Global Implications of the Ukraine Crisis

[Malcador]

Was more of finding the prideful choice of language amusing rather than doubting your claim.  But then again, there are conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories.  Some are outlandish and easily countered, others aren't so or at the very least show a healthy suspicion.  Loose change for the former and Hastings for the latter, for examples.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Malcador

[Walsingham]

 

The point at which I'm arguing against 9/11 nutters is the point I go back to bed and rest.

 

Conspiracies do indeed happen. However, if you take the absence of evidence as evidence of a conspiracy then you're bat**** insane. Or a cretin. Take your pick. I'd personally recommend insane.

So you mean you're a lunatic or a reprobate if you assume a shadowy, and possibly fictional, organization is behind every atrocity with flimsy evidence(at best) to support that view?

 

 

I'm saying that if you take the logic that an absence of evidence is evidence of guilt then you may as well start burning witches.

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

The point at which I'm arguing against 9/11 nutters is the point I go back to bed and rest.

 

Conspiracies do indeed happen. However, if you take the absence of evidence as evidence of a conspiracy then you're bat**** insane. Or a cretin. Take your pick. I'd personally recommend insane.

 

So you mean you're a lunatic or a reprobate if you assume a shadowy, and possibly fictional, organization is behind every atrocity with flimsy evidence(at best) to support that view?

 

I'm saying that if you take the logic that an absence of evidence is evidence of guilt then you may as well start burning witches.

 

I'm always up for a good witch-burnin.

[Agiel]

 

 

The point at which I'm arguing against 9/11 nutters is the point I go back to bed and rest.

 

Conspiracies do indeed happen. However, if you take the absence of evidence as evidence of a conspiracy then you're bat**** insane. Or a cretin. Take your pick. I'd personally recommend insane.

So you mean you're a lunatic or a reprobate if you assume a shadowy, and possibly fictional, organization is behind every atrocity with flimsy evidence(at best) to support that view?

 

 

I'm saying that if you take the logic that an absence of evidence is evidence of guilt then you may as well start burning witches.

 

 

 

"[W]hat can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

-Christopher Hitchens

 

Speaking of Monty Python, given how Right Sector and Svobada are getting increasingly marginalised on the Ukrainian political scene I've yet to see claims that Mr. Hilter and his dicky old chums Heinrich Bimmler and Ron Vivventrop will arise in Kiev to launch their Nationalist Bocialist rallies come to fruition.

 

Edited April 10, 2014 by Agiel

[Sarex]

I'm saying that if you take the logic that an absence of evidence is evidence of guilt then you may as well start burning witches.

 

But then that isn't what he was saying was it.

[Zoraptor]

Well that's what Putin sort of wanted when he besieged the Ukranian military facilities on the Crimea and used human shield "self-defense forces" preceding their takeovers. I'd give the Ukrainian political and military leadership a little credit for not playing the Russian's game. The difference between now and Georgia 2008 was the fact that there was plenty of press in Crimea that exposed the "oppressed" Russian minority to be as belligerent and thuggish as the more militant demonstrators of the Euromaidan protests and further isolating Russia. I agree with Rostere; the Ukrainians playing the geo-political non-violent resistance card means Russia won a battle, but lost a war with Crimea.

 

 

Oh please.

 

80%, by the Ukrainians own figures, of their troops in the Crimea simply deserted to the Russians. If the Russians wanted a provocation they'd bloody well get one in exactly the same style that Adolf Hitler got one in 1939. But no, the Ukrainians played a magnificent hand with the vast majority of their troops deserting which, startlingly, was exactly what the Russians stated they wanted from the outset and exactly what actually happened. But we know better what they wanted because they're eeeevil Russians who want violence, it's in their blood :1080p roll eyes:

 

Again this is an example of the Scooby Doo Villain Russian caricature. That Putin, evil enough to invade Crimea! But hahaha, he never thought to stage a provocation for a wider incident because he was outwitted by our plucky heroes in Kiev using the Gandhi mantra! And he never thought to expel foreign media either, even if they spent 90% of their time talking to 12% of the Crimean population and taking pictures of the half dozen or so Ukrainian military who didn't defect! But he was even smart enough to state what he wanted defections and actually have that happen as a huge- what I like to call smokescreen of reality- so don't worry peoples, he's still actually a massive threat to our way of lives despite having a pathetic military and non existent economy...

 

Pretzel logic, ho hum, par for the course. Fortunately I'm as always immune to manipulation by people who push shadowy conspiracy theories :smug:

[Drowsy Emperor]

I don't know what the west expected to happen in Crimea, apart from using it now for anti-russian propaganda. The overwhelming majority of the people living there identify themselves as Russians and want to live in Russia. Crimea has long been a part of Russian history, but only a few decades in Ukraine and that only because Khrushchev had a guilty conscience and not due to any natural development. The likelihood of its defection to RF, considering the Russian military presence there was 99.9%. Ukraine's control over that territory post USSR break up was questionable at best.

 

I honestly did not expect the Russians to integrate Crimea so quickly because they always had over a million votes there for any candidate they chose in Ukrainian elections.

 

The fact that they did intervene speaks of how threatened they feel.

 

I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people, they swallowed the EU mantra hook line and sinker. They're never going to be a part of EU but they're going to be plundered now down to the last plot of land or piece of industry they have.

[Agiel]

 

Well that's what Putin sort of wanted when he besieged the Ukranian military facilities on the Crimea and used human shield "self-defense forces" preceding their takeovers. I'd give the Ukrainian political and military leadership a little credit for not playing the Russian's game. The difference between now and Georgia 2008 was the fact that there was plenty of press in Crimea that exposed the "oppressed" Russian minority to be as belligerent and thuggish as the more militant demonstrators of the Euromaidan protests and further isolating Russia. I agree with Rostere; the Ukrainians playing the geo-political non-violent resistance card means Russia won a battle, but lost a war with Crimea.

 

 

Oh please.

 

80%, by the Ukrainians own figures, of their troops in the Crimea simply deserted to the Russians. If the Russians wanted a provocation they'd bloody well get one in exactly the same style that Adolf Hitler got one in 1939. But no, the Ukrainians played a magnificent hand with the vast majority of their troops deserting which, startlingly, was exactly what the Russians stated they wanted from the outset and exactly what actually happened. But we know better what they wanted because they're eeeevil Russians who want violence, it's in their blood :1080p roll eyes:

 

Again this is an example of the Scooby Doo Villain Russian caricature. That Putin, evil enough to invade Crimea! But hahaha, he never thought to stage a provocation for a wider incident because he was outwitted by our plucky heroes in Kiev using the Gandhi mantra! And he never thought to expel foreign media either, even if they spent 90% of their time talking to 12% of the Crimean population and taking pictures of the half dozen or so Ukrainian military who didn't defect! But he was even smart enough to state what he wanted defections and actually have that happen as a huge- what I like to call smokescreen of reality- so don't worry peoples, he's still actually a massive threat to our way of lives despite having a pathetic military and non existent economy...

 

Pretzel logic, ho hum, par for the course. Fortunately I'm as always immune to manipulation by people who push shadowy conspiracy theories :smug:

 

 

Are you going to tell me this was a wholehearted capitulation with Russian airsofters standing behind civilians forcing their way into a Ukrainian base, then actively helping them when they couldn't do it alone?

 

Edited April 10, 2014 by Agiel

[Drowsy Emperor]

Don't be a dunce, its natural that some of the soldiers remained allied to Kiev and had to be forced out. This is the real world, not Kim Jong Un's election by 101% votes in favor. The fact is that the intervention had an overwhelming support in the populace and most of the Crimean forces defected. If it did not, they would have fought or rioted. No one did because the majority finds the government in Kiev detestable.

 

Not to mention that Russians are willing to pour much more money into Crimea for salaries and pensions than Kiev ever could.

 

Oh and they didn't fight a battle of "non-violent resistance" they just weren't able to use violence, although the leaked Timoshenko call made it clear she at least wanted to. They went through with full military mobilization and found (unsurprisingly) that no one wanted to fight. They sent armed men to Crimea that were intercepted by Russian checkpoints. Finally, someone sat down in Kiev and explained to the pawns in office that most of their army exists on paper only. So they folded and gave up. 

Get your facts straight.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[Agiel]

I'm sorry, but even the ones whose hearts were still with Crimea still had an oath and wore Ukrainian military uniforms until the very end, and I didn't see any in those videos walk up to gate and unlock it to let the self-defense forces in. The Ukrainian personnel by a lot of accounts were quite well within their rights to open fire on them as soon as they entered as they entered without invitation what is internationally recognised as sovereign Ukrainian territory insomuch as an embassy or a consulate might be even if they're surrounded by a foreign country. They didn't, because:

 

a.) They'd get ripped to shreds by the crowd and sometimes survival trumps principles.

 

b.) Some of the soldiers did indeed have sympathies for them.

 

c.) Putin could spin the whole incident as "mean Ukrainian Banderans opened fire on helpless, oppressed civilians.

[Zoraptor]

The Ukrainian army is unreliable with those from the east being as unreliable as the police and army in the west were when it came to obeying Yanukovich 6 weeks ago, their hierarchy still has huge ties to Russia, they use Russian equipment and they've already lost a significant amount of hardware that was boxed up/ mothballed in Crimea because it was unmaintained. The 'resistance' in Crimea got bigged up by the media a lot, but to all practical purposes it consisted of a hundred or so personnel out of around 15,000 per wikipedia marching out and a couple of dozen of them actually singing the Ukrainian national anthem. That's dwarfed to nothing by the 12,000 (or more, given the source of the 80% figure, the Russians are claiming 90%) who defected.

 

But in any case, if  Putin wanted a provocative event he would have banned the media and staged one, whatever the attitude of the Ukrainians was. Some are immensely keen on the WW2 parallels- right up until the time they get inconvenient of course- so here's another one: it didn't matter at all what Poland's attitude was on Sept 1 1939, Germany staged a provocation and tanks rolled, full stop. All evidence, every single bit, points towards the Russians being genuine about wanting (1) defections and (2) a referendum in Crimea, there is precisely zero evidence that they wanted a provocation beyond "well of course they did, they're Russian, duh" because they could very easily have created one at any point in time.

 

Besides, Russia already has experience with how even genuine aggression against them gets spun- you still get people who insist that Russia attacked Georgia in 2008, despite the OSCE report saying that it was definitively Georgia who was the aggressor and that there was zero Russian build up prior to the events there. If they really want to grab SE Ukraine they'll do it, same as they did it with Crimea itself.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Zoraptor

[pmp10]

But in any case, if  Putin wanted a provocative event he would have banned the media and staged one, whatever the attitude of the Ukrainians was. Some are immensely keen on the WW2 parallels- right up until the time they get inconvenient of course- so here's another one: it didn't matter at all what Poland's attitude was on Sept 1 1939, Germany staged a provocation and tanks rolled, full stop. 

That's a terrible example as direct result of that was the start of second world war which resulted in fall of the third reich.

It makes perfect sense not to go that far.

Stopping somewhere around Munich seems like the ideal course.

[Hassat Hunter]

Wow, conspiracy theories around 9/11. We've fallen far.

 

And I see US people are still sad and jealous Russia can take some terrain over without huge bloodshed and everyone hating them there. So nothing changed really?

 

If you have a hostile nation besides you of course you prepare defense. I don't see any reason to assume Russia will go over to attack. Only in the Kiev government make a complete and total mess of the East that has a chance. Of coures, seeing that government it's still a possibility, true.

[Zoraptor]

 

But in any case, if  Putin wanted a provocative event he would have banned the media and staged one, whatever the attitude of the Ukrainians was. Some are immensely keen on the WW2 parallels- right up until the time they get inconvenient of course- so here's another one: it didn't matter at all what Poland's attitude was on Sept 1 1939, Germany staged a provocation and tanks rolled, full stop. 

That's a terrible example as direct result of that was the start of second world war which resulted in fall of the third reich.

 

I think the prelude to WW2 comparisons are rubbish anyway since the circumstances are not even slightly comparable, if you can't tell, but if one side is going to make ludicrous comparisons it's certainly fair game for the other to take it to its logical conclusion- precisely because it shows it is just another emotive comparison designed to elicit a specific, visceral, response which fails and falls apart as soon as you move beyond the narrow strictures those using it want it limited to. It's a smokescreen designed specifically to make westerners feel good about their impotence in comparison to Chamberlain's monumental cupidity. Besides, the German invasion of Poland only led to WW2 because the Allies guaranteed their integrity up to and including use of force (even if Hitler didn't truly believe them), something that patently has not happened for Ukraine. The west may throw a wobbley to make an overtired 2 year old blush if Russia invades, but there will be no general war over it.

 

If you want different comparisons they can be seen in the lead up to any number of interventions- the Gulf of Tonkin incident is an obvious example of how to stage a provocation to get a justification to do what you want.

[213374U]

I'm saying that if you take the logic that an absence of evidence is evidence of guilt then you may as well start burning witches.

 

Only that's not at all what's being suggested in this thread. I'm curious, why do people insist on putting stock on what official and mainstream sources say, by default, without any sort of critical review or personal fact checking, when said sources have been known to stretch the truth, misrepresent, make mistakes and outright lie in the past. I suspect this is related to the theorised innate psychological vulnerability of people to authority figures, but there has to be more to it than that.

 

The argument is not "believe every conspiracy theory because otherwise you are sheep", and turning it into that is very much strawmanning. The argument is, "when there is conflicting evidence and expert opinions, why do you choose to believe one version over the other?" Heh, the link I posted a few pages ago questioned even whether this is an actual choice at all, and this is reinforced by the cognitive dissonance videos Valsuelm posted. Arguably, there is no difference between the conspiracy crackpot that takes every word that comes out of Alex Jones' mouth as gospel, and the honest-to-god upstanding citizen that believes it's his duty to trust every press release by an alphabet agency—both have renounced their ability to form their own opinions, relying on others to provide prefabricated ones instead. So why the selective derision?

[obyknven]

Right Sector suck in Odessa. Лiл

http://youtu.be/ug0_8gCCiiw

[Mor]

Don't be a dunce, its natural that some of the soldiers remained allied to Kiev and had to be forced out. This is the real world, not Kim Jong Un's election by 101% votes in favor. The fact is that the intervention had an overwhelming support in the populace and most of the Crimean forces defected. If it did not, they would have fought or rioted. No one did because the majority finds the government in Kiev detestable.

Actually it is exactly "Kim Jong Un" style (or soviet) vote, starting with the one sided propaganda media coverage, armed troops to help and direct things on the ground, taking control of means of resistance, means of communications and closed parliamentary blitz under watch from armed who escorted those who isn't with program and with exactly the same styled observers that stamped approval on Kim Jong elections. Go propaganda go.

 

And I see US people are still sad and jealous Russia can take some terrain over without huge bloodshed and everyone hating them there. So nothing changed really?

US people, funny, when I argue about US\NATO misguided interventions to "save the world" bestowing democracy on the misguided I am either anti US or anti imperialist, but when I argue against Russia pure aggressive imperialist actionS, I am US people hmm :/ what are you the loud guy who never vote?

 

 

Speaking of Russian, I seen this amusing video of Russian Ambassadors to meet Vladimir Putin's objectives on Ukraine within UN. Uhh Bidlo.

You guys can skip their chatter between the start and 3:00

[BruceVC]

 

I'm saying that if you take the logic that an absence of evidence is evidence of guilt then you may as well start burning witches.

 

Only that's not at all what's being suggested in this thread. I'm curious, why do people insist on putting stock on what official and mainstream sources say, by default, without any sort of critical review or personal fact checking, when said sources have been known to stretch the truth, misrepresent, make mistakes and outright lie in the past. I suspect this is related to the theorised innate psychological vulnerability of people to authority figures, but there has to be more to it than that.

 

The argument is not "believe every conspiracy theory because otherwise you are sheep", and turning it into that is very much strawmanning. The argument is, "when there is conflicting evidence and expert opinions, why do you choose to believe one version over the other?" Heh, the link I posted a few pages ago questioned even whether this is an actual choice at all, and this is reinforced by the cognitive dissonance videos Valsuelm posted. Arguably, there is no difference between the conspiracy crackpot that takes every word that comes out of Alex Jones' mouth as gospel, and the honest-to-god upstanding citizen that believes it's his duty to trust every press release by an alphabet agency—both have renounced their ability to form their own opinions, relying on others to provide prefabricated ones instead. So why the selective derision?

 

 

So unfortunately as usual you are basing your argument on a spurious premise. You say "why do you choose to believe one version over the other".

 

Lets take 9/11, Al-Qaeda perpetuated 9/11. This is not the view of one source or one country. In summary

 

• Every Western international news channel has the same story, 9/11 was committed by Al-Qaeda
• Al-Jazeera and other non-Western news channels have the same story
• Al-Qaeda has admitted planning and committing 9/11
• There are numerous interviews with Al-Qaeda members and other people where they discuss and share why AQ planned 9/11
• There are whole organizations and security companies  that were and are dedicated to 9/11 and the causes of 9/11. Surly you cannot think that if 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy we wouldn't have some sort of proof by now
• Individuals like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have made it there goal in life to expose the USA for all its "skulduggery and dishonesty". If there was this great secret how come there have been NO credible examples of it that these people would have loved to bring to the worlds attention. Especially with Snowden who had access to the NSA information

So a dismissal of  a conspiracy theory is not based on one story or view. Its a combination of the facts and reality of a situation

Edited April 11, 2014 by BruceVC

[Walsingham]

 

I'm saying that if you take the logic that an absence of evidence is evidence of guilt then you may as well start burning witches.

 

Only that's not at all what's being suggested in this thread. I'm curious, why do people insist on putting stock on what official and mainstream sources say, by default, without any sort of critical review or personal fact checking, when said sources have been known to stretch the truth, misrepresent, make mistakes and outright lie in the past. I suspect this is related to the theorised innate psychological vulnerability of people to authority figures, but there has to be more to it than that.

 

The argument is not "believe every conspiracy theory because otherwise you are sheep", and turning it into that is very much strawmanning. The argument is, "when there is conflicting evidence and expert opinions, why do you choose to believe one version over the other?" Heh, the link I posted a few pages ago questioned even whether this is an actual choice at all, and this is reinforced by the cognitive dissonance videos Valsuelm posted. Arguably, there is no difference between the conspiracy crackpot that takes every word that comes out of Alex Jones' mouth as gospel, and the honest-to-god upstanding citizen that believes it's his duty to trust every press release by an alphabet agency—both have renounced their ability to form their own opinions, relying on others to provide prefabricated ones instead. So why the selective derision?

 

 

That's an interesting view. But I don't think that's the real tension. By far and away the trend I witness both online and in public is for people to reflexively doubt any official story.

 

I think it's because the truth is complex and it's usually hard to know what to do next. In fact I'd go so far as to argue that your conspiracy believers have a GREATER need for authority figures, because they live in a world where power players control big events.

 

Let's be absolutely clear: I am not saying that an undetected conspiracy influencing political events is impossible. But I am saying that allowing anything undetected and unprovable to influence your personal behaviour is logically indistinguishable from going mad.

[obyknven]

International Isolation of Russia make me lol

 

Russia wants IMF to move ahead on reforms without U.S.

http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-exclusive-russia-wants-imf-move-ahead-reforms-without-0

 

And G20 ready to do this 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef44385e-c0c1-11e3-bd6b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2yZJuS2rw

http://indian.ruvr.ru/2014_04_10/G20-ignore-opinion-US/

http://goingglobaleastmeetswest.blogspot.ru/2014/04/g20-agenda-joint-imfcg20-finance.html

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/04/11/imf-victim-us-politics-lagarde

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2014-04/11/content_17427895.htm

 

US stronk!

[Elerond]

But I am saying that allowing anything undetected and unprovable to influence your personal behaviour is logically indistinguishable from going mad.

 

With bit editing that would be is excellent phrase to put in t-shirts that support atheism. 

[Agiel]

 

I think it's because the truth is complex and it's usually hard to know what to do next. In fact I'd go so far as to argue that your conspiracy believers have a GREATER need for authority figures, because they live in a world where power players control big events.

 

 

"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless."

 

-Alan Moore

[BruceVC]

 

But I am saying that allowing anything undetected and unprovable to influence your personal behaviour is logically indistinguishable from going mad.

 

With bit editing that would be is excellent phrase to put in t-shirts that support atheism. 

 

 

That's brilliant, how would you word it for a shirt? I want to get one made

[Elerond]

 

 

But I am saying that allowing anything undetected and unprovable to influence your personal behaviour is logically indistinguishable from going mad.

 

With bit editing that would be is excellent phrase to put in t-shirts that support atheism. 

 

 

That's brilliant, how would you word it for a shirt? I want to get one made

 

 

"It's logically indistinguishable from going mad, to allow unprovable and undetectable things to influence your behavior"

 

It could be bit long for shirt to be read by others, but it is still excellent phrase.

[213374U]

So unfortunately as usual you are basing your argument on a spurious premise. You say "why do you choose to believe one version over the other".

 

Lets take 9/11, Al-Qaeda perpetuated 9/11. This is not the view of one source or one country. In summary

 

• Every Western international news channel has the same story, 9/11 was committed by Al-Qaeda
• Al-Jazeera and other non-Western news channels have the same story
• Al-Qaeda has admitted planning and committing 9/11
• There are numerous interviews with Al-Qaeda members and other people where they discuss and share why AQ planned 9/11
• There are whole organizations and security companies  that were and are dedicated to 9/11 and the causes of 9/11. Surly you cannot think that if 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy we wouldn't have some sort of proof by now
• Individuals like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have made it there goal in life to expose the USA for all its "skulduggery and dishonesty". If there was this great secret how come there have been NO credible examples of it that these people would have loved to bring to the worlds attention. Especially with Snowden who had access to the NSA information

So a dismissal of  a conspiracy theory is not based on one story or view. Its a combination of the facts and reality of a situation

 

 

I don't think you understand what spurious actually means. But seeing how you can't seem to distinguish between "perpetuate" and "perpetrate", this shouldn't come as a surprise. I wonder if you actually do this sort of thing on purpose, like oby's occasionally mangled grammar. If that's the case, props for the low key trolling.

 

I'll start off by saying that I'm not terribly interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories and don't really follow the latest trends. Regardless, the first four points are circular logic, "this is the truth because it's the officially accepted version and the official version is the true one". The fifth point has some merit, but if you dig a bit into the official 9/11 findings, you can see the conclusions fail to address some relevant issues. Not in my opinion, but in that of people in the know. It's probably not realistic to expect a final report that squashes all possible doubts, but that's not a blank check for sloppiness.

 

The fifth point is, by far, the one that best proves just how uninformed and biased you are. The NSA has openly admitted to colluding with big tech firms to organize a massive, automated illegal surveillance ring. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's a full-fledged, straight up, no-nonsense, billion dollar conspiracy that was exposed only because an insider blew the whistle. Start by reading up on XKEYSCORE and PRISM and go from there. This stuff isn't even secret, it's on the NYT and Wikipedia, for Pete's sake.

 

None of this means that every conspiracy theory out there is to be believed. But it means you should be careful with what sources you choose to trust and that you should be mindful of attempts to dismiss claims or questions solely by virtue of them being labelled "conspiracy theories" regardless of their merit.

 

edit: oh, I just realized that your reference to Assange and Snowden was in relation to 9/11. It was so irrelevant and tangential that I didn't catch it immediately, sorry. So I guess that your point is that since they didn't unconver anything about 9/11, everything that is outside the official reports must be false. Yep, and the Pope not making any mention of the flying spaghetti monster proves that it doesn't exist. True story.

Edited April 11, 2014 by 213374U