European politics
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: European politics
Maybe GS was right about you. Don't you ever get tired of these out of context, nitpicked, strawman arguments.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Re: European politics
@princeofcarthage
The thing is that you keep repeating talking points that I countered with arguments over and over again. And you keep coming back with the same stuff despite not having addressed those arguments, as if nothing has been said on these subjects.
It's not like someone will invest time into persuading you that what you're saying is a gross simplification if not downright distortion of facts. All this on the offtopic section of a dead-ish forum.
Everyone's got a better use for their time.
Up to a point it makes sense to have this sort of debates, if one wants to just practice their arguments, for whatever reason, or to just practice debating in general.
But it makes no sense to respond to points that have been covered before. There are way more fun ways to waste time than sperging out about politics on a dead forum.
The thing is that you keep repeating talking points that I countered with arguments over and over again. And you keep coming back with the same stuff despite not having addressed those arguments, as if nothing has been said on these subjects.
It's not like someone will invest time into persuading you that what you're saying is a gross simplification if not downright distortion of facts. All this on the offtopic section of a dead-ish forum.
Everyone's got a better use for their time.
Up to a point it makes sense to have this sort of debates, if one wants to just practice their arguments, for whatever reason, or to just practice debating in general.
But it makes no sense to respond to points that have been covered before. There are way more fun ways to waste time than sperging out about politics on a dead forum.
Re: European politics
He's just doing Gish gallop anyway.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Re: European politics
That and the bullshit asymmetry principle
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: European politics
I could accuse you of doing the same. The thing is I have brought arguments to you from a neutral perspective, yet you couldn't counter one argument without your inherent bias against Russia. Despite overwhelming evidence from multiple sources, despite responses from countries representing 75%+ global population, 60%+ global economy, precedence and barrage of historical events, despite every western country having done same thing when in place of Russia, you still refuse to accept the truth of the situation.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Re: European politics
Then why are your arguments 100% indistinguishable from Kremlin vatnik propaganda.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑23 Jun 2022, 19:55The thing is I have brought arguments to you from a neutral perspective
Not true, I countered them all. But you just move on without acknowledging you have no more counterarguments or just pretend nothing has been said.yet you couldn't counter one argument without your inherent bias against Russia.
Can you prove this statement? Because based on my last estimation, it's exactly the other way around. It's most of the developed world and the biggest economies that condemned Russia for its imperialist invasion of Ukraine. If you only just add the USA and the EU's economies you get over half of the globe's economic output. But if you start adding Japan, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan you get over 60% of the world's generated economic value.despite responses from countries representing ... 60%+ global economy,
Here's a chart, you can do the calculations yourself, it's data from 2021 so recent enough:
Yeah I already covered that. I explained to you how you are mistaken to claim the Ukrainian people and identity did not exist before the 20th century, I wrote a chronology showing the main events that defined Ukraine as a separate medieval entity with its own rulers and language that split from Russian many centuries ago and how Russian rulers tried to suppress it. They've been through the same pattern of events we see now since medieval times. Russian invaders have kept trying to occupy lands around their turf and just kept expanding by oppressing neighbouring peoples.precedence and barrage of historical events
Where did Western countries occupy and annex foreign countries in the last century? Did the UK's or USA's territory increase through annexation somewhere in the last 100 years? They stopped doing that before the second WW, when Western colonial empires had already disappeared., despite every western country having done same thing when in place of Russia, you still refuse to accept the truth of the situation.
Iraq and Lybia and Afghanistan weren't territorial annexations, it wasn't what Russia is doing now in Ukraine. The USA didn't invade Iraq to take their territory, like Russia does in Ukraine. It's a very simple thing to notice that you refuse to acknowledge because you have this Russian fanboyism deeply screwed into your psyche.
And anyway whataboutism doesn't justify what Russia is doing now in Ukraine.
Re: European politics
Some report says Ukraines are out of weapons and supply, thus can't hold the frontline anymore. Do the simple "amount" of Russian overwhelms the accurate, deadly but rare western cannons?
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: European politics
There are some Ukrainian regions like Severodonetsk/Lysychansk, which are being slowly and expensively taken. But at the same time Ukrainians are making some progress in Kherson area. As usual, what you heard is quite one sided and therefore is more of a half-truth / lie by omission.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: European politics
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
Re: European politics
That is, actually, not worth to watch in full. It's a well-known Russian propaganda show and this Putin loyalist does what Putin loyalist do best: threatening this, threatening that, and talking a lot about how mighty the Russian military forces and their Wunderwaffen are. This is mostly aimed at domestic viewers and just another propaganda piece to show off how strong Russia is under Putin.
If you want to know the truth, e.g. about the weapons mentioned, just invert his statements and you will be quite close to it.
If you want to know the truth, e.g. about the weapons mentioned, just invert his statements and you will be quite close to it.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: European politics
Russia should definitely establish a land corridor to Kaliningrad though. Lithuania has done acts of war in times of peace and threatened economic and security interests of another nation.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: European politics
sounds familiar.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:13done acts of war in times of peace and threatened economic and security interests of another nation.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
Re: European politics
Yeah tbh Russia should definitely try to do that. Can't wait to see that happening, this would shorten the whole conflict and put an end to their delusions of being a superpower.
Re: European politics
I can only recommend making use of the pest list.harcha wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:23sounds familiar.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:13done acts of war in times of peace and threatened economic and security interests of another nation.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Re: European politics
Wtf are you talking about. Lithuania has no obligation to allow trains from another state to transit its territory. They can completely close their borders if they want to. A sovereign state can do that at any time for whatever reasons they deem necessary.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:13Russia should definitely establish a land corridor to Kaliningrad though. Lithuania has done acts of war in times of peace and threatened economic and security interests of another nation.
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: European politics
Yes, but this is not that. This is pure blackmail plain and simple. This is upending the status quo that has been in place for decades. This breaks the very nature of the contract that parties are obligated to follow. Does the treaty between Russia and Lithuania which allows Russia to transport goods to Kaliningrad explicitly allow Lithuania to break the deal at any given time without any notice? If not then it is breach of contract and under the circumstances could be constituted as an act of war.Dolan wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:48Wtf are you talking about. Lithuania has no obligation to allow trains from another state to transit its territory. They can completely close their borders if they want to. A sovereign state can do that at any time for whatever reasons they deem necessary.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:13Russia should definitely establish a land corridor to Kaliningrad though. Lithuania has done acts of war in times of peace and threatened economic and security interests of another nation.
This is the very nature of how monopolistic companies work. They give you something, make you dependent on it, clear out the competition and then charge exorbitant amount to access the said product.
Lithuania is the company, land access to Kaliningrad is the product, sea routes were the competition and now coercion is the exorbitant price. Due to deal in place Russia never developed alternate routes and became dependent on Lithuania and now Lithuania is blackmailing.
Also I am 60% confident that under some international rules this would be illegal to do so. For ex India and China cannot block access or flow of goods through Nepal.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: European politics
Reports are emerging that Ukraine along with secret CIA officials in kyiv have created an elite unit which is responsible for carrying out cross border attacks in Russia, on fuel depots, ammunition and stuff.
I had said Ukraine should do this in first weeks of war. But obviously they should go further in and strike at the heart of Russia, take out important targets and figures in Moscow itself.
I had said Ukraine should do this in first weeks of war. But obviously they should go further in and strike at the heart of Russia, take out important targets and figures in Moscow itself.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Re: European politics
What treaty, Russia broke the treaty it signed with Ukraine in 1997, by which it recognised Ukraine's borders in exchange for Ukraine removing its nukes. If Russia breaks international treaties, why shouldn't Lithuania do it too.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 12:56Yes, but this is not that. This is pure blackmail plain and simple. This is upending the status quo that has been in place for decades. This breaks the very nature of the contract that parties are obligated to follow. Does the treaty between Russia and Lithuania which allows Russia to transport goods to Kaliningrad explicitly allow Lithuania to break the deal at any given time without any notice? If not then it is breach of contract and under the circumstances could be constituted as an act of war.Dolan wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:48Wtf are you talking about. Lithuania has no obligation to allow trains from another state to transit its territory. They can completely close their borders if they want to. A sovereign state can do that at any time for whatever reasons they deem necessary.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 11:13Russia should definitely establish a land corridor to Kaliningrad though. Lithuania has done acts of war in times of peace and threatened economic and security interests of another nation.
This is the very nature of how monopolistic companies work. They give you something, make you dependent on it, clear out the competition and then charge exorbitant amount to access the said product.
Lithuania is the company, land access to Kaliningrad is the product, sea routes were the competition and now coercion is the exorbitant price. Due to deal in place Russia never developed alternate routes and became dependent on Lithuania and now Lithuania is blackmailing.
Also I am 60% confident that under some international rules this would be illegal to do so. For ex India and China cannot block access or flow of goods through Nepal.
By invading Ukraine, Russia broke norms of international law, so they can't expect the other parties of international laws to keep respecting treaties when they don't respect the same rules themselves.
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: European politics
Treaties work both way. Ukraine became an existential threat to Russia. Russia warned of the consequences. Russia had armed forces for nearly a year on the border threatening war if situation is not improved. What did West do? Make it worse.
Now you may argue exactly opposite of this and that is your prerogative but I don't want to get into repeated discussions over same things specifically considering you can't objectively discuss due to your inherent bias against Russia.
In court of law I only have to prove I felt threatened enough to take action regardless of the actual threat. Russia felt threatened and regardless of everything else true or false that is justification enough. Western world have started wars for much much less. And no this is not about whataboutism it is about precedence set by western countries and the general trend of how countries react to threat.
There is this very well written line in Dr. Strange 2 which resonates here.
" You break the rules and become a hero. I do it, and I become the enemy. That doesn't seem fair. "
Now you may argue exactly opposite of this and that is your prerogative but I don't want to get into repeated discussions over same things specifically considering you can't objectively discuss due to your inherent bias against Russia.
In court of law I only have to prove I felt threatened enough to take action regardless of the actual threat. Russia felt threatened and regardless of everything else true or false that is justification enough. Western world have started wars for much much less. And no this is not about whataboutism it is about precedence set by western countries and the general trend of how countries react to threat.
There is this very well written line in Dr. Strange 2 which resonates here.
" You break the rules and become a hero. I do it, and I become the enemy. That doesn't seem fair. "
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Re: European politics
Yeah and we've been over the same argument multiple times. Russia claims Ukraine became an existential threat. Which is a ridiculous claim. Why did they ask Ukraine to remove their nukes in 1997? What was the purpose of that demand? To achieve what? Why would you ever ask another state to disarm itself and remove its nukes? To... remove a threat, right? And that's what Ukraine did. It removed its nukes. What did this achieve? Ukraine stopped being a threat, right? You can't threaten a nuclear power like Russia that keeps bragging about how they could wipe out London in just a few minutes with just conventional weapons. You can't threaten someone who has nukes with just a bunch of tanks and gun machines.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 09:59Treaties work both way. Ukraine became an existential threat to Russia. Russia warned of the consequences. Russia had armed forces for nearly a year on the border threatening war if situation is not improved. What did West do? Make it worse.
Now you may argue exactly opposite of this and that is your prerogative but I don't want to get into repeated discussions over same things specifically considering you can't objectively discuss due to your inherent bias against Russia.
In court of law I only have to prove I felt threatened enough to take action regardless of the actual threat. Russia felt threatened and regardless of everything else true or false that is justification enough. Western world have started wars for much much less. And no this is not about whataboutism it is about precedence set by western countries and the general trend of how countries react to threat.
There is this very well written line in Dr. Strange 2 which resonates here.
" You break the rules and become a hero. I do it, and I become the enemy. That doesn't seem fair. "
You have to be delusional to think any other country can pose an existential threat to Russia if they don't have any nukes.
And then there's the sheer difference in size and resources. Russia's army, population, territory, everything is many many many times bigger than what can Ukraine muster against it. It'd be like Portugal threatening France. Or Ireland threatening the UK. Absolutely unrealistic that they could ever be an existential threat to a country that is so much bigger. And which also has nukes.
It's just a perfidious and fake reason that Russia uses to push its own agenda of proximity imperialism. Which means Ukraine was the only significant republic in its neighbourhood that posed a threat to Russia's plans to control all the republics around its borders. That was the actual "existential" threat. It's like a mafia boss complaining that some guy is posing an existential threat to him because he can't put a gun to his head to ask him to pay a protection tax.
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: European politics
Do you live on Earth? or did they not teach you history? Not even a century has passed since the end of British colonization, a small tiny island nation which defeated and controlled empires much larger than herself. Controlled 25% of Earths land at its peak. And you still think that smaller nations are not threat to bigger ones? Nuclear weapons are good as far as deterrence goes rest is just mutual destruction. Any nuclear strike in Ukraine would affect rest of Europe at large and possibly nearby NATO lands. UK and France would likely retaliate with strikes of their own and so will US.
Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons for variety of reasons. They would have faced nonrecognition and sanctions from west. They did not have an active nuclear weapons program and would have made it very hard to 1) Get operational control of the weapons 2) Maintain the infrastructure and restock in future. The ICBMS placed in Ukraine were mainly targeted at US with minimum range of 5000 kms, even if they were operational they couldn't target the main industrial base of western Russia thus making them not much of a deterrent.
Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons for variety of reasons. They would have faced nonrecognition and sanctions from west. They did not have an active nuclear weapons program and would have made it very hard to 1) Get operational control of the weapons 2) Maintain the infrastructure and restock in future. The ICBMS placed in Ukraine were mainly targeted at US with minimum range of 5000 kms, even if they were operational they couldn't target the main industrial base of western Russia thus making them not much of a deterrent.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: European politics
Could you please expand on how Ukrainian nukes could be targeted at USA but not targeted at Russia?
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: European politics
Because they have a minimum range of 5000 kms, hence they could target only far east Russia which is kind of irrelevant. What is hard to understand in this?
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Re: European politics
Britain was able to do that because it had gunpowder technology, a naval force and it mostly conquered areas inhabited by tribes that were fighting with sticks and arrows (with the exception of India, maybe). So they managed to build an empire by out-gunning the native tribes. Ukraine has nothing of the sort. They're not fighting tribes armed with sticks and stones, they're fighting the world's number one nuclear power. And the world's second conventional military force, according to global rankings of military strength. It's not just the nukes, it's also the number of tanks, artillery, armoured vehicles, active combat forces, missile systems and so on. In every measurable way, Russia's military and resources were way above Ukraine's. So how could Ukraine pose any direct threat to a much larger enemy. It couldn't. Show me the military expert who ever said with a straight face that Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia due to its military. Nobody is that ridiculous to make such a claim. Except Russia because, as usual, they're making stuff up as they go.princeofcarthage wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 11:07Do you live on Earth? or did they not teach you history? Not even a century has passed since the end of British colonization, a small tiny island nation which defeated and controlled empires much larger than herself. Controlled 25% of Earths land at its peak. And you still think that smaller nations are not threat to bigger ones? Nuclear weapons are good as far as deterrence goes rest is just mutual destruction.
Why would France or the UK spend its nukes on a country that is not in NATO. Do you think a country can just launch nukes like that, based on some politician's whim? No, there's a law on how you're allowed to do that. And there's no law that would make it possible for the French president to spend their nukes on some country to which they have no security obligations whatsoever. Those things are expensive, you don't just launch them when your country is not in danger and neither is a state with which you are allied by law and treaty. It's nothing comparable to conventional weapons that you can sell, donate, lend. You can't do that with nukes, they're strictly for your own use, as a weapon of last resort.Any nuclear strike in Ukraine would affect rest of Europe at large and possibly nearby NATO lands. UK and France would likely retaliate with strikes of their own and so will US.
No, they gave them up to get recognition of their borders from Russia. They had just managed to free themselves from under the USSR's grip and they wanted security guarantees to make sure they can actually function as an independent state. It turned out to be a big mistake, in hindsight. This war wouldn't have taken place if they kept the nukes. Russia didn't respect the treaty anyway, they invaded Crimea in 2014, in flagrant breach of the 1997 treaty.Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons for variety of reasons. They would have faced nonrecognition and sanctions from west. They did not have an active nuclear weapons program and would have made it very hard to 1) Get operational control of the weapons 2) Maintain the infrastructure and restock in future. The ICBMS placed in Ukraine were mainly targeted at US with minimum range of 5000 kms, even if they were operational they couldn't target the main industrial base of western Russia thus making them not much of a deterrent.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests