Rostere

Then play the classic Thief games again! You can never get enough of that. Have you completed them on the hardest difficulty?

The democratically elected leadership of a housing cooperative decides to put money on an Eid al-Fitr party, but will not buy a Christmas tree. You can think it's stupid if you want, but really - if you don't want it, then move. It's not worse than stupid housing cooperatives paying for unserious plumbers.

So last year was apparently the year of the horse, this year was apparently the year of "Finnish paintball" according to the hosts of the New Year's party I visited. Of course you must understand that this does not mean actual paintball, but firing low-powered fireworks at people for fun and games. Something like this.

Okay, brought some booze for New Year's Eve. Bill ended up at the equivalent of 140 dollars. I might get drunk tonight.

Okay, first some articles from the weird side of the Internet, just so you know the stuff other people are being subjected to: Pravda: USA harbors plans to decapitate Russia within minutes "Centre for Research on Globalization": Russia is Selling Oil and Gas in Exchange for Physical Gold With the notable exception that Russia would do well to trade as little as possible in dollars (which makes perfect sense for Russia to do if they want to hurt the US), it's pretty much all crackpotism. Let's talk about this. It's extraordinarily stupid - I'm actually surprised I'm surprised at the stupidity of some of the reactions. But really. Russian troops annex part of Ukraine, and Russia gives direct military support to rebels in other parts. And then, Russia is surprised and angry that Ukraine wants to join NATO? I mean, think about it. What if you were Ukraine, and was being subjected to this by your neighbour. You would stand first in line to join the "League of Fruitcakes", the "Conspiracy of the Dunces" or whatever organization would serve as a defensive alliance. (Of course Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO (they will likely want to avoid another Georgia) until the situation looks much more stable.) All that was required was the overthrowing of a completely corrupt leader, which happened to be slightly more leaning towards Russia than to the EU. Then Russia immediately proceeded to annex Crimea and give their military support to other separatists. Russia has managed to completely alienate Ukraine's population, and annex a crucial province where people could be counted on to vote for Russian-aligned leaders, thus changing Ukraine's demographics to give certain victories for the EU-aligned faction in the future. Good job Poot-Poot, you've been played like a mandolin. Maybe later you will realize that more important than scraps of land changing ownership is the hearts and minds of people.

First a conceptual error in your thinking: You can dodge the effects of war reparations simply by not paying them, while sanctions are impossible to dodge for the party which is being subjected to them. For sanctions not to work, you require collaboration between the object of sanctions and the sanctioning agent. War reparations require good relations between the involved countries. So war reparations and sanctions are very different things - apples and oranges. Secondly, a historical misunderstanding on your part (the manifestation of the above error): Germany stopped paying war reparations in 1931. So during the entire time that Germany were increasing militarization (under Hitler) they were not subjected to a penny of war reparations. There is zero doubt that if they would have paid war reparations, they would have had less money to pay for tanks. That is a question of simple mathematics. I also think there is no doubt that Germany's war reparations did wreck the German economy, during the time that they were actually being paid. Thirdly, a difference between current Russia and Germany: the Germany which actually paid the war reparations was a completely different Germany to the Germany which had participated in the war. It makes no sense to punish a different entity. The Weimar Republic should have been given support, not punishment. This is a typical case of bad diplomacy. On the other hand, the Russia which is guilty of military aggression in Ukraine is the same as today's Russia. Now, as I've stated before I believe the Versailles treaty was extremely harmful for world peace, the way it forced the German people to collectively take the blame for the entire war. Germany was hardly a democracy at the time, as was Austria-Hungary, the real instigator of the war. I think punishing the new German democracy which rose out of WW1 Germany was the exact opposite to what should have been done. Sanctions are very likely not affecting Putin's popularity in either direction. But in the end, there will be less money to buy arms for. That is why sanctions is a normal response for a larger economy with a low level of militarization (the EU) against aggression from a small economy with a higher level of militarization (Russia).

No, no, no. The treaty of Versailles is an entirely different story. That was imposed on the Weimar Republic BEFORE they had done anything at all. As for economic pressure and war preparations, I bet the UK and France would have wished in hindsight that they have been more clear already in 1938, when Hitler annexed the Sudetenland region. It is said that Hitler was surprised and upset when the UK and France declared war on him after invading Poland (read this, and also this which is kind of relevant when Russia is shouting about "EU imperialism" when Eastern European countries want to join NATO). Which brings me to my other point. When WW1 had been won, the entente power proceeded to humiliate Germany, firstly by not immediately lifting the trade blockade, secondly by the Versailles agreement. In diplomacy, you should wear a smile and have one outstretched hand, and the other one behind your back, holding a sledgehammer and be prepared to switch immediately between the two. The faster you can switch, the better diplomat you are. When you have already won against someone, then it's time for the outstretched hand. After WW1, the entente powers should have initiated something similar to the Marshall Aid for the countries which had suffered the worst, among them obviously Germany. Only at the point where the new regime start invading neighbouring countries at will should the outstretched hand turn into the sledgehammer. I don't think that the Versailles treaty was useful for creating lasting peace. But with regards to war, I think that Hitler should have been recognized from the very onset of his rule as a huge threat to the European peace. The UK should have started re-arming in 1933, and war should have been declared perhaps as early as in 1938. Sanctions are very useful when you want to diminish the economic power of a country. Obviously they only work for regime change when you are sanctioning a market liberal economy. There's no denying that there were far-right elements in the recent revolution. But you miss the point about what nationalism is. If, say Germany had supported German nationalists in Ukraine who wanted to make Ukraine a part of Germany, that would be a different thing. Right now, the only nationalists who were given support (by association...) were the ones who wanted Ukraine to be independent. That is the opposite of chauvinistic nationalism, when you want to annex parts of other nations. You see the world too much in black and white. Just because you have given somebody your financial support does not make them your puppet. Lenin's entry into Russia was bankrolled by the Germans, that hardly made him their puppet. Financial support is merely an indicator that the interests of two parties align. Take for example the surprising loan from a Russian bank to Le Pen's Front Nationale. It hardly makes her Putin's puppet, but it's a strong indicator their interests align. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Yanukovich was overthrown because he was completely corrupt. The fact that the opposition consisted in part of EU-friendly groups was merely a coincidence. Of course they were supported by the US, but if you think that is a problem you should also think about how Yanokovich was supported by Russia. Every party has their allegiances. Putin should have condemned Yanukovich, continued friendship with Ukraine, and just waited for the next elections. The pattern of voting in Ukraine seems to oscillate between Russian and Ukrainian-aligned leaders. (Opinion polls suggest that the recent trend of the EU becoming more popular in Ukraine began only in 2012 - before that, there was a negative trend) What really matters is the hearts and minds of the Ukrainians. Instead Putin opted to steal what he could get his little grubby fingers on, alienating all Ukrainians in the process. Wow, this is just so stupid I almost can't believe you wrote it. There is no such thing as EU colonialism. Who has been forced to join the EU? Same goes for NATO. I would like to see you in Estonia, talking to people and saying that they are a "colony" of the EU and that they would be more prosperous and enjoy more freedom as a Russian republic. WW1 was caused by Austo-Hungarian chauvinistic imperialism, when they tried to incorporate Serbia into their empire. WW2 was caused by Germany and the Soviet Union invading Poland in the same way. Both (especially the latter) look hauntingly similar to what Russia is doing in Ukraine and Georgia today. Remember that before the invasion of Poland, this happened. Even though we agree that Crimea is more Russian than Ukrainian, the idea of using force to reach your goals is dangerous. If history is any lesson, the world must now react in the most powerful way possible before Putin decides that the entirety of Ukraine is really Russian. Well, you forget the purpose of sanctions to drain the Russian economy so that they can't afford the current level of militarization, which is the most important point. I'm sure Obama has though of the path to regime change you describe, but that would be a long shot. I don't think anyone with knowledge of history thinks regime change is a viable goal for sanctions in this case. For that to be viable, private companies must be far more independent and more powerful than they are in Russia. Again, you look at the world in black/white. I'm sure the rest of the world is happy with a Russian leader which does not invade foreign countries at will... Which is just what we require of an American leader, right?

What a primitive game. Can't believe I used to play this over and over. I keep hitting the space bar to jump and forget this stupid game doesn't have a jump ability. *Sigh*

Sounds cool, I'll check it out.

I personally think that the entire region of the Balkans has a brighter future, one reason is that the recent past has been so awful. Hopefully all the countries of former Yugoslavia can mend their differences. If there is one goal that the EU should have in that region, it is increasing stability and unity. I know that has been part of the demands placed on the countries in that region for joining the EU. It's definitely an interesting investment zone in any case.

Finally, a shining ray of common sense in all this.

You know, I've argued before against the idiotic notion that the US is using sanctions to bring about regime change. I've said that this is stupid because if there is anything the US should have learned it is that sanctions extremely rarely have that effect. Seeing lately how they have used torture to try to gain information, maybe they really are so stupid as to use sanctions for regime change. Maybe it is too much to assume that even the leaders of the world's largest countries act rationally. Now, shifting to what you CAN do with sanctions: wreck the Russian economy. Putin can build his fighter jets from cardboard in the future if he feels like trying to redraw the borders of European countries. You cannot overstate the importance of immediately sapping the economic power of a country which starts to annex parts of their neighbours in this fashion. Let us remember what the prelude to WW2 has taught us. Chauvinistic nationalism must be crushed utterly in it's infancy before the situation escalates.

The Le Pen news don't mean much unless she wins the elections. Which is probably possible for the first time around. It is nevertheless symptomatic of an increasing sentiment. It is sadly definitely possible that she wins the elections though.

"It's cruel, it's useless, it's the CIA" France getting ready to leave NATO? You have got to say one thing about the CIA though - it's a great agency for doing horrendously stupid stuff that inevitably backlashes at you later. The entire aftermath of 9/11 has been one big failure on the part of the CIA. It seems as though their every move has been guided by the goal of making the US locked in an ever-worsening quagmire with the Muslim population of the world. Cui bono? Sure as hell not the US in any case.

I really doubt the sanctions would be lifted no matter what happened. I think you have gravely and completely misunderstood the motivations behind the interests which are behind this. There is only one prime interest of every industry - making money. Doing business with Russia at the moment (err... before the crisis) was pretty much a win for every industry. From Russia you import the raw materials needed to build more refined stuff, which you sell with a surplus. To Russia you export the stuff they don't build/grow themselves. Making up sanctions and blocking free trade is the worst thing a capitalist society can do to itself. That is especially true with regards to the economic "elites" of these societies. Believe me when I say that if it is anything these elites want, it is global peace and global free trade. Previously, the argument was "LOL SANCTIONS GONNA DO NOTHING, SHOOT YOUR SELF IN FOOT!!!", now the argument seems to be "OH POOR RUSSIA, WHY WEST CONTINUE WITH SANCTION?!!". The truth is of course somewhere between these two. Both economies are hurt equally bad in absolute terms. But because the economy of EU+US is so much bigger than that of Russia, the end average effect on the former is only about 1/16 of the effect on Russia, procentually speaking (this is before taking account mitigation efforts by writing new trade contracts and sanctions in the banking sector which works somewhat differently). Nevertheless, you can be sure that the lobby groups of pretty much every industry that is affected is nagging politicians to remove the sanctions every day.

As I see it, any faults with engagement boils down to AI.

So Russia finds different markets to supplement the lost ones and presto the West shot itself in the face. Who knows, but I wasn't expressing any opinion on that. I only meant to answer to "LOL WY DO SANCTIONS KEEP ON GOING?!!!". It's pretty obvious why the sanctions are in place, and what could end them. If there is some sort of agreement between Russia and Ukraine on Donetsk, Luhansk, and the protection of minority rights and regional autonomy then the sanctions will probably be lifted in a second or two.

Well, obviously things are not going back to normal until the situation in Eastern Ukraine is settled. Duh. Its a semi frozen conflict, its not going to be settled. It can go on like this for years. The obvious conclusion from that is that the sanctions can go on for just as long.

Well, obviously things are not going back to normal until the situation in Eastern Ukraine is settled. Duh.

So what do you expect then, as you apparently have the read of this ? Ah, never mind, late refresh. Am not too sure that the US doing shady stuff as every nation has done is a damning indictment of the high level government ideology it follows, though. I am not saying that it would be a damning indictment. I am saying that people will think it is one, which will make them cynical towards the differences between democracy and dictatorship. You can be 100% sure that the adherents of the former will not waste one second trying to exploit the US' use of torture for their own ends. In fact, it has already started. The "cynics" who believe that the US and North Korea are equally bad will get a lot of water on their mills right now. China views the US as a rival and for ideological/ political reasons wouldn't give the US good PR even if she lived up to the rhetoric. And India is already a democracy, how that is viewed by Indians will be whole orders of magnitude more influenced by how the Indian democracy works rather than how the (markedly different) US republican model works; as well as by things like the US response to Bhopal. If they wanted to cast aspersions on/ slur the US then there's plenty of evidence to do so without this report, it's just a handy reference guide for stuff people already know and the local stuff will trump all. And really, if the US does torture, murder etc then it would be good that other countries don't try to mimic them, and good that they would lose influence. Because any ideal country wouldn't do such things. But, any honest appraisal will separate the good things about the governmental system from the bad things done by the governments it generates, and if the US links loss of influence or goodwill to its behaviour it may improve that behaviour, though far more likely they'll just try and make sure no one knows about it. That there's any chance at all of benefit is down to part of the system actually working for once though what should be the other parts, enforcement of rules and punishment of those that broke them almost certainly won't happen. Brazil is an interesting mention though, since a roughly equivalent report on the excesses of the (US supported, natch) military dictatorship there was released the same day as the US torture report. And that will be the report that mostly influences Brazil's vision and thoughts on democracy as a system, not anything the US does directly. You make the fallacy that you think people will actually make an honest and intelligent appraisal. (Also, I'm not talking about the influence of the US as much as the verdict on democracy). A lot of people will just think that okay, US is a democracy, China is a one-party state. US does torture, China does torture. US does surveillance of citizens, China does surveillance of citizens. So accordingly, there is no big difference between the two (democracy and one-party state) in terms of human rights. HOWEVER, we of course know that there are democracies where torture would be unthinkable and the people behind it would get punished. That was for example the case in the US during the Vietnam war, when a US soldier was court-martialed for the use of waterboarding (the memory of the Japanese trials must have been more close at hand). At that time, the US was keen to be seen as a moral actor, as opposed to the Soviet Union. Right now, there is no such antagonist and thus no pressure, which apparently leads to the US ignorantly digging a hole with themselves in it in order to reach moral lower ground. We've all seen the stupid arguments - "this is a new type of enemy, a brutal enemy which requires brutal methods to confront", "they would have done the same or worse to us", et.c.. Psychologically, it seems that the US has misinterpreted the so-called "war on terror" as a feces-eating contest where the most repulsive person wins (have you seen Pink Flamingos?), where the one who can reach their grubby little hands deepest into the forbidden cookie jar of war crimes and human rights violations is the winner. Meanwhile, the rest of the world (and future historians) look on in disgust. Regarding Brazil: Just look at what the reports about American spying on Brazil has done to American arms sales.

Dunno about that. Internally, many in the US really do big B Believe in Truth, Justice and The American Way. The report will run into cognitive dissonance via obfuscation ("they've got it wrong in various ways we're not going to be specific about so you can disregard the report in whole, trust us, we're here to protect you from evil doers!") and special pleading ("but we only did it to bad guys!") with most clutching any straw to avoid admitting there was wrongdoing. Plenty don't Believe, but they will likely already know about waterboarding and have seen Abu Ghraib pictures etc In Europe it may appal some but it is likely that they already knew about it. It won't shift the politicians who pretty much definitively knew about it and in some cases actively encouraged and helped in it, that would require actual principles rather than smug rhetorical constructions about how much better we really are than other people. Anyone in power taking an actual stand against the US? Don't make me laugh. Peons with inconvenient beliefs can be safely ignored, as always. In the Middle East there won't be much reaction, most of the governments are US clients and most of the populations already knew about it anyway- much like Collateral Murder it may shock some softie western types who live in a bubble of self satisfaction and propaganda, but the people there already know about it and have a generally low opinion already. In the wider context there will be little reaction beyond some posturing. What are they going to do, apply sanctions? Send the US to the ICC? Yeah right... Worst they'll get is precisely what they've already got, some po faced Chinese diplomat who is rampantly trollfacing internally telling the US to live up to international norms and expectations and how very disappointed they are that the US are actually a bunch of despicable quasi Gestapo torturers who torture, oh the humanity. There should be consequences of course, the US already established that the punishment for waterboarding was execution seventy years ago when Japanese were executed for torturing US servicemen via waterboarding. There should be consequences for the lies and obfuscation. But there won't be. Instead the same people who believe in torture and that freezing prisoners to death is legal will get more powers to 'protect' their citizens from the evil doers while wilfully disregarding laws that are supposed to protect their citizens from them. Then people will wonder why police think they can shoot people with impunity, why politicians think they can imprison journalists to extort inconvenient sources from them and force ever more restrictive 'anti terror' laws, internet censorship etc upon people. I'm not talking about so specific and immediate consequences. I'm talking about the legacy of 20th-century American democracy, which inevitably will be connected to the legacy of democracy as a whole. 50 years from now on, when Indian, Indonesian and Chinese schoolchildren will be studying this time period - the end of US economic dominance - they will inevitably pass a verdict on the morality of the system. The legacy of democracy will not be decided by how democracy has worked out in obscure countries such as Switzerland, New Zealand or Sweden. In the future, people might look back on Western democracy and say, "it only leads to barbarism in the end anyway". Black stains on democracy such as the US' behaviour after 9/11 (and their Middle East policies which led to the attack) will be of utmost importance when people choose between the US and China in the future. Some people will say that ideals of democracy is a good thing. Others will then counter with this kind of behaviour and say that maybe the difference between democracy and dictatorship is not as big anyway. The US seems to be hard at work to erase any moral high ground they might have had, and replace it with cynicism in people's minds. When reports come in about how political dissidents are tortured in China, citizens of Brazil and India will not bat an eyelid because that is what they have come to expect, it will not be worse than what other potential allies do. Politics is in the long term about creating/being an example that other will want to follow.

China or India are pretty much the only contenders for the US' throne. Russia seems very far-fetched to me. They are too small to compete. The image of Russia as an important country is only based on their nuclear arsenal from the previous century, their size on the world maps, and their adjacency to Europe (which has both facilitated trade and recently sparked conflicts). If not because of that, we wouldn't be talking about them more than we talked about, say, Italy. On the other hand, it looks pretty inevitable that the American ship is going down, albeit slowly and perhaps not with a dramatic shift. If we look at the facts, the US' share of the world economy has been shrinking since the 1950s. The peak of US power was likely somewhere around 1950. We are not discussing what might happen in the future as much as we are discussing what has been happening for a long time now. But who knows, the direction we are heading in now might shift in unexpected ways. What if the current wave of nationalism, separatism and general desire to punch yourself in the **** in the EU and Russia blows over, a US/EU free trade zone is created, and after that a US/EU/Russian one? It would be the only scenario in which the economic weight of the world does not shift to Asia.

I think you guys are gravely underestimating the implications and potential negative consequences of this behaviour.

Paradox games have always had real-time mechanics with adjustable game speed, and I think that they have succeeded in implementing this spectacularly well. With adjustable speed we will get both the increased realism, immersion and tactical depth of continuous real-time movement, and the time for planning and thinking that turn-based has.