xzar_monty

Putin has even very recently pointed out that "we are not crazy, we do know what nuclear weapons mean", or something along those lines. The 180 is indeed remarkable. This, by the way, is classic Russian stuff. In 1923, a process of "Ukrainization" started in the Soviet Union: Lenin wanted to spread the revolution into other countries as well, and the communist Ukraine was to serve as an example. The bolsheviks reasoned that the urbanization of Ukraine required creating a more hospitable environment for those coming from the rural areas, which meant that cities were forced to use Ukrainian instead of Russian in all official communication. Well, this honeymoon of sorts ended before the decade did, after which the "bourgeous nationalism" of Ukraine was instantly regarded as a threat to Soviet unity, as if the previous period had never even existed. Thriving Ukrainian presses were shut down and their staff purged. These jumps from black to white, one policy to its opposite, are classic Russia -- and of course quite likely to create uncertainty, fear, paranoia, you name it.

I am going to guess no. When the Finnish president last visited Putin, he pointed out how terribly alone Putin seemed to be in the vast halls and corridors of the Kremlin. With the COVID and given Putin's temperament, I am guessing that the Kremlin has been very thoroughly purged of all people who think rationally. I think most of the lapdogs have been banished as well; there are only a select few left.

The bottom line remains that Russia has both annexed Crimea and then later on attacked the whole of Ukraine with the intention of destroying the whole country. It doesn't matter how many broken treaties there are in the past: such attacks on sovereign countries are not justifiable. Russia's position where it demands various things from other countries is inherently untenable and unjustifiable; it simply has no power or right to demand any such things. Russia is the aggressor here, no matter how much it poses as a victim. No country or entity has or has had any intention to attack Russia, this is clear as day. The West has little moral superiority here, in that I agree with you. But that doesn't justify an attack, much less one where the intent is genocide.

Lithuania, especially. There were some serious threats from the Russian foreign ministry on June 20, and Patrushev reinforced those threats in even stronger terms on June 21. (Last year, in a private conversation, Putin demanded that Finland offer Russia guarantees concerning NATO, and this was the moment when Sauli Niinistö, the president, decided that enough was enough -- Russia has no business dictating other countries what to do. Russia was subsequently very threatening towards Finland about the NATO question. Everything has since then quietened down and Russia seems to have given up, but this of course is no guarantee of anything, nor is Finland a NATO member yet.)

When I saw the first big name accused of corruption, I was reminded of how stereotypes tend to be less than true, but that they also come into being because or something substantial, i.e. they are not entirely arbitrary. So the fact that Kaili is Greek is not especially surprising, unfortunately.

When you say "you take", do you mean me personally? Or the people on this forum? Or just people in general? If it's me personally, then that's just not true. For example, I have personally spoken against Ukraine here: the country remains far too corrupt and isn't even close to fulfilling EU criteria, even if it wants to join. This is not bowing to Russia and Putin. As for the Western allies, I think there's plenty that Germany and France, especially, ought to hide their heads in shame about. Ditto. When you make a claim concerning "anything anyone says" it's almost impossible for it to be true. So I'd prefer a more considered statement. If you mean to say that people are wildly in favor of Ukraine and sometimes go too far with it, for emotional reasons especially, then I agree with you, but that's completely different from what you actually say.

Just as a theoretical question: what kind of thing would make you think that Putin is perhaps wrong, or not telling the truth? Would you be prepared to agree with him about absolutely everything that he says? If not, whereabouts would you draw the line?

Wow! Putin's traditional news conference will not happen this year. I suppose even keeping up the charade might have had too much incendiary potential, or something. But it is remarkable that this has now been cancelled. BBC reports: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63947946 I suppose nearly all news sources report this, too.

There's a surprising amount of this around, "this" meaning two things: 1) Translations that are inaccurate enough to make a professional wince, and 2) Nitpickety snark focusing on individual words with little or no regard to context. Doing this is not wrong as such, because the words really are there, it just makes you wonder why some are so keen on it, as it serves no fruitful purpose. I remember lawyers being described as "small-print leeches", i.e. avaricious people overly focused on technicalities, and there's something of that in this attitude. @Mamoulian War: Seems to me that the Russian officer who said “I never thought my own country would treat me this way" in the Twitter link you posted knows nothing about the real history of his country. Incidentally, this is what the current regime is aiming for, in schools. (By the way, I was recently reminded of Russian history in a personal sense, from before the time when the current Putinist Russia was rightly regarded as a madly militant and totally untrustworthy kleptocracy. Back in the 1980s, when the Soviet Union was still around, sporting people from my hometown went to Moscow to play in a tournament. Currency was obviously exchanged via the black market. But one of the most astonishing things was, in retrospect, the sense of almost pity that the country aroused: the travelers from my hometown had money to spare but there was nothing in Moscow worth buying. This enormous entity and superpower called the Soviet Union hadn't been able to produce anything that young and eager sportspeople would have found interesting. Everything was either rubbish or trash, that's what you could choose between. It actually wasn't a huge wake-up call back then, but the memory seems much more poignant now. Even far-off developing countries had interesting exotica, but the SU lacked that, too.)

Interesting stuff on Russian recruitment; a thread.

Here's an extremely strange coincidence, I wonder why stuff like this happens these days. I started studying the Ukrainian language today, using the Duolingo application, if only to learn the Cyrillic alphabet. So I'm doing these easy exercises designed to teach you the abc, and the very first four-letter combination that the application asks me to type in Cyrillic just happens to be, crikey I don't why, it happens to be... NATO.

Japan is, once again, a peculiar case. There have been changes, but if you look at the atrocities committed by the Japanese and the ways these have been handled, the process isn't very good. Think of the question of "comfort women", for instance. The relations between Japan and South Korea have been very strained because of this, and Japan has been anything but forthright about it all. (Japan also continues to be quite racist, but I'm not sure whether this is entirely the same question.) As for Eastern Europe, you are indeed quite right. There is the old joke about Russians being tortured in Hell, and when one of them manages to escape, the other Russians pull him back in because they can't stand the idea of him escaping suffering. This is approximately how it was with Eastern Europe: the Soviets weren't free, so they didn't allow anyone else to be free, either, if it was in their power to do anything about it. Funny that you should use the word "crushed", because there's a book called Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944-1956 by Anne Applebaum.

When it comes to personal psychology, the author David Foster Wallace once pointed out that transformation is often a result of exhaustion more than anything else. In other words, once your way of being in the world has caused you so much suffering that you can't take it anymore, you are ready to change. As long as there's an escape or an excuse, you will hold on to the old. (Interestingly, some former addicts have been known to wish that current addicts reach their absolute bottom as soon as possible, because that is where they either change or die.[*]) For Germany, the defeat was so comprehensive and the results of their former policy were so obviously so horrifying that they were ready for change. That is one possible way of looking at it. [*] I don't know if you know The Sandman comic series by Neil Gaiman. That whole story arc is essentially a description of how one must either change or die. @BruceVC: Imperial attitudes and imperial superiority are still rife in England. That's just one example. There's quite a lot of sadness in that, too. Like they sing in that one song by Suede: "You belong to a world that's gone / It's the English disease".

Like Anne Applebaum noted, since the breakdown of the Soviet Union, Russia has had ample opportunity to reflect upon why its immediate neighbors tend to either hate or fear it -- and indeed often do both. This still hasn't happened: there appears to be no capacity for self-reflection in "the Russian entity", i.e. the nation as represented by those in power. What has increased is the Stalinist rewriting of history. I very recently listened to a presentation on what the Russian children are taught about WW2, and it's not pretty. As is to be expected, everything that is even slightly uncomfortable is simply ignored, for instance. There's no question that countries in general tend to do something like this, but there are degrees, and Russia is an extreme. (Interestingly, Great Britain has also been particularly poor in reflecting upon its past. But it's both less militant and much more trustworthy these days.) EDIT: Speaking of those fires in Russia, I have just read that Russia is among the world leaders when it comes to accidental major fires. There are over 150 000 of them per year, and fatalities from fires are eight times that of what they are in the neghboring Finland. I cannot verify these numbers because I don't have proper sources.

Probaby, but it would be great. Interesting, btw, how Croatia tends to take the longest road possible. They went to extra time in all their knockout games in 2018, too.

My sense is that at least some of the upsets are due to the fact that some of the teams had hardly any time to practice. Almost no friendlies before the tournament. But to answer your question: can't think of one just now.

Astonishing victory for Morocco. The moment at the end, when the Moroccan player was one-on-one with the goalie, was a great example of fatigue and tension destroying all composure: the finish was awful, but I understand it.

Yep. And you ought to be educated enough to make good choices based on the knowledge that there are precedents.

I also found it very odd when @Hurlshortsaid that it's hard to turn down a salary like that -- when it is only five times greater than a pretty reasonable salary in the US. Given everything else that is involved in working in Russia, I would very strongly argue that a salary like that is really quite easy to turn down. In hindsight, I think Greiner would agree that it would have been a much better idea to turn it down. And in any case, bringing illegal stuff to a foreign country is stupid in the extreme (very hard to feel sympathy for people who bring about their misery as blatantly as that). Rare is the person who is willing to admit that, though. So credit to Paul McCartney who did acknowledge his own idiocy after his stint in Japan.

Nobody. I might watch some of the games that are still left, but I'm not rooting for anyone -- unless it's an individual team in a particular match putting on a splendid display. I have historical reasons to support anyone that Holland or (to a lesser degree) Serbia plays against, and I have tended to support Spain in the 2000s, but other than that, I just enjoy the games that I watch. I haven't watched a single game from start to finish in this World Cup, and most games I haven't watched at all.

No, it isn't. And no, you don't. I can't think of a way anyone could rationally argue for either of the claims you make. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but you don't make much sense now. (I have seen a little bit of the World Cup now. Neymar's goal yesterday was superb. As unsporting as he is as a character, he's a damn good player.)

Like... why?

Are they? Have any more info on this?

Every once in a while, the results of rampant Russian corruption can even be just funny.

@Sarex: Thanks! Delightful. Made me think of Ronaldo mocking Solskjaer's tactics in that infamous loss to Liverpool: