Mor

Soooo nothing new from GDC...

Agreed. I can see that Israel would not want Russia (or China) to sell Iran AA. But they are already doing that, so nothing to do there. Other than that, there is little or nothing Russia could do which wouldn't backfire on themselves with catastrophic consequences. If Russia was caught arming terrorists "indirectly" (if that's what you're insinuating? Please elaborate!), there would be hell to pay. Actually, there are a lot of countries in Africa who voted "yes" who would be much more vulnerable than Israel if Russia decided to rock the boat. Are you insinuating that there are any countries in Africa who are more likely(not vulnerable) to be effected by such vote than Israel(Please elaborate which and why!). As if Israel hasn't been the focus of US/Russia proxy wars for decades and that increased US-Russian rivalry wouldn't lead to Russia lashing out against US interest, such as its current foreign effort in Israel\Syria\Iran, or by arming US\Israel adversaries. Anyway, here is an article from Jerusalempost, from the start of the Ukrainian crisis, which explained why they are going to sit on the sidelines through this conflict. Also a repost of the 'UN voting map against Russia annexation of Crimea' from the previous page. Which should at least help you visualize how insignificant they are in the context of this crisis and response to it.

Reporting for duty. (because despite tough talk, NATO isn't about to do anything about it anytime soon) Uhm we don't need more Pro-Russia self defense forces As for NATO, I am not sure what you expected it todo, I don't recall anyone(even the hawks)suggesting that direct action can be taken against Russian aggression. At the same time Russia acted in a convenient time for NATO, which has been downsized due 2008 recession and was likely to follow another downsizing after soon to be over Afghanistan campaign, while Russia iirc increased military spending almost two fold during the last four years, Russia acts of irredentism and test of test NATO and EU resolve in Ukraine and Georgia, and recent world leader impression of Putin nationalistic ambition come as wake up call to NATO and give it purpose. If the Russian economy is in trouble a year from now, something bad will have happened that has nothing to do with whats so far gone on in Ukraine/Crimea and the U.S. and EU's economy will be worse off. Of all the major nations in the world Russia's economy currently is probably the most insulated from global catastrophe, and the most self-sufficient. Barring some global catastrophe that hits pretty much everyone I except Russia's economy to do just fine. Too bad a friendly wager cannot be made, I do enjoy collecting on things such as this, and have a history of doing so from people I can look in the eye. Is this assumption based on facts, because from what I read Russia economy started Stagnating during Putin second term and haven't stooped since, with overall lower and lower predictions. Current Russian economic plan dictates that unless it change move from export oriented policy it will crash. Also according to this article the outward appearance of Russian seemingly healthy economy is sketchy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2014/01/23/russias-growing-regional-debts-threaten-stability/

Kyiv post, article titled "State Of War" Reports that tens of thousands of Russian troops and military hardware, including artillery, tanks, warplanes and helicopters are amassing and carrying out war games on all sides of Ukraine.

The problem with Russia recent liberation ponzi scheme is that Crimea dependent on the mainland for power and water. So now Putin is stuck with either provide that infrastructure or conquer/intimidate eastern part of Ukraine i.e. the large Russian force "training" on the border and the I understand he already ordered a new bridge to crimea (which will cost another 5 billion to Russian people, on top of the recent expanses in sochi. Considering that Russia economy goes down, IMO the more money he spends on this front and army, the better, less is left for much more important interest in Asia and less is left the fools who keep idolizing Putin) @KaineParker, What do you suggest, tell Putin that the 80s called and want their foreign poly back

Obama: Russia must pull back troops from Ukraine border The last bit from Obama should be amusing to anyone who followed those thread and oby like minded pals. I wonder how many times Obama will be pushing that reset button until he realize that, which is unfortunate because I can't think of any reasonable\effective way to deal with those trolls.

Previous threads: first, second Quick summary of the topic, for those of you who unfamiliar with it to get you started: Why is Ukraine in turmoil? Ukraine economy: How bad is the mess and can it be fixed? Why Crimea is so dangerous? How the crisis unfolded - timeline summary. Ukraine: UN condemns Crimea vote Analysis: Could Russia absorb eastern Ukraine? A nice summary of issues from US presepective on Russian rhetoric pre invasion: (covers a lot of issues discussed in thread #1 ) UK government's response to points made by President Putin in his address to the Russian Parliament on 17 March: (covers alot of issues in thread #2) Map of the area and list of previous conflict in the region involving Russian help:

It would be interesting to see a world map based on what we learned here.

Russia is in good company as usual. Et tu, Nicaragua? You don't understand all your "westerners" are slaves, biased crazy hypocrites, unlike the free minded humane people of Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe ... I suppose that Oby definition "independent" is a variant of teenage rebellion phase, with extra clueless. What I wanted you take from that post is the that soft power plays a much more significant role than direct military action i.e. the full scale war you keep referring to is extremely unlikely scenario (Even in Georgia\Ukraine where they had a much more favorable conditions they limited themselves easy grabs, and obviously the situation is very different), but if it was a full scale war I disagree that "that winner wouldn't be Russia". The second thing is that "Finland’s territory is large, and reserves are needed to protect a high number of vital industrial and societal infrastructure objects in all of Finland" reservist force is nice as long as you can bring to full readiness and deploy in time and be able to defend all critical infrastructure/production facilities.

Wonder what caused this shift in calendars. It doesn't have to be some power trip by some hegemony. When Caesar established his Julian calendar in 45 BC he set 25 March as the spring equinox. Since a Julian year (365.25 days) is slightly longer than an actual year the calendar drifted with respect to the equinox, such that the equinox was occurring on about 21 March in AD 300 and by AD 1500 it had reached 11 March, and this drift induced Pope Gregory XIII to create a modern Gregorian calendar. Cultural influence, like the Vailian names that sipped into Dyrwood culture from its neighbor Vailian colony?

Here is the list of countries that voted "no", this list is relevant because it shows the type of governments that think that the Crimea annexation was acceptable. You'll notice most of them are dictatorships and some of the most corrupt and inefficient governments in the world. Shame poor Russia and the company it keeps . Russia must be frustrated that China didn't vote "no" but instead chose to abstain "The 11 that opposed the resolution were Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe" I presume you are going for the "show me who your friends are and i will tell you who you are" considering your previous post: My only conclusion is that either you ignore or unaware of the geopolitical situation of Israel and its relation with Russia. Which tend to show its displeasure by advanced arm sales and support for local unstable regimes.

There is little doubt that if there is war between Russia and Finland that winner wouldn't be Russia, but we spoke about military consequences and those would be heavy for Russia and to "liberate" as you put Finland they would actually need put quite lot effort behind their attack which would be expensive in monetary and loss of life wise that end result of such victory isn't worth of such investment. Making offense too expensive is the main idea behind Finnish defense strategy, not actually win wars against over 20 times larger countries. And one thing should be remembered when we speak about size of Finland's territory is that most of it is uninhabited forests (71,6%), lakes (about 10%, and there are 188 788 lakes around country), fjelds and tundra. which means that area that need to be defended is actually quite small, although it's fragmented all around country that effective defense is actually question of mobility and deployment instead of man power, albeit that Finland has deep reserve of over million soldier addition of its active soldiers and readiness reserve. And Finland's arsenal is much more modern than what Georgia has and Finland don't have territories that identify themselves more Russian than Finnish, which mean that there aren't such inner conflicts that Russia could exploit for its advantage, like it did in Georgia and Ukraine for example. Its important to understand that soft power plays much larger role in geopolitical struggle than direct military action, in our case it took Russia several years to prepare the ground for their little ponzi scheme of liberation, with military action playing a minor part in sealing a already done deal. As for Finland military strength I don't want to argue this tangent topic, so here is a quick Google for you: The Development of Russian Military Policy and Finland Series take special note of the last few paragraphs in the executive summary.

Those are all PC and then I don't understand what you meant by none of them is next gen. Sarex is right, platforms are such things as PC, xBox, PlayStation etc. While Windows, OSX and linux mostly run on PC, they are just as different development platforms as the consoles. The only difference is that PC has a similar control scheme and thus only need their code ported, while consoles will also requires some game mechanics adapted.

Exactly, as far as "hardcore" gaming goes, you'd have to limit yourself to a simple input scheme or device, complex moves can be very disorientating and only giants such as SONY\MS can push enough units to make it worth while to buy a several hundred gadget. Though it might get picked by various niche communities to complement other gadgets e.g. flight\race simulators.

That it will be another overpriced gadget mostly for consoles, that will support only "next gen" games.

There would be military consequences even if Finland don't join in NATO, as Finish Defense Forces are well equipped and it has quite large number soldiers to put front of hostile forces... you might have some nice sticks and stones, but I think that you grossly over estimate Finland strength and ability to push back the Russian bear with it. Overall you country peace time standing force is little larger then the one in Georgia, but with five time the territory and just as unfortunate large front. So if Russia decide to "liberate" some of your territory I have no doubt how it would end. You mean this report: The Baltic states are part of NATO so any move there will require NATO to respond or pack and go - so I doubt that. But as for Eastern Ukraine, I wouldn't be too surprised if this was the plan from the start. Connecting all their recent "peace keeping" missions in the region.

you can also find a lot of extra details about pillar of eternity on the wiki http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/ For a second there I thought he asked what is the meaning of "pillars of eternity", I don't suppose the dev spilled the beans on this or the watcher mystery. Speaking of which, do we know he major "zero" event, which starts the calendar they keep referencing to?

In Finland NATO membership has been on table from founding days of NATO, as then USSR and now Russia had/have quite aggressive foreign politic and Russians have long history to invade to lands of Finland, which is why many people see that membership in NATO would give Finland extra protection against possible future aggression or at least make invading Finland less sensible thing to do. But on other hand Russia is Finland neighbour which Finland also has as long history of trade and cooperation as it has history of aggression from Russia, and Finland don't have best history with NATO countries either, as we have been in war with several of them, although only UK has ever attacked us (during Crimean war), I think. And in second world war, USA and UK (and some other NATO countries) gave their support for USSR and put heavy sanctions for Finland. Which why Finland is quite reluctant to join any military alliances. Of course there is also discussion how NATO membership will effect Finland's military spending and do Finland need to take part in NATO operations when it's a member. Although now it looks like that Russian's actions in Crimean may have given enough support for NATO membership that first time of history constitutional majority of Finland's parliament could support joining in NATO. On the other hand Cabinet of Finland is currently very indecisive (in all subjects, not only this), which probably means that current Crimean crisis will be over and new parliament have elected before there is even first version of bill written about subject. Unlike Sweden, I haven't seen any mention of Finland in this regard. Like I noted before, any NATO expansion into Russian perceived sphere of influence would require more than just couple of papers signed. As Russian actions in Ukraine (and Georgia) showed, with recent annexation being just the most recent action in a long campaign. Another alternative is just sit and wait. Like with Soviet expansion ~during Brezhnev time, which was fueled by soaring prices in the global energy sector and fell from grace as they fell, helped by looming costs of Afghan war. Same here Putin rise was fueled by energy sector (and leveling Chechnya), has been in a decline for a while(with new "friends" outside from Asia to Europe). IMO the best thing that can happen is that Russia make good on its promises and invest in that region, like Sochi Olympics monster expenditure which was a pretext to improve infrastructure and situation in the region, a strategic investment into the region situated between volatile North Caucasus(where Chechnya war took place), break away regions such as abkhazia(Georgia invasion) and now Crimea(Ukraine invasion). Which is great, except just like before such Nationalistic projects tend to divert money from the "mainland" draining the public pigy bank, which usually comes back to bite you in the ass when the economy wheel turns. As it happened before several times, with Russian western region which generally has higher life standards and education trying to break away from the Eastren part third world country conditions, which are far more amendable to old school Soviet style rule. Your cognitive dissonance continues to amaze me. First you dismiss Euromaiden issues -- a movement which followed the failure of 2004 orange revolution goals -- by ignoring it and after the brutal dispersal came by focusing on the trouble makers. Same with interim government --which was an Ukrainian compromise to resolve the crisis with great support on both sides-- by focusing on possible radical influences and what they might do (which came as nothing) and now that the authorities work against radical trouble maker elements that gained power during the turmoil, what you take from this is that :/ Btw for what it worth I actually thought that Yanukovych did a nice thing securing Russian loans by playing on 'joining the EU campaign' (as much as you can go right with a loanshark). Nevertheless he never solved the standing issues from 2004, making necessary unpopular reforms to deal with a stagnate economy, and instead of dealing with corruption, he appointed cronies from his close circle to those business groups that enjoyed special privileges (much like Putin in Russia), shooting on opposition activists was just the final act of his government delegitimization.

:/ My post has nothing todo with my position(which you can see on page3), but addressed a ridicules argument made by ravenshrike. It might help to step aside and look at another example: Saudi Arabia GDP is higher then that of Switzerland, but surely you will agree that it would be foolish to suggest that there is only one possible conclusion concerning its economical policy based on those hard numbers.. Just the same comparing hard numbers of crime rates between two countries(with disregard to contributing factor such as socio-economic situation in those countries) and extrapolating of what those crime rates (not necessarily firearm related) means on semi-auto firearm ban is just sorry, but I can't put it in any simpler terms...

NATO has been open to Swedish entry since about the end of the Cold War. Even before that though, there have been significant ties and (secret) military cooperation. I don't think that Sweden will enter NATO any time soon, though. It's honestly more likely that Finland joins NATO. What is likely though is a significant military rearmament in Eastern and Northern Europe. Additionally, I think we will see Central Asian nations drifting further away from Russia and closer to China and Turkey. I was referring to several news items that followed on the heels of Russian action in Ukraine, claiming that Sweden considered to revise its previous position on Nato membership. As for Finland, I am not familiar with situation there, but I suspect that it might be more complicated case like with any other state in Russia sphere of influence and further NATO enlargement. I doubt this action will have a significant direct effect on the current trend of Russian power in Central Asia one way or another. ( unlike the adverse effect on relations with Europe, or intervention in Syria effect on middle eastern countries). Btw this arena is one of the concerns of "westren" policy makers, that to harsh sanctions might disturb the balance of powers, leading Russia toward China.

There are worse places to be stuck. And new wave is good too. A lot of my favorite music is classified as that. Exactly and it works well for more than just for hyper days, there is nothing like a cheery song served with your morning cup of coffee. So keep them coming.

I can't imagine anyone writing this with plain face anything but a trollface. You guys have been making those assertion from the start, pretending as if someone is hiding the truth when it was in plain sight from the start; as if the affair was covered one sided, when Russia state media is the only one that showed completely one sided picture and was responsible to huge volume of claims that weren't substantiated anywhere else; and looking back it is Russia (and here oby and his peers) who have been pushing the Nazi/fascist angle first, worse using it in attempt to demonize and dismiss Ukrainian issues that surfaced with Euromaiden and not as relevant history lesson to analyse Putins Russia actions.

*sighs* it is not about who was right. If Valsuelm believes that in 2003 he had proof that there were no WMDs in Iraq or that in his expert opinion there was no justification to deal the way they did with a belligerent dictator who instigated two wars, a war criminal who has used WMDs in the past, and was in stand off with international community for over a decade, failing to fully comply what he signed on in his surrender agreement which covered WMD(I'd say burden of proof is on him); claiming that it is the same as Putin dipping into soviet cold war gamebook, doing exactly what he said in premeditated unilateral act of a bullying, with real estate grab blitz knowing all to well that his state news propaganda wont hold up in the international arena. Then let this hawk fly on the nationalistic\patriotic fumes he has been on for a while. I call it a cute attempt to mud the water with the same good ol' Look Who's Talking Routine, to deflect from the issue. @KaineParker, i'll reply soon, once i have more then couple of minutes for a post.

Your comment lends perfectly into "History tend to repeat itself", and the reason why the various ww2 and cold war parallels concerning Putin Russia and its actions are so relevant. You might want to read my previous post and about Brezhnev Doctrine I mentioned. Also I doubt those consecutive incident by Putin Russia will be forgotten, like in Georgia, I assure you that oby is going to rant about "western" bias well deserved attention to it for a long a while.

Funny, I wasn't aware I made any economic argument at that point, as oppose to recalling a long practice of trying to present Russian invasion in the most attractive way possible i.e. even though Putin have been crudely interfering and bulling those former USSR states for a while, stated that Russia will never tolerate Georgia and Ukraine choosing to become part of NATO(as if they have a say), and came up with old ww2 style BS pretext's borrowed from Brezhnev Doctrine, all of which happened in tight grouping in place where Russia perceived forces hostile to Russian polices took root(i.e. Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine). You --and I say you in very general terms because honestly "your" little Quintet rhetoric has been pretty much the same and hard to track-- have been going along with Russian state media cynical excuses and propaganda as if their farts smell of roses; deflecting or crap flinging against the designated enemy of Russia; and or implying as if Ukraine will be better off this way. For example as you just did in your previous post Also here is the post that I refereed to above, the memory was brought about by Valsuelm comment about "Russia isn't playing the great 'central banking / convert our nations into fiefdoms based on debt slavery' game that the Europeans and the U.S". Like I said "your" posts generally has the same theme and keep getting meshed together, which is why I wasn't sure which one of you made it or the specifics more commenting on the theme. Also the "economical" arguments or at least the tangent topic in which I mentioned them was Russia resemblance to Wiemar Germany (or if you wish cold war era Brezhnev, who like Putin fueled his expansion on literately fuel), Russia possible energy interest in Crimea as suggested by someone and Russian previous meddling in Ukraine since the Orange revolution - which you are welcome to address.