WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


Information/Cyber/russia

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #151  
Old 12-03-2017, 04:46 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Noteworthy
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 300
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default


Also this is an important read:

https://www.stratcomcoe.org/next-pha...are-keir-giles

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 12-04-2017, 01:42 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,660
Thanks: 201
Thanks 699
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
I've literally skimmed a few lines so correct me if I jump the gun here...

Whenever I see Ukraine framed mostly through the event in Crimea it smacks of propaganda.

It seemed to me the problems in Ukraine stem from an elected president's decision to accept a Russian economic programme over an EU one. Do you buy the old popular revolution story? -- seems much more like a Western backed coup which has divided the country, at which point Russia stepped in; I can't see how we would imagine that they wouldn't. In fact, you might say their actions were pretty restrained.

The story always starts with 'Russia's seizure of Crimea', instead of the EU's intervention in Kiev. Aside from that, Russian propaganda is nothing new, propaganda in general is nothing new.

Things like 'a multi-tiered online media operation in which a number of production units produce content consistent with a core message', it's like... uh... yeah... just like EVERYONE else since the dawn of time. Big scoop!
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 12-04-2017, 06:35 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Noteworthy
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 300
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

Yes you would be jumping the gun even so your version of the Maidan Revolution isnt that far different than what actually happened. Which is kind of the point of that article I posted. Things only have to be a little skewed. Basically what happened was Yanukovych pulled out of a trade agreement with the EU at the last minute in favor of a deal with Moscow. Protests ensued and then laws were passed making it illegal to protest. Protests continued and then they were fired upon. The rest is history.

But the story of Ukraine starts with the Second Chechen War when the Russian army identified their failure to control the information war.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/doc.../iwchechen.htm

You would then go to see how they solidified their base, implemented a rudimentary version in their war with Georgia, then Ukraine, finally with Syria and then with the US election and other western elections.

And what you see over the course of these almost two decades is the increasing sophistication and capability of the Russian state to control narrative and the information sphere.

https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2...-capabilities/

These are rather large scale implementations but there are hundreds of millions if not billions at this point smaller outlets that work to accomplish the same thing. And thats what people in the IC are screaming about. The problem is that it doesnt get through to the public. Maybe because when there is exposure people skim these things. Maybe because they dont know and dont have the time.

Lets say though that youre right. Propaganda is nothing new. However if propaganda is no longer an element of war but a dimension to be contested should the US or Europe view offensive methods in the info/cyber sphere as acts of war necessitating retaliation in the kinetic sphere?

That question left dangling an immense wealth of literature has been written in the last year (and much is open source! You can read it!) and what Ive written here isnt even a nick on the surface. It is the most dangerous sphere at the moment because so very few people take it seriously and so the vast majority are so very vulnerable to it.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 12-04-2017 at 06:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 12-04-2017, 08:00 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,660
Thanks: 201
Thanks 699
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
Yes you would be jumping the gun even so your version of the Maidan Revolution isnt that far different than what actually happened. Which is kind of the point of that article I posted. Things only have to be a little skewed. Basically what happened was Yanukovych pulled out of a trade agreement with the EU at the last minute in favor of a deal with Moscow. Protests ensued and then laws were passed making it illegal to protest. Protests continued and then they were fired upon. The rest is history.
You don't think there's anything suspicious of this though? -- ie: the EU doesn't get what it wants and shortly after the president is deposed and a pro EU government is set up, heavily funded and supported by the West. What would the West do if confronted with a Russian backed coup on their borders?

You would then go to see how they solidified their base, implemented a rudimentary version in their war with Georgia, then Ukraine, finally with Syria and then with the US election and other western elections.
Just walk me through how Russia is at war with Syria. This is the thing it seems to me this is just a case of who you believe, Russia certainly doesn't consider itself at war with Syria. Syria is its long standing ally.

And what you see over the course of these almost two decades is the increasing sophistication and capability of the Russian state to control narrative and the information sphere.
I'm not sure that we couldn't say this about any major player on the map.

Lets say though that youre right. Propaganda is nothing new. However if propaganda is no longer an element of war but a dimension to be contested should the US or Europe view offensive methods in the info/cyber sphere as acts of war necessitating retaliation in the kinetic sphere?
What sort of retaliation are we talking (in the kinetic sphere)? And what specifically cyber sphere acts wise would warrant a physical response? I mean you'd have to define that, and then give justifications. Personally I don't think we'll ever physically attack Russia unless we absolutely have to (because M.A.D)-- proxy skirmishes are as far as it'll go. So if we're losing cyber wars we'll just have to take that one on the chin.

I think people take propaganda seriously but at the same time we'd be naive to think that these aren't pretty universal tactics. People in general should get used to the idea that news in whatever medium will be skewed to fit an agenda. You can count on news being fake, the only thing you can really hope for is that you're free to say whatever you want.

In unfree countries it's not just that news is fake, it's that real news is banned.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 12-04-2017, 10:55 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Noteworthy
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 300
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

You don't think there's anything suspicious of this though? -- ie: the EU doesn't get what it wants and shortly after the president is deposed and a pro EU government is set up, heavily funded and supported by the West. What would the West do if confronted with a Russian backed coup on their borders?

Well thats two different questions. So as to the first I dont find it suspicious because Ukraine had the Orange Revolution back in 2004 and none of the problems (corruption and sovereignty) had been addressed and so were left to fester. Most CIS states managed to break out of Moscow's sphere of influence after the fall of the USSR. Ukraine and Kazakhstan and Belarus did not. As far as I was concerned it was only a matter of time. I mean this isnt academic. It was a reaction to Soviet rule. These things do happen naturally if you can ascribe natural processes to nations. The thing to keep in mind is that the people wanted closer relations with the west and Im not talking about just Ukraine. The Baltic states and Poland joined NATO for Christ's sake. They were under the Soviets and the thing to know about the Soviets was that for all its supposed internationalism it was run by Moscow and the same people who ran the Soviet Union now run Russia. So did and does the West encourage states to gravitate towards their model? Yes of course we did and do. I encourage it. Why wouldnt you want to have closer relations with a country thats willing to adopt your value system? Isnt that what we want? Believe it or not western values create stability in the world and thats something worth encouraging.

If you want I can tell you a little about some of the changes that have manifested that I personally have seen in my visits over the years.

To your second question. I have to think about how to answer this. Id want to point first of all that the nature of neighbors makes it unlikely that a coup would ever happen, especially a Russian backed coup. Theyre both large, stable countries. Mexico has a culture alien to Russia there wouldnt be much they could exploit culturally. Furthermore the distances involved would make logistically supporting the usurping government pretty much impossible. That said had you asked me ten years ago if a modernized democracy would sacrifice sovreignty for political advantage I would have chortled but Im eating crow on that right now.

But lets say a coup did happen. The political realities would dictate the response and that is the truth. If the US felt it could reinstate the deposed power they might if the cost wasnt too high or if the new government lacked popular support. If the US felt they could coopt the government they might try for a response outside of military force, they could impose sanctions, refuse diplomatic recognition, they could set up a blockade, they could arm loyalist factions. Theres a million different options and it would depend on the stance of the new government.




Just walk me through how Russia is at war with Syria. This is the thing it seems to me this is just a case of who you believe, Russia certainly doesn't consider itself at war with Syria. Syria is its long standing ally.

No no no thats not what I meant at all. What I meant was the deployment of an increasingly sophisticated information warfare capability. In this case to prop up the Assad regime. I mean its not just offensive it can be defensive too. So youre right Russia isnt at war with Assad its at war with those factions opposing his regime. In the case of those factions it did everything in its power to affiliate them with ISIS and to attack them under that guise.


I'm not sure that we couldn't say this about any major player on the map.

We actually can say this that the West does not do this because our own IC is scrambling to form a cohesive doctrine in response to this. Read a few more reports and it becomes very clear we do not have parity in these spheres, we are far outclassed and with little means to defend ourselves. One of the central security challenges the US is faced with is how to balance first amendment free speech with protecting the public from hostile influence. I remember attending a conference at Duke University on Chinese telecommunications about twelve years ago I think it was and their incipient answer to this was information sovereignty unfortunately for the US we believe in the free flow of information so we cant do that without compromising our values. By undermining the free exchange of ideas free speech is also repressed. I think its the defining challenge of the century.





What sort of retaliation are we talking (in the kinetic sphere)? And what specifically cyber sphere acts wise would warrant a physical response? I mean you'd have to define that, and then give justifications. Personally I don't think we'll ever physically attack Russia unless we absolutely have to (because M.A.D)-- proxy skirmishes are as far as it'll go. So if we're losing cyber wars we'll just have to take that one on the chin.


Kinetic retaliation is traditional warfare. Specifically I would say that an attack on critical infrastructure would warrant such a response. So an attack on any of these: https://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors

I think we need to expand our critical infrastructure to include elections on all levels of government.

But heres what cyberattacks could do. Say you target the electric grid and a hospital loses power and people die as a result. A cyberattack could be directed towards a nuclear power plant causing it to meltdown. You could disrupt manufacturing, you could sabotage chemical plants, steal military technology, corporate secrets, you could cause mass derailments with trains, you could hack GPS satellites used by the military thereby hobbling our navy. Our missiles are directed by GPS. You disrupt their guidance systems you render them useless. You can disrupt communications on pretty much any level. Imagine if you couldnt get gas for your car how soon would chaos ensue. Imagine in the middle of winter you no longer have gas to heat your house. You could target nuclear launch facilities thereby reducing our ability to retaliate in the event of a nuclear exchange. You could attack communications satellites, isolating US bases, disrupting C4ISR, delaying all response times to any world events. You could run a disinformation campaign in a hostile country so that they elect a pro-russia candidate. Thats the smallest sliver of things its goes far beyond this.

As far as I can tell we have already far surpassed the threshold for war. Russia operates in a gray zone between war and peace. You might be interested in reading about the Gerasimov doctrine. Valery Vasiliyvich Gerasimov

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...228_art008.pdf

I think people take propaganda seriously but at the same time we'd be naive to think that these aren't pretty universal tactics. People in general should get used to the idea that news in whatever medium will be skewed to fit an agenda. You can count on news being fake, the only thing you can really hope for is that you're free to say whatever you want.

People should not get used to this idea. We havent had to before and there is no damn reason we should settle for something less now. In that first article you skimmed their doctrine rests on you maintaining that exact cycnical attitude. If there is no truth then there is no reason to abide by even the most basic tenets of human decency. You can indulge in whatever depravity you like and if you have enough public support youll survive. That cannot be the way this country ends.

In unfree countries it's not just that news is fake, it's that real news is banned.

You dont need to ban real news just drown it in fake news. Whats really the practical difference? As far as I can tell the two are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 12-05-2017, 04:30 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,660
Thanks: 201
Thanks 699
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
Well thats two different questions. So as to the first I dont find it suspicious because Ukraine had the Orange Revolution back in 2004 and none of the problems (corruption and sovereignty) had been addressed and so were left to fester. Most CIS states managed to break out of Moscow's sphere of influence after the fall of the USSR. Ukraine and Kazakhstan and Belarus did not. As far as I was concerned it was only a matter of time. I mean this isnt academic. It was a reaction to Soviet rule. These things do happen naturally if you can ascribe natural processes to nations. The thing to keep in mind is that the people wanted closer relations with the west and Im not talking about just Ukraine. The Baltic states and Poland joined NATO for Christ's sake. They were under the Soviets and the thing to know about the Soviets was that for all its supposed internationalism it was run by Moscow and the same people who ran the Soviet Union now run Russia. So did and does the West encourage states to gravitate towards their model? Yes of course we did and do. I encourage it. Why wouldnt you want to have closer relations with a country thats willing to adopt your value system? Isnt that what we want? Believe it or not western values create stability in the world and thats something worth encouraging.

So firstly apologies for not addressing the whole post. I think it might be useful to keep things succinct and stick to this central point.

You have two versions.

One which you seem to wholly endorse without any room for nuance and complexity and one which presumably you completely dismiss as fake.

Russian version

So Ukraine has been part of Russia for a lot longer than Ukraine has been an independent state (100's of years) -- and large sections of the population are ethnically Russian, including Crimeans.

Russia has an agreement with Ukraine to have a military presence in Crimea which invalidates the notion of an 'invasion'.

Protestors were routinely paid to enact violence in Maidan. And the West bankrolled the new regime with the ultimate goal of setting up more US military bases in the region and extending the US/NATO sphere of influence.

Ukraine is corrupt. But a protest against corruption with the aim of becoming part of the EU is pretty funny when the EU admits that some 161Bn is lost to corruption in the EU annually. Ukraine has just jumped out of the frying pan into the fire -- and the new regime includes known criminals and fascists.

There were equally legitimate pro Russian demonstrations in the east and the south. This would suggest a popular revolution is straying from the truth, and rather that the state is deeply divided and explains the subsequent battles between agents of the new regime and 'pro Russian separatists'.

Now as a westerner you pretty much don't hear anything about this. In fact Ukraine was just not on the news for much longer after regime change. That's because each side's version is almost the polar opposite. For me I know the stakes are high for each side to be as biased as possible so I see no need to accept either as gospel and usually synthesise the two to get something closer to the truth.

For me the reason why you can't just storm in and take over when a decision doesn't go your way in borne out in the subsequent events, ie: civil war -- or something close to it. You're going to have to find diplomatic/democratic solutions to disputes -- that's how we do it in the West right?
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 12-05-2017 at 04:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 12-05-2017, 07:24 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Noteworthy
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 300
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

Edit: Before you respond to this post Id much rather hear your thoughts on retaliation to cyber attacks.



Well the easiest reason for my endorsement of a certain version of events is that the opposing version of events is demonstrably false and I dislike this restriction of events because if you focus on one event you fail to see the larger pattern taking place. Youre always allowed to say this is an anomaly. And its not. But for now Ill play ball.

So lets talk about Crimea. Yes Russia did have an agreement for a naval base there. However before Yanukovych was even outsed the little green men were planning their takeover. They seized government buildings, cut off all communications with the outside world, and a held a referendum for independence at gunpoint then sought to be annexed by Russia to which Russia agreed.

Here is the timeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...ian_Federation I encourage you to check out the citations. Theres over 200 of them. Now Russia denied all involvement in the events leading up to the annexation but Putin later came out and admitted he had ordered Crimea to be taken weeks before:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226

Here is him saying it in person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8AMsRx2jjY

Now to your definition of invasion. What Russia did in Crimea would be something akin to American troops in Guantanamo Bay going out seizing everything from Guantanamo city to Las Tunas then forcing the city councils to hold referendums at gunpoint on independence from Cuba. We have an agreement to hold the Bay so by your definition that is not an invasion. Especially since the square mileage between Crimea and that stretch of the island is comparable.

But lets go for a more subtle example. Lets take Russia's claim that they havent interfered in the Donbas Basin. That they have no troops there. Well here is the T72-B3 in Ukraine, a non-export Russian model:

http://sled-vzayt.livejournal.com/4624.html

Compare the Ukrainian model T-72.

This the T72-B3

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGDYzD0XsAAH1mf.jpg

Or this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28934213

Or how about the fact that those fucking idiots in uniform keep posting selfies of themselves in Ukrainian territory on Vkontakte I mean Jesus Christ you dont get much more amateurish than that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso

All of that said let me reiterate I dismiss their narrative because its demonstrably false not because Im a partisan. I have reasons for the things I believe and I can articulate those reasons. If I can level a criticism at you before going any further youre simply throwing things out as though they were validations of your point and yet there seems to be no underlying thought or understanding of the things youre saying. And youre not addressing what Im saying either. It reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6Pd8TU3Dg

Its frustrating because youre not laying out an argument. But lets do take time to analyze each of your concerns. I already pointed out the fallacy of your definition of invasion. Lets go to EU corruption. To me thats a red herring and also inaccurate. According to RAND Europe the cost is closer to 990 billion euros. So your info is old. But thats still not the whole picture. Since corruption is a human universal the question to ask is does that corruption threaten the functions of the state? And in the case of the EU you have to examine which countries in particular contribute the most to corruption. According to RAND that would be Romania, Bulgaria, and Croatia. Not what you would typically call a European nation. Members sure but you see my point. Whether or not you like its policies or leanings the fact of the matter is the EU works. The combined GDP of its member nations is larger than ours. And their currency is valued more than ours. Thats the faith in their system and thats a pretty damn good indication of a functioning society.

Does the corruption in Ukraine threaten the system, yes, did and does. Who argued it didnt?

Next. Fascists in the government. Youre either talking about Правий сектор or Azov Battlation and theyre affiliated. But the charge against the government falls flat when Biletsky's National Corps holds two seats out of 450 in the Rada and Right Sector holds one. So the argument falls flat.

Also I would add that your ability to effectively synthesize truth out of differing narratives requires you to understand the background which in your case is to put it frankly lacking. I dont mean that as an insult but it is true.

As to your last point:

For me the reason why you can't just storm in and take over when a decision doesn't go your way in borne out in the subsequent events, ie: civil war -- or something close to it. You're going to have to find diplomatic/democratic solutions to disputes -- that's how we do it in the West right?

Doesnt that completely contradict what youve been saying? The Maidan revolution did not go the way Russia wanted so they carved up the country. Why didnt they try for diplomation solutions?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 12-05-2017 at 07:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 12-05-2017, 07:54 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,660
Thanks: 201
Thanks 699
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
Also I would add that your ability to effectively synthesize truth out of differing narratives requires you to understand the background which in your case is to put it frankly lacking. I dont mean that as an insult but it is true.
I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the issue. My point is pretty simple. There are no good guys here, each are using cynical geopolitical tactics, both are guilty of 'fake news' or propaganda and both have done lots to destabilise Ukraine.

I don't really have the time go into all of the details and present a well informed argument necessarily. But I've heard serious people talk about it in this way, as a cynical western backed coup to which Russia acted with considerable restraint. It wouldn't be that difficult to put something together with a bit of time and effort, no?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CNeDtZmpjU
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 12-05-2017, 08:02 AM
fleamailman's Avatar
fleamailman (Offline)
Samuel Johnson, obviously!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,411
Thanks: 2,419
Thanks 3,821
Default

("...sorry, the posts are too long to wade through..." started the goblin, adding "...but is someone here actually claiming that those in crimea want to be part of ukraine when and where they up until 1954 they were russians pure and simple, and that most of them still think that they are russians too, and that they voted to rebecome part of russia again, where the other bits of ukrainian sovereign territory I can fully understand the ukranian displeasure at, but I don't think that there is any ukrainan alive who won't agree that what nikita Khrushchev did back in 1954 didn't consult these russians who lived there at the time...")
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 12-05-2017, 08:31 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Noteworthy
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 300
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

If you dont have the time then take the time. You dont have to respond immediately. Im not going to think less of you if you have to put together an argument over a week. Who cares? What I would like is for you to address some of the points Im making instead of ignoring them. What are your thoughts on retaliation to cyber attacks? Do you concede that your point on invasions is erroneous or do you have a refutation of that argument?

I can give you I think a real world domestic scenario about truth and its necessity. This Thursday Im participating in an auction where I expect to pick up two or so houses in Baltimore. Now the houses Im aiming at already have tenets in them but the rent is low for the area, its less than a grand a month. The question is if I obtain the houses should I turn them out or raise rent or raise rent to turn them out. If truth truly is unobtainable I can concoct whatever reason I want for their removal since because truth is wholly subjective why shouldnt the truth simply be my truth and since subjectivity is fluid why shouldnt my truth accommodate the situation as much as possible? Lets be honest theres tenet protections but if you really want someone out you can get them out. I could say they violated the contract doesnt matter if they actually did or not. In your world its unknowable so why shouldnt the truth benefit me exclusively?

Edit Im watching the video now. I think the salient point Hitchens makes is that the annexation violates international norms as they stand. Quote:

'because its often portrayed as a wholly unfair and wrongful seizure of territory by russia which by pure international law is the case...'

His subsequent argument that because Crimea had a large Russian population they had a right to secede from Ukraine could be likened to the Somalian enclave in Minnesota deciding that once they have enough numbers they have the right to secede from the US.

And international norms mind you were established by the slaughter of many hundreds of millions. Something to think about.

Second edit: And flea is right and I cant believe I forgot. Stalin deliberately starved six million Ukrainians to death. If that isnt reason to want secession then I dont know what is. If were going to go back hundreds of years then that famine of a holocaust is certainly worthy as an exhibit.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 12-05-2017 at 08:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 12-05-2017, 08:58 AM
fleamailman's Avatar
fleamailman (Offline)
Samuel Johnson, obviously!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,411
Thanks: 2,419
Thanks 3,821
Default

("...no, you don't have to do anything really, you can come back whenever you wish too, and when you do return crimea will still be russians on russian soil..." smiled the goblin, adding "...I mean what if roosevelt had given alaska back to the russians during the second world war to get them to attack hitler, would you begrudge the americans living in alaska today their wish to be americans living in america still...", in fact, ukraine took a back seat now, just america had failed miserably there too, but america would still have venezuela by way of a consolation prize instead, crude oil it was in venezuela then but the biggest old reserves in the world too, but no the real battle was the muddle-east today, "...there are too many clues inspector..." went hercule poirot's voice in the background)
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:00 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,660
Thanks: 201
Thanks 699
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
Second edit: And flea is right and I cant believe I forgot. Stalin deliberately starved six million Ukrainians to death. If that isnt reason to want secession then I dont know what is. If were going to go back hundreds of years then that famine of a holocaust is certainly worthy as an exhibit.
Sure... but what of all the pro Russian Ukrainians... do they just not exist? -- are all the images just fabricated etc
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:12 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Noteworthy
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 300
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

Youd be hard pressed to find any at this point. The few I spoke with mostly were older and recalling the Soviet Union. Yura actually gave me a Stalin keychain which I unfortunately lost several years ago He also sold me his passport for four bottles of vodka and I am not making that up. On the whole theyre a minority now.

But again I would ask about your opinions on retaliatory measures to cyber attacks and to my argument about invasions. If you need time just say so.

I finished watching Peter's speech, Im now watching the Q&A session but this man is a hack. His claim that Russia no longer is a superpower if it lacks Ukraine is utterly irrelevant. A nation has no god given right to the status of a superpower and certainly not at the expense of other nations. He ignores Georgia, as the second questioner rightly points out, but in answering that question he pointedly ignores the actual causes of Saakhashvili's reasons for going into South Ossetia was that they were responding to Russian backed separatists in their own territory. He also ignores the Transnistria region of Moldova also under Russian occupation. This guy is a complete hack.

Hes relying on people's ignorance of the situation. His example of Russian speakers in Crimea having to watch films in Ukrainian, besides being utterly fucking petulant (and you know they are in Ukraine), but his comparing English to Welsh and saying theres a comparable difference between Ukrainian and Russian is utterly absurd.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 12-05-2017 at 10:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 12-06-2017, 02:41 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Noteworthy
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 300
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

Started listening to other debates including this Peters. Heres another debate thats interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mitf6DkrPhY&t=235s
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:14 PM.

vBulletin, Copyright 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.