimea prior to the vote, and during the vote there were the same. There are 2.3 million people living in Crimea and 58% of them identify as Russian. If they didn't want to re-join Russia, it wouldn't have happened. No Crimeans were killed by Russian troops, and the only casualties came from small scuffles between the Ukrainian army and Russian backed Crimean soldiers. If you want to call this an invasion and a hostile takeover thats your right, but its simply not true.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

How come the tanks were found sneaking into the border? How come Russia continues to deny that involvement now?

I just said that if Russian tanks have crossed the border, then I retract my previous statement, but 10, 20, 100 tanks does not equal an invasion when you have hundreds more and thousands of troops waiting on the border.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

If their cause is so pure and so good, how come they've had to manage it every step of the way like a shadow government? How come it resembles more of a KGB inspired coup than any kind of revolution?

Where did I ever say their cause was good and pure???

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

You can keep beating this drum all you like, but you're out of step with the evidence. In fact, there is NONE for your position. I've looked as well as I can, and cannot find a single shred of credible (that's a key word - "credible" evidence that the majority of people in this region wanted to be taken over by Russia.

I just listed some. And I AGAIN, I NEVER SAID that all of Ukraine wants to rejoin Russia. For the love of god, if I have to say this one more time I'm gonna fucking scream. I have said over and over and over again that there is a movement in the Ukraine by some people to re-join Russia, and in some regions its stronger than others. I'm done saying this, its the last time I'm going to say it, if you can't understand my position then thats too bad, I'm not stating it again.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

Even Texans state that they want to be their own entity, but none of them are lining up to be taken over by Mexico again.

You should maybe try comparing apple to apples, not apples to bananas.
Go look at some of my posts in the other thread, but comparing this situation to a Texas/Mexico reunification is not even remotely similar. The Ukraine has only been an independent nation for 13 years, they still have strong ties to Russia, and if you look at Crimea you'll see that they were part of Russia for hundreds of years and basically given to the Ukraine as a gift..many Crimean people have refused to accept Ukrainian control for centuries.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

Even if they did want to return to being a Mexican territory, that still doesn't mean that Mexico coming in and doing it would be justified or make any sense. It also doesn't make sense for the French to invade Louisiana or for Cuba to invade Florida.

Completely irreverent.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

And neither does the case you continually try to lay out to justify Russia's actions.

Perhaps you're playing devil's advocate - and I kind of sense that you might be doing exactly that.

Whatever your reasons for taking this stance over and over again are interesting. But that's all they are: Interesting, not compelling.

I'm not sure what you think my stance is, but incase you missed it the prior 100 times I've said it in this thread and the other one; its up there ^ a few paragraphs.

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, SP, (although the entirety of your post seems to be you clarifying your position, so perhaps more of a follow-up isn't needed?)...

But you most certainly do time and time again give the assertion that Crimea's (and the other involved areas) people overwhelmingly support returning to Russian rule.

Quote:

The current situation in Ukraine would be impossible without having massive support for Russian reunification from Ukrainian people.

"Massive" certainly paints a picture that it is indeed, massive. A 51% majority isn't even massive. Massive has a meaning.

Perhaps what would be more fair to say, and what would prevent you from implying things you don't mean to imply, is to say "many" people, or to occasionally point out that this action is not supported by the majority of the people in these regions.

Either of those two things, or ideally both, would prevent your knack for hyperbole from giving the people the impression that you are misunderstanding or attempting to misinform.

Quote:

The simple fact of the mater is that the Ukrainian people are tired of...

While minor, this too gives the impression that "the people - all of the people or the majority of the people" support the action taking place.

Quote:

Granted it was an illegal vote, and the vote itself was sketchy at best, but still, the majority of the people wanted it.

While you do rightly and responsibly point out that this was an illegal vote, you also fail to point out that the questions the people were allowed to vote on were "Do you want to join Russia" with no competitive answer, and that the requirement for being allowed to vote in that election was that a person must hold a passport - meaning that they were part of the social class approved to travel abroad and that were recognized by the powers in place.

And there are many other examples.

So perhaps you do not actually mean to intimate that you feel this action was supported by the population, but the quotes just from the few in this thread tend to paint the picture, strongly imply, or in some cases explicitly mislead someone who reads what you write to believe you are stating this was a popularly supported action.

I am not the first to raise this challenge to you.

if that's not what you mean to say, then I accept that.

But there's a reason readers keep getting that impression from you.




PS: You mean irrelevant, not irreverent. I do irreverent things from time to time, but I did not take such an action today. I disagree that it's irrelevant but I'll try to address that when I get a chance, if upon reading more closely it's still pertinent.

This is the last time I clarify my position, I don't know why its so hard to understand. I've never used the words "most of Ukraine" "majority of Ukraine" "everyone in Ukraine" or anything like that. I am saying that there is support in the Ukraine for reunification with Russia. Period. Some regions of Ukraine have more support for this then others. I don't know if on a whole (the entire country, not just regions) if support is 20%, 50%, or 80%...and neither does anyone. What I said is support is massive...that doesn't mean a majority, it means a lot of people. The are 45 million people in the country, even if its 10% that support re-unification, thats 4.5 million people, I'd call that massive support and a significant percentage of the population that you can't just ignore. Now...I don't pretend to know the number, and you can't either, but in MANY conflicts that we've seen on TV between pro reunification supporters and pro Ukrainian supporters we've seen an almost balanced number of people on both sides. Granted, I would guess that the reunification side probably turns out in greater numbers, but even given that, it still equals a significant and massive segment of the population.

Its not an invasion.
It not an occupation.

If anything it a revolution attempt that is being aided by the Russians. Will it turn into an invasion? Maybe, but it isn't today, and calling it one is irresponsible,

The trouble started when Ukrainians got rid of Russia's puppet leader. Ukrainians wanted to sign a trade agreement with the EU. Putin either doesn't want to spend the money invading and owning Ukraine would cost. Also there is the western sanctions and world condemnation. So they are doing the next best thing which is to bring down the Ukrainian government and put another puppet leader in Ukraine. So it gets the same results of an invasion by going through the back door. They are supplying plenty of military hardware and probably special forces to the pro Russian rebels.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

Putin quotes :

"I will recall once more Russia's most recent history.
Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.
Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or reformed carelessly. Terrorist intervention and the Khasavyurt capitulation that followed damaged the country's integrity. Oligarchic groups — possessing absolute control over information channels — served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty began to be seen as the norm. And all this was happening against the backdrop of a dramatic economic downturn, unstable finances, and the paralysis of the social sphere.
Many thought or seemed to think at the time that our young democracy was not a continuation of Russian statehood, but its ultimate collapse, the prolonged agony of the Soviet system.
But they were mistaken.
That was precisely the period when the significant developments took place in Russia. Our society was generating not only the energy of self-preservation, but also the will for a new and free life. "

"People in Russia say that those who do not regret the collapse of the Soviet Union have no heart, and those that do regret it have no brain. We do not regret this, we simply state the fact and know that we need to look ahead, not backwards. We will not allow the past to drag us down and stop us from moving ahead. We understand where we should move. But we must act based on a clear understanding of what happened.. "

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

I think the conversation is missing a few potentially important considerations. One is that Putin isn't the only person in their government. Russia is a big country - 11 time zones, incredibly complex history, even more complex social structures. Folks there are taking advantage of whatever they can at every level, just like they do here and everywhere else.

However, there could be a variety of agendas at work beyond Putin's -- even though he's an incredibly skilled liar and manipulator (like any good politician).

vdg, you left out that Putin is a dictator who can stay in power pretty much for the rest of his life. Unlike Obama who can only serve 8 years. Putin has more say so in his country than any USA politician. For example, Republicans are refusing to allow 100 of Obamas non controversial appointees to go through. Why? Just to fuck with him. Obama can also be over ruled by the Supreme Court. Obama support laws against the use of Pot while some states have bypassed Federal law and made Pot legal. Go against Putin and you will most likely end up in a Siberia Gulag

Quote:

Originally posted by NightCruiser

vdg, you left out that Putin is a dictator who can stay in power pretty much for the rest of his life. Unlike Obama who can only serve 8 years. Putin has more say so in his country than any USA politician. For example, Republicans are refusing to allow 100 of Obamas non controversial appointees to go through. Why? Just to fuck with him. Obama can also be over ruled by the Supreme Court. Obama support laws against the use of Pot while some states have bypassed Federal law and made Pot legal. Go against Putin and you will most likely end up in a Siberia Gulag

Only for as long as those around him find it useful... Same as here or any place else.

Quote:

Originally posted by NightCruiser

The trouble started when Ukrainians got rid of Russia's puppet leader. Ukrainians wanted to sign a trade agreement with the EU. Putin either doesn't want to spend the money invading and owning Ukraine would cost. Also there is the western sanctions and world condemnation. So they are doing the next best thing which is to bring down the Ukrainian government and put another puppet leader in Ukraine. So it gets the same results of an invasion by going through the back door. They are supplying plenty of military hardware and probably special forces to the pro Russian rebels.

You do realize that they just had an election in Ukraine right?

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

Putin quotes :

"I will recall once more Russia's most recent history.
Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.
Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or reformed carelessly. Terrorist intervention and the Khasavyurt capitulation that followed damaged the country's integrity. Oligarchic groups — possessing absolute control over information channels — served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty began to be seen as the norm. And all this was happening against the backdrop of a dramatic economic downturn, unstable finances, and the paralysis of the social sphere.
Many thought or seemed to think at the time that our young democracy was not a continuation of Russian statehood, but its ultimate collapse, the prolonged agony of the Soviet system.
But they were mistaken.
That was precisely the period when the significant developments took place in Russia. Our society was generating not only the energy of self-preservation, but also the will for a new and free life. "

"People in Russia say that those who do not regret the collapse of the Soviet Union have no heart, and those that do regret it have no brain. We do not regret this, we simply state the fact and know that we need to look ahead, not backwards. We will not allow the past to drag us down and stop us from moving ahead. We understand where we should move. But we must act based on a clear understanding of what happened.. "

Putin can think whatever he want's, and he can TRY and do whatever he wants, this doesn't mean that he'll GET whatever he wants. You seem to think that he has some sort of free pass that will just allow him to take whatever he wants. He may have visions of a reunited USSR, but that doesn't mean he'll get it. Russia is fairly cash poor to be starting a war with the 12 former Soviet States, not to mention at that point NATO would get involved. He is one man, he may have some backers, but he's going to have a war on his hands that he can't afford if he tries to bring back communism and re-unify the USSR. He may be crazy, but he's no dummy.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

This is the last time I clarify my position, I don't know why its so hard to understand.

Probably because of your writing style.

You say things that are misleading and that imply this sentiment, and you do it over and over again. I listed a very small sample of your writings that do that, and I only had to go two posts up to find those. You do it. You do it a lot.

It's a common rhetorical tactic/skill and one I've often used and even enjoyed in the past myself. It's referred to as hyperbole.

Essentially, the author makes an effort to make a point more compelling or powerful by adding a touch of emphasis and potency to it. In so doing, they over-state or over-emphasize the smaller point they are trying to make. Often this is done to try to bring an analogous understanding to the reader, but it's easy to use it in other ways as well and it doesn't always work the way the author intends. Sometimes it can make a point more clear for someone else and help solidify the underlying points of one's argument as well. There are pros to it, and there are cons to it.

It's a rhetorical tool, and it's a tool you use. It's a tool you use frequently.

It's not a bad tactic, and it's not even something I'm critiquing. As I said, I've done it.

But you seemed to ask the question of why people don't seem to understand what you're saying. The answer to that question is "because the way you write gives people that misunderstanding."

Yea this resembles KGB tactics because Putin is KGB

"This" what ? Be specific.

Quote:

Originally posted by NightCruiser

Yea this resembles KGB tactics because Putin is KGB

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, SP, (although the entirety of your post seems to be you clarifying your position, so perhaps more of a follow-up isn't needed?)...

But you most certainly do time and time again give the assertion that Crimea's (and the other involved areas) people overwhelmingly support returning to Russian rule.

...

"Massive" certainly paints a picture that it is indeed, massive. A 51% majority isn't even massive. Massive has a meaning.

Perhaps what would be more fair to say, and what would prevent you from implying things you don't mean to imply, is to say "many" people, or to occasionally point out that this action is not supported by the majority of the people in these regions.

Either of those two things, or ideally both, would prevent your knack for hyperbole from giving the people the impression that you are misunderstanding or attempting to misinform.

...

While minor, this too gives the impression that "the people - all of the people or the majority of the people" support the action taking place.

...

While you do rightly and responsibly point out that this was an illegal vote, you also fail to point out that the questions the people were allowed to vote on were "Do you want to join Russia" with no competitive answer, and that the requirement for being allowed to vote in that election was that a person must hold a passport - meaning that they were part of the social class approved to travel abroad and that were recognized by the powers in place.

And there are many other examples.

So perhaps you do not actually mean to intimate that you feel this action was supported by the population, but the quotes just from the few in this thread tend to paint the picture, strongly imply, or in some cases explicitly mislead someone who reads what you write to believe you are stating this was a popularly supported action.

I am not the first to raise this challenge to you.

if that's not what you mean to say, then I accept that.

But there's a reason readers keep getting that impression from you.




PS: You mean irrelevant, not irreverent. I do irreverent things from time to time, but I did not take such an action today. I disagree that it's irrelevant but I'll try to address that when I get a chance, if upon reading more closely it's still pertinent.

Well said Tarquin...

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

"This" what ? Be specific.

...

Stirring the Pot in another country so you can be "invited in" when it comes to part of it and create so much chaos in the other part of it, that it looks like you are trying to save it . There is really no way of knowing how many KGB agents and special forces are in Ukraine stirring up trouble and fighting the government of Ukraine. They have a perfect platform of Crimea to do so. Putin will continue to turn the screws until this has a favorable outcome for Russia. He has already said he wants companies to invest and make money off Russia and not foreign interest. He doesn't care about sanctions unless someone in the Russian government forces him to care. But he is very popular with the people fighting the west and trying to make Russia powerful once again. Lots of propaganda and disinformation are another big part of KGB tactics.
In other words he is loaded with KGB demons

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

...

Probably because of your writing style.

You say things that are misleading and that imply this sentiment, and you do it over and over again. I listed a very small sample of your writings that do that, and I only had to go two posts up to find those. You do it. You do it a lot.

It's a common rhetorical tactic/skill and one I've often used and even enjoyed in the past myself. It's referred to as hyperbole.

Essentially, the author makes an effort to make a point more compelling or powerful by adding a touch of emphasis and potency to it. In so doing, they over-state or over-emphasize the smaller point they are trying to make. Often this is done to try to bring an analogous understanding to the reader, but it's easy to use it in other ways as well and it doesn't always work the way the author intends. Sometimes it can make a point more clear for someone else and help solidify the underlying points of one's argument as well. There are pros to it, and there are cons to it.

It's a rhetorical tool, and it's a tool you use. It's a tool you use frequently.

It's not a bad tactic, and it's not even something I'm critiquing. As I said, I've done it.

But you seemed to ask the question of why people don't seem to understand what you're saying. The answer to that question is "because the way you write gives people that misunderstanding."

lol...because I used the word "massive" I write hyperbole.

next time I'll use prodigious.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

lol...because I used the word "massive" I write hyperbole.

next time I'll use prodigious.

I was hoping for a better response from you than this. Especially since you didn't understand why you were being "misunderstood" and someone went out of their way to try to answer your implied question about it.

If it was one word, one time, that would be one thing, Sugarpie.

It's not one word, one time. In fact, I skipped several really good examples from your writing, and at least one additional glaring example in this thread.

It's a constant behavior that you engage in in every thread I've ever seen you in. At this point, I can only estimate that it's not only something you do knowingly, but something you do intentionally.

It seems to me that you've become frustrated with being "misunderstood" and then someone offered you far more than one simple word to explain why you were being misunderstood.

Instead of thinking about it intelligently, you've chosen to attempt to minimize it and dismiss it.

That's fine. That's your choice. It's not the choice I'd make, but that's just me.

But then stop complaining about your outcomes. They are indeed made - quite intentionally - by you and you alone.

Thanks, I don't need a writing lesson.

Its not my fault that you incorrectly assume that massive means majority.

Clickety click

Let's not have similar topics pop up all over, stay with the original and keep it civil.

YM