Rostere

Normally I don't care a lot about football. But this championship has been interesting for several reasons. Firstly, it was interesting to see Iran's Rouhani tweet a pic of him sitting in a sofa with a football shirt, watching his team play. It shows that regardless of the current level of religious influence in Iranian politics, he "gets" what the modern Iranian public wants to see. It gets me thinking about how sports can actually change "real" things - what if Iran goes forward to the elimination rounds? Seeing Iran compete with the other countries of the world might change both some Iranians' view of their own nation's place in the world, and the outside world's picture of Iran. Secondly, as my country did not even qualify, I have seen a lot of discussion about which countries people root for when they can't cheer for their own team. Several marketing efforts have also picked this mood up, with the result that every person in the entire country probably by now has had the discussion "Which is you second team?" at least once. I've seen a lot of this on Facebook, and frankly it is much more exciting, and allows for much more individual expression, than when you have the ability to cheer for your own team. Sports articles in newspapers have ceased being only endless navelgazing about our own team's composition, the tone of the reporters has also changed somewhat to something more resembling whisky connoiseurs, when they now devote their time to informing the public about all the (subtle) differences in tactics, recruiting processes, and historical background of all the other teams. Seeing how both Spain and England has apparently been completely humiliated in the group rounds, maybe now they will also have some time over for that as well.

You got it wrong, it is not me but you who is denying human nature and ignoring history. Throughout the history of humanity, it is not the people who strived towards seclusion and anarchy who has shaped their own fate, it is the societies which have organized themselves who have made the great historical achievements. If we look at what has happened since 10000 years ago, the answer is crystal clear: humanity is becoming ever more interconnected through cooperation in various forms. 4000 years ago, two small villages somewhere in Europe might have been at war with each other thinking it impossible that one day they would both belong to the same unified nation, let alone the same small insignificant county. "How could that ever happen, since it would be against our human nature to make common cause with each other?", "How do we preserve our self-determination when we are controlled by a super-state?". Today, we would laugh at these objections. The inhabitants of Schweifeld and the inhabitants of Vierwinden don't think* it's against their human nature to coexist without declaring independence or civil war when they get sour. They don't think it infringes on their self-determination to share the same government and foreign policy. Yet today's "huge" nations would seem like a crackpot fantasy for people living in 5000 B.C.. Things have changed, just as they are changing right now. It is no wonder then that when the EU is the next step of this evolution of organizational structures, we are put in an exactly analoguous situation to the one between rival tribes/villages in 2000 B.C.. Suddenly it is as if we could not see what history consistently has told us through thousands of years. We (you, that is) think of our current organizational structure level of countries as self-evident and "natural", a perfect expression of human nature, and forget that they are the product of thousands of years of societal evolution, which has favoured those who banded together and eradicated those who thought to tackle the world's problems alone. It lies in human nature to cooperate. It is not me who ignores history, it is you. It is you who believes that humanity has through thousands of years built more strengthened and interconnected societal structures only to suddenly stop now - and why? - because it's somehow magically self-evident that our current nations perfectly reflect the natural maximum organizational capability of the human race? Smells like it's good old intellectual inertia at work here. The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires are completely and entirely different beasts from the EU. These were not supra-national entities kept together by mutual, democratic consent of member countries, they were kept together by force - by violent oppression of those who would be independent. In the EU, the parliament is democratically elected, countries choose to enter the EU by democratic referendum, countries can secede from the EU without facing threat of war, and so on. So in other words, the mechanisms through which the different entities were created, how they work, and how they can fall apart have nothing in common. The only thing they have in common is that they are "superstates". Thus, an argument equivalent to yours would be "Look how things went for the Republic of Cospaia, Dahomey and Tanganyika... I think Iceland is going down. Similarly to the aforementioned, it is also a country, you see." *Based on conjecture but you get the point

Okay. Now anything can happen.

Well, that certainly told me Your 'new' pitch seems to be that we have to work together to tackle Putin and organised crime, and we have to give budget control to Brussels to deliver the Euro. How is that a sales pitch? I don't see any ecvidence that Brussels or the Euro-elite have the faintest interest in foreign policy or corruption or drugs or people trafficking. There's no coherence, and no sense of urgency in Euro-level action on any of those issues. The Euro project is about one thing only: and that's a pan European superstate. Based on principles of big government, taxes, and regulation. Well, the part about organized crime is really only a small asterisk (in the real meaning of the word). I consider the Euro an inevitability, we would have to give budget control to Brussels to realize it, but that does not mean I want to do that now, since that is not what the people who joined the Euro were sold. At the moment, I would not want my country to join the Euro. If I would have designed the system myself, I would have constructed at least two Eurozones, or at least zones of a common currency. We could have for example a "northern zone" with Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the Baltic nations, a "core" zone with France, Benelux, Austria and Germany, a Mediterranean zone with Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece (and perhaps Croatia now) et.c, all with committees with the power to reject an unbalanced budget or enforce austerity. That way you would put more similar countries together and make the process less of a shock. Then eventually you would merge these zones, when they were internally stable. I would say there is a very high level of urgency on foreign policy matters on EU-level. Here's what the Liberal EU party group leader had to say on foreign politics during the short time he was allocated to speak about it on a televised debate. I might have mentioned trafficking because I've seen candidates whose sole (okay, almost) area of interest in the EP is human trafficking. Furthermore, on Christmas (or New Year's day, I don't remember) the Swedish Prime Minister held a yearly speech which was televised, which was dedicated entirely to the subject of human trafficking and what Sweden and especially the EU can do about it (imagine an American President dedicating his State of the Union speech to something similar...). During the build-up to the EP elections my town was plastered with a gazillion political posters where for example one party dedicated virtually all their posters to messages about "United we stand, divided we fall" (not literal translation) and "Yes to nuclear power, no to Russian gas" (literal translation). That kind of stuff, plus the issue of immigration, took up virtually the whole time on the TV debates I saw. When at an arbitrary central place in London, looking around, how many political posters do you see and what is their content? My bet is that you're seeing very different things from the ones I see. I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the political climate and tone of debate in Europe because of the EU debate that exists in Britain, where - a bit of a guess - the "pro-EU" parties try to pretend it's "just" an economic union and the EU-sceptics can promise and say everything beneath the sun because they know they won't have any say in the EP anyway - with zero power comes zero responsibility. You believe there is nobody pushing a constructive united foreign policy agenda in Brussels simply because you don't see any of these people where you live. And even if there are such people, they would only get asked EU-sceptic questions in interviews because that's where the current discussion is. YES, the EU project is about a pan-European superstate! But why would you ever believe it is necessarily about "principles of big government, taxes, and regulation" when YOU get to vote for the people who sit in there? This is purely and simply an instance of two things - one, a knee-jerk reflex towards a "scaaary" word; two, another instance of the EU giant taking a stride with one leg, but failing to move the other (having both the EP and full-fledged national parliaments seems like "big government"). You instinctively believe a "pan-European superstate" is bad because of associations with the word. But remember that the UK is a "pan-British superstate", incorporating areas such as Cornwall (a "pan-Cornish superstate" which has ceded virtually all sovereignty to legislation at national level). Why do you think that we do not perceive these political entities as nebulous and malevolent? Why is it that we would regard an "Party For An Independent Camborne And Redruth" as not having all the Indians in their canoe, but not the UKIP? (for those who would say this is self-evident dumb****ery, the UK Parliament constituency of Camborne and Redruth is about double the size of Monaco, which economically speaking is far more successful than most European states). What the UKIP is to the EU, the SNP is to Britain (and just like dismal failures like Tony Blair are the best recruiters for SNP, the Euro (and locally, immigration) is what is keeping UKIP afloat). It is simply the age-old struggle between the primal instinct to isolate yourself, go hide under a rock or retract into your shell when reality is not what you want it to be, versus the future of a united humanity. Over the course of our history, we have grown from organizing in extended families and tribes in prehistoric times, to cities 6000 years ago, to federations of cities, to nations united through might and oppression, to nations united by nationalism, to nations united by democratic principles, to federations of nations united by democratic principles (...united by democratic principles) - that is, the EU. A long, long, time ago, some of our ancestors banded together to form permanent tribes consisting of several families who could hunt cooperatively. Those who didn't you can still see today (although they might be critically endangered), living by picking fruits off trees in Africa. They didn't - and will most likely never - walk the Moon, build a fusion reactor, harvest the resources of an extraterrestrial body or find out about the beginning - and the end - of the Universe we know. Back then, the choice must have seemed much harder - why tolerate living with all these other guys when there's enough fruit for everybody? Fast forward thousands of years, and the UK stands before the same decision today. Yes, there are the negative details: we know that the Euro is **** (with current legislation). We know that the CAP is ****. But from a grand perspective, it is impossible to deny that uniting Europe the same way that Britain was once united is not the future. Walsingham: The EU is the EC. Much of the EU legislation is made so that the international agreements can be kept in place. The nations who want to be in these agreements have got to have common policies. It's just like with the Euro: it works if you can enforce balanced budgets centrally. For a free trade agreement to work smoothly, there has got to be common agreements on subsidies, intellectual property, consumer rights, production, et.c. The countries who want to join the common market but not the EU get the offer to agree with EU regulations which they have no say in themselves. Obey with no say. The day after the UK quits the EU and wants to join the EU free trade zone, Farage will be sent a contract to sign which obliges the UK to follow all the EU regulations on the relevant areas. The same with other types of agreements. So what about those security issues? Watch this. This area of EU legislation is rather new. This was a widely known EU project that I bet people today would have wanted the EU to push more for back in 2012. Eventually this here will end up in a coordinated plan to ensure EU energy security. If we did not already have the EU institution to create strategies for the whole continent before a looming energy crisis, we would end up with trying to create that platform during which the countries which make up the EU countries would fall into instability like dominoes. There was already an EU-wide strategy for handling energy shortages (since 2009 I think), but not one dealing with diversifying away from Russia. It is brutally clear that this issue can not be handled on a basis of "everyone for themselves". Start off by reading this and this (and you might watch some videos from this YouTube channel) - there is a lot of exciting stuff going on in this area. The EU anti-piracy mission outside Somalia has completely mauled piracy, reducing yearly occurrences of piracy by about 90%. I can only wonder if this EU project to train North African coast guard can deal the same blow to illegal immigration, two years on from now. This is another smash hit which gets about zero attention (compare the state of order in Gaza and the PA-controlled West Bank). Yeah, I could write an entire book about this subject. EU military and police training and other missions is changing reality for the better right now as we speak. It should be self-evident why a combined force of EU armies will give more clout than a divided potpourri, and why common military research projects will be more efficient than everyone paying for their own. The advances made on a EU military will serve as an impenetrable shield and deterrent against outward aggression towards EU member states. From an economic perspective, a united EU capable of enforcing economic sanctions together or initializing aid projects together will have the ear of every near East ruler lined with red carpet. This is in my opinion the most interesting point. But as you well know, the EU currently does not have the power to directly enforce anything at all about economic reform. See here and here - the most that has happened is an "agreement on a commitment" based on consent, and even that has been criticized as "undemocratic" by the Farage crowd. You can't blame the coach for not scoring any goals when he's not allowed to kick the ball.

LOL @ the American Congressional election system. Just beyond retarded. Oh come now, don't be ridiculous, the EU taken as a whole is less far-right than the UK, as the latest elections have shown. Personally I believe a strengthened European Union is an absolute necessity. First, we have the aspect of foreign policy - the EU must work as a single actor to have any relevance on the world scene. It's very telling how Putin is BFF with all the anti-EU parties. Why do you think that is? An EU military force and an EU-wide "FBI" police force (whose foremost missions would regard investigating terrorism, organized crime, large-scale corruption, tax evasion and other transnational crimes) are also needed. Then we have the single market. True, you might not need the whole EU apparatus for a rudimentary implementation of this, but nevertheless the bureaucracy behind it is more complicated than many people know. All the EU-wide regulations on animal rights, subsidies, et.c. are made in order to be able to keep this in place. The next step here is negotiating a free trade agreement with the US, which would be the most important thing to happen this century. Then we have the reallocation of funds from richer countries to the development of poorer ones. This is essentially a huge "Marshall Aid"-like project for all former SU nations. This is strategically absolutely necessary for EU peace and by extension the peace in regions which the EU is expanding into. The Euro is a complete and utter failure, and the reasons why should be apparent to anybody who has even the slightest idea about economy. For the Euro to be viable, we would firstly need to give the EU the ability to reject or approve the budget of any member country, and secondly an EU police which can investigate corruption and tax evasion, to ensure all taxes are really paid in the member countries. Personally I like the idea of a single currency, but at this stage, with the current checks and balances, it is simply not viable at all. That is why the EU needs countries like the UK whose leaders generally are not complete barefoot economists. But I don't think the EU doing one stupid thing is reason enough to leave it, it's just all the more reason to stay in it if you are one of the nations which can help to set things right. Isolationism will solve nothing here. The CAP is also one idiotic policy which should be reformed or scrapped, but I still don't think it makes it worth leaving the EU, when there is reasonable support for reform. It depends entirely upon what the people who voted UKIP wanted to achieve in the first place. Surely they wouldn't have bothered to go to vote if they knew voting for UKIP wouldn't change anything? The technical issues of effects from being in a group or not goes way above the head of the common plebs. I'll tell you what: even if the UKIP had been able to join a group, they would have said to their voters "We're too small to change anything", because even then, they would have had little say. Voting UKIP for the EP is simply not tactical. If you really want out, vote UKIP in national elections. If they honestly wanted to send people to Brussels to negotiate rules more favourable for Britain or less federalist in general they will have failed if the UKIP does not join a group, because that would leave them powerless. The only 100% safe option here for him to increase the anti-EU influence in the EP is for Farage to team up with Le Pen and the other anti-immigration parties. They are the only group, except for their own which is falling apart, who does not think that Farage is a fruitcake or an untouchable racist. If they wanted to secure funding for their party, they will have failed miserably if the UKIP fails to join a group. Indeed the UKIP will lose a ****load of money compared to the current situation. Ugh. There it is again, the stupid myth that the UK is "unfairly" treated by the EU. One needs only to look here and here to get a quick reality check. GOOD MORNING BRITAIN, ****ING ITALY PAYS MORE PER CAPITA TO THE EU THAN YOU DO. YOU SHOULD BE LYING UNDER THE BED, CRYING IN SHAME (on a side note I have no idea why Sweden pays so indefensibly little). The only way the UKIP will be able to do anything about the EU at all without joining Le Pen is if Farage will be in government after the next set of UK national elections. What are the odds for a UKIP + Tory government? If people think that is impossible, they better get used to the idea of Farage as Prime Minister, since that is what you will need to achieve if you want out of the EU.

Yes.

As a general rule I think people are better off together, but there are instances where that is very obviously not a sufficient short-term solution. Nevertheless, I think these Sunni extremists are probably not going to go much further. They are currently just north of Baghdad which is a scary thought, but if we take a look at this and this, we might get a better picture of what is really happening. The situation right now is pretty much that the Sunni ISIS have taken control over the Sunni areas of Iraq (of which large parts is desert anyway), and the (mostly Shia) Iraqi army has fled from these areas, leaving them to their own fate. It is important to understand in this context that the Iraqi army has had a lot of trouble with Sunni extremists in the Sunni-dominated regions, so when they are faced with an invasion, they are more than happy (as individuals, the Iraqi state of course is not happy) to leave these regions behind. It is only when ISIS reaches Shia areas that the fighting will begin in earnest. Which brings us to the two unlikely aces in Iraq's hand in the defense against ISIS - Iran, and also the Kurdish Peshmerga. It is rumoured that Iran has already sent military support to Maliki, to prevent their Shia brothers from a humiliating defeat. A large-scale intervention by Iran would seem very unlikely, but if ISIS against the odds manage to get a foothold in Baghdad, anything can happen. The Kurds have already held their ground against ISIS in Syria, and their forces in Iraq are far more numerous and better equipped. The Peshmerga (allied with the US during the invasion) in Iraq seems very determined to fight ISIS, I doubt they will yield an inch of ground, a consolidation of Kurdish control over previously disputed areas seems more likely - I consider the Peshmerga better than or on par with Hezbollah in discipline, and considering that the latter have already pretty much blocked ISIS from progress in Syria that gives food for thought. Here's an article from the Guardian on the same subject. The big question is really who, when ISIS has been stopped at Baghdad and on Kurdistan's borders, is going to bother to undertake an offensive operation and drive ISIS away. The Kurds are fiercely protective of their own land but are generally isolationist, and the Iraqi Shias can't seem to muster the will, after Sunni separatists have been a major PITA the last 11 years.

An update on the current situation. Here's two blog posts underlining the problems I wrote about in my previous post. I think my initial assessment still is pretty accurate. As things stand now, Nigel Farage's EFD alliance looks moribund. The new EAF group will maybe make it, but only barely. UKIP will be faced with the dilemma of either joining the EAF (opening themselves up to criticism of cooperating with racists) or joining the ECR (opening up for accusations of "selling out" to the Tories). The possibility of retaining the EFD alliance looks very, very unrealistic indeed, with the EFD in that case being forced to include either parties they have dismissed as racist extremists before, or any of the new extreme-right parties like Poland's KNP which have made themselves infamous through gems such as "it is not possible to rape a woman" and "there is no proof Hitler knew about the Holocaust", Golden Dawn or the German neo-Nazis. Everybody, bring forth your popcorn. The failure of the EFD to secure support translates in practice to the UKIP losing ****loads of EU funding, and being relegated to the naughty chair in the EP. Expect their next campaign to be very meagre. On the other hand, if the EAF group becomes a reality, then France's Front Nationale are looking to gain a lot of money for their organization and future campaigns.

How fitting there was no new "Game of Thrones" episode last weekend. Now we can instead discuss the real game of thrones going on inside the European Parliament, which is far more exciting since it actually has a real impact on people's lives. Let's do a damage control: people talk about a "political earthquake" caused by the new eurosceptic/anti-immigration parties. Here, the facts. Let's first divide them into categories, which respond roughly to the three party groups they will likely form in the European Parliament - if they can. It's the soft eurosceptics in the ECR (previously 7%, now 6%, perhaps growing to 8% after negotiations) who want the EU but not the Euro - formerly dominated by the Tories but now under control by the East European National Conservative parties. These are not untainted by xenophobia, but it's by and large not a characteristic of the group. We have the EFD (previously 4%, currently 5%, future existence uncertain, they might get 6% of seats though) with Nigel Farage's UKIP, hard eurosceptics who basically just want the EU to Foxtrot Oscar. Previously the EFD was the most toxic party group in the parliament, which none of the others wanted anything at all to do with do to the blatant racism attributed to many of it's members. The kind of guys who can state as an obvious fact that "you wouldn't want to live next to Romanians", but who still refuse to cooperate with other parties because of "anti-Semitism". In any case, you've all met these types of guys before: the guys who think that every kind of decision made from above they don't like is oppression, who want secession from everything they can secede from no matter the price. Especially among American political stereotypes I think you can find counterparts of these guys in the deep south, the kind of guys who believe, say, Texas should secede from the US. Currently however, a lot of parties are jumping ship from this faction, who might become too small to form a party group when the EP convenes. If they do, it will be one that is less racist and more libertarian than its predecessor. Which leads us the the new EAF party group (previously non-existent, currently 5%, perhaps growing to 6% after negotiations), a new group uniting everybody who despises pretty much every ethnic minority you can guess: Muslims, Gypsies, Jews (okay, they are divided on the last one). These are also unique in that many of the constituent parties are admirers or sympathizers of our dear friend Vlad in Russia. No wonder he is BFF with people who want to wreck the EU, then he can pick apart Eastern Europe as he wants. In any case yes, the EAF is definitely eurosceptic. This group has potential to steal several former EFD and ECR parties. The last time a similar group existed in the EP we were treated to the exquisite circus of watching them split apart over trying to agree about which peoples they didn't like - eventually someone mentioned "East Europeans" and then naturally the East European racists went bananas and left the group. Then we have the real relics, the actual neo-nazis who are too extreme to be accepted in any group: Jobbik from Hungary with 3 seats (14% of Hungary's), Golden Dawn from Greece with 3 seats (14% of Greece's) and NPD from Germany with 1 seat (0,9% of Germany's seats). These won't have the forces to create a party group, but will still have 0,9% of the seats in the European Parliament. By themselves, a negligible force. So, all in all: 0,9% neo-nazis. About 7% (6% + 0,9%) blatantly racist anti-EU populists. A separate group of about 6% strongly anti-EU and anti-immigration who pretend not to be racists at all (I believe most of them are fuelled by some kind of xenophobia, but I also don't believe in Kantian necessity of good intentions - as long as they say they are not racist and actively denounce the "real" racists, I'm fine). That adds up to 13% hard EU-sceptics. This number is indeed up from about 7% in the previous parliament. I'll leave it to you to decide if it's an earthquake. I would put the probability of UKIP not being able to keep the EFD party group at 50% (due to the limitation of minimum 7 countries among constituent parties). On the other hand, the Tories will likely find that even though their own influence has diminished, their party group will very slightly increase their seats if the EFD group blows up. I consider the EAF pretty much a fait accompli, which would put France's FN as this election's big winners - no surprise to anyone who has followed the news perhaps. This in spite of that the EAF will be even more toxic than the EFD of last parliament. The UKIP might be in for a very, very cold shower however. Even if they land this, they will need a lot of new parties to compensate for the ones who have been voted out from the EP, and the ones who jump ship from the EFD. A failure will be a death sentence to any influence the UKIP would have had in the EP - in spite of increasing their seats by more than 50% they will lose overall influence. It is very ironic that as British sympathies are drifting towards UKIP and away from the Tories, and as the failed common currency project needs reform or dismantlement (which the UK would be crucial in pushing for), the British influence in the EP will be at an all-time low. Meanwhile, Germany is the bedrock upon which the two big party groups (who together hold over 50% of the seats) rest. In an ideal alternate universe, the Tories would never have left the EPP and 50% of the British would have voted conservative in the current EU election, and only then voted UKIP in British parliamentary elections if they really hated the EU. That would have left the Tories at the helm of the EU's largest political faction and in the most powerful position of any European political movement to negotiate solutions to the problems of the Union. You can never assume that the voter collective, or even the parlamentarians, are capable of these meta-perspectives though. It's funny that as the British UKIP voters complain about not having influence in the EU, voting for UKIP (depending on the future of the EFD) might turn out to be the worst possible way to project British interests in the EP.

I've been thinking more about this, and Gunman Chronicles is IMO somewhere in between Half-Life and Unreal 1 in terms of both gameplay and atmosphere.

Russia Today: http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/%D1%81anada-minister-defense-ufo-959/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK6I8DpR9EA http://youtu.be/iAosF8TrOU0?t=4m58s http://rt.com/shows/larry-king-now/ufo-alien-roswell-621/ And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Nobody's saying Fox News isn't biased (obviously), or that any news source is perfect. But there are degrees of bias. When talking about Ukraine, how often do RT have US/EU/Ukrainian representatives on air to tell their view on the situation? Not often, I can tell you that. Contrast this with AJ's reporting on the I/P conflict where there is always a Jewish Israeli person in every debate, for example. RT is often just sheer crackpotism as shown above.

That's funny, I also replayed Unreal 1 the other week. I'd say there are very few modern games which fit you criteria, if I were you I'd rather go further back in time. Ergo, play Doom 1, Doom 2, Blood and Shadow Warrior. None of these have either the soundtrack or the "alien planet exploration" themes of Unreal, however. Possibly also Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 1 and 2 - when I think of it, Jedi Knight:Dark Forces 2 is probably one of the most similar games to Unreal 1 I can come up with, both with respect to level design and sci-fi theme. If you don't want to play more modern games, you might want to try Undying. That game has a rather good level design, and you really get a feeling of exploration.

The elections are a month away. The insurgency in eastern Ukraine is a convenient method for dismissing the election results by Russia, to be honest. This is of course the other way to look at Eastern Ukraine today - not that the dire situation is due to lack of elections, but that the postponement of elections is due to the dire situation. For all practical purposes I would adopt the former approach myself if I was an Ukrainian statesman, though. Nope. I'm pretty much watching this matter from a bird's perspective. Yes but, a referendum... on what? Independence? Federalization? The Constitution doesn't allow for that—the indivisibility of Ukraine is promulgated throughout the document and amendments to the Constitution aimed at "violating" this indivisibility are explicitly forbidden. There is no such thing as a territorial referendum either, only an All-Ukrainian referendum that must be called on by the President and approved by a 2/3 majority of the Rada, complicating things even more; it's not just the government in Kiev that must be willing to resolve this by casting ballots, it's a majority of politicians and people in Ukraine. Hey, you know what. Call this guy and tell him the American Revolutionary War was unconstitutional. You might have noticed that the lawful government was overthrown recently. I bet that wasn't entirely constitutional. Anyways, this reminds me of the "Lawful Stupid" trope. If the President and the Rada wanted to, they could declare a carrot the King of Ukraine. This is only a matter of the legitimacy, as perceived by the public, of the decision. Who will be angry if a referendum is held? It would (I'm being Captain Obvious now) be a problem if Yanukovich had held a referendum on the independence of the Donbass region, because the ethnic Ukrainian factions would be upset. But since they are in charge now, the complaints of unconstitutionality would be greatly mitigated. That said, it's very unlikely they would ever do this, but it would certainly be my advice to them. No, it wouldn't legitimize the Crimean referendum. The state might imprison people which it considers criminals. If you imprison somebody you consider a criminal, you are likely deemed a criminal yourself. In similar fashion, the state might arrange for a referendum to be held. You might not initiate a referendum yourself for the formal independence of your living room. Anyway, this doesn't really matter to any sensible person. I understand nationalistic Ukrainians wants Crimea to be Ukrainian (for some reason...), but really, they are better off this way.

It's a tough problem to solve, but in the end I think some kind of regulation is needed. But really, the best way would be to make visiting an enslaved prostitute so socially abhorred nobody would do it.

The best way to end this conflict in the current situation is in my mind to hold a referendum in Eastern Ukraine. The Kiev government need to push for this and the moderate movements need to restrain the extremists from the Right Sector. So they have organized a "National Guard" which is not part of the regular army? This is baaad news. Way better is to send the regular army to negotiate, and if they won't fire at rebels, then that is all for the better. The more violence we get, the more we will destabilize the region. The stupid Ukrainian nationalists probably don't realize they are just playing into Putin's hands by trying to quash the rebellion with force. But really, what Ukraine would need first before caring about Eastern Ukraine is new elections in the entire country. A violent situation complicates that. Who knows, had they pushed to hold elections earlier we might have avoided this entire crisis in Eastern Ukraine.

I leave the discussion for a few days and when I'm back you're discussing superhero showdowns? Not even fighter jet dogfights, or tanks, or submarines... I am disappointed

You know how orange juice and toothpaste really don't go well together? Well, yesterday I found out to my surprise that it works pretty much the other way for cognac. Having a sip of cognac after you've brushed your teeth works great (no questions). You learn something new every day.

The correct way of writing what you was trying to say is then for example "South Korea is probably the only one in your list lacking political commitments with the know-how and industrial potential to do it". There, now you know so you won't have to do the same mistake next time. It's always easier to argue with people who can at least write logically coherent sentences to formulate their arguments. As for political commitments... If you think that Germany and Japan are really fundamentally incapable of producing a nuclear deterrent if there should be any need to do so because they wrote that they wouldn't on a piece of paper, I think you're the Neville Chamberlain of the Obsidian Boards and not me (as was posited by another forum member in an earlier thread). The fall of the Soviet Union had to do with two things: One, the democratic nations was much more prosperous and less oppressive in general, which fuelled skepticism against Communism. Two, the increase in openness under Gorbachev. Why do you think so many Russians voted for non-Communist parties in their first elections? Why didn't the newly freed nations become Communist? I'm not talking about an "economic crisis". I'm talking about the fact that it is impossible to keep people under an authoritarian regime which is control of all the wealth (and buys guns for it) when they can peek outside and see how the other side has things better. And since the SU had a much smaller economy to begin with, the were forced to pay a larger part of their budget for their weapons. Buying weapons for all your cash, having an repressive one-party state and opening up domestic debate and foreign connections is an impossible equation. The SU wanted to have military parity with NATO, while at the same time (under Gorbachev) opening up. Reagan's politics of stepping up that competition ("Star Wars" politics) would have been entirely meaningless without Gorbachev's reforms. Hell, if it wasn't for Gorbachev, the SU would probably still exists as a North Korea-like closed state today. Obviously it's stupid to maintain that the collapse of the Soviet Union was due to an arms race only. North Korea proves that this is wrong - without any opening up, an escalation of the arms race will only serve to make their population poorer. But a continued arms race sucking money out of the SU TOGETHER with the opening up of their society proved very effective. People realized they were poorer than necessary, and that the Communist regime was spending it all on weapons (15-25% of GDP, I think). Will you think for a second before you write, please. If the entirety of Europe had subscribed to the faulty theory that whatever military arms you had-means-power, then yes, they would have been a very appropriate counterweight. As it is, the SU spent much more of their GDP (see above) on military than European NATO countries. However, they did NOT subscribe to that faulty theory, but counted on the US as well. Accordingly, they could spend less of their GDP on arms and more on development and consumer products. And thus it came to be that Western Europe became wealthier than the Soviet Union. Haha, actually I did not miss the "if" at all. It was just such a bizarre statement. *makes serious face* "Only history will tell if Vanilla Ice will be up there with Mozart, Bach and Beethoven in the future" Yeah. Dream on. We don't know about 2114 Russia, but we do actually know about 2014 Russia, which makes your question so laughable.

No, it's the other way around. The big nations which don't have their own nuclear arms do so because they currently are happy the way things are. If it should come to pass that Germany should want to withdraw from NATO or Japan cut ties to the US, they will build their own nukes, guaranteed. Until then, they can save the "nuke bill" to invest in development and tax breaks instead. Don't mistake "generally agreeing with someone" for "following someone's lead". What could, say, Germany want to do which might exclude them from NATO? You use such exaggerations - "international yes-man". For them, it's very convenient to enter an alliance where somebody already has nuclear arms. What could they possibly disagree with NATO so much on that they should want to withdraw? They are not a "satellite state" because of that. You talk as if it would be natural for any nation to have routine disagreements with other nations which could be so serious as to destroy a military alliance. For me, it's impossible to think of anything Germany could to within reason which might force them out of NATO. No. I'm saying that GDP is the best (simple) measure of peace-time power. Power is not tied in any way to military spending, other than military spending is tied to nuclear deterrence. Now on the other hand if we want to measure war-time power, the nations with high GDP have much more spending power than the others. It only happens to be so that certain nations are now, in peace, paying a fortune to equip their armies to be ready for a war tomorrow when there won't necessarily be one, "puffing themselves up". It's not circular reasoning - it's a statement (about GDP and power), then an argument for why the percentage of military spending right now is irrelevant. I'm afraid you misunderstood entirely what I meant by a "defensive weapon". I meant that nuclear weapons are primarily used as a deterrent, not as a weapon which would really help you conquer any other nation. In using nuclear weapons, you are necessarily also destroying what you set out to conquer. I think that the primary use of nuclear weapons historically has been to deter attackers rather than assist in conquest - I would call that defensive usage. But you're right, nuclear weapons could be used as an offensive weapon in my sense of the word if you're only after strategic resources, and not conquering a foreign nation. It's hard to remember exactly where my old posts are (and it's starting to be hard following this discussion), but the "prospective great powers" with regards to the current situation are Japan and Germany. If you absolutely don't understand how they can build a credible nuclear arsenal you are free to study engineering physics and learn what is needed to make atomic bombs, rocketry et.c. yourself. I see you got confused here again. I'll make the corrections for you: "Suppose X is a great power (by Rostere's definition) that doesn't have nuclear weapons, but is still protected by nuclear weapons. X therefore doesn't need nuclear weapons itself to be a great power because own nuclear weapons does not change X' status regarding protection by nuclear weapons" Think now. Think carefully and deeply. The above is not an argument for why my exact definition of "great power" is a sensible one. It's an argument for why owning nuclear deterrence is not a requirement for being a great power. Ever more I get the feeling that you might not know what my original point was even about: "The obvious flaw is that you are still not giving a concrete definition of what makes a great power outside of GDP, and are not showing any evidence to back this point". You see, this chain of posts started when I said I think GDP was the best reliable way of measuring power. It has never been my purpose to give a definition outside that. I don't intend to present any more "evidence" for that than my own reasoning, but mostly (as you've seen) been arguing against what others have said. Hmm. See above. No, but you know, I assumed that was you was trying to say, because your original statement would be pointless otherwise. "seeing how they lack the ability to train submariners anymore, the suggestion that they can become a nuclear power is... interesting." If the Ukrainians say that they have no qualified submarine crew, how do they get more? Train them, obviously. Where did the first submarine crew ever come from? I can tell you for sure that submarine crew are not a finite resource that can never be regained once it is lost. If you admit they did not lose the ability to train submarine crew forever, then there is obviously no obstacle there.

But it is not I who has a Saudi Arabia-view on power, it is you. By looking at military, KSA is poised to grab a top 5 spot in the coming years if they continue like this. This will in my opinion however not upset the balance of the world much. It is you who is saying that "Buy moar guns, bigger tanks, fancier jets" (military strength) equals power. In my mind, military power is useful as a deterrent, but it's not much you can do in peacetime with a gun to increase your standing in the world that won't backfire. In my mind, it is firstly important with military deterrence (nuclear weapons) and secondly with a qualitative edge. As long as you have a nuclear deterrent, it might not matter if you always upgrade your entire aircraft fleet every time you develop new aircraft models. In peacetime, the only purpose of war materiel is deterrence. If you buy too much stuff, and there is no war, you will have wasted your money. Which grand strategy games have you been playing? Secondly, I'm not obviously talking wartime. I'm talking build-up to war. We're talking 21st century nuclear war. There's not going to be much attention paid to building weapons during the war after the first strike. The next great war like any other will be resolved by the boots on the ground, like all the wars before it. I think you bought too much in to the American war propaganda or Discovery shows as they are called. You simply cannot win a war from the air. That has been shown time and time again in the 21st century wars conflicts. Also you presume too much about the capabilities of either Russia or the US, people here seem to think that the whole war capabilities of a country can be found out on the internet. That is either precious or stupid, I can't decide yet. During the Cold War, the US had around 2000 warheads (not missiles) ready for launch on short notice (so consider that a minimum armament of any nation in the event of an escalation to WW3). The population of the 200 largest US cities is around 78 million, compared to the total population of about 320 million. It's a very reasonable assumption that an absolute minimum of 33% of the US population would die immediately in the event of a nuclear strike of reasonable magnitude. Considering the US urban population (just look how grouped up they are! Like lambs to the slaughter for a fleet of MIRVs...) is about 80% of the total population, it probably wouldn't be hard to kill something like 70% on a first strike. Targets to maximize civilian casualties and general collapse of society also include nuclear power plants. About 25% of the power on the US grid comes from 65 nuclear power plants, situated here. The worst nuclear catastrophe that has ever happened was at Chernobyl, and that will likely seem tame compared to what would happen if you actively blow up (for example with a nuke) a plant with several reactors. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone looks like this (note the image scale). It's safe to say that significant parts of the Eastern US would be made uninhabitable. The effects of radiation in the immediate aftermath will probably kill a lot more. Please read this paper for the prospect of China dropping the (relatively speaking) tiny amount of 20 4 Mt bombs on the US (page 14 onwards). What do you think will happen to the dollar in the event of a war? What do you think will happen to the US economy when the urban population is literally turned to ashes? Regardless of what will happen afterwards in the war, the US will likely never return as a big player on the international scene. The nations who don't participate in the war will be left laughing, as they will rule what's left of the world uncontested. There will be nothing left to fight for. (The US was used as an example "target nation", the reasoning would be similar for any target) And I guess this is where you and your "boots on the ground" come in: "Boots on the ground"? Come on. You are being incredibly naïve. By the point you would deploy infantry (or ground forces in general), the nation the soldiers would fight for has already ceased to exist for all practical purposes. I know you might have fought glorious battles with little green toy soldiers when you were a kid. But like naïve people like you in the past failed to take into account the crossbow, the musket, the rifle, the machine gun, poison gas and strategic bombers by wishful thinking future war will not be what your grandfather told you about. What are you going to conquer? What are you going to occupy? Any infantry force would be fighting starvation and radiation more than fighting the enemy. And that is in home territory. That is why the next "real" war will be fought by firstly ICBMs, nuclear damage mitigation, nuclear submarines, strategic stealth bombers, next by hangar ships and fighter/bomber jets and drones, and whatever is left after that likely won't be very important. But I'm not primarily talking about what you will do during wartime. Indeed, when the actual war has begun there is probably little to nothing you can do in the terms of building anything much. See my comment above. Yes, crises are quite easy to foresee. Just look at history and you will see a gradual worsening of relations before almost any war. Nobody can know the exact date, but that's not often very important. Also, one of the really great aspects of nuclear deterrence is that you don't need to be able to kill 100% of another country's population. If you're able to kill 20% or 30%, that is often enough to convince other nations (and humanity in general) that war is bad. The thing is that GDP IS the most sensible measure of power during peacetime. Possibly so important that other factors (with the granularity in GDP differences among the 10 biggest countries) are often negligible. Military power, except for nuclear deterrance, is pointless to measure during peace. So if we are ranking countries by military strength, we are doing so with the assumption of a war. But it is often far more likely we will have peace than war, and in any modern war the warring countries would just take each other pretty much out of the equation. You shouldn't exaggerate the difficulty of these projects, really. Nevertheless, I never said that you should let go of producing new weapons systems. On the other hand, it's in peacetime not generally worth it to equip an entire ideal wartime army with every new system you build. You know, that was the point I was arguing against when you entered the discussion I understand that you decide what you want to argue for or against, but it is very helpful that you clarify your stance before jumping in. If you criticize one part of a statement I might assume you are entirely against it all.

The problem as I see it is the winner-takes-it-all twists in the elections, more specifically the elections for Congress and for President. The function of the Senate when comparing to current and historical second legislative chambers is to represent the constituent states on equal footing, to prevent secession due to perceived "tyranny of the majority". A lot of democracies in Europe do not have a second chamber, probably mostly due to the fact that many countries here are less diverse than the US, so there is no risk for secession or civil war. If you do want a second chamber, then I think the US Senate is probably (as I see things) doing the job right. Electing a President could be viewed as being somewhat problematic. If we assume that political opinions can be placed on a right-left scale (not at all a perfect model, but rather close to the truth for our purposes here), then by game theory there will only ever be two logical alternatives for the voter - which is indeed true for any winner-takes-all vote in general with that assumption. A presidential election vastly increases the power of the national majority which chooses the president - they get an entire presidential administration, while the 49% or so who didn't vote for that alternative get nothing. If you think that is good, then I guess the system is fine. This system is probably working as intended, but in my opinion this design is likely suboptimal. Remember this system was created ages ago, when other people would laugh at the US and ask themselves who would rule the country if there was no king. The really stupid part in my opinion is how elections to the US House of Representatives work. We've already made clear the Senate represents the constituent states on equal footing, and the President represents a national majority. Naturally, we would expect the House of Representatives to represent the will of all the people, which is the role of the first chamber or "lower house" in most democratic countries. Indeed, I would argue that representing the will of the people with basis in the principle that two votes have double the power of one vote, that power is proportional to the number of votes, is the single by far most important aspect of democracy. Surprisingly, the US House of Representatives is arranged based on principles a bit similar to the US Senate. Representatives are chosen with basis in who won in arbitrarily drawn "districts", but with number of representatives divided between states based on population. Naturally, this is going to create a lot of wasted votes. In the end we get a system in which game theory predicts completely whacked-out results. If party X would receive, say, 7% nationwide but not more than 50% (the needed percentage in this example) in any single district, they would get zero representation. Your vote counts differently depending on where you live - it would be completely rational behaviour to move to a place where people think like you politically, if you get fed up of throwing away your vote in every election. It encourages politicians to redraw districts in their own favour. Logically (in an extreme case), as long as you have as many voters as you have candidates, you can redraw districts in a state to win you all possible places in the HoR except one. If we make the restriction that districts have to include an equal number of people, assume 100 people of which 50% vote for party A and 50% for party B, you can in an extreme case redraw districts so that party A wins 8 districts and party B only 2. This is, to put it mildly, the most stupid electoral system I've seen in any democratic country. It's no wonder people get cynical when this is their reality. If you asked me, I couldn't design a better system to make the maximum number of votes meaningless. Naturally, winner-takes-all systems is also heaven for lobbyists and special pressure groups, but I don't need to tell you that. On the other hand, if the US simply woke up one day, realized it's the 21st century and made all election results completely proportional to voters, not proportional to arbitrarily drawn districts, then I think they could have a nice democracy. So on the good side, the problem is not that difficult to fix in theory.

I like the idea, even though after playing 'Dawn of War II', I have hard time to imagine how Ja-styled game can top that :/ In either case you are little late to the party, Slitherine already working on that. They made Panzer corps 2 a good ww2 game, but I am not sure if something like that would work for me with wh40 . I thought Slitherine's game was more a TB strategy game in the style of Rites of War?

Well, that is one of the fuzziest definitions of a Great Power I've ever seen. By that measure dear little New Zealand is a Great Power, we're friends with everyone. But no, it's a great POWER, not a 'great friend'. It's never ever been a niceness competition, furthest thing from it. Of course, those in the Great Power itself or in their sphere usually think that their term as such is Different and they've got to their position using sweet reason, kindness and generosity. May happen some time in the future, but it's never happened any time in the past or present. You misunderstand my words intentionally. I have not given my definition of a "great power" in the quoted section. I have on the other hand done so further above, where I wrote that I consider the five largest economies "great powers". I know you're a logical and intelligent person. I'm sure you understand as well as I that if I write "the more friends you've got, the stronger you are", that does not mean that if you are maximally friendly (if we presume such a concept exists) with every other nation, you are the most powerful nation, or a "great power". Only that you are better off than you would have been otherwise. Haha. But they didn't all go bankrupt, now did they? It seems you're on the threshold of understanding how the system works. But you seem confused over who is the dog, and who is the tail. Who benefits the most from the current system? Those are in effect the guarantors of the purchasing power of the dollar, they will likely do everything in their power to keep the system in place, not crash it to the ground and lose it all. In the US, current arrangements favour the really big banks. In Russia - well, read for yourself. Also, you can't directly compare a banking system to an economy. Those are two different things. The US is not "relying" on their central banking system in the same (or even in a comparable) way that Russia relies on petroleum products. But sure, we can discuss central banking systems, more specifically the American and Russian one, and what makes a central banking system a "house of cards". I'll reply to this once but if you feel like discussing this further you might want to start a new thread. The most crucial point is that the worth of a currency is measured by the ability of the issuer to keep down future inflation. This really just means that you're more inclined to accept payment in a currency which other people will later accept as payment (with reasonable inflation adjustments/exchange rates) in the future (if we have to take into account people not accepting the currency at all, that is just infinitely high inflation mathematically speaking). Artificially pegging the value of a currency to a commodity (such as gold) by using a central bank as a guarantor for exchanging the currency for the commodity (at a variable or a fixed rate) is one way to handle inflation. This was how things were typically done in the early part of the 20th century. I'll refrain from discussing the problems with these older systems here, if they are not evident. To sum things up so far, if you accuse the US of being "recursive" in this regard, Russia is no better. You will note that the Russian central banking system is more centralized, and more under the control of the government than the US one, although neither system can be truly said to be 100% private or public. My guess is that you accuse the US system of being broken because the banks are able to make a profit from the current system, off the government and by extension the tax payer, seemingly for no reason at all. Please don't conflate that with shaky "economic might" or purchasing power of the dollar! The system might have drawbacks in one aspect, but working perfectly and as intended in other ways. Even if the government will not exchange your dollars for gold, you will always be able to buy shares in American stock markets for your dollars, at market rates. As long as you know that 1) You can always buy good stuff for your dollars (US shares, oil and (generally, because people in the US tend to accept dollars as payment) US-made products) 2) The central banking system will not run amok and inflate your dollars, all is good. Now if there is one lesson to be learned from economics, it's that private central banking systems are better at handling inflation than state-run ones. I'll not go into that further in this thread since it's a BIG subject and my POV is the general consensus anyway, but start here if you want to inform yourself. Now back to Russia. What can you always buy for rubles? Russian shares on the Moscow stock market. Perhaps Russian gas in the future, if Putin should decide to sell it in rubles instead of dollars. Compare inflation here and here (with starting point of 2000 chosen to align with the start of Putin's presidency). Now think about this: You are a company which buys commodity X. You can buy commodity X for either rubles or dollars (at the exact same price if we take into account exchange rates). Which currency do you want in your bank account - the one which loses approximately 1,5% in value each year, or the one which loses approximately 6% in value each year? Hint: the answer is the dollar. The ruble will need firstly and most importantly a lower inflation forecast and after that exclusivity on more commodities to challenge the dollar. The only thing you're right about is the sub-optimal state of the American government's economy. The big banks will bleed the government of every last dollar they can get, but this will not have any serious adverse effect for US global economic power until it should destroy the long-term outlooks for American stock markets because of resulting increased taxes. Let's see if American companies are footing a heavy bill right now... Right, they don't. Now, of course the current system nibbles away at the American federal budget, but that is how capitalism works. Until there is a significant tax hangover, we know there is no danger and we can conclude the banks are playing on the safe side, which they in the long-term have all economic incentive in the US to do.

Sorry, but it's you who seem to be conflating 21st century warfare with the 20th century warfare. You're like a French officer in 1914 rambling about fencing and horsemanship skills gained in Africa. There hasn't been a significant war since WW2, but the technology has evolved exponentially. The next significant war will not be decided by methods of warfare that have been outdated for 50 years or more. The "experience" you talk of will be worth next to nothing, because there is really no "experience" that's been had recently which could be useful (the closest would perhaps be dogfights between American and export-model Soviet fighter jets during the Cold War) in preparation for 21st century warfare - nuclear warfare. The next real war will be decided by things such as this, this, this, and this. In order to win in that arena, you need technological edge and superior production capabilities in the build-up, the latter of which can be assumed has a maximum potential linearly dependent on GDP. If you don't have enough warheads, build more for your money. If you don't have enough factories, buy more factories. You'll have one nuclear sub today and 10 tomorrow. If things are suddenly looking grim, a rich, advanced country can buy military equipment in no time (US in WW2) when a country which constantly bets all the budget on a war tomorrow will find their economy lagging behind in the long run (SU in the Cold War). You talk about conflating wartime and peacetime economies, but listen to this: the war has already begun. It's a war called "peace", and the war goal is to increase your wealth and productivity so you can better prepare for war later. There's not going to be a major war tomorrow. Using war capabilities to determine power in the world is therefore unrealistic. Of course, it's also not true that power is solely due to economy, but it is by far the best measure of power we have. Any realistic build-up to war would happen over several years. Especially in this nuclear age, things have to really go to hell before a real war occurs. Secondly, "advanced foreign weapons systems", "buy expensive toys abroad". I never wrote that you should necessarily buy technology from abroad. Where does this assumption come from? Yes. That was also the reservation I mentioned. But this is all beside the point, really. What I argued against was that possessing a nuclear bomb made you a "great power". Also - "unless they are part of a major military alliance, which makes the point moot". I'm assuming you are referring to your point? Sigh. You are completely and utterly missing the point of what I was trying to say. This is looking like some very embarrassing confusion on your part. Remember: I was originally saying that it doesn't matter much for your status if you actually have a nuclear weapon, as long as you are friends with someone else who has. Therefore, the fact alone that you have nuclear weapons, or nuclear submarines, or ICBMs, does not make you a "great power". Furthermore I claimed that this is neatly underscored by the great number of countries who have not built nuclear arms but who could technologically do so without much effort. Now, what does this last sentence have to do with how probable it is that a nation constructs nuclear weapons right now? If I am right, it means that countries allied with or closely aligned to nuke countries will have no need to, and be very unlikely to, develop nukes of their own. ESPECIALLY, it is important to consider countries which otherwise from a technological POV would have the ability to relatively easily build their own. The nuke is a defensive weapon which makes invasion infeasible because of MAD. There are no other status, prestige, or power gains to having nuclear weaponry. None. Nada. Zilch. So if you already have MAD, you don't need nukes. Now it would diminish your power if you truly were fundamentally incapable of constructing nuclear weaponry on your own, but the list of countries which could build nukes is far longer than the list of prospective "great powers", so no problem there. Yes. And the fact that these powerful and influential countries have signed papers telling the world they do not intend to produce nuclear arms (in exchange for implicit or explicit protection under other nations' nuclear umbrellas) perfectly underscores my point. The point of nuclear weapons is MAD. Now if they have MAD without having nuclear weapons, does nuclear weapons change their status as a great power? Answer: No. Thus it is theoretically possible for a great power to not have nuclear weapons, when it in reality functionally obviously makes no difference for their status, ESPECIALLY when they could construct nukes on a whim if they direly needed to. Well... Duh? Your suggestion that Ukraine magically and forever lost the ability to train submarine crew "anymore" is... interesting. Yes, because Japan and Germany clearly do not have the know-how and industrial potential to do it. Do you even think a second before you write stuff? Exactly. It's good that you are providing illustrations of my points in your post so that I don't have to do it. Although at this point I do wonder if you had the faintest idea about what my argument was to begin with. Why do you think the SU collapsed in the end? "Gajillions of dollars on paper" meant everything back then, specifically it meant the end for the SU as it imploded while trying to keep even pace with the US. Not only do I claim that Russia is not a very powerful because of economic reasons, I also claim that back in the days the SU were powerful because of these economic reasons. SU had the second largest GDP, which is to say the second largest production potential in the world, thus they were the second most powerful country. You should frequent Wikipedia more often and read more about history. It would do you good with a more learned perspective. Meanwhile, other forum members can collect especially outrageous and embarrassing posts to show for your future self.

Sorry for taking so long time to reply. I hope you will bear with me when I reply to week-old posts. See, this is exactly the kind of sentiments I'm talking about. You think that just because an extremist clique which were prominent during the protests are represented in government, that means Russia must "punish" Ukraine. This kind of primitive instincts is some residue from when we were cavemen and fighting dangerous animals. It doesn't work with nations and governments. Putin dislikes the Ukrainian government. He claims to like the Ukrainian people. Thus, he wants to make things good for the Ukrainians, to show them his good intent. A party whose main issue is to be anti-Russian will look like idiots and be voted from office at first possibility if Putin had instead gave the Ukraine more support the crucial moments after the revolution. Ukrainian government. Ukrainian people. Two different things. That is what should be Russia's priority number one: seek support from the Ukrainian people to align Ukraine with Russia. Instead, in this darkest hour of the Ukrainian nation, they are doing their worst to make life hell for the inhabitants, the ordinary Ukrainians. "GRRH, Ukraine bad, punch Ukraine" Gas prices, invasions, threats, hate campaigns on Russian TV, you name it. It's not pretty and it's not subtle. Now think about what the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists have been saying all along, even since before the protests which triggered the revolution. They are saying that all Russia wants is to control Ukraine, Russia wants to oppress Ukrainians, and so on and so forth. Putin is playing into their hands! People will look at TV and then conclude "Gee, I guess those Svoboda crackpots were right about the Russians after all". Russia is falling into the same kind of trap on Ukraine as the US did with the Iraq sanctions during the nineties. You say that the wind will turn if the pro-EU parties' rule turns out to bring no economic relief. I'm afraid Russia might be in for a much worse situation in that case if they don't change their behaviour soon. If things turn to ****, Ukrainians will blame Russia for their woes and we will get a dolchstosslegende about how the Russian-aligned Yanukovich first sold out Ukraine, how Russian militias proceeded to destabilize and split the country and how Putin fought hard against their independence from Russia's sphere of influence. I enjoy your posts a great deal, Rostere, though I must point out that you should be careful with such claims. Geographical closeness does not translate to historical closeness and 20th century violence created a real right between Ukrainians and Russians (which is common for every country that was invaded and subjugated by the Soviet Union). Indeed, but I speak mostly of long-term potential due to their shared culture (which is due to geographical proximity), et.c. and not the current situation only. Is this a joke? The opposition forces signed a deal with Yanukovich which the EU brokered and then broke it, literally 15 minutes later, the ink on the signatures didn't even have time to dry. Are those the sort of people one can trust? Of course, that all based on the wrong presumption that they're actually choosing anything themselves when all they do is take their orders from Washingon and EU. Naturally Russia isn't going to sit idly by an let Ukraine be removed from its sphere of influence, because even half of Ukraine is better than no Ukraine. They're between a rock and a hard place. The revolution sets the stage for the acceptance of Ukraine into NATO which means that the missiles the US wants to place to threaten Russia can be placed close enough to render the Russian response system meaningless. Its like a prelude to a Cuban crisis. So they had to do something drastic and they're doing it. The EU/Washington is wholly to blame. When Yanukovich accepted Moscow's bailout deal they immediately organized a coup to bring him down. Washington doesn't accept the existence of Russian interests anywhere in eastern europe and does everything to push NATO ever more eastwards right up to Russia's borders. Europeans, in their infinite stupidity are playing along and antagonizing Russia for the sake of the US even though they themselves have no conflict with Russia, which isn't threatening them in any way. In fact what Washington and London fear most of all is the possibility of a tight alliance between Germany and Russia, so this whole crisis has the added benefit of souring the relations between the two countries. A serious German-Russian business and political alliance would throw the continent right out of US dominion. You do it as well. All this aggressive complete nonsense. "Naturally Russia isn't going to sit idly by", "So they had to do something drastic and they're doing it". It's laughable you know, how much you remind me of certain infamous American imperialists who have always chosen the "easy", quick, and violent solutions to imagined problems created by their imperialist mindset. Of course the US does not want to nuke Russia. (The missile defence systems in Russia are pretty much non-existent anyway, so I doubt that is even a factor) The Ukrainians are entitled to receive nothing from the Russians. This is not about that. This is about petty revenge born out of a mind which never left kindergarten versus sensible foreign politics. Just like the sanctions on Iraq during the nineties. Americans thought, "GRHH, Iraq bad, punch Iraq". What was the actual thought behind the sanctions? To garner American support in Iraq by robbing sick children of their medicines? Naturally, the sanctions instead turned out to be the greatest PR effort for anti-American movements in the ME in a decade. In the same fashion, Putin probably thinks right now: "Ha! What are the Ukrainians going to do now, eh? And I'll give them more of THIS if they continue to be so ****y!". The Ukrainians themselves are probably not going to think this is very funny when they can't afford to heat their houses, and they'll be very susceptible to anti-Russian propaganda. I'm not saying I don't lay any "blame" at the EU or the US. I haven't discussed or commented on their actions. I think you vastly misjudge the European response. People in Europe are in general very critical of Putin and his ridiculous buffoonery, but they are also sympathetic to the Russians in Crimea and critical of the Ukrainian extremists. I think in general that most EU governments have had a very balanced response to the crisis. The stupid responses come from people such as Victoria Nuland (who frankly should have been fired ages ago simply for being an incompetent moron) and Republican congressmen, who still think it's the Cold War, Russia is the big dangerous enemy and that the relation between the US and Russia is a zero-sum game where you always want the other part to have as little as possible. Essentially, the counterparts of Putin in the US. There is a stupid knee-jerk reflex among some people to oppose everything Putin does, "because it's still the Cold War, right?", but the dominant narrative is very balanced, giving first priority to the opinions of the Ukrainian citizens themselves, at least where I live.