3 ms·

They are glorifying a brutal war that nobody could win. Sad to see war preparation rather than friendship and dialog in response to instability.

by brabel 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago
When you have a dictatorship next door that has already invaded at least one other country recently being prepared is a pretty good strategy.
- brabel 9y ago
  You're buying into the media narrative which paints Russia as the devil. Russia is not a dictatorship, Putin has overwhelming support from the population but could be ousted by elections quite easily. The Ukraine conflict is far more complex than you see on the news. I have family in Ukraine and know that Russia actually had some good reasons to take Krimea back (it was Russia for hundreds of years and most people living there are ethnic Russians), most of the population there is happy about it (not comparable to Finland at all).
  - classicsnoot 9y ago
    It is hard to measure popular support for a guy that controls the state apparatuses for secret policing and surveillance. I actually like Putin, but i am an authoritarian hawk, so that is no ringing endorsement. I studied under Alex Moytle, a Ukrainian Specialist, and a day didn't go by that Putin wasn't discussed. The joke was always about the official government pollster calling the average Russian and asking them who they support... on their landline which was set up by the official government supported telecom. "Da tovarisch, of course i fully support Putin!" Even funnier is when RF supporters say that the Crimean population supported the invasion. "hello citizen, i am man in unmarked tactical gear with totally Hungarian rifle! Do you support the side with a full air wing of Hind Ds flying over you at this moment?" The argument for majority support is pointless if there is no way to accurately gauge true sentiment. Best to leave the argument out when justifying an illegal invasion of sovereign territory.
    - Djamel2017 9y ago
      This is what your mass media wants you to think. In fact, Putin is not authoritarian.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      I agree with your comment. I am interested in your world view. How did you come about to being an "authoritarian hawk," and what are the tenets of that viewpoint?
      - classicsnoot 9y ago
        That is a long story, and i am in no way trying to imply that i have settled on that viewpoint and never expect to change. To shorten the narrative and save myself from bird hops/rabbit trails, i believe that an objective assessment of combined human history shows that if a nation/entity has decided that they are justified in using violence then all entities involved must act accordingly. This appears to create a punctuated equilibrium of peace and violence. Given the state of the planet at this moment in terms of geopolitics, combined with the size of the population and the growing probability of global climate shift, i see know better human construct for governance than a strong, centralized authority bound by principle and precedent with the capability to do tragic evil for the sake of long term good. To put it another way, i am one of those historians* that feels that dark ages, unlike Rome, can be built in a day. I am horrified of a history recounting that the brightest minds plunged the world into oblivion so that everybody's opinion could be registered every time a decision needs to get made. This is a temporary position given the constraints of our reality. Certain technologies and other cataclysms could make my assessment bullshit. I guess I just think Putin is better equipped to deal with global disaster than any of the democratically elected leaders of the so called West. Xi is somewhat in the same position, but their population, in terms of both density and total, is a severe limiting factor. I'd love to discuss this at length in a less showy forum or format if you would be so inclined, but the tl;dr is i think Democracy is like high heels: they may look good but they are usually worthless shoes.
    - brabel 9y ago
      But much earlier than the Russian annexation happened, there was plenty of evidence of Krimea wanting to leave Ukraine... You can travel there right now and talk to people! Almost no one wants to be part of Ukraine! https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/#3a5bf2ab510d https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-a... Seems like some people just refuse to see that?! Why??? Who is really brainwashed here?
  - mickronome 9y ago
    As long as you consider it possible for Russia to have a 'good reason' to take land by force, it makes your comments on the article about 'war preparations' a farce. Obviously peace is the ideal, but it's clear who the more agressive party is, the article is not about them, peace is also always bilateral. For Finland this is not about ignoring diplomacy, they don't ignore it, because they can't.
    - jernfrost 9y ago
      I got to agree with brabel. The Ukranian invasion did not come out of the blue. If you think that, then you simply have not paid attention to politics and history. Crimea was Russian originally not Ukrainian. Of course they stole it from somebody else before that. The Ukraine has a long history with Russia, and when the Soviet Union split up the west agreed to not try to get the Ukraine into NATO, EU or other western organizations. Russia sees the Ukraine as a buffer state and don't want the west on their doorstep. The west broke all those promises it had given Russia. Naturally they are pissed from feeling ignored. Russia is a bit childish, but it is simple. They just want to feel respected. That is all we got to give them. When they don't feel respected. They start acting like dicks. Sure it is not fair or warranted, but we could totally avoided this if we had been smarter.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    If you believe Russia has (presidential) “elections” other than in name, I think you bought into something.
mieseratte 9y ago
Si vis pacem, para bellum
nabla9 9y ago
You need two for peace. Only one is enough to start a war. Finland has done everything it can to be friendly with Russia but Russia want's to play the role of a bully. Just few years ago Russia started to intentionally violate Finnish airspace. Finnish Air Force had to increase preparedness to the level where drivers sit in the cockpit and scramble to intercept. Today Russia is fighting constant propaganda war against Finland within Russia and inside Finland.
classicsnoot 9y ago
When has friendliness and diplomacy ever mitigated a threat from an invasive or expansionist neighbor? I hear this refrain quite often, but people who say it are usually referring to some glorious future event wherein two or more belligerents come to the table as equals, share some tea, then discuss what's really going on. To my understanding of history (limited though it may be) this has never happened unless both parties are capable of destroying each other. If there is any imbalance in the capabilities, diplomacy is a facade used to wrangle for time and optimum position. The concept of diplomacy in lieu of conflict is an interesting theory that has never really been borne out in practice. As Thucydides so elegantly put it, "the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must."

They are glorifying a brutal war that nobody could win. Sad to see war preparation rather than friendship and dialog in response to instability.

by brabel 9y ago

They are glorifying a brutal war that nobody could win. Sad to see war preparation rather than friendship and dialog in response to instability.

jacquesm 9y ago

When you have a dictatorship next door that has already invaded at least one other country recently being prepared is a pretty good strategy.

brabel 9y ago
You're buying into the media narrative which paints Russia as the devil. Russia is not a dictatorship, Putin has overwhelming support from the population but could be ousted by elections quite easily. The Ukraine conflict is far more complex than you see on the news. I have family in Ukraine and know that Russia actually had some good reasons to take Krimea back (it was Russia for hundreds of years and most people living there are ethnic Russians), most of the population there is happy about it (not comparable to Finland at all).
- classicsnoot 9y ago
  It is hard to measure popular support for a guy that controls the state apparatuses for secret policing and surveillance. I actually like Putin, but i am an authoritarian hawk, so that is no ringing endorsement. I studied under Alex Moytle, a Ukrainian Specialist, and a day didn't go by that Putin wasn't discussed. The joke was always about the official government pollster calling the average Russian and asking them who they support... on their landline which was set up by the official government supported telecom. "Da tovarisch, of course i fully support Putin!" Even funnier is when RF supporters say that the Crimean population supported the invasion. "hello citizen, i am man in unmarked tactical gear with totally Hungarian rifle! Do you support the side with a full air wing of Hind Ds flying over you at this moment?" The argument for majority support is pointless if there is no way to accurately gauge true sentiment. Best to leave the argument out when justifying an illegal invasion of sovereign territory.
  - Djamel2017 9y ago
    This is what your mass media wants you to think. In fact, Putin is not authoritarian.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    I agree with your comment. I am interested in your world view. How did you come about to being an "authoritarian hawk," and what are the tenets of that viewpoint?
    - classicsnoot 9y ago
      That is a long story, and i am in no way trying to imply that i have settled on that viewpoint and never expect to change. To shorten the narrative and save myself from bird hops/rabbit trails, i believe that an objective assessment of combined human history shows that if a nation/entity has decided that they are justified in using violence then all entities involved must act accordingly. This appears to create a punctuated equilibrium of peace and violence. Given the state of the planet at this moment in terms of geopolitics, combined with the size of the population and the growing probability of global climate shift, i see know better human construct for governance than a strong, centralized authority bound by principle and precedent with the capability to do tragic evil for the sake of long term good. To put it another way, i am one of those historians* that feels that dark ages, unlike Rome, can be built in a day. I am horrified of a history recounting that the brightest minds plunged the world into oblivion so that everybody's opinion could be registered every time a decision needs to get made. This is a temporary position given the constraints of our reality. Certain technologies and other cataclysms could make my assessment bullshit. I guess I just think Putin is better equipped to deal with global disaster than any of the democratically elected leaders of the so called West. Xi is somewhat in the same position, but their population, in terms of both density and total, is a severe limiting factor. I'd love to discuss this at length in a less showy forum or format if you would be so inclined, but the tl;dr is i think Democracy is like high heels: they may look good but they are usually worthless shoes.
  - brabel 9y ago
    But much earlier than the Russian annexation happened, there was plenty of evidence of Krimea wanting to leave Ukraine... You can travel there right now and talk to people! Almost no one wants to be part of Ukraine! https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/#3a5bf2ab510d https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-a... Seems like some people just refuse to see that?! Why??? Who is really brainwashed here?
- mickronome 9y ago
  As long as you consider it possible for Russia to have a 'good reason' to take land by force, it makes your comments on the article about 'war preparations' a farce. Obviously peace is the ideal, but it's clear who the more agressive party is, the article is not about them, peace is also always bilateral. For Finland this is not about ignoring diplomacy, they don't ignore it, because they can't.
  - jernfrost 9y ago
    I got to agree with brabel. The Ukranian invasion did not come out of the blue. If you think that, then you simply have not paid attention to politics and history. Crimea was Russian originally not Ukrainian. Of course they stole it from somebody else before that. The Ukraine has a long history with Russia, and when the Soviet Union split up the west agreed to not try to get the Ukraine into NATO, EU or other western organizations. Russia sees the Ukraine as a buffer state and don't want the west on their doorstep. The west broke all those promises it had given Russia. Naturally they are pissed from feeling ignored. Russia is a bit childish, but it is simple. They just want to feel respected. That is all we got to give them. When they don't feel respected. They start acting like dicks. Sure it is not fair or warranted, but we could totally avoided this if we had been smarter.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  If you believe Russia has (presidential) “elections” other than in name, I think you bought into something.

mieseratte 9y ago

Si vis pacem, para bellum

nabla9 9y ago

You need two for peace. Only one is enough to start a war. Finland has done everything it can to be friendly with Russia but Russia want's to play the role of a bully. Just few years ago Russia started to intentionally violate Finnish airspace. Finnish Air Force had to increase preparedness to the level where drivers sit in the cockpit and scramble to intercept. Today Russia is fighting constant propaganda war against Finland within Russia and inside Finland.

classicsnoot 9y ago

When has friendliness and diplomacy ever mitigated a threat from an invasive or expansionist neighbor? I hear this refrain quite often, but people who say it are usually referring to some glorious future event wherein two or more belligerents come to the table as equals, share some tea, then discuss what's really going on. To my understanding of history (limited though it may be) this has never happened unless both parties are capable of destroying each other. If there is any imbalance in the capabilities, diplomacy is a facade used to wrangle for time and optimum position. The concept of diplomacy in lieu of conflict is an interesting theory that has never really been borne out in practice. As Thucydides so elegantly put it, "the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must."