Ask me about being a separatist: Novorossiya AF servicemember.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me about being a separatist: Novorossiya AF servicemember.

«‹›11 »

goatsestretchgoals: Jun 4, 2011

chitoryu12 posted:

I think it's important to also point out that the United States changes leaders more than once a decade. One government's policies aren't the same as the last. George W. Bush is not the same leader as Barack Obama when it comes to invasions. Drone strikes are murkier, but Obama reversed the wars that Bush put us in. On the other hand, Vladimir Putin has been president of Russia for more than a decade and spent the 4 years in between terms as the prime minister. The policy of modern Russia has spent virtually the entire 21st century shaped by Putin and the people he puts in charge of things and he's made many steps to stamp out democratic rule in favor of consolidating his own power, whereas the policy of the United States in the 21st century has been vastly different under its two leaders and has a good chance of being vastly different starting in 2017.

Yeah the presidency flip flopping between two largely similar choices while well connected people with money make back room deals is totally unique to Russia.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 23:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 06:21

A Wizard of Goatse: Dec 14, 2014

bitcoin bastard posted:

Yeah the presidency flip flopping between two largely similar choices while well connected people with money make back room deals is totally unique to Russia.

and if you go into any more detail than that extremely vague and lazy retort they stop looking similar rapidly

every hegemony has an elite class that's basically continuous and serves itself at everyone else's expense, but the Russian regime is way more corrupt and authoritarian than the US at its worst even if the US government has and exercises vastly greater capacity to kill and destroy with its own corrupt authority. It would probably be a bad thing for people outside Putin's inner circle if Putin got expanded powers to ruin peoples' lives, even if his motivations for doing so are similar to those of his counterparts elsewhere and his vision of a Russian imperial sphere to counteract encroaching NATO imperialism is basically factual

# ? Aug 17, 2015 04:50

Runaktla: Feb 21, 2007; by Hand Knit

^^^ pretty good post there

# ? Aug 17, 2015 05:03

goatsestretchgoals: Jun 4, 2011

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

and if you go into any more detail than that extremely vague and lazy retort they stop looking similar rapidly

every hegemony has an elite class that's basically continuous and serves itself at everyone else's expense, but the Russian regime is way more corrupt and authoritarian than the US at its worst even if the US government has and exercises vastly greater capacity to kill and destroy with its own corrupt authority. It would probably be a bad thing for people outside Putin's inner circle if Putin got expanded powers to ruin peoples' lives, even if his motivations for doing so are similar to those of his counterparts elsewhere and his vision of a Russian imperial sphere to counteract encroaching NATO imperialism is basically factual

Dude literally exiles/imprisons billionaires, not sure what more power you're waiting for him to grab.

# ? Aug 17, 2015 07:41

Big Mackson: Sep 26, 2009

i hope there will be at least a government of any kind soon so there can be religious freedom. if it russia then they can maybe get another word punishment from ECHR.

# ? Aug 17, 2015 13:25

CrazyLoon: Aug 10, 2015; "..."

Truga posted:

I didn't actually mean Russians, I see these things in central europe fairly often. Not from the politicians, obviously (they'd get burned alive if they tried to defend Russia right now), but from quite a bunch of normal people. I'm sure Russians just think they're the good guys, just like the US thinks they're the good guys, while invading. It's the people in-between that often go "well, US is doing it too and nobody cares, why should we care about the other side??". When really, they should care, two countries breaking international law is still worse than one.

For the average normal person, it's moreso a subconsciously pragmatic question, really. As in, what does a normal average person feel they can do against the corruption and abuse of power of basically every 'superpower' nation that has by now become so full of poo poo that only the nationalists belonging to those nations or the clueless can't see it by this point?

Sadly, the pragmatic answer also happens to be: "Not that much at all" for the average person. The events of the last few decades all but proved it - we can bark all we like, but the caravan rolls on (which is precisely why tempered idealists are badly needed, now more than ever). So it's not surprising to see a lot of Europe, in particular, give up its hands and lapse into a lethargic sort of cynicism of 'poo poo is hosed up, history and ignorance will repeat themselves and no one can ever stop it, let's just live life while we can and it's still good.' Right now, I'd say most average EU citizens (except maybe the UK, who's always had chummy and economic ties to the US) see either the US-led west or the eastern Russia or China as an equally lovely proposition for influencing them. All that being said, I actually do still see the former as a better alternative to the latter, who are far more on the same old autocratic line of BS we'd seen time and again through history...but that doesn't make it any less full of poo poo, nor any less likely of critically screwing us all up in the end.

But to try and tie this line of thought to the topic - having read through this thread in its entirety, I don't see the OP as a monster any more than I see an average US soldier as one. In fact, I find his flawed arguments and line of thinking exactly on par to say...US vietnam veterans, some of which still to this day deny outright (moreso to themselves than also to others) that poo poo like the Mai Lai massacre actually happened because the US can do no wrong, even though they were recorded and photographed as being there and taking part in it. In short - it reads like the same lie anyone with too much national (or personal) pride likes to tell themselves.

EDIT: Still...props to the OP for this thread regardless. It's still good to get a consistent opposing perspective, even if I don't agree with it.

CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Aug 23, 2015

# ? Aug 23, 2015 11:25

Runaktla: Feb 21, 2007; by Hand Knit

^^^ pretty good post, totally agree.

# ? Aug 23, 2015 16:46

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

CrazyLoon posted:

So it's not surprising to see a lot of Europe, in particular, give up its hands and lapse into a lethargic sort of cynicism of 'poo poo is hosed up, history and ignorance will repeat themselves and no one can ever stop it, let's just live life while we can and it's still good.' Right now, I'd say most average EU citizens (except maybe the UK, who's always had chummy and economic ties to the US) see either the US-led west or the eastern Russia or China as an equally lovely proposition for influencing them. All that being said, I actually do still see the former as a better alternative to the latter, who are far more on the same old autocratic line of BS we'd seen time and again through history...but that doesn't make it any less full of poo poo, nor any less likely of critically screwing us all up in the end.

But to try and tie this line of thought to the topic - having read through this thread in its entirety, I don't see the OP as a monster any more than I see an average US soldier as one. In fact, I find his flawed arguments and line of thinking exactly on par to say...US vietnam veterans, some of which still to this day deny outright (moreso to themselves than also to others) that poo poo like the Mai Lai massacre actually happened because the US can do no wrong, even though they were recorded and photographed as being there and taking part in it. In short - it reads like the same lie anyone with too much national (or personal) pride likes to tell themselves.

Just in case you are not trolling:

- Russia is an extremely impoverished country. It's military is in a very poor state and it is in no position to launch an offensive even against a medium sized EU country. Frances military budget alone is probably higher than Russias in nominal terms and their army actually in a fighting shape.

- Russia has no cultural or political influence in Europe, it's the other way around. Western products, western media and culture have been flooding the country for the last decade tacking over many aspects of daily life.

- It is politically isolated from all of the wealthy, developed nations and has zero allies. There is absolutely no hope to catch up economically for them, while remaining isolated.

- European standard of living, technological development and productivity is on a constant increase. Russia has been facing never ending corruption, stagnation and social instability for the last 3 decades. There might be a serious risk of food shortages this year there. Let that sink in.

- Nobody in Europe is resigning to the "cycles of history". :wtc:

Militarily, Russia is not even a danger to Germany and their broomstick army. NATO is not in any danger. Besides NATO, Belarus is the only country left to bully and invade for Russia anyway and Batka seems to be too smart to poo poo where he eats.

- China is a joke. Go to the gbs china thread and talk to all those people actually living there. Not even the Chinese themselves believe that " Chinese century " crap. That country is so fundamentally hosed up that even Russia looks like a role model compared to them. They are certainly not telling Europe or North America what to do in the next couple of decades.

- That OP dude is not a soldier. Soldiers enjoy special legal protection and a high respect in society. He is a mercenary. There is a enormous difference between being drafted or joining your countries military and going on a adventure holiday and playing mercenary. The difference is so big that you get medals for one of these things an a life imprisonment for the other. Think about why that is.

# ? Aug 24, 2015 15:11

A Wizard of Goatse: Dec 14, 2014

waitwhatno posted:

Frances military budget alone is probably higher than Russias in nominal terms and their army actually in a fighting shape.

When's the last time the French army fought anything but ennui, i guess they've got all of 4000 battle-tested veterans from their glorious conquests in loving Mali

there's a difference between being a nice country to live in, or owning a very expensive airplane, and being politically significant

like your other bullet points are more to the point if variously wrong, France's military is not really equipped to handle a major conflict because they don't need it to be, the Russian tank columns are not going to come blow up the Arc de Triomphe anytime in the next ever and the Nazis have settled for economic conquest, but this one just stuck out as lol

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Aug 24, 2015

# ? Aug 24, 2015 15:15

Jose: Jul 24, 2007; Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer

is the op dead?

# ? Aug 24, 2015 15:59

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

^^^^^
let me ask him:

are you dead OP?

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

When's the last time the French army fought anything but ennui, i guess they've got all of 4000 battle-tested veterans from their glorious conquests in loving Mali

I don't know and who gives a poo poo? what does this have to do with anything?

quote:

there's a difference between being a nice country to live in, or owning a very expensive airplane, and being politically significant

That's true, but I don't see your point. Russia has zero allies or political capital in the world. The BRIC nations made it very clear during the Crimea crisis that they only want to be "friends* with Russia, nothing more. All of these countries actually depend on trade with the US and Europe for their survival. So, what political influence does Russia have exactly? Vetoing the SC? Selling decent, but obsolete military hardware for an affordable price?

quote:

like your other bullet points are more to the point if variously wrong, France's military is not really equipped to handle a major conflict because they don't need it to be, the Russian tank columns are not going to come blow up the Arc de Triomphe anytime in the next ever and the Nazis have settled for economic conquest, but this one just stuck out as lol

I have no idea what's going on in this paragraph.

GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Aug 24, 2015

# ? Aug 24, 2015 16:03

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

When's the last time the French army fought anything but ennui, i guess they've got all of 4000 battle-tested veterans from their glorious conquests in loving Mali

there's a difference between being a nice country to live in, or owning a very expensive airplane, and being politically significant

like your other bullet points are more to the point if variously wrong, France's military is not really equipped to handle a major conflict because they don't need it to be, the Russian tank columns are not going to come blow up the Arc de Triomphe anytime in the next ever and the Nazis have settled for economic conquest, but this one just stuck out as lol

Actually, an article written by a French veteran indicates that the French army has a lot of major problems. As of 2012 they're still issued equipment on par with what the Americans went into Vietnam with (and soldiers have to pay for their equipment out of their own pockets, when they actually get paid in the first place). In general the French army is broke and running low on working vehicles, so low on money they can't even try to develop and produce a new replacement for their service rifle.

# ? Aug 24, 2015 17:10

A Wizard of Goatse: Dec 14, 2014

chitoryu12 posted:

Actually, an article written by a French veteran indicates that the French army has a lot of major problems. As of 2012 they're still issued equipment on par with what the Americans went into Vietnam with (and soldiers have to pay for their equipment out of their own pockets, when they actually get paid in the first place). In general the French army is broke and running low on working vehicles, so low on money they can't even try to develop and produce a new replacement for their service rifle.

yyup

which is fine for a country that has no actual military threats more significant than non-governmental goatfuckers robbing mines in the old colonies and an imperial superpower to do the heavy lifting for it, their army can basically be what more active international players would call the reserves, but Russia is its own empire (if a cut-rate shambles of one) and has been pretty much continuously involved in successful large-scale operations against other countries over the last few decades. They ain't the colossus dividing the world in two no more but they still have real international power of a completely different league, and use it in dramatic and mostly explosive ways all the time.

The EU countries have an only slightly less extreme arrangement going on than the Saudis, they might be very rich and they might like to throw around a lot of money but they don't have a great deal of political influence outside the Eurozone and are stuck being very prosperous thoroughly dependent vassals of somebody. That somebody is going to be the US until sometime around World War 3, but OTOH you can't tell me what to do, you're not even my real dad, I'm going to run away and join the circus etc.

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Aug 24, 2015

# ? Aug 24, 2015 17:30

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

This seems like a good time to point out that the European coalition that intervened in Libya in 2014 ran out of air dropped munitions in DAYS of combat.

With Libya.

A war between Russia and NATO would be an absolute poo poo show.

# ? Aug 24, 2015 19:11

RFC2324: Jun 7, 2012; http 418

MrYenko posted:

This seems like a good time to point out that the European coalition that intervened in Libya in 2014 ran out of air dropped munitions in DAYS of combat.

With Libya.

A war between Russia and NATO would be an absolute poo poo show.

You do realize that the US is part of NATO, right?

In the event of a Russia/NATO conflict, the reality would be a Russia/US conflict, and that might be more interesting.

# ? Aug 24, 2015 19:30

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

RFC2324 posted:

You do realize that the US is part of NATO, right?

In the event of a Russia/NATO conflict, the reality would be a Russia/US conflict, and that might be more interesting.

The question is how long would it take Russia to run out of money to keep the fight going?

# ? Aug 24, 2015 22:13

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

MrYenko posted:

This seems like a good time to point out that the European coalition that intervened in Libya in 2014 ran out of air dropped munitions in DAYS of combat.

With Libya.

A war between Russia and NATO would be an absolute poo poo show.

IRC they ran out of some type of guided ammunition, not bombs in general. Military budgets are cut to the bone and fancy stuff like post-80s weapons are not considered a priority around Europe. The US is now pretty much the only country on the planet that keeps a modern and war-ready military around at all times. When Russia went to war in 2008, their forces in the region ran out of ammunition and supplies very quickly too. Most of the fighting had to be done by airborne troops, since the regular professional soldiers turned out to be poorly equipped and trained. Russian airforce showed an especially bad performance against a completely outmatched and outgunned opponent.

And now compare that to the brilliant Iraq campaign that the US pulled off in 2003 on the other side of the globe. Most of the praise that the Russian military got after 2008 was mainly pointing out how far they had come since the first Chechen war nightmare and how they are capable of performing basic military operations again without bursting into flames.

# ? Aug 25, 2015 01:42