ArcticSlicer
That Angela Merkel was pretty badass.  If she was like that in real life she might be a more effective negotiator against Putin.

Peacecelebrate Wäponytail
+ArcticSlicer against Putin??? omg wake up you retard brainwashed by american propaganda

ArcticSlicer
+Peacecelebrate Wäponytail
Nobody on the left should like Putin.  The guy is an imperialist dictator that starts wars abroad and oppresses and restricts the rights of LGBT people and women at home.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer putin is actually mostly a puppet. his foreign policy is a sort of realist-driven pacifism, rooted in a complex balancing act between russia's need to defend itself from western aggression and the reality that it actually is largely unable to do so. he's been widely attacked in the west for annexing the crimea, but those people fail to mention that us aircraft carriers and navy subs were on their way to dock in sevastopol. the operation really showed amazing restraint, considering the possible consequences. imagine russian warheads and aircraft carriers docking in nova scotia.

further, it's not an informed analysis to blame the internal social problems that russia is experiencing on the president - it's rooted in a religious revival. some informed commentators would argue that the patriarch is more powerful than the president at this point, as he has the ability to dictate these sorts of laws. putin has not expressed or advanced any antagonism towards queer people, but he's been forced to respond to popular (and powerful) religious movements that are vilifying them. and that's very ominous when placed in the broader context of russian history.

the largest political party in russia remains the communist party. the group with the largest amount of social power and political will based on popular support is now the orthodox church. it seems inevitable that old scores are on the path to being settled. putin is actually stuck in the middle of this. in context, his role is to act as a voice of reason.

it's a strange country. in some sense, everything really is completely backwards. but, in some sense, it's really not dissimilar to a giant texas.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas I stopped reading in the first paragraph since it was so laughable.  Russia has never been under threat from any "Western aggresion" since 1991.   Russia however has invaded multiple countries since that time.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer it's fairly well understood that the western alliance has followed an aggressive containment and dismantlement policy, and that both american parties have pushed this from their own angles (the democrats through brzezinski, the republicans through the pnac). final touches are being put on a missile shield that dangles nuclear missiles over moscow, from space.

you can laugh if you'd like. but the joke is your ignorance in the matter.

the americans would like to continue the dismantlement of russia into weak, independent states that it can continue to work into an anglo-german "european" hegemony. the russians have a right to self defense - which, in context, means creating instability in key areas, like poland. but, it's becoming increasingly clear that they don't have any real options.

had putin allowed nato to dock in sevastopol, it would have acted as an eventual staging point for a ground invasion of russia. history will look on his actions rather favourably, as entirely preventative and strategically necessary.

and, you'll note that there weren't any casualties, either.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas Brezenziski was in the 1970s against the Soviet Union.  Seriously  we are talking about modern day.  Russia was never at risk of being attacked by the NATO.  Putin's policies over the last 14 months puts Russia at risk of a direct conflict with NATO more than now than ever before.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer again, i'm sorry that you don't understand the way that american foreign policy operates. it goes for the jugular. it sees weakness as a reason for increased brutality, not one for empathetic pause.

these were discussions that were had over the 90s, and resolved after 9/11. the neo-conservative school of aggressive foreign policy won these debates in both parties, although there may be mild variances on the different approaches. i'm operating on current data and ideologies. the entire existing spectrum is aggressive and hawkish. you, however, are not - you are refusing to drop the post-war fantasy of america as benevolent hegemonic overlord, and are stuck in some twentieth century liberal utopia.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas Nothing you have said justifies Putin's aggression.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer i don't think putin's behaviour can be described with the term "aggressive", and i don't think it's a question of opinion, either. even informed pro-western opinions (like the type you might find in foreign policy) understand that russia's movements over the last few years have been entirely defensive. a term like "putin's aggression" is simply the language of the misinformed.

i mean, you can call him paranoid, if you insist. they called stalin paranoid, too - in the end, he was right. but, suggesting his motives are aggressive or expansionist is just wrong. putin (or putin's handlers, to be more accurate - he's not really the prime decision maker in the country) is legitimately concerned about western expansion, and is acting with the real and honest intention of preventing it.

he might be wrong. i don't think he is. but that's where he's seriously coming from.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas Nothing defensive about invading and occupying a foreign country.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer i disagree with that, and i think most intelligent people would realize that international relations are not run by normative value systems but by realistic analyses. a western example of this kind of behaviour was when the united states invaded greenland when denmark was under german occupation in order to prevent it from being used as a german submarine base. but, of course american aircraft carriers in sevastopol are far more threatening to russia than german uboats in greenland could ever be to america.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas The USA wasn't going to station aircraft carriers in Sevastopol; that is 100% a lie.  The Montreux Convention prevents any such thing from being allowed under international law.  The fact that you believe the nonsense you are spouting goes to show how brainwashed you are by Russian propaganda.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer the montreaux convention does not prohibit anything, it merely gives turkey (a nato member state) sovereignty over the straits.

regardless, you state that like the americans don't break international law on a daily basis.

to be clear: the official reason for the movement into the black sea while the coup was happening was "joint exercises" with turkey. but the ships were apparently moving erratically.

what's clear is that the russian military saw seizing the base as strategically necessary. it's hard to construct an ulterior motive, given that they were surely aware of the inevitable international reaction.

again: putin is a front for a very careful, conservative leadership. they don't make brash moves like that very often. if there wasn't a threat to the base, they wouldn't have jumped to such measures. the severity of the move indicates that a deep threat to russian sovereignty was unfolding.

their claims are convincing, because they are rational. the american propaganda, on the other hand, is a collection of emotionally charged, overly erratic, badly presented memes designed to create good v. evil cartoon villains for consumption within a simple-minded and grossly uninformed audience...

again: argue the russians are paranoid, if you insist. but don't become confused. the russian position here is defensive. it's fortifying strategic locations in what it sees as an imminent nato incursion in the russian heartland.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas Under The Montreax Convention non-Black Sea state warships in the Straits must be under 15,000 tons. No more than nine non-Black Sea state warships, with a total aggregate tonnage of no more than 30,000 tons, may pass at any one time, and they are permitted to stay in the Black Sea for no longer than twenty-one days.

This prevents the USA sending aircraft carriers into the black sea by definition.  All the stuff you are posting is 100% a lie.  Russian propaganda is full of such lies which is why nobody in the West takes Russia seriously anymore.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer to begin with, that's not a ban on aircraft carriers, it's a restriction on the size of what can get through. it is admittedly a strong restriction, and i have may have overstated by stating "aircraft carrier", which i didn't really intend to be interpreted literally. i was sloppy - i'll take responsibility. i'm going to backtrack from that statement to "large naval warships".

however, turkey has been lax to enforce it, and is known to enforce it's sovereignty over the straits when it gets down to it. it's been pushing to renogotiate the treaty for many years.

third, the question of whether nato (which includes both turkey and greece) is considered a "black sea power" is up to a great deal of interpretation.

the reality is that the united states routinely sends warships in, sends them around, docks them in greece for a few days, and then sends them back. the black sea has been under defacto nato control for many decades, with the russians really cut off to the area around their base. there's not really any question on this point.

the question is more along the lines of whether there was a legitimate threat to the actual existence of the russian military base in the crimea (which is of course very important to the russians).

now, i need to be clear - nobody is suggesting the americans were trying to invade the base. that would be reckless. rather, there was open concern that they may have been invited in by ukrainian forces.

should the americans have tried to dock there under this invitation, it would have created a crisis scenario.

under a proper understanding of current american military behaviour, this is up for grabs and is an existing military objective. i know it sounds crazy. but, what it indicates is how weak the russian military position really is in it's own heartland.

again: they would not have seized the base otherwise. you can label them paranoid. but you have to accept that their motive here was strategically defensive.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas Sevastopol has very limited military value.  Elsewhere on the Black Sea, Russia has a navy port at Novorossiysk that makes having one at Sevastopol mostly redundant and not of much strategic value since the Black Sea isn't nearly as relevant as it was in the past as you like to point  out, Turkey de facto controls the straights.  Also Russia has a navy port in Tarsus, Syria on the Mediterranean as well as one on the Baltic Sea at Kaliningrad; both of which are ice free 365 days a year.

Also there was no real threat to the existence of the military base at Crimea since they had a valid lease with Ukraine until 2042.  Sure that's not a permanent solution but as long as Russia maintained friendly relations with Ukraine they probably could have extended that lease yet again when the time came.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer 
right, well look at what's happening in syria...

the value of the base in sevastopol is, again, defensive. it's a useful commercial hub, sure. but it's not important to russia for it's deepwater ports or it's ability to send warships into the mediterranean, as might have been the case in the age of empires (although what the russians really wanted was indian ports...). it's important to russia because whomever controls it has a huge influence in the control of russia itself. it's a defensive necessity, standing in moscow.

that's why the british went after it in the crimean war, and why the nazis raced to it in world war two. it's massively strategic in controlling the areas to it's north.

and, again: the point was concern that ukraine was not willing to maintain friendly relations. call them paranoid if you want. but it's not irrational to deduce that an economic (and possibly military) shift to europe would have consequences in the lease agreement. and, these guys that were in power at the time...they really didn't have nice things to say about russians...

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas The only thing that has causes Ukrainians to no longer wish to maintain friendly relations with Russia is that that Russia has started a war against them and has invaded, occupied and annexed part of their territory.

BonelessEar
+ArcticSlicer Dont watch FOX and read some history books mate. Few decades ago there was no Ukraine country. It was artifically created when Krushchev had a few vodka shots and gave that region (that time part of Russia) to his wife as a present. But he gave it to her including people living there which of course was mostly Russians. And even today nearly half of people living in Ukraine feels to be Russians, speak Russian, have Russian relatives, living there for many generations - sipmly they are Russians. No wonder they voted in Crimea to be part of Russia again after nazi mob at Kiev chanted "lets kill Russians".

ArcticSlicer
+BonelessEar I don't watch Fox News and have probably read far more history books than you.

Your comment shows that you don't know that there is a huge Ukrainian minority in Canada most of whom are decedents of Ukrainian immigrants that arrived in the 19th century to flee Austo-Hungarian rule.  The very existence of this fact shows that Ukraine existed long before Khrushchev was even born.

Also the people of Crimea never voted to join Russia; the so-called "referendum" that took place was a circus carried out during a military occupation.  Many Crimea residents chose to boycott it and many of the people actually "voting" were neither Crimean residents nor Ukrainian citizens and absolutely should not have been allowed to vote in any election taking place on the peninsula.

No vote to secede from Ukraine to accede to Russia is legitimate under international law if that vote took place at the same time the Russian Federation was engaged in acts of war against Ukraine.

On March 6th, 2014 the Russian navy scuttled their cruiser, the Orhakov along with two other ships to block access to Sevastopol bay; trapping the ships belonging to the Ukrainian navy there. Beginning on this day on March 6th, 2014 and ending on March 25th, 2014 with the capture of the minesweeper, Cherkassy; Russian navy personnel, on Russian navy ships that were flying the Russian flag blockaded, boarded and captured a total 51 vessels belonging to the Ukrainian navy that were flying the Ukrainian flag in Ukrainian territorial waters. That amounts to 51 unambiguous acts of war by the Russian Federation against Ukraine that took place at various times before, during and after the so-called "referendum" that took place on March 16th, 2014.

These facts mean that the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine by the Russian Federation is in violation of international law and therefor will never be recognized by the international community.

Don't watch RT and read some history books.

BonelessEar
+ArcticSlicer I dont watch TV at all.

You are mixing up ethnic group and country - 2 different things. Ukrainians as ethnic group exists more than 1000 years but Ukraine as country was created like 80 years ago.

Hold on, who was it "voting" there then? BTW all elections are just theatre - all about who feed more money in to brainwash more people.

This thing in Black Sea would never have happend if there was not Ukrainian army killing civilians just because they are Russians. And that would have never happend if US corpo-congress was not pupmping 5bil US$ to nazis in Kiev.

International law? Give over... Its pulled up only when it suits.

ArcticSlicer
+BonelessEar McClatchy had a good report about the reality of the so-called "referendum" that took place in Crimea.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/30/222894/reports-of-multiple-voting-falsified.html

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer nobody doubts that crimeans would prefer to be a part of russia - there's been a popular separation movement there since the day the soviet union collapsed. the same thing is true of the "new russia" region of eastern ukraine, but the kremlin does not want to admit them into the russian federation.

that's not to suggest the voter fraud didn't happen (what was it, 98%?), it's just to point out that the results are widely reflective of crimean popular opinion.

you'll note that there's been no opposition on the ground in the region. further, the visual media of elation and russian pride could not have been faked without a large, theatrical production.

the western part of ukraine has historically been a part of poland. to oversimplify, slightly. there have been nationalist movements in the region for decades, but it's more or less accurate to suggest that ukraine as it exists today is a creation of khruschev.

if we want to recreate thousand year old borders, we would not have an independent ukraine. rather, we'd split the country between moscow and warsaw.

BonelessEar
+ArcticSlicer That reminds me last presidental elections that took place in democratic Slovakia (which is right next to Ukraine) like a half year ago. There was a bloke who made YT video on how he voted 3 times at different places, claiming the elections illegal even before was known who will be elected. When it turned out that "the right one" president was elected, no one gave a shit. Except governemnt tried to prosecute that guy.

The Lisbon treaty referendum in Ireland - what a state of the art - they had to repeat it until they said yes to it. I think in Spain was the same. These EU commrades, US neo-con's ass licks do respect referendum and elections only when the outcome suits their needs.

Its all theatre and disgusting one. If the elections or referendum could change anything, it would be banned already.

deathtokoalas
+BonelessEar i think you have the right idea. it seems reasonable to ask why the russians would stage a referendum they clearly would have won, but the reason is just that they would have considered it irresponsible to leave it to chance. low turnout, unrest or even fraud from forces sympathetic to nato could have created problems.

you can see this conservative mindset if you analyze the russian criticism of the illegal invasion and occupation of iraq. they hide their opposition in these citations of international law, as the west does. but, if you listen to them closely, the real opposition is summed up in the following statement:

only an idiot launches a war without already knowing the outcome.

it's a strange country. they obviously rigged it, and you can cite reports on that all day (although that mcclatchy report is a hit in their reputation, imo - it's regurgitated state department propaganda) without convincing anybody that whether they rigged it is important - because it's also clearly reflective of popular will.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas When the Soviet Union collapsed a majority of Crimeans voted for the Ukrainian SSR to become on independent state from the Soviet Union.  While the number of people in Crimea that favored Ukranian independence were much lower than other parts of Ukraine; they were still a majority.  Many public opinion polls since that day have tracked the mood of various parts of Ukraine including Crimea and support for secession never exceeded 41%; large number to be sure but still a minority.  Add in tens of thousands of Russian soldiers to silence the majority that wish to maintain the status quo and you make it look like the minority is actually a majority.

Russia rigged the so-called "referendum" simply because they had serious doubts they would have been able to get the result they wanted in a fair election.  It's also laughable that the so-called "referendum" didn't have a choice to maintain the status quo.  It's hard for something to be reflective of popular will when those that oppose the occupational force's position is subject to routine oppression and abuse.  All of these facts are exactly why the world will never recognize Crimea as a part of Russia and sometime in the future Russia will probably be forced to end it's occupation of the peninsula.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer well, i don't think your numbers are really reliable. there's a lot of factors that make political polling in a former ssr rather difficult. ukraine's post-soviet history puts it amongst the most corrupt and repressive states in the world. when you call somebody up in a country with a history of taking political prisoners and ask them political questions, you have to expect the response to uphold the status quo. in the respondent's mind, there's always the real chance that the wrong answers could send somebody knocking at the door. i'm not challenging the data's accuracy, i'm just questioning the ability for pollsters to work in this environment, for the same reason you're challenging the election.

nor do i think the polls you're referencing are more valid than the one we're discussing.

i'm not suggesting there was a choice in the matter, or that russia would have really cared. i don't think russia would have reacted differently under any support level, not even if reliable polling put russian support in the low teens.

i do think that if substantial opposition existed, however, it would make itself heard. this idea that the nationalist ukrainian groups on the ground would fear russian retaliation to the point of absolute silence is not consistent with their behaviour in the east of the country, or the broad movements the state is taking. some kind of militia movement would be occurring there. of course, that's not to say there's no opposition at all. but, if it was substantial - and certainly if it commanded a majority - it could not be silent. rather, the reason there's no opposition is that it's too small to make itself heard.

now, as for russian withdrawal? probably around the same time china withdraws from tibet, or the united states withdraws from hawaii.

this is something that other guy brought up. i wouldn't dwell on the point to try and justify russia's actions. to me, it's a question of preventing escalation.

the reality is that in terms of the broad strategic issues - and relations between russia and nato - the question of whether the referendum was reflective of popular will is not particularly important. but, it does seem as though it was, via any reliable metric i can gather.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas On February 26th, 2014; 20,000 Crimean residents rallied in support of the new Ukraininan government in Simferopol before they were assaulted by separatist thugs.  Later that day armed men, most likely Russian soldiers, siezed the Crimean Parliament building and then installed Askyonov as the leader.  By the next day, February 27th, armed men, that were later admitted by Putin to be Russian soldiers, started taking other infrastructure buildings on the peninsula such as airports and other administration buildings.  By March 1st the sieges of the Ukarinian military bases had began and by March 3rd the  disappearances started with the "arrest" Reshat Ametov who was later found dead with all of the markings of a death by torture.

Also a poll taken mere weeks before the Russian invasion showed support for "uniting with Russia" to only be 41% in Crimea

Hawaii and Tibet are not good examples because they predate the standards of international law that were adopted in the 1940s.  The closest example would be East Timor which Indonesia was eventually forced out of after decades of occupation.

References:
http://dif.org.ua/en/events/ukrainieyu-ne-hochut.htm
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/ametov-murdered-crimean-tatar-called-first-victim-of-russian-occupation-339911.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/man-dies-separatist-protest-turns-ugly-crimea-n39121

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer again: throwing around numbers in this situation doesn't help, because they're not grounded. who knows how many people were really there - this is a black hole of disinformation. and while i don't doubt the methods of the polling firms - i'm not accusing them of fraud - the value of their data collection is very low.

to put it another way, i'd expect that a poll done today would show majority support for the status quo. now, you might suggest this is due to intimidation, perceived or real, and to an extent i'd agree. what i'm pointing out is that the previous situation was not different. the ukrainian regimes since independence have not been "better" than their russian counterparts, and some may argue they've actually been worse in some respects.

the chinese invasion of tibet is something that happened after the establishment of the united nations, but it's hardly an important point. western sympathizers display a type of doublethink when they talk about international law, in the sense that they expect the rest of the world to follow it while ignoring it themselves. the truth is that the post-war framework has been an utter failure. no major power has ever adhered to any rules on the matter. one might argue that the more important aspect of the un is the ability for the major powers to unilaterally veto action, but this has not been effective, either. if you care about these things, i'd behoove you to suggest alternative arrangements - as an arbiter of global peace through the adherence of international norms, the united nations has been an utter failure and requires dramatic reform to get anywhere close to being able to fulfill it's mandate.

in the world today, reality is dictated by hard power on the ground. and the russians aren't leaving sevastopol without a gunfight.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas The Russian occupation has actually made accurate polling Crimea very difficult if not impossible.  All metrics however show that the living situation in Crimea has gotten much worse over the last year.

Chinese invasion of Tibet was in 1910; before even the first world war and way before the United Nations.  Seriously you don't know what you are talking about.  The only thing that happened after the UN was the actual de jure incorporation of Tibet after 40 years of Chinese occupation.

BonelessEar
+ArcticSlicer Living situation in whole south-east part of Ukraine got worse over last years - excactly after nazis took over Kiev and started shooting grads and tockas on their cities (so called "anti-terrorist operation").

ArcticSlicer
+BonelessEar No Nazis took over Kyiv.  There are however people that like run Nazi style people's courts in the so called "people's republics".

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer while tibet has been a part of various historical chinese empires (hence the prc's claim to it...), the current chinese occupation of tibet is from an invasion in 1951. the chinese state collapsed during world war two, so we cannot speak of china occupying any state at all between 1937 and 1945. there was an attempted invasion in 1910, but it was eventually repelled. for most of the first half of the twentieth century, tibet was actually an indo-british tributary, although western histories tend to refer to this as a period of independence. it's most accurate to say there was a struggle between the british and chinese for control of the area. the tibetans were actually able to seize some area from china during this period.

polling in ukraine is indeed currently difficult. it's been difficult for decades, as the post-soviet ukrainian state has not been tolerant of dissent under any of it's leaders or regimes.

there's going to be challenges and victories in any kind of a shift of sovereignty like occurred in the peninsula. i'm not aware of people dying in the streets. on the one hand, i know the area has been partially blockaded by kiev; on the other hand, i know pension amounts have increased. it's a little early to jump to conclusions...

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas" polling in ukraine is indeed currently difficult. it's been difficult for decades, as the post-soviet ukrainian state has not been tolerant of dissent under any of it's leaders or regimes."

Not true at all.  In the first years of independence polling in Ukraine was actually quite easy since most people were excited by the fact that someone wanted their opinion on something.

China didn't cease to exist; it did however suffer a brutal civil war in the 1930s and 1940s.  British-India never controlled Tibet; only "South Tibet" which remains under Indian control to this day.  Following the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1912 China granted some autonomy to much of Tibet.  In 1913, the regional government of Tibet decided to declare their independence which was not recognized by either China or pretty much any other nation outside of Mongolia.  This led to the British to negotiate a treaty in 1914 that recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet that also ceded the Southern half to India.

The reality is that much of Tibet had de facto independence for a time in an unrecognized enclave that resembles some of the "frozen conflicts" that exist today.  This is about the only way that Tibet compares to Crimea in that it was an unrecognized territory that resulted from a "frozen conflict" where the world recognized the territory as belonging to the nation it was previously incorporated in.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer lol. right. they just forgot about how tyrannical the soviet state was overnight and jumped right to free expression, like it was an innate human characteristic.

there's been rigorous study on this. the trauma and paranoia is so deep that you can't even poll eastern european immigrants in canada.

and, the point i was making about tibet (which was indeed an informal british protectorate) was simply that the russians aren't leaving sevastopol.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas "lol. right. they just forgot about how tyrannical the soviet state was overnight and jumped right to free expression, like it was an innate human characteristic."

Again you don't know what you're talking about.  Most pollsters have recorded as fact that response rates were much higher in the early 90s than they are now.

""When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 and Ukraine gained independence, pollsters found a country full of people eager to tell anyone, including strangers, their opinions about their country and its governance — an ideal scenario for survey researchers.

The “attitude of the population was very, very positive,” Paniotto recalled. He had to work to build polling infrastructure and train interviewers in a country with little independent polling during the Soviet era, and with two major languages (Ukrainian and Russian). Once his staff went into the field, respondents often invited them in for tea; they had to learn how to leave politely and move on to the next home.

“After the Soviet time, when no one was interested in your opinion, then a special person came to your house and asked your opinion,” Paniotto said. “We had a response rate of about 90 percent.”"

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-signs-pointed-to-crimea-independence-vote-but-polls-didnt/

deathtokoalas
what is that, a blog? it's ridiculous...

i'm a mathematician. i've studied and worked in polling. that flies against everything i learned in school and experienced. i would hope that the younger generation is a little more open, but it takes time to build openness and democracy. the fear of repression doesn't disappear overnight. it takes generations.

the idea that the soviets didn't care about public opinion is laughable. they cared deeply about popular opinion, and ensuring it was in line with the state narrative. and, you'd face severe consequences if you didn't fall in line with it.

you can do all the polling you want in these countries - or, as mentioned, amongst immigrant groups from these countries in the west. you may even get high response rates. but it doesn't mean anything, because they're just telling you what they think you want to hear.

again: i promise you that if you were to do the same poll in the crimea today, you would see 60+% support for russian occupation. and, if ukraine gets control of the peninsula next week, you'll see 60+% control for ukrainian occupation. and, if russia gets control a week after that, it will go back to 60+% control for russian occupation. it's useless.

i don't know who those polling firms are, but this strikes me as western propaganda...

wait. ok. it's pew. definite propaganda outlet.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas "wait. ok. it's pew. definite propaganda outlet."

Again you show yourself to be totally ignorant.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer pew - along with amnesty, hrw, the red cross and several others - are a part of what could be called the intelligence-ngo complex. they're deeply interlocked with american intelligence services and exist largely to collect data to support american imperialism. they do not truly exist independently of government, but are presented that way in order to increase their credibility.

it's a shame that you wish to continually call me ignorant, because all you've done here is continually display your own ignorance, naivete and totally reliance on american propaganda networks.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas You have have wandered from debate into tin-foil hat zone.  Nobody is going to take you seriously with that diatribe.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer it's well established that there's a "revolving door" between these organizations and government.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas That doesn't prove your point..... Nor have you provided any evidence to prove this point.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer the fact that the statement from pew is both completely incoherent when compared to any kind of academic understanding of polling in totalitarian states and directly aligned with the state department's perspective on the matter is enough to draw obvious conclusions. and, it's well understood that this is what the united states does in the region - it funds ngos to fuel instability and gather data to further it's narrative. it's pretty standard to hear these kind of absurd analyses from us government bodies, and they're generally only approaching coherence in the context of the stack of nonsense they build up to support each other.

it's not exactly that a group like pew is going to collect false data - they want real data. it's more that they're selective about what they publish, and they skew it in a way that furthers existing policy aims.

i mean, we could talk about who funds pew, who runs it and their connections in the american government if you'd like - but it's sort of just scratching the surface. the real intelligence connections in these groups don't become public for years after the fact. but, there's so much history there - and so many critical signs - that the handful of connections that are public are enough to conclude that something deeper exists. for example, it took decades for it to come out that the americans were using the red cross as an intelligence front in the russian revolution [and that the intelligence system stretched back to british involvement in the crimean war].

when you're dealing with a government that routinely hides it's intelligence networks from the public, and yet uses a set of predictable mechanisms, you don't really have any choice but to take a few liberties in the context of repeating patterns. i'd actually suspect that this might be something hiding in a snowden or wikileak document. it will break eventually. but it might take thirty years....

all academic understanding of polling in totalitarian (and post-totalitarian) states is that you should expect high response rates and low accuracy. people are indeed eager to demonstrate that they have nothing to hide, are able to repeat the propaganda and don't belong on any kind of list of subversives. to hear an organization like pew contradict that should raise red flags as to their motives in doing so.

ArcticSlicer
+deathtokoalas You're just talking out of your ass.

deathtokoalas
+ArcticSlicer i've tried talking out of my ass in the past, but i lack that kind of flatulence control. it's a talent i wish i had, though.

Peacecelebrate Wäponytail
+deathtokoalas honey... do not waste your time and energy on such brainwashed retards as ArticSlicer is anywhere... people like him do not want you to prove your point or know the truth, even if they ask for it... please... you have to understand, that these trolls "discuss" with you only to support their illusions... they do not give a fuck about what is truth or what is right... they want to just defend their illusions!!!!  and till they cannot think otherwise, it is a waste of time!!!!  so before you start a conversation with anybody, make sure that you are aware of what that person´s real intentions are about...

deathtokoalas
+Peacecelebrate Wäponytail but, is there value in creating dialogues for others to read? might they learn something from it?

Peacecelebrate Wäponytail
+deathtokoalas I know what you mean,, I use to the same thing, you are my fellow.. but there are not just people who will learn from what you wrote,,, there are also people who will twist it, just like the original troll does.... what I want you to understand, that you have to uncover that hidden intend,..(which even those trolls themseleves are not aware of, they simply don´t know why are they trolling!!!!)  ..because when you do that, you can have a space for real debate and also more people who will read it after.. will better recognize, who wants to speak the truth, and just want to troll the truth... I am not telling you to stop converasation,, I am telling you, before you start a conversation, make sure you know opponent´s intends... because you can waste many words, just to fight that intend and it gets very long with no consensus in the end, and many people will not read it anyway... but if you uncover the intend at begin, you will see, which conversation has a meaning, and which does not, and not only for you, but for everyone, because you will be constantly twisted by troll, and only few would really understand your point ... I can show you my latest experience I had on youtube with that, if you are interested...

deathtokoalas
+Peacecelebrate Wäponytail i think i'm generally aware of it when i'm dealing with what you're describing, even if i generally avoid stating it. i understand that social media is saturated with people that are literally being paid to push whatever point is being pushed - from state propaganda to corporate marketing. i'm not sure that this is true in this specific case.

this is something that somebody needs to do. it's thankless work, and in many cases of questionable value, but the totality of it is necessary. the converse is to allow nonsense to perpetuate, unchecked. as it is, i happen to enjoy it. it's a bit of mental exercise between projects.

Peacecelebrate Wäponytail
+deathtokoalas well honey... it is not about informations you get to people who care... because people who care will find such informations by themselves, they do not need you for that...  but if you avoid to state what you see, and continue arguing like everythig is ok when it is not, then you indirectly support such troll behaviour, and it looks like you just have different opinion and there is no objective truth out there... and even if you destroy that guy in your eyes, it is just your victory..  I know it is hard to admit,,,, but think about this... people are predisposed do demagogy, and manipulation... they will not agree with you just because you said the truth that no-one really understands...  you have to said truth in real conversation.... and avoid troll conversation,, because they wont let you have the truth no matter what...

deathtokoalas
+Peacecelebrate Wäponytail there's some truth to the maxim that you can lead a horse to water. i suppose one reaction is to give up on horses. but, i think you're misprioritizing my prerogatives.

Peacecelebrate Wäponytail
+deathtokoalas I dont... do as you like... feed your own ego if you need... but how many people do you think is really reading your 50+ comments??  I dont..\

deathtokoalas
+Peacecelebrate Wäponytail it's not really a question of ego. it's a way to spend the time. some people like to knit. i like to debate. i'm mediterranean; maybe it's genetic, who knows. italians. greeks. jews. we love to argue. this english attitude of looking down on contrarianism is sort of quaint to us. i'm definitely a political animal....

let me ask you a question: have you read much plato? lots of people have, and not because they were forced to by a school system. some people legitimately enjoy reading discussions. you might not. that's fine.

Peacecelebrate Wäponytail
+deathtokoalas oh my egod.. so many contradictions just in one comment,,,  you can´t see the forest for the trees..  but I agree, some people enjoy reading discussions.. because they are too lazy to think by themselves...  and why not to read some ideas of someone who got famous for ideas... could it be more easier???  now you revealed your real intentions.. and everyone who reads this discussion, can see that... and so can I... there is no point in trying to show you something you do not want to see, for the sake of your dope... which is what I talked about... see the real intentions of the person you discuss with and then you can chose what to do, if you will continue twist my words with more and more details, why should I fed you more with them? so that you can exercise with your mind?  to hope, that someone will read it and will agree with me? what is the point here? truth do not have to be discussed.. it is something you see or do not want to see... while speaking the truth is something else.. there is no discussion needed... those, who do not want to go and look by themselves for the truth, discuss the most   btw. I am not english.. I am slavic..

deathtokoalas
+Peacecelebrate Wäponytail it's your choice to continue to respond. if you're not enjoying yourself, i don't know why you would continue. that is the entire point. it's nothing more than enjoyment.

i don't really see debate as a competitive process, but if you wish to define it as such then you can compare it to a sport. some people play sports to win, and that seems to be the motive that you're trying to attach to me, but this is missing the point. the enjoyment of sport is in the process, not the outcome. it's just for fun; it doesn't matter who "wins".

the benefit of reading a discussion is that it stimulates thought. as you're reading, you decide which position you agree with, and generate reasons for it. you may agree with some parts of both positions, or even disagree with both positions. and, in this medium, you may even choose to participate. we don't live in a vacuum. we're not infinite thought generating machines. we require some stimulus to frame questions. and, yes, sometimes some guidance is useful in helping us understand things.

i may in fact be somebody who is famous for my ideas.

there are such things as facts, but i do not believe that objective truth exists in the terms that you're defining it in.

the harmonious, conformist worldview that you seem to be espousing is quintessentially english, even if you are not. i suppose there is also some tolstoyan asceticism in it.

Peacecelebrate Wäponytail
+deathtokoalas  yes, my choice, I want to see how you think... and why...  while you claim to discuss because you are enjoying yourself...  which is a clue to your real intetions..

I did not talk about competition... that is your projection I triggered..  you actually cannot compete with truth, because truth always wins, there is no competition... when you talk about enjoyment is in the process, while whole process is just a stimul for your mind, then it is like a drug to you... people are not addicted to drugs, because they want to achieve something, or obtain something.. they take them, because of the process, the state...

I never said, that you should not debate, or discuss, because we live in a vacuum, I am saying the opposite.. it is because we do not live in a vacuum, you should not just enjoying yourself...   and what if we are infinite consciousness??  what if we do not require stimulus to frame questions, because we can choose to not just react on stimulus,,, but to see,, to perceive... when with question is already coming an answer...  can you say for sure it is not like that?  in the end, you dont really care, right?? you are just enyoing yourself...  when there can be guidance to understand "things" ... what are those "things"?   if you can see something as fact, do you need to question it?  do you question every fact you present?  no, you dont... because you don´t have to...

if you want to get famous for your ideas, then you can maybe start to have some...

I do not really care, what labels you´ll put on me, so you can typecast me... because all of it is fake

deathtokoalas
+Peacecelebrate Wäponytail apparently, polling suggests that a majority of americans continue to believe not just that the invasion of iraq was meant to eliminate weapons of mass destruction but that they were found and destroyed. the american mythology is constructing it as another example of "american exceptionalism" saving the day - just more proof that americans are the good guys in the world.

truth is very fragile. rather, i should say that facts are very fragile. truth does not exist at all, it is a relative concept.

but you're right when you say it's not the point. i don't think i can actually explain to america why this war happened, or that my narrative will overturn the state propaganda.

and, yes, i can state with certainty that we are not infinite consciousness. that's a contradiction in terms.

Peacecelebrate Wäponytail
+deathtokoalas ... I just wanted to give you one piece of advise... but you know.. you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink..

deathtokoalas
+Peacecelebrate Wäponytail well, as i pointed out initially, i think it's rooted in the naive assumption that i don't realize what i'm doing. i can't know exactly who i'm arguing with on the other side of the screen, but i generally have a pretty good idea. and, if there's any value in these debates, i'd argue they're more important when that other person is an official propagandist - not because i'm going to convince somebody that knows they're lying to me, but because it's a process of counteracting the propaganda. i mean, in those cases, it's posted for others to read.