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

[Baltenstein]

Aside from the bullshit claim that the Ukrainian government is a "radical right-wing regime"...(and even more aside from the fact that those accusations coming from one of Europe's most authoritarian, nationalist and reactionary governments is pretty hilarious)

...what do you mean, that in your hypothetical right-wing Venezuela government scenario you'd want to "see them cooked"? Military intervention? By Brazil perhaps? If so, you're not one bit better than US Neocons.

They have their leaders to blame.

Yes, because it's clearly Ukraine's leaders who militarily intervene in other countries. Not Russia's or something.

But of course Ukrainians prefer to believe in a impossibly fictional liberal European dream

Yes, how dare they question their natural role as Russia's satellite...such a nice "anti"-imperialist worldview you have there.

[Malgrave]

73 percent of Russians admit that Russia is in a crisis.

Ukrainian MP Alexei Goncharenko has reportedly been arrested in Moscow (attending the Moscow rally). I wonder what Russia thinks it can gain from arresting members of a foreign legislature.

[Shofercia]

I specifically said, "Baltic States under Soviet Rule", to which you then responded that I didn't inform you that I was only counting since 1959, to which I responded that I was doing so because real censuses of Baltics under Soviet Rule were only available since 1959, something that's rather well known, to which you respond with "we have plenty of data right up until Soviet rule" - what the actual fuck? When I'm talking about Baltic demography under Soviet rule, I am talking about Baltic demography under Soviet rule, not Baltic demography prior to Soviet Rule.

Is this bait? You can't sincerely be failing to understand my argument. If we know what the demographics of a country were at the point in time that it was annexed - and we do for the Baltic states - and we know the demographics at the point in time when they become independent again, then yes we do know how the demographics changed during the entire period of Soviet rule. And if you believe that only censuses are valid and the first valid one for the Soviet Union was in 1959 then you can't with any honesty make the claim that you know how the demographics changed during the period of Soviet rule because you're leaving out at least 15 years of change even excluding the war! What you meant to say was that those populations increased from 1959 onwards which is not the same thing as saying that they increased during Soviet rule.

Is this bait? You can't sincerely believe that I'd be talking about Soviet Demography without taking actual Soviet Censuses into account! And yes, I'm aware that said census leave out 15 years, but I'm analyzing it as best as I can with actual facts, something that I thought any decent demographer would get, so I didn't see why that needed to be said. You need censuses to study demographics. USSR had no census until 1959 of the Baltics. Ergo, it'd be impossible to properly study those 15 years. I didn't realize that I had to explain the basics, but I now I know I do!

Furthermore, there was a certain event between 1939 and 1945, that altered the demography of Europe. So yes, amazingly enough, if you want to be a demographer, you have to start with a legitimate census, not a census that was made no longer applicable due to WWII.

Censuses: they no longer apply after wars! How does that even work?

Censuses no longer apply after major demographic shifts. That's when you need to take a new census. That's demographics 101, it's not something that I should have to explain to someone attempting to debate demographics. To analogize: let's say that you measure a mountain, and you have geographic data. Then a major earthquake hits. Your geographic data is no longer valid. It's the exact same thing with demography.

You can certainly compare to Japan, a country stuck in a demographic death spiral, or you can compare to Russia, whose fertility rates have been increasing steadily since 2005, and whose population has actually been growing, (in part due to immigration,) not shrinking. Oh, and Russia's about to record growth in rural population as well, the trends certainly point to that. On top of that, I'd rather have a fertility rate that the Baltic SSRs had, than that of Congo today, even though Congo's is much bigger. An ideal TFR is somewhere in the middle, cannot be too high or too low.

I was comparing to Russia, as you can see in my above notes. From 1950 to 1990, the average fertility rate of Latvia and Estonia were below that of Russia. In the period 1990 to 2010, they were higher. I'm not sure why you would bring up Congo as we're not comparing the fertility rates of these countries to Congo and no one is arguing that thre's is a fertility rate the Soviet Union o successor states should aspire to. What they should have aspired to is something closer to the rest of Europe which they failed to achieve. Look at the countries in those lists - all European besides Japan. Under Soviet rule the fertility rates of Latvia and Estonia were below those of virtually every European country. Now that they are independent, they are actually outperforming a number of European countries. The loss in fertility rates between the 1980s and 2010 is actually lower than the average for Eastern Europe and the rate now is more in line with Europe as a whole than it ever was under Soviet rule. So the idea that demographics were well managed by the Soviet Union in the Baltics doesn't hold up to the facts - fertility rates were almost the worst in the world and the population level was maintained only because people were literally not allowed to leave. That's not good demographic management.

Wait, what? In 2010, Russia's TFR was 1.57; Latvia's - 1.36. In 2009, Russia's TFR was 1.54; Latvia's - 1.47. I'm not entirely sure have 36 is higher than 57, or 47 is higher than 54, perhaps you could explain that one for me? The reason that I brought up the Congo, is because fertility range matters. Furthermore, your argument, Under Soviet rule the fertility rates of Latvia and Estonia were below those of virtually every European country. Now that they are independent, they are actually outperforming a number of European countries, sound like someone saying in the NHL, the Sabres were a joke, but since they moved to the AHL, they're rocking! if that was to actually happen.

Who was that argument? All your base are belong to us! This is the point that you're looking for:

I was referring to this part, when you find someone who disagrees you might actually have an argument, when I made that inquiry: So, according to you, an argument is not, a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong?

I believe the full sentence is "who was that argument trying to persuade?" Is there something you find confusing about this sentence? Would you like me to explain it further?

You claim that there is a person you wish to persuade with the argument that 91 is bigger than 56. Who is that person?

Where did I make that claim? That's the claim that you pretended that I made, not the claim that I actually made, irrespective of your beliefs. My actual claim was that in order to have an argument, I don't need anyone to disagree with me, since an argument is a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

[Shofercia]

What I have been seeing among the ML community (it's kind of strange, there are lots of places online we just sort of find each other), and the position I generally agree with is this:

We shouldn't support Putin & co. , but the we should support the Russian & Novorossiyan communists, as their actions are primarily motivated by hope of gaining influence. In Novorossiya itself, the Communists have a lot of electoral power (and already founded a Party); in this, Putin & Co have inadvertently become useful to our comrades useful because, in its haste to support the rebels, has given pro-communist troops lots of hardware and clout.

The communists there serve Putin's purposes for now, but I don't know what will happen after he's done with them.

He might march with them during the May Day Parade.

Ukrainian Soldiers appeal to Poroshenko.

Alas, English fails to really translate more... "colourful" expressions, used by these soldiers.

They're not lobbyists, powerbrokers, or millionaires, so Poroshenko won't care. Remember his pledge to sell his chocolate business?

Aside from the bullshit claim that the Ukrainian government is a "radical right-wing regime"...(and even more aside from the fact that those accusations coming from one of Europe's most authoritarian, nationalist and reactionary governments is pretty hilarious)

Didn't Ukraine attempt to ban the Communist Party? Isn't that something that a radical, right-wing regime would attempt to do?

...what do you mean, that in your hypothetical right-wing Venezuela government scenario you'd want to "see them cooked"? Military intervention? By Brazil perhaps? If so, you're not one bit better than US Neocons.

Actually, he is. Neocons invade countries to expand their strategic grasp, irrespective of said countries' governments.

They have their leaders to blame.

Yes, because it's clearly Ukraine's leaders who militarily intervene in other countries. Not Russia's or something.

When Poroshenko took power, he could have very easily avoided a military catastrophe by doing the following:

1. Declaring Federalization by utilizing the Swiss Model
2. Returning the Kopanki to the people of Lugansk and Donetsk
3. Arresting violent criminals for the violent crimes that they committed
4. Providing an economic plan that would enable all of Ukraine to move forwards, while taking into account the interests of the individual regions
5. Declaring Ukraine’s military status as Switzerland

Crimea was bloodlessly annexed, so if that was to happen, no blood, or, very little, would be spilled. Instead Poroshenko chose military adventurism on Russia's doorstep. But hey, maybe Putin's a telepath who made him do it!

But of course Ukrainians prefer to believe in a impossibly fictional liberal European dream

Yes, how dare they question their natural role as Russia's satellite...such a nice "anti"-imperialist worldview you have there.

If you don't want to be a satellite of a powerful country - develop your economy to be self-sufficient. It's simple, but it's not easy.

[Baltenstein]

Didn't Ukraine attempt to ban the Communist Party? Isn't that something that a radical, right-wing regime would attempt to do?

Um...no? It's an undemocratic move by itself, but hardly something that makes a state a radically right-wing regime by definition. If we are going to judge by these sort of criteria, Russia has entered the "right-wing radical" category a long time ago.

Actually, he is. Neocons invade countries to expand their strategic grasp, irrespective of said countries' governments.

Which is also what Russia is doing. Of course they come up with bullshit justifications for why Ukrainian right-wingers are a huge threat (while French and other European right-wingers are worthy of funding and amicable relations), but US Neocons also come up with bullshit justifications for why Iran is evil while Saudi-Arabia isn't etc etc. Hardly a difference there.

Crimea was bloodlessly annexed, so if that was to happen, no blood, or, very little, would be spilled. Instead Poroshenko chose military adventurism on Russia's doorstep.

Because the best course of action for the Ukrainian government in the case of Eastern Ukraine would have been to resort to complete military inaction just like in Crimea, so that they would have lost the region just like they lost Crimea, and afterwards Russians/Pro-Russians could boast about bloodless take-overs, just like they do for Crimea.
Why do I have the feeling that Russia's (and virtually any country's) reaction to first losing one province to a hostile power and immediately afterwards facing a separatist insurgency (backed and funded by the same hostile power) in another province, would be very, very different from thinking about Swiss models and the like?

If you don't want to be a satellite of a powerful country - develop your economy to be self-sufficient. It's simple, but it's not easy.

Also not having an bullying neighbor who thinks you're his property by right of history. That also helps.

[The Huskar Social Union]

He has a chocolate business?


Okay a bit random that that was the one thing i am inquiring about in that post.

[Dr Freud]

Is this bait? You can't sincerely be failing to understand my argument. If we know what the demographics of a country were at the point in time that it was annexed - and we do for the Baltic states - and we know the demographics at the point in time when they become independent again, then yes we do know how the demographics changed during the entire period of Soviet rule. And if you believe that only censuses are valid and the first valid one for the Soviet Union was in 1959 then you can't with any honesty make the claim that you know how the demographics changed during the period of Soviet rule because you're leaving out at least 15 years of change even excluding the war! What you meant to say was that those populations increased from 1959 onwards which is not the same thing as saying that they increased during Soviet rule.

Is this bait? You can't sincerely believe that I'd be talking about Soviet Demography without taking actual Soviet Censuses into account! And yes, I'm aware that said census leave out 15 years, but I'm analyzing it as best as I can with actual facts, something that I thought any decent demographer would get, so I didn't see why that needed to be said. You need censuses to study demographics. USSR had no census until 1959 of the Baltics. Ergo, it'd be impossible to properly study those 15 years. I didn't realize that I had to explain the basics, but I now I know I do!

Its absolutely not impossible to study those 15 years. We have data on the population of the Baltics at the start of the Soviet occupation. We have data on population changes that occurred during the first occupation, changes that occurred between occupations, changes after the re-occupation. All this information exists so why you think we have to ignore it and consider 1959 as the start of Baltic demographics is beyond all reason.

Censuses: they no longer apply after wars! How does that even work?

Censuses no longer apply after major demographic shifts. That's when you need to take a new census. That's demographics 101, it's not something that I should have to explain to someone attempting to debate demographics. To analogize: let's say that you measure a mountain, and you have geographic data. Then a major earthquake hits. Your geographic data is no longer valid. It's the exact same thing with demography.

I'd say that the data on the mountain from before and after the earthquake is not only perfectly valid but absolutely necessary if the thing you are measuring is how the earthquake affected the mountain, just as data on Baltic demography before and during the first 15 years of Soviet occupation is absolutely necessary to understand how the Baltic demography was affected by the Socvet occupation - the answer being, not very well at all.

I was comparing to Russia, as you can see in my above notes. From 1950 to 1990, the average fertility rate of Latvia and Estonia were below that of Russia. In the period 1990 to 2010, they were higher. I'm not sure why you would bring up Congo as we're not comparing the fertility rates of these countries to Congo and no one is arguing that thre's is a fertility rate the Soviet Union o successor states should aspire to. What they should have aspired to is something closer to the rest of Europe which they failed to achieve. Look at the countries in those lists - all European besides Japan. Under Soviet rule the fertility rates of Latvia and Estonia were below those of virtually every European country. Now that they are independent, they are actually outperforming a number of European countries. The loss in fertility rates between the 1980s and 2010 is actually lower than the average for Eastern Europe and the rate now is more in line with Europe as a whole than it ever was under Soviet rule. So the idea that demographics were well managed by the Soviet Union in the Baltics doesn't hold up to the facts - fertility rates were almost the worst in the world and the population level was maintained only because people were literally not allowed to leave. That's not good demographic management.

Wait, what? In 2010, Russia's TFR was 1.57; Latvia's - 1.36. In 2009, Russia's TFR was 1.54; Latvia's - 1.47. I'm not entirely sure have 36 is higher than 57, or 47 is higher than 54, perhaps you could explain that one for me? The reason that I brought up the Congo, is because fertility range matters. Furthermore, your argument, Under Soviet rule the fertility rates of Latvia and Estonia were below those of virtually every European country. Now that they are independent, they are actually outperforming a number of European countries, sound like someone saying in the NHL, the Sabres were a joke, but since they moved to the AHL, they're rocking! if that was to actually happen.

I said the the average fertility rate between 1990 and 2010 was higher. I'm talking about a twenty year overview, not the rates in one particular year.

That analogy only works if the Baltic countries had actually uprooted and were now being compared against an entirely different set of countries. They're not, I'm comparing them with the same countries in both time periods. If you want a hockey analogy, its like you saying that the Sabres were better in the 70s because they scored 250 goals a season and always finished bottom of the standings, which is so much better than scoring 200 a season now and finishing above the bottom.

I believe the full sentence is "who was that argument trying to persuade?" Is there something you find confusing about this sentence? Would you like me to explain it further?

You claim that there is a person you wish to persuade with the argument that 91 is bigger than 56. Who is that person?

Where did I make that claim? That's the claim that you pretended that I made, not the claim that I actually made, irrespective of your beliefs. My actual claim was that in order to have an argument, I don't need anyone to disagree with me, since an argument is a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

And if your aim is to persuade others, who are these others that you are trying to persuade when you point out that 91 is bigger than 56?

[Shofercia]

Is this bait? You can't sincerely believe that I'd be talking about Soviet Demography without taking actual Soviet Censuses into account! And yes, I'm aware that said census leave out 15 years, but I'm analyzing it as best as I can with actual facts, something that I thought any decent demographer would get, so I didn't see why that needed to be said. You need censuses to study demographics. USSR had no census until 1959 of the Baltics. Ergo, it'd be impossible to properly study those 15 years. I didn't realize that I had to explain the basics, but I now I know I do!

Its absolutely not impossible to study those 15 years. We have data on the population of the Baltics at the start of the Soviet occupation. We have data on population changes that occurred during the first occupation, changes that occurred between occupations, changes after the re-occupation. All this information exists so why you think we have to ignore it and consider 1959 as the start of Baltic demographics is beyond all reason.

Because said data was corrupted during WWII, and what you have is estimate guesswork, not actual data.

Censuses no longer apply after major demographic shifts. That's when you need to take a new census. That's demographics 101, it's not something that I should have to explain to someone attempting to debate demographics. To analogize: let's say that you measure a mountain, and you have geographic data. Then a major earthquake hits. Your geographic data is no longer valid. It's the exact same thing with demography.

I'd say that the data on the mountain from before and after the earthquake is not only perfectly valid but absolutely necessary if the thing you are measuring is how the earthquake affected the mountain, just as data on Baltic demography before and during the first 15 years of Soviet occupation is absolutely necessary to understand how the Baltic demography was affected by the Socvet occupation - the answer being, not very well at all.

For which you'd need data after the the earthquake, which, in Baltic case, wasn't complete data until 1959. Furthermore, Baltic demography grew under Soviet Rule since 1959, and shrank after independence. These are facts, so please, amuse me by continuing to argue against them.

Wait, what? In 2010, Russia's TFR was 1.57; Latvia's - 1.36. In 2009, Russia's TFR was 1.54; Latvia's - 1.47. I'm not entirely sure have 36 is higher than 57, or 47 is higher than 54, perhaps you could explain that one for me? The reason that I brought up the Congo, is because fertility range matters. Furthermore, your argument, Under Soviet rule the fertility rates of Latvia and Estonia were below those of virtually every European country. Now that they are independent, they are actually outperforming a number of European countries, sound like someone saying in the NHL, the Sabres were a joke, but since they moved to the AHL, they're rocking! if that was to actually happen.

I said the the average fertility rate between 1990 and 2010 was higher. I'm talking about a twenty year overview, not the rates in one particular year.

That analogy only works if the Baltic countries had actually uprooted and were now being compared against an entirely different set of countries. They're not, I'm comparing them with the same countries in both time periods. If you want a hockey analogy, its like you saying that the Sabres were better in the 70s because they scored 250 goals a season and always finished bottom of the standings, which is so much better than scoring 200 a season now and finishing above the bottom.

That analogy works because Europe is worse off demographically today, than it was in the past.

Where did I make that claim? That's the claim that you pretended that I made, not the claim that I actually made, irrespective of your beliefs. My actual claim was that in order to have an argument, I don't need anyone to disagree with me, since an argument is a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

And if your aim is to persuade others, who are these others that you are trying to persuade when you point out that 91 is bigger than 56?

My point was about the definition of the word "argument", which you've hilariously failed to address.

[Shofercia]

Didn't Ukraine attempt to ban the Communist Party? Isn't that something that a radical, right-wing regime would attempt to do?

Um...no? It's an undemocratic move by itself, but hardly something that makes a state a radically right-wing regime by definition. If we are going to judge by these sort of criteria, Russia has entered the "right-wing radical" category a long time ago.

By banning racist parties? Seems more like radical left wing to me. Which non racist parties did Russia ban?

Actually, he is. Neocons invade countries to expand their strategic grasp, irrespective of said countries' governments.

Which is also what Russia is doing. Of course they come up with bullshit justifications for why Ukrainian right-wingers are a huge threat (while French and other European right-wingers are worthy of funding and amicable relations), but US Neocons also come up with bullshit justifications for why Iran is evil while Saudi-Arabia isn't etc etc. Hardly a difference there.

He's also not Putin. Furthermore, Front National is a far cry from Svoboda.

Crimea was bloodlessly annexed, so if that was to happen, no blood, or, very little, would be spilled. Instead Poroshenko chose military adventurism on Russia's doorstep.

Because the best course of action for the Ukrainian government in the case of Eastern Ukraine would have been to resort to complete military inaction just like in Crimea, so that they would have lost the region just like they lost Crimea, and afterwards Russians/Pro-Russians could boast about bloodless take-overs, just like they do for Crimea.
Why do I have the feeling that Russia's (and virtually any country's) reaction to first losing one province to a hostile power and immediately afterwards facing a separatist insurgency (backed and funded by the same hostile power) in another province, would be very, very different from thinking about Swiss models and the like?

They wouldn't have lost those Oblasts if the reforms that I've suggested would've taken place. In Crimea, 80%+ welcome the Russians as Liberators. Prior to the Kopanki shutdown, there wasn't a majority in those two Oblasts.

If you don't want to be a satellite of a powerful country - develop your economy to be self-sufficient. It's simple, but it's not easy.

Also not having an bullying neighbor who thinks you're his property by right of history. That also helps.

Thing is, your economy is something that your leadership should control. Please list a year, since 1982, when Ukraine's infrastructure was overhauled in a major way. But hey, now when there's a collapse, the government can just blame the Russians. Overhauls? Who needs overhauls - Putin's fault by default!

He has a chocolate business?


Okay a bit random that that was the one thing i am inquiring about in that post.

Yes - he owns Roshen Chocolates. Poroshenko is very humble. He promised to sell the chocolate business, but then he found out that it would not be as profitable, so he went back on his campaign promise to continue making money. One of the accusations leveled against him was that he supported EU membership is that would aid the expansion of his chocolate empire, which it would. That's why he's dubbed the Chocolate King in Russia's Media.

[Dr Freud]

Its absolutely not impossible to study those 15 years. We have data on the population of the Baltics at the start of the Soviet occupation. We have data on population changes that occurred during the first occupation, changes that occurred between occupations, changes after the re-occupation. All this information exists so why you think we have to ignore it and consider 1959 as the start of Baltic demographics is beyond all reason.

Because said data was corrupted during WWII, and what you have is estimate guesswork, not actual data.

The data wasn't corrupted. There is good data on demographic changes due to population movements (deportations, evacuees, emigrations) and deaths caused by the war as well as natural population growth and shrinkage.

I'd say that the data on the mountain from before and after the earthquake is not only perfectly valid but absolutely necessary if the thing you are measuring is how the earthquake affected the mountain, just as data on Baltic demography before and during the first 15 years of Soviet occupation is absolutely necessary to understand how the Baltic demography was affected by the Socvet occupation - the answer being, not very well at all.

For which you'd need data after the the earthquake, which, in Baltic case, wasn't complete data until 1959. Furthermore, Baltic demography grew under Soviet Rule since 1959, and shrank after independence. These are facts, so please, amuse me by continuing to argue against them.

If what you are measuring after the earthquake is the height, and you know the height before the earthquake and the change in height, you don't need to measure the hight afterwards to know how high it is.

I'm not arguing against either of those facts - I've never said anything to that effect in this thread so don't pretend like I did. What I am arguing is that Baltic demographic growth after 1959 was substandard. Its still substandard even after independence, but not to the same extent. Neither period of demographic growth represents an achievement any way you slice it - the Baltic states should not look back on the growth during the Soviet period as a success any more than they will the demographic growth after independence.

I said the the average fertility rate between 1990 and 2010 was higher. I'm talking about a twenty year overview, not the rates in one particular year.

That analogy only works if the Baltic countries had actually uprooted and were now being compared against an entirely different set of countries. They're not, I'm comparing them with the same countries in both time periods. If you want a hockey analogy, its like you saying that the Sabres were better in the 70s because they scored 250 goals a season and always finished bottom of the standings, which is so much better than scoring 200 a season now and finishing above the bottom.

That analogy works because Europe is worse off demographically today, than it was in the past.

That's the point! Europe is worse off today and a number of countries have seen fertility rates fall a lot more than the Baltics, but we don't attribute that to the Soviet Union.

And if your aim is to persuade others, who are these others that you are trying to persuade when you point out that 91 is bigger than 56?

My point was about the definition of the word "argument", which you've hilariously failed to address.

How have I failed to address it? From the definition: with the aim of persuading others. If you aren't trying to persuade others, 91 > 56 is not an argument. If you are, who are these people that need persuading?

[Shofercia]

Because said data was corrupted during WWII, and what you have is estimate guesswork, not actual data.

The data wasn't corrupted. There is good data on demographic changes due to population movements (deportations, evacuees, emigrations) and deaths caused by the war as well as natural population growth and shrinkage.

Keep telling yourself that, but considering that WWII was a War of Survival for the Red Army, beating back Genocidal Nazis was given priority over taking a look at Baltic demography.

For which you'd need data after the the earthquake, which, in Baltic case, wasn't complete data until 1959. Furthermore, Baltic demography grew under Soviet Rule since 1959, and shrank after independence. These are facts, so please, amuse me by continuing to argue against them.

If what you are measuring after the earthquake is the height, and you know the height before the earthquake and the change in height, you don't need to measure the hight afterwards to know how high it is.

I'm not arguing against either of those facts - I've never said anything to that effect in this thread so don't pretend like I did. What I am arguing is that Baltic demographic growth after 1959 was substandard. Its still substandard even after independence, but not to the same extent. Neither period of demographic growth represents an achievement any way you slice it - the Baltic states should not look back on the growth during the Soviet period as a success any more than they will the demographic growth after independence.

Except it wasn't fully measured after the earthquake until 1959. And a population increase is not the same as a population decrease, so yes, they should prefer a population increase over a population decrease.

That analogy works because Europe is worse off demographically today, than it was in the past.

That's the point! Europe is worse off today and a number of countries have seen fertility rates fall a lot more than the Baltics, but we don't attribute that to the Soviet Union.

No, we attribute that to other factors, such as a drop in social services and the rise of corporacracy, factors that were introduced to the Baltics after the fall of the USSR. It's funny that Russia understood these problems, dealt with them maturely, and is currently experiencing a population growth, whereas the Baltics are in denial and their population keeps falling. To each his own.

My point was about the definition of the word "argument", which you've hilariously failed to address.

How have I failed to address it?

Yes. Hilariously so.

From the definition: with the aim of persuading others. If you aren't trying to persuade others, 91 > 56 is not an argument. If you are, who are these people that need persuading?

I was talking about the general definition, not your specific example. You do understand that there's a difference between general and specific, right?

[Dr Freud]

The data wasn't corrupted. There is good data on demographic changes due to population movements (deportations, evacuees, emigrations) and deaths caused by the war as well as natural population growth and shrinkage.

Keep telling yourself that, but considering that WWII was a War of Survival for the Red Army, beating back Genocidal Nazis was given priority over taking a look at Baltic demography.

I don't need to "tell myself that." The data is freely available. Despite your apparently low opinion of Soviet organisational efforts, they were able to track demographic changes and beat the Nazis.

If what you are measuring after the earthquake is the height, and you know the height before the earthquake and the change in height, you don't need to measure the hight afterwards to know how high it is.

I'm not arguing against either of those facts - I've never said anything to that effect in this thread so don't pretend like I did. What I am arguing is that Baltic demographic growth after 1959 was substandard. Its still substandard even after independence, but not to the same extent. Neither period of demographic growth represents an achievement any way you slice it - the Baltic states should not look back on the growth during the Soviet period as a success any more than they will the demographic growth after independence.

Except it wasn't fully measured after the earthquake until 1959. And a population increase is not the same as a population decrease, so yes, they should prefer a population increase over a population decrease.

Once again, you don't need to fully measure it. If x = a - b, and we know that a and b are, you don't need to physically observe x to know its value. Its simple algebra.

Yes, I'm sure they would prefer a very small population increase. I'd prefer to get slapped in the face over getting kicked in the nuts, it doesn't mean that I'm going to think of getting slapped in the face positively. I'm not going to wistfully reminisce over getting slapped in the face or thank the person who did it.

That's the point! Europe is worse off today and a number of countries have seen fertility rates fall a lot more than the Baltics, but we don't attribute that to the Soviet Union.

No, we attribute that to other factors, such as a drop in social services and the rise of corporacracy, factors that were introduced to the Baltics after the fall of the USSR. It's funny that Russia understood these problems, dealt with them maturely, and is currently experiencing a population growth, whereas the Baltics are in denial and their population keeps falling. To each his own.

Do we though? Can you show me some correlation that you think exists? Some European countries actually have better demographics now than they had 30-50 years ago. Did the "corporacracy" go into reverse in those countries? How come fertility declined so sharply in Belarus? Are they having problems with "corporacracy"?

How have I failed to address it?

Yes. Hilariously so.

The answer to a question beginning "how" is rarely "yes", feel free to give it another go.

From the definition: with the aim of persuading others. If you aren't trying to persuade others, 91 > 56 is not an argument. If you are, who are these people that need persuading?

I was talking about the general definition, not your specific example. You do understand that there's a difference between general and specific, right?

I get that there's a difference between general and specific but the rest of this statement is gobbledegook. You were talking about the general definition? The general definition of what? The only definition you've given is that of an argument. Is there a general and a non-general definition of an argument?

[Baltenstein]

By banning racist parties? Seems more like radical left wing to me. Which non racist parties did Russia ban?

Banning parties is, first and foremost, regardless of left-wing and/or right-wing affiliation, a sign of authoritarianism. Banning a (not all) parties is in itself an undemocratic move, but it doesn't turn the state who did this into a radical rightwing/leftwing regime by default. The Federal Republic of Germany banned the Communist Party of Germany in 1956. This did not turn Germany into a "radically right-wing regime". Since the early Nineties, there is a constant talk in German politics and courts to ban the National Democratic Party of Germany. This does not turn Germany into a "radically left-wing regime" either.

As for Russia, other than the CPSU, it's not like Russia needs to ban parties. All parties in the Duma other than United Russia are jokes, and the opposition leaders are either in prison, exile, dead or marginalized.

Furthermore, Front National is a far cry from Svoboda.

Furthermore, the only thing that the Russian government cares about in its dealings with parties like UKIP, Front National, Jobbik, FPÖ, Golden Dawn etc is wether they antagonize the Russian Federation or not. If they don't, and happen to antagonize the West/EU/US instead, Russia happily joins forces. If you actually believe that Russia opposes Far-Right parties and Ultranationalists in general (and not just those who happen to be anti-Russian, like Svoboda and Right Sector), you're on the same level as Americans who really think that removing dictatorships and establishing parliamentary democracies is the most important reason for American military intervention.
If, for whatever reason, the Front National would undertake a change of foreign policy principles, and start asking for sanctions against Russia and European solidarity with Ukraine, the pro-Russian side would immediately start portraying them as a Nazi-leaning, racist party again - like they were before Marine Le Pen discovered her love for Putin.

They wouldn't have lost those Oblasts if the reforms that I've suggested would've taken place. In Crimea, 80%+ welcome the Russians as Liberators. Prior to the Kopanki shutdown, there wasn't a majority in those two Oblasts.

Of course you've dodged the question how Russia as a state and Russians in general would react to such "suggestions".

Thing is, your economy is something that your leadership should control. Please list a year, since 1982, when Ukraine's infrastructure was overhauled in a major way. But hey, now when there's a collapse, the government can just blame the Russians.

For what happened in Crimea and is still ongoing in Eastern Ukraine, they have every right to blame the Russians.

[Lytenburgh]

Also not having an bullying neighbor who thinks you're his property by right of history. That also helps.

You know the method how to change a geography?

[Lytenburgh]

He has a chocolate business?


Okay a bit random that that was the one thing i am inquiring about in that post.

Yes. One of his election campaign's slogans was "Everything will be in chocalate!" (i.e. "very good").

Besides "RoShen" he owns



Among which:

- Car factory in Lutzk.
- "5th" TV channel.
- "BOGDAN" corporation,
- "Leninskaya kuznya" shipyard.
- KP Media ("Korrespondent" journal)
- Communication firm "Ekran"
- Agro-firms - "Ukrprominvest-Agro" and "Pidiliya"
- Glass making factory in Piski
- "Krayna" insurance company.

Just throw in a few bunga-bunga parties, and we have a modern age successor to Berlusconi.

[Lytenburgh]

Meanwhile, another evidence that official Ukrainian numbers of losses (which UN and other "impartial observers" just lazily copy-paste) are absolutely true:

In Donetsk airport DPR militia had found 373 bodies of the "cyborgs"

On the territory of Donetsk airport for which in January bloody battles were waged, the People's Republic of Donetsk militia discovered nearly 400 bodies of the Ukrainian security officials. "On February 20, at the Donetsk airport we found 373 bodies of Ukrainian military, we already passed 306 bodies to Kiev", - said Deputy Minister of Defense Edward Basurin.

He also said that the area was repeatedly shelled near the airport. "During this day, we recorded 11 attacks on Donetsk Airport, 7 shellings were near this area" - "Interfax" quoted Basurin.

I have, in fact, some photos to confirm the fact of unerthing of a significnt number of dead Ukrainian NatzGuards and soldiers from here, but, according to forum rules, can't show them here. If you want to see them (18+ only) - TG me.

[United Marxist Nations]

Meanwhile, another evidence that official Ukrainian numbers of losses (which UN and other "impartial observers" just lazily copy-paste) are absolutely true:

In Donetsk airport DPR militia had found 373 bodies of the "cyborgs"

On the territory of Donetsk airport for which in January bloody battles were waged, the People's Republic of Donetsk militia discovered nearly 400 bodies of the Ukrainian security officials. "On February 20, at the Donetsk airport we found 373 bodies of Ukrainian military, we already passed 306 bodies to Kiev", - said Deputy Minister of Defense Edward Basurin.

He also said that the area was repeatedly shelled near the airport. "During this day, we recorded 11 attacks on Donetsk Airport, 7 shellings were near this area" - "Interfax" quoted Basurin.

I have, in fact, some photos to confirm the fact of unerthing of a significnt number of dead Ukrainian NatzGuards and soldiers from here, but, according to forum rules, can't show them here. If you want to see them (18+ only) - TG me.

Remember, you can't send them through TG's anymore. If you guys want to share war photography, you'll have to go somewhere off-site.

[Lytenburgh]

Remember, you can't send them through TG's anymore. If you guys want to share war photography, you'll have to go somewhere off-site.

Huh? Why? Since when?

[United Marxist Nations]

Remember, you can't send them through TG's anymore. If you guys want to share war photography, you'll have to go somewhere off-site.

Huh? Why? Since when?

Someone asked the mods if it was okay (I can't remember who), they said that use of the site to transmit the images is against the rules (they also said that, in theory, anyone who would ask to see it and then reported it would also be violating site rules); so, that means that you'd have to direct them to the chat or something, because the site rules only apply on the site.

[Geilinor]

73 percent of Russians admit that Russia is in a crisis.

Ukrainian MP Alexei Goncharenko has reportedly been arrested in Moscow (attending the Moscow rally). I wonder what Russia thinks it can gain from arresting members of a foreign legislature.

According to Mironov, 57.85 of the respondents give positive marks to the actions taken by the administration to deal with the crisis.
- http://rbth.co.uk/news/2015/02/27/over_ ... 44055.html)

While that's still over a majority, it isn't the levels of support Putin has been working with before.

[Lytenburgh]

73 percent of Russians admit that Russia is in a crisis.

Ukrainian MP Alexei Goncharenko has reportedly been arrested in Moscow (attending the Moscow rally). I wonder what Russia thinks it can gain from arresting members of a foreign legislature.

According to Mironov, 57.85 of the respondents give positive marks to the actions taken by the administration to deal with the crisis.
- http://rbth.co.uk/news/2015/02/27/over_ ... 44055.html)

While that's still over a majority, it isn't the levels of support Putin has been working with before.

There is difference between Putin's popularity rating (which in February reached 86%) and what people think about the government's efforts to combat economic troubles

[Geilinor]

While that's still over a majority, it isn't the levels of support Putin has been working with before.

There is difference between Putin's popularity rating (which in February reached 86%) and what people think about the government's efforts to combat economic troubles

Until recently, Putin had been widely trusted with the economy but now that rate has declined.

[Lytenburgh]

There is difference between Putin's popularity rating (which in February reached 86%) and what people think about the government's efforts to combat economic troubles

Until recently, Putin had been widely trusted with the economy but now that rate has declined.

Can you provide another earlier poll asking people "how the government deals with crisis?" that can support this claim?

[Shofercia]

Keep telling yourself that, but considering that WWII was a War of Survival for the Red Army, beating back Genocidal Nazis was given priority over taking a look at Baltic demography.

I don't need to "tell myself that." The data is freely available. Despite your apparently low opinion of Soviet organisational efforts, they were able to track demographic changes and beat the Nazis.

I truly respect the Red Army and Navy. My posts easily show that. Now, can you please present Soviet demographic data of the Baltics between 1939 and 1958, that you speak of so fondly. And the sources.

Except it wasn't fully measured after the earthquake until 1959. And a population increase is not the same as a population decrease, so yes, they should prefer a population increase over a population decrease.

Once again, you don't need to fully measure it. If x = a - b, and we know that a and b are, you don't need to physically observe x to know its value. Its simple algebra.

Yes, I'm sure they would prefer a very small population increase. I'd prefer to get slapped in the face over getting kicked in the nuts, it doesn't mean that I'm going to think of getting slapped in the face positively. I'm not going to wistfully reminisce over getting slapped in the face or thank the person who did it.

Except in this case you don't know x and you're guesstimating b.

No, we attribute that to other factors, such as a drop in social services and the rise of corporacracy, factors that were introduced to the Baltics after the fall of the USSR. It's funny that Russia understood these problems, dealt with them maturely, and is currently experiencing a population growth, whereas the Baltics are in denial and their population keeps falling. To each his own.

Do we though? Can you show me some correlation that you think exists? Some European countries actually have better demographics now than they had 30-50 years ago. Did the "corporacracy" go into reverse in those countries? How come fertility declined so sharply in Belarus? Are they having problems with "corporacracy"?

When the USSR fell apart, Belarus lost some social services, just like all other former Soviet states. The collapse was a demographic tragedy for all members. Some, like Russia and Kazakhstan, realized what realistically happened, and addressed those issues. Others, like Baltics and Ukraine, haven't. They could soon be enjoying a demographic death spiral, if they're not doing so already. Meanwhile you can continue to speak fondly of Stalin's demographic data.

Yes. Hilariously so.

The answer to a question beginning "how" is rarely "yes", feel free to give it another go.

Oh, right. I meant to say completely, as in you've completely failed to address it.

I was talking about the general definition, not your specific example. You do understand that there's a difference between general and specific, right?

I get that there's a difference between general and specific but the rest of this statement is gobbledegook. You were talking about the general definition? The general definition of what? The only definition you've given is that of an argument. Is there a general and a non-general definition of an argument?

I was talking about the general definition of an argument, not the specific example that you were repeatedly referring to. I've even italicized the part, which you apparently thought I did for aesthetic reasons.

[Lytenburgh]

Someone asked the mods if it was okay (I can't remember who), they said that use of the site to transmit the images is against the rules (they also said that, in theory, anyone who would ask to see it and then reported it would also be violating site rules); so, that means that you'd have to direct them to the chat or something, because the site rules only apply on the site.

Oh, you mean this?

Yes, because the rules are that graphic information will not be transmitted via NS, including the forum, RMB, or TG's. So if its discovered by moderation, action will be taken. Keep in mind that mods do not view players TG's unless there is a specific reason to do so, such as, a report being filed regarding a TG with graphic imagery.

Also, as a side note, if someone asks for something that is known to contain images breaking the rules...and then reports them, it will not end well for the reporter.