Georgian Independence

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

Oh. So you're Estonian? That would explain being crazy about Russia. Does it feel better to be living in a glorified US military base? Probably would, eh.

Järves elada kuri näkk, kes lapsed kinni võtta ja järve viia.

Something about an evil lake-spirit that mother has to keep the kids away from? translate.google is a bit lost. Sorry for thinking of you as Georgian, eh, probably insulting to everyone involved. I'm from one of the British colonies, by the by, named for the Dutch bloke who paid to find it, New Zealand. The only one to invade here ever was Britain, who lost all the battles but won the war thanks to measles, and I'm Pakeha so it hardly even counts.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

My history professor said that given Russia's recent expansion, the Baltic states probably are feeling some justifiable nervousness for their sovereignty at the moment. The big counterweight is their NATO membership, which is a pretty heavy weight, but I can totally see why an Estonian might be nervous about NATO not showing up to defend them. Not for particularly valid reasons, just because it's their only real defense and unlayered security breeds worry.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

The Estonian government says crazy things all the time and is one of the most dangerous things to world peace in modern times. I can't read Estonian (what with it being a Finno-Ugric language), but I assume that Estonian media is basically just as bad.

The big issue is that the Estonian government doesn't seem to "get" NATO. It's a defensive pact. The whole point of NATO is that "an attack on one is an attack on all." That means that if Russia were to attack Tartu, that would nominally be considered like an attack on Manchester or Vancouver. The safety that NATO membership brings, literally the entire safety that it brings, is the extent to which that pledge is taken seriously.

But here's the thing: for NATO membership to actually mean that, there has to be a very very large dividing line between attacking a NATO member state and not doing that. If NATO threatens to go to war to avenge non-member countries, then the difference between the apparent outcomes of attacking a NATO member and not are reduced. Every time Estonia demands that NATO antagonize Russia when Russia has not attacked a NATO member state, we get closer to the point where Russia rationally concludes that they are going to war with NATO no matter what they do and it's time to nuke Paris and hope for the best.

It's disheartening but in no way surprising to see an actual Estonian parroting the same crazy and dangerous line that their government does. Estonia's a democracy, all that crazy has to be representing somebody.

-Username17
Kuri Näkk
Apprentice
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:49 am

Post by Kuri Näkk »

DSMatticus, you are spewing Russian propaganda. Two random examples:
DSMatticus wrote: You are a fucking dumbass and lrn2timeline. 1922-1990: South Ossetia is an autonomous oblast within Georgia's borders.
Why start the timeline from 1922, and not from 1921 or earlier? Is it because it would then be more inconvenient to cover up the fact that autonomous region of South Ossetia was created by Moscow within their puppet republic of communist Georgia – all this made possible by invasion and conquest of Georgia by Russian Bolsheviks in 1921?
DSMatticus wrote: You know, claiming Georgia hadn't attacked Russia and instead had only been attempting to reassert control over its own territories? That's fucking bullshit, because South Ossetia has been autonomous since 1922;
So, in your fucked up mind the fact that South Ossetia was part of Georgia somehow means that it really was not part of it because it had certain autonomy? How more crazy one can get?

According to Frank’s criteria you are suspect of being a covert Russian agent. However, I think you are just a useful idiot. You think that Georgians are the main culprits instead of seeing that they also are victims in the conflict largely created and fuelled by Russia. Do you think that Georgians have also not tried to settle peacfully their differences with Ossetians? Guess who has blocked such attempts? I suggest travelling to South Ossetia to see for yourself the sites of glorious wars for 'independence', which consist mostly of burnt and deserted Georgian villages. I hope that you are not from US. If you are, do not tell it in the area because it is well known fact for most people living in Russia that US orchestrated and directly participated in the Georgian 2008 war, just as US orchestrated Maidan in Ukraine and fights against the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk republics. Why, I have seen myself numerous reports in Russian media of US 'negro troops' fighting in Ukraine alongside with Ukrainian fascists junta, who crucifies children in front of their mothers. How terrible! Batja Putin has shown great restraint so far but hopefully he soon intervenes in the conflict for Novorussija – it is very hard for the local people to fight against the whole West alone with only the help of few volunteers on vacation from Russia. Meanwhile, let’s do some patriotic act like humiliating and killing gays who shame our Great Motherland, which one day stretched from Poland to Alaska and soon will again.

I am eagerly awaiting for your account, DSMatticus, how Crimea has always been Russian and why Donetsk and Lugansk regions are not really Ukraine. How dare those nationalist Ukrainian bastards attack Russia? They definitely deserve Russia boming shit out of them!
tussock wrote: I'm from one of the British colonies, by the by
I have noticed that the further people live from Russia the more they tend to sympathize with it. Like you - you clearly do not know jack shit about 2008 Georgian war, yet you felt compelled to bash me for my supposed attempt to whitewash Georgian actions. All the more strange because Russia does not make any secret what they think of the whole West: morally corrupt enemies.
angelfromanotherpin wrote:My history professor said that given Russia's recent expansion, the Baltic states probably are feeling some justifiable nervousness for their sovereignty at the moment. The big counterweight is their NATO membership, which is a pretty heavy weight, but I can totally see why an Estonian might be nervous about NATO not showing up to defend them. Not for particularly valid reasons, just because it's their only real defense and unlayered security breeds worry.
Basically correct, except my emphasis in this discussion has not been on military protection. I did not blame NATO, US or the West in general for not defending Georgia militarily. Nobody had pledged to defend Georgia militarily. (Frank’s conspiracy theories can safely be set aside as absurd.) Even Ukrainians do not expect US or UK to send forces despite the Budapest Memorandum by which these states (and Russia) gave security assurances to Ukraine against threats or use of force against their territorial integrity or political independence. The question was about political support after Russia far exceeded what was necessary to re-establish their previous control over South Ossetia. It is tragicomic that people like Frank or Tussoc accuse Georgians for underestimating Russians, while in reality all former republics of USSR are paranoid about full scale war with Russia and for a good reason.

No sane person in Georgia wanted full scale war with Russia just as no sane person in the Baltic States wants serious conflict with Russia because the countries would be devastated even if NATO shows up to defend, actually especially if NATO shows up. What is expected is strong political and economic pressure + credible military threat to discourage Putin and his close supporters having ideas about further serious conflicts. The West failed to contain Russian ambition in Georgia, time will tell whether the current pressure in Ukraine is enough. Most people in the Baltics fear that it is not enough because they live so close to Russia that they can feel daily the nationalistic and imperialistic madness, which has engulfed Russia.
Kuri Näkk
Apprentice
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:49 am

Post by Kuri Näkk »

FrankTrollman wrote:The Estonian government says crazy things all the time and is one of the most dangerous things to world peace in modern times. I can't read Estonian (what with it being a Finno-Ugric language), but I assume that Estonian media is basically just as bad.
Really? Like what are those ‘crazy things’, links please? You do not read Estonian - you just ‘assume’? etc I guess it is your style Frank. You spit out something malicious and idiotic – like Hagen being a fucking covert agent of Georgia. If someone calls on your bullshit you make grand statements like ‘all your claims are epistemologically bullshit’ while not addressing any of the arguments and making the most basic mistakes like deriving what ought to be from is. Once your position becomes untenable you just disappear only to reappear spitting some more malicious and outrageous shit.
FrankTrollman wrote: The big issue is that the Estonian government doesn't seem to "get" NATO. It's a defensive pact. The whole point of NATO is that "an attack on one is an attack on all."
The big issue about you is that your arrogance is just amazing. You really think that this basic stuff about NATO is not known by all around here?

Just as a small request, oh wisest man on the planet. Define ‘attack’ and then make a convincing argument why it is relevant at all considering you ramblings about ‘only realpolitik matters’. You are hypocrite, Frank.
FrankTrollman wrote: It's disheartening but in no way surprising to see an actual Estonian parroting the same crazy and dangerous line that their government does. Estonia's a democracy, all that crazy has to be representing somebody.
Which crazy and dangerous line exactly? Where have I demanded that NATO should antagonize Russia? Oh, I forgot – that is just your style, asshole.
Last edited by Kuri Näkk on Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

The question was about political support after Russia far exceeded what was necessary to re-establish their previous control over South Ossetia. It is tragicomic that people like Frank or Tussoc accuse Georgians for underestimating Russians, while in reality all former republics of USSR are paranoid about full scale war with Russia and for a good reason.
If Georgia was paranoid about Russia attacking them, rather than completely cavalier about the whole thing, then they wouldn't have attacked South Osetia after Russia declared South Osetia to be a red line in 2005. See, just like NATO has to maintain credibility that they will go "all in" to defend the places they've pledged to defend, Russia has to maintain credibility for the territorial defense pledges they made. And in 2005, they fucking made one for South Osetia.

So the moment that Georgia attempted to "annex" or "assert control over" or whatever the fuck you want to call it over South Osetia, Russia was literally required by law to use as much military force as was required to make that attempt fail. And Saakashvili knew that, and he did it anyway, because he is a fucking idiot who doesn't understand how detente with major powers works.
Why start the timeline from 1922, and not from 1921 or earlier?
Because neither Georgia nor South Osetia existed in a recognizable form in 1921. In 1921, the Russian Civil War was raging, and before 1917, Georgia wasn't a political unit and there were simply several governorships that owed fealty to the Czar. Before 1922, none of the parts of the region being discussed were nation states. There weren't even any self-governing kingdoms in the region after 1801.

It would be one thing to go back to some earlier date to find the land area claimed by a Georgian nation state, but no such date exists because there never was one. 1922 is the establishment of the Soviet Union and within the Soviet Union is the first time any of these administrative divisions actually existed.
No sane person in Georgia wanted full scale war with Russia just as no sane person in the Baltic States wants serious conflict with Russia because the countries would be devastated even if NATO shows up to defend, actually especially if NATO shows up. What is expected is strong political and economic pressure + credible military threat to discourage Putin and his close supporters having ideas about further serious conflicts. The West failed to contain Russian ambition in Georgia, time will tell whether the current pressure in Ukraine is enough. Most people in the Baltics fear that it is not enough because they live so close to Russia that they can feel daily the nationalistic and imperialistic madness, which has engulfed Russia.
Image

That is in fact the official position of Estonia and several other Eastern European countries. It's crazy and dangerous. Really, really dangerous. Also really crazy.

The real world that the rest of us live in has major powers with nuclear weapons pointed at each other that are capable of destroying all human civilization on the Earth. All out war is not unthinkable only in the sense that we are physically capable of thinking about it, having grown up and spent our entire lives living under the shadow of this terrible truth. All out war is, however, extremely undesirable. Because of the whole thing of blotting out the sun with the ashes of the dead. People aren't really keen on going there.

So what happens is for the major powers to draw extremely clear lines in the sand that would cause them to rain nuclear hellfire on each other, and because the lines are clear, they are not crossed. And then whole new generations can be born, live, and die under the shadow of the atom without being vaporized and left as shadows on the walls of the ruins of once-great cities.

The thing where Estonia and Georgia want NATO to throw its weight around and threaten military intervention against great powers that have very specifically not crossed the line is fucking insane. That is the worst thing you could possibly do. It undermines world peace in a way that simply hasn't even been possible for the vast majority of human history. It's so fucking terrible and insane that most people in Europe don't even believe that Estonians are actually doing it. It's such an irresponsible and dangerous tactic that people in the rest of the world where there's apparently less lead in the water simply refuse to believe that these dumb fuckers are actually suggesting it.

-Username17
User avatar
Longes
Prince
Posts: 2867
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:02 pm

Post by Longes »

I am eagerly awaiting for your account, DSMatticus, how Crimea has always been Russia.
Well, strictly speaking Crimean tatars have the biggest claim on the land. But they are an ethnic minority, so no one cares. Crimea itself is full of soviet pensioners and russian sailors, and, judging by latest polls (and please don't start the "people are afraid to talk" craziness here), are pretty content with the decision they made in the referendum (though I don't doubt that "wrong" decision would produce the same, albeit less happy, result.) Crimea itself has been given to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954, a change meaningless at that point, since Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. Then, when the USSR fell apart, Yeltsin failed to negotiate the return of Crimea, so it stayed in Ukraine as an autonomous republic with its own constitution. Which was promptly shat on by the Ukrainian government. Remaining as part of the Ukraine, but with the return to 1992 constitution was Option B in the 2014 referendum.
why Donetsk and Lugansk regions are not really Ukraine.
That would be silly. Donetsk and Lugansk are Ukraine according to Minsk-2, which was negotiated by Russia, and signed by DNR/LNR representatives, as well as Ukraine itself. And UN has passed a resolution proposed by Russia, where everyone pinky-swears to help uphold Minsk-2 agreements.
name_here
Prince
Posts: 3346
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:55 pm

Post by name_here »

NATO has spent its entire existence pointedly making it extremely clear that if anyone actually invades a NATO member, NATO will jointly retaliate. I'm not sure if this is still true, but at one point NATO actually had a stated policy of being willing to employ tactical nukes to repel a conventional invasion, because it looked like the USSR had a stronger conventional military and might be willing to use it if they thought it wouldn't start a nuclear war. When the trouble started in Ukraine, other NATO members pointedly reinforced their troop deployments in the NATO members nearby in order to make it entirely clear they're still serious about that, because everyone knows that invading a nation where a great power who has guaranteed its independence has stationed troops is a good way to start a war with that great power.

Everyone except apparently Georgia.
DSMatticus wrote:It's not just that everything you say is stupid, but that they are Gordian knots of stupid that leave me completely bewildered as to where to even begin. After hearing you speak Alexander the Great would stab you and triumphantly declare the puzzle solved.
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

Kuri Nakk wrote:Why start the timeline from 1922, and not from 1921 or earlier? Is it because it would then be more inconvenient to cover up the fact that autonomous region of South Ossetia was created by Moscow within their puppet republic of communist Georgia
Because 1922 is almost a hundred years ago. 1922-1990 is almost three generations. Literally all of the people who were alive to be pissed off at Moscow about the creation of South Ossetia in 1922 were 68 years older when Georgia made that claim. I don't even fucking care what the political landscape looked like before 1922 (not the way you think it did, by the way), because that is far too fucking long ago to be a respectable casus belli.
Kuri Näkk
Apprentice
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:49 am

Post by Kuri Näkk »

I think it is established now that Frank is a Russian agent - his viewpoint and methods are just too close to Kremlin's *sarcasm* Probably it all started at a tender age when he played too much Tetris, which, as everybody knows, was covert Soviet propaganda.
FrankTrollman wrote:
No sane person in Georgia wanted full scale war with Russia just as no sane person in the Baltic States wants serious conflict with Russia because the countries would be devastated even if NATO shows up to defend, actually especially if NATO shows up. What is expected is strong political and economic pressure + credible military threat to discourage Putin and his close supporters having ideas about further serious conflicts. The West failed to contain Russian ambition in Georgia, time will tell whether the current pressure in Ukraine is enough. Most people in the Baltics fear that it is not enough because they live so close to Russia that they can feel daily the nationalistic and imperialistic madness, which has engulfed Russia.

That is in fact the official position of Estonia and several other Eastern European countries. It's crazy and dangerous. Really, really dangerous. Also really crazy.
Yes, it is very-very crazy to wish that no serious conflict with Russia ever happens. This wish for peace makes Estonia 'one of the most dangerous things to world peace' Brilliant.
FrankTrollman wrote: So what happens is for the major powers to draw extremely clear lines in the sand that would cause them to rain nuclear hellfire on each other, and because the lines are clear, they are not crossed. And then whole new generations can be born, live, and die under the shadow of the atom without being vaporized and left as shadows on the walls of the ruins of once-great cities.
I just asked you a specific question about this: what is 'attack' in Article 5? And how that relates to your 'extremely clear' lines of nuclear hellfire? I guess it is easier to ramble about ‘living in a shadow of fear’ bla-bla ... than to actually substantiate your theatrical flourishes.
FrankTrollman wrote: The thing where Estonia and Georgia want NATO to throw its weight around and threaten military intervention against great powers that have very specifically not crossed the line is fucking insane. That is the worst thing you could possibly do. It undermines world peace in a way that simply hasn't even been possible for the vast majority of human history. It's so fucking terrible and insane that most people in Europe don't even believe that Estonians are actually doing it. It's such an irresponsible and dangerous tactic that people in the rest of the world where there's apparently less lead in the water simply refuse to believe that these dumb fuckers are actually suggesting it.
A major nuclear power is invading his neighbours using Adolf's rhetoric and Frank suggests....wait for it....appeasement. ‘Peace in our time’, indeed. Isn't it ironic that Frank currently lives in Czech Republic?

Note also his logic: Russia deliberately breaks international agreements that were respected even by the USSR, like Helsinki Accords. But Russia is not threat to the peace of the world. Oh no. The real threat are those nervous states who might be next in line because they ask for containment of the threat before we are in all-or-nothing nuclear war situation.

Listen asshole: I have not said, nor has the government of Estonia ever said, that NATO has to throw its weight around and threaten military intervention against Russia. This is the most terrible and insane thing to ask for and the only person who keeps parroting it is you. Credible military threat does not mean threating invasion but it entails not calling Russia friend when it considers NATO is its enemy nr 1. (Of course, Frank Chamberlain yells ' it is antagonizing Russia, its crazy and dangerous'!) Credible military threat means being able to respond with conventional forces when a member is attacked because nobody wants nuclear war and most people are brighter than you and realize that it is extremely stupid to respond to any aggression by pressing the end-of-world button. Credible threat means restoring conventional strength because most NATO countries have made huge cuts in their military budget thinking that the only threat they have to be fight are terrorism and small regional conflicts. It also means adequate planning. For instance, for a long time NATO refused to draw up defensive plans for Baltic States because people like Frank parroted that this would antagonize Russia. How fucking credible is Article 5 you do not even have a plan for defence?
Last edited by Kuri Näkk on Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Whipstitch
Prince
Posts: 3660
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm

Post by Whipstitch »

Look man, Georgia ain't a NATO member. Until that changes I don't even have a provisional shit to give.
bears fall, everyone dies
Kuri Näkk
Apprentice
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:49 am

Post by Kuri Näkk »

Longes wrote: Well, strictly speaking Crimean tatars have the biggest claim on the land. But they are an ethnic minority, so no one cares. Crimea itself is full of soviet pensioners and russian sailors, and, judging by latest polls (and please don't start the "people are afraid to talk" craziness here), are pretty content with the decision they made in the referendum (though I don't doubt that "wrong" decision would produce the same, albeit less happy, result.) Crimea itself has been given to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954, a change meaningless at that point, since Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. Then, when the USSR fell apart, Yeltsin failed to negotiate the return of Crimea, so it stayed in Ukraine as an autonomous republic with its own constitution. Which was promptly shat on by the Ukrainian government. Remaining as part of the Ukraine, but with the return to 1992 constitution was Option B in the 2014 referendum.
Let me give another perspective, not necessarily true, it is just what many people think in the countries that were subject to communist rule. When Bolsheviks came there was much suffering and terror, which has never been properly addressed. The WW II was not a fight good vs evil. It was fight between two evils. Hitler killed millions, Stalin killed many millions more. Yalta meant peace for the free West, it mean treachery and suffering for the east. Hitler committed suicide, many Nazi criminals were punished. Stalin became the great dictator, the surviving soviet criminals were treated heroes. To this day Stalin is a great person and exemplary figure to most Russians. Putin does not even think that the terror was really wrong. You are a nazi and falsifier of history if you remind of soviet crimes. They never happened.

Russians have always distrusted Crimean Tatars because they are an old enemy who once ruled Moscow. Stalin accused Crimean Tatars of collaboration with Nazis and deported hundreds of thousands of them, about half died as a result. Meanwhile, effort was made to bring Russians to the Crimea, many had military background. Consequently, large part of the Russian population in Crimea is relative newcomers and has strong Soviet mindset, which includes nostalgia for USSR. Only a fraction of the population is Crimean Tatars today. In 2014 Putin occupied Crimea. Crimean Tatars who never have received justice for the crimes of last century face persecution again. But who gives a shit, let just vote and see what the current majority thinks. Besides, calling the vote a referendum is an insult to any real referendums - the 97% support was obviously fake. (Which does not mean that the majority does not support being part of Russia, the support for joining Russia was 60% - 70% according to neutral polls conducted in previous years.)
Longes wrote:
why Donetsk and Lugansk regions are not really Ukraine.
That would be silly. Donetsk and Lugansk are Ukraine according to Minsk-2, which was negotiated by Russia, and signed by DNR/LNR representatives, as well as Ukraine itself. And UN has passed a resolution proposed by Russia, where everyone pinky-swears to help uphold Minsk-2 agreements.
Of course it is silly but not for the reasons stated. Russia cares for the Minsk 2 plan only in so far as it suits its interest. Budapest Memorandum, anybody? Minsk 1 anybody? In fact, the Minsk 2 agreement was broken the very next day - I am referring to attacks by so called separatists (mostly Russian regular forces really), especially the conquest of Debaltseve shortly after the agreement.
DSMatticus wrote: Because 1922 is almost a hundred years ago. 1922-1990 is almost three generations. Literally all of the people who were alive to be pissed off at Moscow about the creation of South Ossetia in 1922 were 68 years older when Georgia made that claim. I don't even fucking care what the political landscape looked like before 1922 (not the way you think it did, by the way), because that is far too fucking long ago to be a respectable casus belli.
This is exactly what I meant by saying that for many people living in US 100 years seems extremely long time. This is not how many people of the old world think. Their identity goes back hundreds of years. It really matters to them who was given the land in medieval times. This is the source of great strength but also the source of grievous conflicts. If you think that they are stupid, well, you do not want to know what they think of ‘rootless’ persons like you. It is a matter of culture and nobody is wrong.
Last edited by Kuri Näkk on Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Whipstitch
Prince
Posts: 3660
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm

Post by Whipstitch »

Nah, actually, that sort of old world thinking can lick the entire length of my taint.
bears fall, everyone dies
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

Kuri Näkk wrote:This is exactly what I meant by saying that for many people living in US 100 years seems extremely long time. This is not how many people of the old world think. Their identity goes back hundreds of years. It really matters to them who was given the land in medieval times. This is the source of great strength but also the source of grievous conflicts. If you think that they are stupid, well, you do not want to know what they think of ‘rootless’ persons like you. It is a matter of culture and nobody is wrong.
If it leads to war over something from a hundred years ago then, newsflash, somebody is wrong- the fuckers who can't drop their great grandparent's grudge.
User avatar
Chamomile
Prince
Posts: 4632
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:45 am

Post by Chamomile »

Kuri Näkk wrote:This is exactly what I meant by saying that for many people living in US 100 years seems extremely long time. This is not how many people of the old world think. Their identity goes back hundreds of years.
So does ours. America was created nearly 250 years ago and our cultural identity is rooted in a colonial culture that existed for several decades before that. Our cultural heroes are most prominently the founding fathers, who did most of their most famous work between 1774 and 1789, all of that is over two hundred years old. There are, in America right now, people who are still sore about a conflict that took place 150 years ago. When we say that holding grudges that last longer than a single human being's lifetime is stupid, we're talking to our own culture just as much as others, and no, it doesn't matter that other people have a cultural identity that goes back even farther, because they both go back further than 100 years which is the actual length of time in question. That you don't know this is because you are culturally ignorant.
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

A hundred years is a long time in every part of the world because it fucking kills people. The people who were adults a hundred years ago are dead today, and the people who are adults now were not alive a hundred years ago. If you march into your neighbor's house and steal all of his shit because a hundred years ago someone who is dead (that happened to be your neighbor's ancestor) stole a bunch of shit from someone else who is dead (that happened to be your ancestor), you are not righting an injustice. The person who was wronged is still fucking dead, and cannot receive any restitution. The person who committed the wrong is still fucking dead, and cannot suffer your vengeance. You're just an asshole creating victims out of random people in the name of a century old conflict they had no part in.

If your justification for a conflict boils down to "ancient blood feud," you are the bad guy. Full stop.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

Kuri Näkk wrote:A major nuclear power is invading his neighbours using Adolf's rhetoric and Frank suggests....wait for it....appeasement.
And, we're done. Everyone who disagrees with Kuri Näkk is a Nazi.

You know the Ukrainian junta is actual Nazis, right, and Russia is roughly the only country which seems officially concerned by that. Like, you're actually telling us how Adolf wasn't even a bad guy compared to Joseph (there's two names got pretty rare), but he totes was, eh.

I'm not even going to go over all the problems Russia has as a country right now, because I'd be here all day, but one problem they do not have at all is being Nazis or sympathising with Nazis or using Nazi rhetoric. That's completely crazy shit you're talking there, man. But you're going to double down on it some more because that's obviously the Estonian zeitgeist right now.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Post by Starmaker »

tussock wrote:I'm not even going to go over all the problems Russia has as a country right now, because I'd be here all day, but one problem they do not have at all is being Nazis or sympathising with Nazis or using Nazi rhetoric. That's completely crazy shit you're talking there, man. But you're going to double down on it some more because that's obviously the Estonian zeitgeist right now.
Image
User avatar
Longes
Prince
Posts: 2867
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:02 pm

Post by Longes »

tussock wrote:
Kuri Näkk wrote:A major nuclear power is invading his neighbours using Adolf's rhetoric and Frank suggests....wait for it....appeasement.
And, we're done. Everyone who disagrees with Kuri Näkk is a Nazi.

You know the Ukrainian junta is actual Nazis, right, and Russia is roughly the only country which seems officially concerned by that. Like, you're actually telling us how Adolf wasn't even a bad guy compared to Joseph (there's two names got pretty rare), but he totes was, eh.

I'm not even going to go over all the problems Russia has as a country right now, because I'd be here all day, but one problem they do not have at all is being Nazis or sympathising with Nazis or using Nazi rhetoric. That's completely crazy shit you're talking there, man. But you're going to double down on it some more because that's obviously the Estonian zeitgeist right now.
In the interest of truth - junta themselves are not nazis. They are oligarchs using nazis as their soldiers. Which will become a problem when armed nazis decide that junta are all evil jew moscals.

EDIT: @Starmaker. Night Wolves are nazis?
Last edited by Longes on Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

The wikipedia pages about Night Wolves and associated events are full of clever little turns of phrase to say something without saying it, but they're basically the tough-guys-on-bikes arm of the Orthodox Church. Putin loves them because his image is the big man who supports Russia and the Church (as seen through rose glasses).
random wikipedia editor wrote:In January 2015, the group's leader, Zaldostanov, expressed support for a Russian Anti-Maidan movement which said it was ready to use violence to stop anti-government and pro-democracy protesters and suggested that "Death to [EDITED]" could be an alternate name for the group.
Which actually means: president of Russian Orthodox bike club supports pro-Russian rally against fascist agitators. Dude's also totally a homophobe, openly comparing things he does not like to gays, like he's a youtube comment.


--
Loges wrote:They are oligarchs using nazis as their soldiers.
I'm not that picky. Some rich folk pay for that shit to get their plans going, they're Nazis too. The US and German politicians who keep not noticing, because all the cool kids have to hate Russia, they're very bad people too. The world is better without that shit, by a very large margin.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

The United States is the second oldest country on Earth, having been incorporated near the end of the eighteenth century. The US was established and has been in continuous existence since before the Crown Union of Kartli-Kakheti was absorbed into the Russian Empire. The willingness of Europeans whose nation states are fabrications of the twentieth century to rant at Americans about how Americans don't know what's it's like to have more than a century of history is so Orwellian that it's funny even though people actually die over those bullshit misconceptions.

As for the Night Wolves, they are specifically anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet, but they are also ultra-nationalists and basically fascists. If you wanted to call the Night Wolves Putin's SA, that wouldn't be completely unreasonable. Now Putin is not Hitler, and I rather imagine that if the Night Wolves ever became really inconvenient, they'd just get arrested rather than assassinated en masse by an even crazier militia. But they are ultra-nationalist thugs who have open contempt for the rule of law and the democratic process. That doesn't make them the worst guys in every confrontation, but it makes them pretty scary, and I can see why Finland has a blanket ban on them entering their country.

-Username17
Koumei
Serious Badass
Posts: 13871
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: South Ausfailia

Post by Koumei »

FrankTrollman wrote:The United States is the second oldest country on Earth, having been incorporated near the end of the eighteenth century. The US was established and has been in continuous existence since before the Crown Union of Kartli-Kakheti was absorbed into the Russian Empire. The willingness of Europeans whose nation states are fabrications of the twentieth century to rant at Americans about how Americans don't know what's it's like to have more than a century of history is so Orwellian that it's funny even though people actually die over those bullshit misconceptions.
Most of Europe uses a different metric for the age of a nation. Greece obviously dates back to pre-Roman Greece and is the same country after all this time and has undergone no major changes of regime or borders. The Scandiwegian countries clearly date back to vikings, yes even Norway. France being occupied by basically everyone at some point or another and laying claim to varying amounts of now-foreign territory and now consisting of what were at some point different tiny nations and having a whole swath of different types of rule... doesn't change the fact that France is older than old.

Under a metric that basically means anything, France probably has wine older than it is, and the other countries there also don't get to make such claims unless they're specifically giving a class on lineage and how traditions are passed on in history or something.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Post by Starmaker »

The Night Wolves are Nazis. To borrow DSMatticus's rhetoric, Hitler is dead. He's been dead for (probably) longer than any of the Night Wolves have been alive, and even if it's not the case, none of them could've been meaningfully pro-Hitler.
Image
If, in 2015, your stance is any of "Hitler was wrong because...

"Slavs are also Aryans and Hitler should've invited us to join the Reich",
"Slavs are just as good as Germans and should've been left in peace",
"Slavs are true Aryans, unlike those gaytheist poseur Germans, and should've subjugated all the other races" --

-- yep, you're as much of a Nazi as someone who says "Hitler was right".
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

As much as I love calling people Nazi's, they seriously just read like all the other biker gangs I've read about. Hell's Angels and whatnot. People like to make TV and Movies about how "bad" bikers are, with their fist fights and talking down to women, there's fresh new laws in Australia to target "bike gangs" for instance (catching up the bored accountants with the paranoid drug dealers).

But it always seems to me like bike clubs are not the government, not even militias, and when some people in them commit horrible crimes they get arrested and go to jail just like normal people.

I mean, the Night Wolves organised peaceful protests against what they saw as a foreign-backed attempt to overthrow the democratic government of the Ukraine, which it totally was. The new junta in Ukraine organised buses of people to head out and murder everyone making similar peaceful protests.
In a 2010 essay, Biletsky set forth the ideology of the Social-National Assembly. "From the mass of individuals must arise the Nation; and from weak modern man, Superman... The historic mission of our Nation in this watershed century is to lead the White Races of the world in the final crusade for their survival: a crusade against semite-led subhumanity... The task of the present generation is to create a Third Empire -- Great Ukraine... If we are strong, we take what is ours by right and even more; we will build a Superpower-Empire..."
That's the leader of the Azov Battalion (a paramilitary arm of the junta), who is also leader of the National-Social Assembly political party (hint-hint), and also the commander of the police force in the new Ukraine. Those guys are Nazis. There's Nazis from all around Europe flocking to join them for the final race war.

I think you've got to work pretty hard to get the two confused, really. Or maybe just read too much western media, which for some reason is on the side of the actual Nazis.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
sandmann
Apprentice
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:08 am

Post by sandmann »

Kuri Näkk wrote:This is exactly what I meant by saying that for many people living in US 100 years seems extremely long time. This is not how many people of the old world think. Their identity goes back hundreds of years. It really matters to them who was given the land in medieval times. This is the source of great strength but also the source of grievous conflicts. If you think that they are stupid, well, you do not want to know what they think of ‘rootless’ persons like you. It is a matter of culture and nobody is wrong.
Image

Yes, these people exist in the old world, and the usual reaction to them is laughing or crying. Because thats just bull, 100%. That is one of the reasons why germans and french live in peace while israelis and palestinians bomb the shit out of each other, because after 200 years and 2 world wars we just realised that giving a damn about who owns Elsass-Lothringen wasn't worth it anymore. Meanwhile, any plan for peace in the middle east is doomed to fail, because it must include "Israel owns Jerusalem" and "Palestinians own Jerusalem".
So no, it's not "the source of great strength but also the source of grievous conflicts", it's "the source of grievous conflicts."
Full.
Fucking.
Stop.
Post Reply