Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[West Aurelia]

It is exactly this Western (especially - American) unreasonable desire to upheld the "freedom of speach" by allwoing neo-nazis and skinheads to stage their pride-marches, allowing abstract reasons go before logic, that makes them... unlikable in Russia.

Here we share a belief that such things should not be allowed at all.

I think that under normal circumstances, all political movements should be allowed to freely express themselves in public.

Of course, if neo-Nazis are going around committing acts of violence, or threatening people, then that's a different matter and the government is justified in cracking down on them in this case.

But simply stating pro-Nazi opinions (or pro- anything else opinions) should never be banned as such.

In any case, if a country bans certain opinions but allows Nazis to freely march in public, then the government of that country can be accused of being at least somewhat pro-Nazi.

Agreed except on the last point. If a country bans Nazism but allows communism, then can't you accuse that country of being somewhat pro-communist, even when it's not?

[Constantinopolis]

I think that under normal circumstances, all political movements should be allowed to freely express themselves in public.

Of course, if neo-Nazis are going around committing acts of violence, or threatening people, then that's a different matter and the government is justified in cracking down on them in this case.

But simply stating pro-Nazi opinions (or pro- anything else opinions) should never be banned as such.

In any case, if a country bans certain opinions but allows Nazis to freely march in public, then the government of that country can be accused of being at least somewhat pro-Nazi.

Agreed except on the last point. If a country bans Nazism but allows communism, then can't you accuse that country of being somewhat pro-communist, even when it's not?

Communism is a far broader category than Nazism. Comparing Nazism to communism is like comparing the spotted barn owl (a particular species of bird) with mammals in general.

So let's stick to comparing things that are actually similar in size and scope. Nazism and - I don't know, let's use Maoism for example. If a country bans Nazism but allows Maoism, can that country be accused of being somewhat pro-Maoist?

Actually, I would answer yes. I cannot think of any country like this, however. I do not know of any countries that ban only Nazism in particular.

And no, in case you are wondering, Germany does not ban only Nazism in particular. It bans (or, more accurately, restricts) all "anti-democratic ideologies", and there is a government agency (the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) with the power to decide what is or isn't an "anti-democratic ideology". Apparently they don't notice the irony.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yes, it is freedom of speech and yes Germany does suppress freedom of speech to a point when it comes to the Nazi's. Do you have a point somewhere in that drivel that I missed?

It is exactly this Western (especially - American) unreasonable desire to upheld the "freedom of speach" by allwoing neo-nazis and skinheads to stage their pride-marches, allowing abstract reasons go before logic, that makes them... unlikable in Russia.

Here we share a belief that such things should not be allowed at all.

From Glorious People's Ministry of Truthiness and Totally-Not Conspiracy-Building, no less!

[The balkens]

It is exactly this Western (especially - American) unreasonable desire to upheld the "freedom of speach" by allwoing neo-nazis and skinheads to stage their pride-marches, allowing abstract reasons go before logic, that makes them... unlikable in Russia.

Here we share a belief that such things should not be allowed at all.

From Glorious People's Ministry of Truthiness and Totally-Not Conspiracy-Building, no less!

How much you want to bet that a great many of them are in New Russia's militia?

[Simargh]

Russia may pose to be an existential threat towards NATO and its members, deputy supreme commander of NATO.

[Alien Space Bats]

-snip-

Am I the only person who finds the exceedingly recursive nature of this post amusing: Lytt is quoting the Western Press's criticism of the Western Press to prove that the Western Press is wholly (and uncritically) in the pocket of the US government.

[Shofercia]

How many times do I have to repeat the basics? A billion? A trillion? A zillion? The Second Chechen War started after the de facto independent Chechnya was taken over by Wahhabi Radicals and attacked Dagestan, a de facto and de jure part of Russia. The Ossetian War started when Saakashvili shelled Tskhinvali, including the JKPF Peacekeeping Base, killing Russian Peacekeepers. If you would've bothered to read the EU Report written by the Swiss, it said that Georgia started unjustified war and Russia overreacted. The Swiss report didn't question Russia's right to react; that it conceded. And yeah, seizing a territory from Wahhabi Terrorists, be it IIPB or ISIS, is different than seizing territory from peaceful civilians. That's why it's one thing to support the Kurdish Kobane Campaign, including the counterattack, and another to support the Invasion of Iraq.

The point still stands, if any province of Russia were to ever rebel and attempt to separate, Russia would be allowed to reassert control over it with no blatant foreign intervention as a world power.

If Russia was ever weak enough to have its nuclear and conventional deterrents reduced to irrelevancy, that would open the door to the US or another country intervening against Russia to the same extent that Russia intervened against Georgia. Maybe the Russian peacekeepers should have left if Russia knew Georgia was unstable and would be in a state of civil war? The US isn't going to invade Spain for example, if a US base got damaged by the Spanish military rooting out Basque separatists and the US base was just collateral damage that was in the way.

The Russian Peacekeepers were there, in part because the Georgians asked them to be there, see the Dagomys Accords. You see, Gamzakhurdia's reign was so idiotic, that it led to the near collapse of Georgia's armed forces, and in order to prevent Abkhaz and Ossetian gains against Georgia Proper, the JKPF base was established. At the time of its establishment, the South Ossetians requested a North Ossetian Battalion there, in addition to Russian and Georgian ones. It was a joint peacekeeping base. Furthermore, what happens in one part of the Caucasus resonates in other parts. The First Chechen War started shortly after the Georgian Wars ended, which, in turn, started after the Gorbafool's Operation Ring ignited the region in flames.

In 2004, the Georgians were careful to avoid targeting the JKPF base, despite attacking South Ossetia. This time they went all out and lost. Furthermore, the job of legitimate peacekeeping bases is to stop the instigator, not to get out of the way. That's the obligation that the peacekeeping country accepts. If you take a look at successful peacekeeping ops, you'll see that countries providing peacekeepers had their skin in the game. One has to be phenomenally deluded to think that countries enforce Human Rights out of the goodness of their hearts.

It hadn't been in a state of civil war; South Ossetia had been independent since winning its war of independence in 1992.

Why hasn't South Ossetia been on any official map then? The majority of the world has kept recognizing it as apart of Georgia. If South Ossetia is strong enough to maintain independence on its own, then the world would recognize it, as it has with East Timor against Indonesia.

Oh really? Abkhazia was strong enough to maintain its independent since the early 1990s. Where's their recognition? What about Somaliland's?

Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe. Official press releases originating from the governments of UK, Poland & Baltics; they might as well call themselves the "Coalition of pro-US bitches in the EU" - it'd at least be honest. The "current government" of Ukraine in Kiev. Pretty much anyone who called French - wimps - for negotiating peace between Russia & Georgia around August 16th.

Oh dear. Now you're just taking the piss.

Like I already said, the UK has its own reasons to be displeased at Russia, especially after the assassination of Litvinenko and the constant violations of British airspace by Russian aircraft (with the most recent one occurring only yesterday, funnily enough). As for Poland and the Baltics, well you shouldn't have to guess why they are so distrustful of Russia. Clue: it has very little to do with US foreign policy.

And there are plenty of differences, might I add. For example, the US wants to arm Ukraine, but the UK is saying Ukraine is not ready for it.

The fact that you cannot seem to accept that Western nations are able to form their formulate their own foreign policy without American influence epitomises why most of the developed world sees Russia as a threat. It's incredibly condescending , but it's the expected response from the Putinist cheer squad.
But hey, I guess we are all too stupid to make up our own minds when it comes to Russia so we just do the US' bidding because it's convenient.

Western nations like France, Germany, Italy, etc? Certainly. However, I've yet to see UK, Poland & Baltics actually make a major anti-American foreign policy decision, like the French did with Iraq. Germans too. UK prides it's special relationship with the US. It's why I specifically singled out 5 EU members, 5, out of 28. That's not a majority. That's what, 18%? And yet, in order to insert your "hurr durr mah opponent is kwazy Putinist meme" - you've implied that I stated that 18% is the majority. That's bullshit beyond belief.

[Alien Space Bats]

It is exactly this Western (especially - American) unreasonable desire to upheld the "freedom of speach" by allwoing neo-nazis and skinheads to stage their pride-marches, allowing abstract reasons go before logic, that makes them... unlikable in Russia.

Here we share a belief that such things should not be allowed at all.

Too fucking bad. We don't arrest Nazis for being Nazis (cf. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 [1977]), just like we didn't arrest Communists for being Communists, even during the height of the Cold War; Hell, we won't even arrest Muslim extremists who spread Salafist propaganda on behalf of Daesh even as we're bombing the fuck out of the organization, and you can say insulting things about Christianity if you want, too ― even while standing in the middle of a church.

Oh, and we let gays fuck each other, too, without beating the shit out of them. Damn, we suck, don't we?

We believe in freedom. You don't. You think we're monstrous for not limiting freedom, and we think you're monstrous for doing the opposite.

I guess we're going to have to kill each other over this, aren't we?

[Shofercia]

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are the only two places in Georgia under dispute. The rest is universally recognized as sovereign Georgian territory.

So what gave Abkhazia the right to separate from Georgia when prior to 1992's war, it was almost half Georgian ethnically speaking and Abkhazia had to resort to ethnic cleansing? It seems to me that South Ossetia has a stronger basis for independence because even before, Ossetians made up a clear majority there.

Being de facto independent from Georgia for at least two centuries.

I'm not sure what you mean by "right". And why should it matter? Both of them are only recognized by three UN member states anyway.

I agree that if Georgia is never getting Abkhazia and South Ossetia back, then there is no point in Georgia contesting that anymore. Georgia will never be able to take on Russia.

But I do wonder if Georgia would jump at the chance to get both back if Russia were to somehow suffer as huge of a collapse as it did in 1991? If Georgia struck at the point when Russia was weakest and most incapable of retaliating, that is the only plausible means Georgia might regain its old borders. Better relations with Russia won't accomplish anything for Georgia so far as getting back any territory goes.

Georgia did strike at the point when Russia was weakest. Georgia lost both wars. Currently Georgia's 0-4.

Yeah, going to need a source for that one. Sounds like good old Baltic government brainwashing to me.

Maybe Arglorand was referring to this?

I was talking about statistics and facts. Comparative ones. Having actual numbers, since he specifically used the term "per capita". That means that I'd expect a per capita comparison of Nazi collaborators/total population for all countries in Eastern Europe. Absent that, his point is merely rehashing his government's clueless historical claims.

My Russian is terrible, but it sounds like Russian Opposition are planning a "spring", similar to what happened with the Arab Spring and European colour revolutions. Could a fluent Russian speaker please confirm?
https://twitter.com/SvobodaRadio/status ... 0987239424

I imagine Abkhasians pursued autonomy, probably tired of living under Soviet, and then Georgian, rulers who did not appreciate Abkhasian interests.

Luckily they are now free to live under Russian rulers and exist under exclusively Russian-dictated conditions.

Yay?

Incorrect. They voted against the pro-Russian candidate, and the other guy won. The only area in which Abkhaz are bound to take orders from Moscow - is the military. That's it. Outside of the military, they can conduct policy as they wish. In fact, they want to cozy up to Turkey, whether Russia likes it or not. And Moscow has no say over their schools, or their civil rights, or anything like that. And the only reason for the military pact, is because Abkhazia requested military alliance with Russia, and those were Russian conditions.

To break that fact down a little bit, the population of Lithuanians in Lithuania increased. The population of Estonians in Estonia and Latvians in Latvia both declined. Nevertheless, the population of these groups has decreased since independence. And why wouldn't they? For almost fifty years they fell behind nearby countries in terms of living standards while the vast majority were denied the basic right to emigrate. When that right was restored its hardly surprising than many chose to seek better living standards elsewhere, particularly after they were granted the right to live and work visa free in the EU. If these countries are to fight their demographic problems they will need to focus on closing the gap with the rest of Europe, which for the most part they have done since independence.

As a mod has requested a return to topic, feel free to address my post in a new thread.

Doc Freud sez: "I just posted wrong facts, but I linked to mod post, so can you please not correct my mistakes Shof, or just start another thread solely for correcting said mistakes?"

No, that's really not going to happen. If every time someone made factual mistakes a new thread was started, we'd be very much thread cluttered on NSG.

Let's see here, the population of Lithuanians in Lithuania increased, eh? Just to be on the same page, an increase is when the population goes up. According to Lithuania's very own census, the population of Lithuanians in Lithuania "increased" from 2.91 million to 2.56 million. Oh no, wait, that's actually a decrease. You then go on and on and on about emigration. Except they also lack natural growth. Again, according to Lithuania's own figures, their TFR is currently averaging at 1.55 over the past few years. You need something above a 2 to grow. And when it comes to migration, Lithuania's still losing that fight, despite your factually wrong claims: http://123.emn.lt/en/general-trends/mig ... s-overview

One simply has to look at the chart of Lithuania's population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... huania.PNG

And it's not different from other Baltic states. Thing is, I'm allowed to factually correct you, no matter how many mod links you insert. So is every other poster, if we keep the response short and sweet, like this one. What we're not allowed to do, is to go off topic solely to bait other posters. That's not the same as pointing out that a drop from 2.91 to 2.56 is not an increase.

An interesting NYT article on the state of Russian television.

Pot-Kettle-shmattle

[Respawn]

Western nations like France, Germany, Italy, etc? Certainly. However, I've yet to see UK, Poland & Baltics actually make a major anti-American foreign policy decision, like the French did with Iraq. Germans too. UK prides it's special relationship with the US. It's why I specifically singled out 5 EU members, 5, out of 28. That's not a majority. That's what, 18%? And yet, in order to insert your "hurr durr mah opponent is kwazy Putinist meme" - you've implied that I stated that 18% is the majority. That's bullshit beyond belief.

Really? Where were you when the House of Commons rejected Obama's call for military action against the Assad regime in 2013? Besides, I don't see why having a strong relationship with the United States is such a bad thing. Your bitterness over the close relationship between many European nations and the US is just pure sour grapes, it seems.

Either way, you have drifted far from the original topic. Unless you can show me the existence of overtly "pro-US media" in Europe and show me how the UK is somehow a puppet state of the US (which so far, you haven't) then we really have nothing to discuss here.

[Shofercia]

My Russian is terrible, but it sounds like Russian Opposition are planning a "spring", similar to what happened with the Arab Spring and European colour revolutions. Could a fluent Russian speaker please confirm?
https://twitter.com/SvobodaRadio/status ... 0987239424

That is wonderfull news but it is unlikely to happen because of the police state that Putin has established during his reign. We cannot even start a color revolution in Belarus and how do you excpet to start a Russian Maidan?

Bawww!!! Those meany mean government won't let us coup them, because their approval rating is above 50%. They hate democracy! /sarcasm

He's much closer to Fascism politically than Ukraine is.

He's still correct, thought not because of fascism or any such thing. Putin is wildly popular because his actions stoke nationalist pride. Yes, in the long term he's screwing Russia politically and economically, but for now at least they get to feel like the world still fears them.

Putin is wildly popular for his economic and demographic reforms. He polled in the 60s way before the events of February 2014 took place.

I'll be honest, that is hilariously unnecessary.

I think it'd be an interesting addition to bird watching.

"Oh look Mavis. There's a lovely heron."

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

"Tom, what's that noise?"

"I do believe it's a Tu-95."

"Oh how lovely."

Whether you agree with Euromaidan or not, historic events occurred and that is why there should be a memorial plaque.

You mean like historic events occurred, and that's why there should be a pro-Lenin plaque, perhaps a statue?

It is exactly this Western (especially - American) unreasonable desire to upheld the "freedom of speach" by allwoing neo-nazis and skinheads to stage their pride-marches, allowing abstract reasons go before logic, that makes them... unlikable in Russia.

Here we share a belief that such things should not be allowed at all.

And yet you people tolerate the presence of the racist far-right politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky and the LDP, not to mention allowing Pamyat to exist fairly untouched in Russia.

What's that? I can't hear you over the stench of hypocrisy.

Zhirinovsky is far right... good one! Also, it's LDPR. If you're going to bash a party, at least learn to spell it right.

It is exactly this Western (especially - American) unreasonable desire to upheld the "freedom of speach" by allwoing neo-nazis and skinheads to stage their pride-marches, allowing abstract reasons go before logic, that makes them... unlikable in Russia.

Here we share a belief that such things should not be allowed at all.

Too fucking bad. We don't arrest Nazis for being Nazis (cf. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 [1977]), just like we didn't arrest Communists for being Communists, even during the height of the Cold War; Hell, we won't even arrest Muslim extremists who spread Salafist propaganda on behalf of Daesh even as we're bombing the fuck out of the organization, and you can say insulting things about Christianity if you want, too ― even while standing in the middle of a church.

Oh, and we let gays fuck each other, too, without beating the shit out of them. Damn, we suck, don't we?

We believe in freedom. You don't. You think we're monstrous for not limiting freedom, and we think you're monstrous for doing the opposite.

I guess we're going to have to kill each other over this, aren't we?

Ahhh, so the arrest of Eugene Debs was really for shits and giggles, right? US respects freedom of speech up a certain degree, but if you believe that freedom of speech is universal in the US, the students of Kent State would like a word. Or perhaps the Occupy Protesters who got maced. US can certainly afford to let Nazis march through Jewish neighborhoods, that's not a great threat. US can allow Communists to run. Heck, we even have a Pirate Party in California. But as soon as these become a threat to the political institutions, the hammer can come down rather quickly. For instance, if the Pirate Party in California started getting votes, and had an actual chance, I'm willing to bet there would be a crackdown against them, just like there was a crackdown against veterans camped outside of Washington asking to be paid for their service.

You're certainly welcome to change the US system from within. But if you go outside the system with your protests and become effective, some kind of crackdown can be attempted; or do you actually think that a 100,000 student protest in favor of proposition X, will be treated in the same manner as a 100,000 student protest against the one percent? Simply because US has better Civil Rights than Russia, doesn't make Civil Rights unlimited in the US.

Western nations like France, Germany, Italy, etc? Certainly. However, I've yet to see UK, Poland & Baltics actually make a major anti-American foreign policy decision, like the French did with Iraq. Germans too. UK prides it's special relationship with the US. It's why I specifically singled out 5 EU members, 5, out of 28. That's not a majority. That's what, 18%? And yet, in order to insert your "hurr durr mah opponent is kwazy Putinist meme" - you've implied that I stated that 18% is the majority. That's bullshit beyond belief.

Really? Where were you when the House of Commons rejected Obama's call for military action against the Assad regime in 2013? Besides, I don't see why having a strong relationship with the United States is such a bad thing. Your bitterness over the close relationship between many European nations and the US is just pure sour grapes, it seems.

Either way, you have drifted far from the original topic. Unless you can show me the existence of overtly "pro-US media" in Europe and show me how the UK is somehow a puppet state of the US (which so far, you haven't) then we really have nothing to discuss here.

There's a difference between a strong relationship and being another's bitch. I'm calling things how I see them. Also, we've been over this before, but 5/28 is not many, nor am I bitter. Oh, and you know who else rejected Obama's call? US Congress.

[Respawn]

There's a difference between a strong relationship and being another's bitch. I'm calling things how I see them.

Well you can have an opinion, but you need to back it up with evidence. Long-winded waffle is not enough. So I will ask you again, in what why are the Baltic states, Poland and the UK "bitches" of the US? In what way does being a vital ally make one country another's "bitch"? Never mind all the differences that have occurred, they are "bitches" of the US because you said so! Astonishing!

It may come as a shock to you, but most Brits actually like Americans and America and share similar share values to them. The fact is, British (and also, Baltic and Polish) and American interests are closely aligned. So why you are absolutely shocked that the UK dares to have better relations and more in common with another English-speaking country than with a post-Soviet quasi-superpower like Russia?
It's a shame that Russia does not enjoy such "special relationships" and it's little wonder why most former Iron Curtain nations have already escaped her influence.

But thanks for your unparalleled insight into foreign policy and the complex nature of global relationships. I don't know where I would be without your ramblings and clever little catch-phrases.
As I've already said, we have nothing more to discuss. You can keep going with your ridiculous generalisations, but for me it's become too tedious that my time is probably spent better elsewhere. Whatever.

[Alien Space Bats]

Ahhh, so the arrest of Eugene Debs was really for shits and giggles, right?

Debs was arrested twice: Once for defying a court injunction ordering an end to the strike he was leading as head of the American Railway Union (in 1894) and once for inciting resistance to the draft (in 1918). While one can certainly question the justice of either conviction, it's one Hell of a stretch to declare that Debs was arrested and jailed for "being a Socialist/Communist".

Also, do note that I conditioned my assertion chronoogically, saying...

We don't arrest Nazis for being Nazis (cf. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 [1977]), just like we didn't arrest Communists for being Communists, even during the height of the Cold War;...

Last time I checked, the years 1894 and 1918-1921 fell well outside the date range of what people ordinarily consider to be the "Cold War".

US respects freedom of speech up a certain degree, but if you believe that freedom of speech is universal in the US, the students of Kent State would like a word.

I was living in America at the time of Kent State; you weren't. I don't know what drek you were taught about the incident when you went to school in Russia, but a quick examination of the facts of the matter showed that the Kent State shootings were the result of a bad interaction between the National Guardsmen sent to that Ohio campus during a period of widespread protest and said protestors; those familiar with it have likened it to the Boston Massacre, in so far as the soldiers responsible for the shootings lost their nerve in the midst of a tense confrontation and opened fire. There's a detailed account of the affair on Wikipedia; it's a good place to start in understanding what happened. For now, I'll simply point out that the shootings followed a tense standoff in which the National Guardsmen were attempting to disperse a crowd of protesters, and said protestors responded by hurling rocks at the soldiers trying to send them packing.

That scarcely sounds like an open-and-shut case of someone being gunned down for the mere "crime" of expressing their opinion on the War in Vietnam; when last I checked, after all, free speech rights normally don't include the right to throw physical projectiles.

Or perhaps the Occupy Protesters who got maced.

Again, like it or not, it is in fact no violation of free speech rights for police to clear a public place of protestors who are there in violation of various laws against unlawful assembly.

US can certainly afford to let Nazis march through Jewish neighborhoods, that's not a great threat. US can allow Communists to run. Heck, we even have a Pirate Party in California. But as soon as these become a threat to the political institutions, the hammer can come down rather quickly.

That's horseshit and you know it. You're just seeking a moral equivalence between Russia's dystopian pseudo-democracy and the US, which is beneath you. You're not a notable Putin fanboy, after all; so why do you feel the need to pretend that Russia's political freedoms are equal to America's, when you damned well know better?

For instance, if the Pirate Party in California started getting votes, and had an actual chance, I'm willing to bet there would be a crackdown against them, just like there was a crackdown against veterans camped outside of Washington asking to be paid for their service.

Oh, please. You want to use what happened to the Bonus Army in 1932 to assert that America is effectively a two-party dictatorship? And here I thought you were above that kind of edgy teenage "analysis". I must have read you wrong.

You're certainly welcome to change the US system from within. But if you go outside the system with your protests and become effective, some kind of crackdown can be attempted; or do you actually think that a 100,000 student protest in favor of proposition X, will be treated in the same manner as a 100,000 student protest against the one percent? Simply because US has better Civil Rights than Russia, doesn't make Civil Rights unlimited in the US.

Nice hedge. Civil rights are never unlimited anywhere; yet in this very statement, you concede that we tolerate far more liberty than Russia does.'

And all without addressing the fact that Lytt asserts that its this very freedom that leads Russians to despise is. Why that oversight, Shof? Do you REALLY so need to apologize for Russian behavior and attitudes that you'll sugar coat ANYTHING?

[Slobozhanshchyna]

An interesting NYT article on the state of Russian television.

Amazingly-written article, thanks bro.

[Baltenstein]

Yes, it is freedom of speech and yes Germany does suppress freedom of speech to a point when it comes to the Nazi's. Do you have a point somewhere in that drivel that I missed?

It is exactly this Western (especially - American) unreasonable desire to upheld the "freedom of speach" by allwoing neo-nazis and skinheads to stage their pride-marches, allowing abstract reasons go before logic, that makes them... unlikable in Russia.

Here we share a belief that such things should not be allowed at all.

Except...Neo-Nazis and Skinheads also hold pride marches in Russia. With growing popularity no less.

[Dr Freud]

To break that fact down a little bit, the population of Lithuanians in Lithuania increased. The population of Estonians in Estonia and Latvians in Latvia both declined. Nevertheless, the population of these groups has decreased since independence. And why wouldn't they? For almost fifty years they fell behind nearby countries in terms of living standards while the vast majority were denied the basic right to emigrate. When that right was restored its hardly surprising than many chose to seek better living standards elsewhere, particularly after they were granted the right to live and work visa free in the EU. If these countries are to fight their demographic problems they will need to focus on closing the gap with the rest of Europe, which for the most part they have done since independence.

As a mod has requested a return to topic, feel free to address my post in a new thread.

Doc Freud sez: "I just posted wrong facts, but I linked to mod post, so can you please not correct my mistakes Shof, or just start another thread solely for correcting said mistakes?"

No, that's really not going to happen. If every time someone made factual mistakes a new thread was started, we'd be very much thread cluttered on NSG.

Fine, keep it in this thread. I just want to make it clear that I did observe the mod's statement on the matter.

Let's see here, the population of Lithuanians in Lithuania increased, eh? Just to be on the same page, an increase is when the population goes up. According to Lithuania's very own census, the population of Lithuanians in Lithuania "increased" from 2.91 million to 2.56 million. Oh no, wait, that's actually a decrease.

I was talking about during Soviet rule. Remember what you actually posted? "During the "horrible" Soviet rule, the population of Balts in the Baltics increased." As I said, this is only true of Lithuanians in Lithuania. The number of Estonians in Estonia and Latvians in Latvia decreased during Soviet rule.

Indeed, someone with simple reading comprehension might have been able to work out that I wasn't disputing that their populations fell post-independence, given that I stated that "Nevertheless, the population of these groups has decreased since independence".

You then go on and on and on about emigration. Except they also lack natural growth. Again, according to Lithuania's own figures, their TFR is currently averaging at 1.55 over the past few years. You need something above a 2 to grow. And when it comes to migration, Lithuania's still losing that fight, despite your factually wrong claims: http://123.emn.lt/en/general-trends/mig ... s-overview

One simply has to look at the chart of Lithuania's population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... huania.PNG

Emigration is a cause of negative natural population growth in the Baltic states, as I shall immediately explain. Most emigrants are young people so high emigration increases the median age - this is borne out by the statistics. According to the UN, the median age for Lithuania increased from 32.7 to 39.7 between 1990 and 2015. Figures for Estonia and Latvia are 34.4 to 41.3 and 34.6 to 41.7 respectively. As the population ages, the number of children born per woman drops because older people are less likely to have children, while the death rate per person increases because older people are more likely to die.

Of course, there are other causes that could lead to the death rate increasing, like poorer health. But that doesn't apply to the Baltic states in the period 1990-present as the life expectancy in all three countries has increased rather than decreased as would be the result if health was declining.

The fertility rate has, of course, been dropping. In Lithuania, this has little to do with independence or the lack thereof. Rather, its a trend that has been ongoing since the 1960s. And unfortunately it is often a result of other, positive outcomes like improved education levels for women, greater female participation in the workforce, waiting longer to get married and greater control by women over the use of contraception. Its a problem which will affect almost every developed country and one of the keys to fighting it is again to improve living standards which may improve or at least slow the decline in fertility and attract back emigrants or even new migrants.

And it's not different from other Baltic states. Thing is, I'm allowed to factually correct you, no matter how many mod links you insert. So is every other poster, if we keep the response short and sweet, like this one. What we're not allowed to do, is to go off topic solely to bait other posters. That's not the same as pointing out that a drop from 2.91 to 2.56 is not an increase.

Well thanks anyway for pointing out that 2.56 is less than 2.91 - when you find someone who disagrees you might actually have an argument.

[Costa Fierro]

Oh really? Abkhazia was strong enough to maintain its independent since the early 1990s. Where's their recognition? What about Somaliland's?

Abkhazia is lumped with South Ossetia in terms of global recognition. The same countries that do recognize South Ossetia as independent also recognize Abkhazia independent also.

And Somaliland is widely regarded as an autonomous region of Somalia. I don't think anyone really gives two shits about them as it's not really the most pressing issue in that region at the moment.

[West Aurelia]

Russia holds anti-Euromaidan rally.

Russian conscripts are afraid of being sent to fight in Ukraine.

[Lytenburgh]

And yet you people tolerate the presence of the racist far-right politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky and the LDP,

Because he is harmless clown. Name just one bill written by his party AND accepted by Duma, that is "racist" or "neo-Nazi".

not to mention allowing Pamyat to exist fairly untouched in Russia.

There are maybe 3000 or less of them left. Practically everyone forgot about them by now. And they don't qulify as neo-Nazis.

What's that? I can't hear you over the stench of hypocrisy.

I can't recall any state sanctioned (and idealogically approved) marches of Russians to honor General Vlasov and his soldiers. Also, I can't recall mass marches of the supportes of pro-Hitles puppet regimes in European countries that were occupied during the WW2. I definetely can't recall any marches of "veterans of Vichy", or of Netherland's SS veterans in these coutries.

Then why in three Baltic countries a lot of their modern "national conscience" is based on glorification of those, who fought for Hitler?

Some people think that principle of the "Freedom of Speach" is so Holy, that every scum, even the most despicabe should be allowed to benefit from it. It vehemently disagree with that. In no form or guise should Nazism be allowed to benefit from it. For me there is no compromise about that.

[Busen]

If the USSR did not annexed the Baltics in 1940 and comited genocide on the native population than there would not be such marches. They are just a result of unjust caused by Russia.

[West Aurelia]

If the USSR did not annexed the Baltics in 1940 than there would not be such marches. There is nothing unusuall on them.

How do you know?

[Busen]

If the USSR did not annexed the Baltics in 1940 than there would not be such marches. There is nothing unusuall on them.

How do you know?

Because of historical reasons. The maon reason why there was so many SS volunteers in the Baltics is because USSR have ocuupied them first and comiteed genocide. When the Nazis came they started a propaganda where they said they have liberated them from Russian rule and promised them the Restoration of the independence that Stalin took in 1940.

[Napkiraly]

Russia holds anti-Euromaidan rally.

Russian conscripts are afraid of being sent to fight in Ukraine.

But they're not being sent to fight, they're being sent on vacation.

[West Aurelia]

How do you know?

Because of historical reasons. The maon reason why there was so many SS volunteers in the Baltics is because USSR have ocuupied them first and comiteed genocide. When the Nazis came they started a propaganda where they said they have liberated them from Russian rule and promised them the Restoration of the independence that Stalin took in 1940.

Sources?

[Napkiraly]

If the USSR did not annexed the Baltics in 1940 than there would not be such marches. There is nothing unusuall on them.

How do you know?

Because the first person to annex them would have been the Germans, and thus more sympathy would be had for the Red Army most likely. The Baltic states being illegally annexed by the USSR after barely over generation after independence kinda didn't sit well with them.

Either way, fringe groups be fringe. Considering the people in the Baltic states got shat on by both sides. It's just at the end, they got reannexed by one of them for half a century.