Ukraine Conflict

[Aeroblyctos]

Hey,

So what do you think about Ukraine conflict?

Hidden

EDIT: And mod edit that title it has a grammar error.

 

[Rui]

Good thread for World News forum. =P

Their president is really turning into a dictator. Nevertheless, I never got why they'd want to join the European Union or whatever it was they were aiming to get into. Europe has little or nothing to offer to them.

Anyway, I am mostly ignorant about Economy-related matters, I'm just talking from a common person's perspective.

 

[Zombie]

Ukraine

I guess everyone has been more or less following the Euromaidan in Ukraine. Long story short, the pro-Russian president of Ukraine, Yanukovych and his government stepped down due to almost triggering a civil war and international pressure, and left the country.

What was foreseeable is that the country's government destabilized. What was less foreseeable is that the Russians used the opportunity to militarize the Crimea and demilitarize the Ukrainian law enforcement forces there, essentially assuming direct control of the area. All that for the "protection of ethnic Russian citizens in the region."

All that looks pretty much like the beginning of World War 2, when Germany invaded Danzig, Poland and Czechoslovakia to protect the interests of local German minorities.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/02/ukraine-warns-russia-crimea-war-live
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/01/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140301
http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/03/russia-and-ukraine
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...oop-entry-means-war-after-putin-approval.html


We've heard threats from both sides.
We've seen troops mobilizing from both sides.

There's a shitload of gas and the control over Europe's gas supply at stake too, let's not forget that.

The question is, what's going to happen next? Are we on the brink of another huge-scale war?

 

[gorillabull]

putin's plan of world domination is going relatively well i see

 

[Aeroblyctos]

If what I say now is true I actually understand Putin.

I heard that when the new government took control over the old one there was set some big laws. One being that the Russian language wouldn't anymore be another official language of Ukraine. The nation has 17% Russian speaking people which is a huge minority. For example, in Finland we have two official languages even if we have only 5,4% Swedish people.

It, of course, gave a strong signal to Russian that the new government is far away from the old one. I'm not surprised that then Russian started suspect the new government. As Russian have stated, their doctrine is to protect Russian citizens just like United States have stated the same, except their doctrine also includes companies.

 

[Solu9]

Well Russia has still compromised Ukraine's sovereignty. Whatever goes on in Ukraine, Russia has no right to mobilize troops in another country.
Ukraine might have Russian speaking people, but they are still a part of Ukraine.
Furthermore. The Russian speaking people in Ukraine have nothing to fear whatsoever, which just adds to the illegalities Russia are guilty of.

Pardon my language, but Russia needs to get the f... out of Ukraine.

Edit:
I should rephrase. Obviously if Ukraine was guilty of crimes against humanity it would be another case. But as we all know, nothing of the sort has, or are going to, happen.

 

[Mechanical Man]

The origin of the problem is that Hruščev (and Lenin before) gave Crimea and the east to Ukraine for some unknown reason, while mostly Russians lived there. But in fifties little mattered, because it was all one country. Is quite easy to identify russian cities in Ukraine, mostly of the having greek names, like Sevastopol, Simferopol, Odessa, ...

 

[Rui]

Good thread for World News forum. =P

Their president is really turning into a dictator. Nevertheless, I never got why they'd want to join the European Union or whatever it was they were aiming to get into. Europe has little or nothing to offer to them.

Anyway, I am mostly ignorant about Economy-related matters, I'm just talking from a common person's perspective.

My post in the other thread, by Aeroblyctos, covering this subject.

EDIT: Feel free to enlighten me on the subject. I know nothing of History.

 

[Arcisal]

Honest opinion: I'd doubt the situation would go anywhere near a war, or at to the scale of WWII. Maybe a conflict comparable to the Russo-Georgian War (South Ossetia and all). But neither parties, or any for that matter, would want another large scale war.

I'm calling it now: Crimea to be annexed and most of Eastern Ukraine where there are many ethnic Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians will go along with it as well. Yanukovych to return and reinstated as President by the Kremlin.

 

[Radicool]

The question is, what's going to happen next? Are we on the brink of another huge-scale war?

I remember somebody telling me a story about the trenches in World War 1 on Christmas. Doubt it was true but the message still applies:

Shots were firing from both sides. Explosives plummeted on No Man's Land. Men were screaming in agony as blood gushed from their decapitated limbs. The smell of trench foot rotting among puddles of mud and water and swarms of flies bred in corpses. It all suddenly stopped. There was a brief moment of silence...

The sun rose and marked a new day. It was Christmas. A captain from either side entered a land no man had ever walked upon to shake hands on an agreement. It was settled that that day would be the day to bury the dead. The hours passed as some land was cleared. All the men quietly walked back to the pits in which they came as two soldiers nodded in their last seconds of peace and closed their eyes as they awaited the inevitable.

"BANG"! The sound crackled, piercing the ears of many, as the river of blood flowed once again. It all began anew...​

In the end, a war is something that none of us want. These people have nothing against each other, but fought never the less. War is something dictated to us to do by a government to do, or perhaps the banks (we won't go into that now). Who wants to fight again? In an age of grand communication, I'm sure the people have enough of a voice to stop two children (prime ministers) declaring war against each other for something that should not be. We have the power of choice in these matters. What will we decide upon?

 

[Nuclear]

I've always thought that the more democratic a country is, the less likely it is to wage war. For example, Russia is doing this because Putin and his band of thugs lead the country, and USA wages war overseas because corporations are in charge. Nobody really wants war, if people are in charge, there won't be war.

 

[taavidude]

Putin is just greed. He would gladly take countries over that were before Russia like:
Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, but as long as America exists Russia wont have a chance and also Russia has become stupid if he keeps going on like that then hes soon gonna end like North-Korea, because North-Korea has only one ally left and probably that will happen to Russia too if Putin wont stop f**king around.
Even crazier thing was that like 2 weeks ago or so russian planes flew into Estonian territory and when Lithuanian Jets went against those russian planes then those russian planes went back into their own territory so these russian bastards are very weird.

 

[Zombie]

I've always thought that the more democratic a country is, the less likely it is to wage war. For example, Russia is doing this because Putin and his band of thugs lead the country, and USA wages war overseas because corporations are in charge. Nobody really wants war, if people are in charge, there won't be war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sEqzEgDZ0g

On a more serious note, you could call the new Ukrainian government one that is fairly "democratic", given the fact that it is a result of the people's choice to spring a revolution. Yet they are the ones who openly threaten Russia with a war.

IIn the end, a war is something that none of us want. These people have nothing against each other, but fought never the less. War is something dictated to us to do by a government to do, or perhaps the banks (we won't go into that now). Who wants to fight again? In an age of grand communication, I'm sure the people have enough of a voice to stop two children (prime ministers) declaring war against each other for something that should not be. We have the power of choice in these matters. What will we decide upon?

No, they don't. The best (and most recent) example of that is Ukraine's government under Yanukovych. He was rightfully elected too, and no matter how much 'communication' was going on, he was only moved from his seat after blood was shed.

The everyday people only have the voice to elect their rulers. Similarly to how they elected Yanukovych, Putin and hey, even Adolf Hitler. They however, will never have enough voice to make their decisions or to prevent wars and bloodshed as long as policemen/soldiers follow their oath.

Putin is just greed. He would gladly take countries over that were before Russia like:
Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, but as long as America exists Russia wont have a chance and also Russia has become stupid if he keeps going on like that then hes soon gonna end like North-Korea, because North-Korea has only one ally left and probably that will happen to Russia too if Putin wont stop f**king around.
Even crazier thing was that like 2 weeks ago or so russian planes flew into Estonian territory and when Lithuanian Jets went against those russian planes then those russian planes went back into their own territory so these russian bastards are very weird.

Yeah, it's lucky America exists! America #1 Peacekeeper of the world!

On a more serious note though, Russia will never isolate itself form world politics and economy as long as it's the country to supply most of Europe with gas. If they don't attack an EU country directly (which they won't), the Western world will not give a shit, similarly to when they didn't give a shit when Georgia, Afghanistan, Hungary or Czechoslovakia were ravaged by the Russians/USSR.

Honest opinion: I'd doubt the situation would go anywhere near a war, or at to the scale of WWII. Maybe a conflict comparable to the Russo-Georgian War (South Ossetia and all). But neither parties, or any for that matter, would want another large scale war.

I'm calling it now: Crimea to be annexed and most of Eastern Ukraine where there are many ethnic Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians will go along with it as well. Yanukovych to return and reinstated as President by the Kremlin.

I think that would be the most solid solution as well, assuming it goes without bloodshed. Self-determination ftw.

 

[Krolan]

Well I have no choice...

I'm ukranian, born in Odessa (southern Ukraine, where most people speak russian, as opposed to northern Ukraine, that tends to stick to the Motherlanguage). It was southern Ukraine that wanted be part of EU but it was Russia who would "not allow it" and sabotaged this wish with threats, so EU wouldn't make them part of itself. Seems Russia forgot what 1989 happened.

Ukranian People wanted to be part of the EU to be able to travel there freely, finding jobs and stuff. Why?

When you come down to it, the avarage Ukranian mate earns 500 "grewin" a month. Which is 50€ or about 70$
So one of the best payed Jobs, professeur, pays 2000-3000 grewin, 200-300€, 280-400$. In addition to that, while food and other necessities are equalized to the avarage pay, as well as cigarettes (paying for a pack about 50 american cents, 40 european cents), almost everything else, like Hardware, clothing that doesnt look like shit, even the rent, is to be payed with the same prices as one would expect here in Europe, Germany to be exact.

Practically speaking, a mother that wants her child to have "this really cool jacket" has to live a month out of tea and cigarettes, so she can buy it (assuming avarage pay). The people there had it hard. HARD in the last decades. But they moved on, did nothing all too wrong. Now half the world knows Ukraine for the fashist idiot that was/is in charge (not up to date here)

When I come back to Odessa I'll try and ask what they say and think about this stuff, and no matter what the media says, I'm sure the actual people are as unaffected as ever, as long as nothing happens to them. Like Everywhere.

I'll stop for now. Get enraged with that topic. Oh well^^

 

[gorillabull]

well joining the eu wouldnt make people earn more money automatically but it certainly is better than living in a country where the leaders are still communists by heart

 

[Zombie]

Surely bending over to a foreign power (in this case, Russia) is a bad idea, but with the EU, they'd be pretty much doing the same. The EU is no less of an abusive power-monger as Russia is, the only difference is that they're trying to invest as much as they can into communicating that they're not.

I can only bring my own country as an example. Since we joined, just to mention a few:

• Our agricultural industry's potential fell about 80%, seeing how the EU refused to buy our products. It wasn't because our quality or potential was any worse than that of France, Germany or hey, Argentina, but since they had to support the Western countries' agricultural and export interests. Just an example: During our time with the EU, we closed down 7 of our 8 sugar factories.
  
  
• (Fault of the NATO as well) Our military went to hell: we were forced to downgrade our infantry, cancel conscription, sell most of our tanks to countries of NATO interest and exchange our air flotilla to 1/10 of its previous size due to having to buy Western aircraft.
  
  
• Mass emigration. Pretty much every single youth member who can leaves our country. Sure it might benefit their individual interest, but as a collective, loosing most of the youth and supporting pensions from nil production is going to cut whatever we've left of our output to zero.
  
  
• Destruction of national culture. Since we became EU members, pretty much everything related to preserving our own culture, traditions and religion has been labeled as being "far-rightist" or being an "antisemite" and we've been constantly blackmailed to cease pursuing our national(ist) interest if we don't want to loose our financial potential (which too is in the EU's hold, due to our debt).
  
  
• The EU further supports my country's mentality to constantly expect help from others instead of acting on their own. Our rot on a long term is guaranteed if everyone refuses to act on their interest, not as an individual, but as a collective.

So Ukraine (with a potential pretty much similar to my country) cannot expect much from the EU. Probably even less than from Russia. All this bloodshed to willingly go into yet another slavery whilst just having escaped one is just so ridiculous...

 

[Krolan]

Well, You'd understand that these are hopes. Hopes that somewhere else it's better. It may be ridiculous but for me it's mostly sad.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

To be honest, I don't think russia has any serious interest in crimea or the ukraine in general.
They are just playing the game, as they always do. The game of diplomacy. As soon as you threat a country, you can expect the western world to chime in and offer things in return for peace.
They're basicly just taking a defenseless hostage to press money out of the western world, like they always do.

 

[Zombie]

Obviously you have no idea how the stock market works.

 

[Rui]

(...)
Our agricultural industry's potential fell about 80%, seeing how the EU refused to buy our products. It wasn't because our quality or potential was any worse than that of France, Germany or hey, Argentina, but since they had to support the Western countries' agricultural and export interests. Just an example: During our time with the EU, we closed down 7 of our 8 sugar factories.
(...)

By Western you mean France and Germany? Because Portugal is as far west as you can get and, from what I heard, it too was forced to shut down weaponry production and industry in general; also, farmers were literally payed to let crops die out. Weapon production went to Germany and I presume so did agriculture.

(Fault of the NATO as well) Our military went to hell: we were forced to downgrade our infantry, cancel conscription, sell most of our tanks to countries of NATO interest and exchange our air flotilla to 1/10 of its previous size due to having to buy Western aircraft.

I'm actually happy that FORCED military duty was canceled.

Mass emigration. Pretty much every single youth member who can leaves our country. Sure it might benefit their individual interest, but as a collective, loosing most of the youth and supporting pensions from nil production is going to cut whatever we've left of our output to zero.

Same problem with Portugal. Just yesterday I watched on television a news report about 50 nurses leaving from Porto to England.
The large majority of the population is old and retired. Since the recent austerity measures have blown the lot of employment, the youth that could be producing something isn't.

 

[Arcisal]

To be honest, I don't think russia has any serious interest in crimea or the ukraine in general.
They are just playing the game, as they always do. The game of diplomacy. As soon as you threat a country, you can expect the western world to chime in and offer things in return for peace.
They're basicly just taking a defenseless hostage to press money out of the western world, like they always do.

They have the power to take Crimea and the rest of Ukraine along with it if they wanted to by force.

Ukraine was known to have the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in 1991 before they handed it all over to Russia in return for integrity of their borders from them and the US. Russia marching into Crimea will force the hand of America which may eventually lead to bloodshed.

Sevastopol, located in Crimea, is where the Russian Black Fleet is situated. Currently, Russia has a lease for the port until 2042, but this is just one reason why they might want Crimea.

I can only bring my own country as an example.

Might I ask what country that it? Not to be condescending. Just curious. I can't respond to each of your argument against joining the EU, so I'll just pitch in some of my pro-EU reasons.

• Since Yanukovych's administration, the quality of like in Ukraine has deteriorated. Wages have fallen while prices, crime and unemployment have risen. Levels of freedom are barely non-existent. Joining the EU would either trial him for his crimes (corruption and whatnot) or at the very least get rid of him.
  
• In 2013, Ukraine was issued the lowest possible credit rating that could be possibly published by Moody and S&P. This means that they can't just issue bonds to get loans like the US does. At the same time, Ukraine also had a severe budget shortfall of about $15 billion. So that means that the Ukrainian government actually had to come up with the cash, instead of just loaning it. They negotiated with two entities: the IMF (via the EU) and Russia. In November 2013, Yanukovych cancelled negotiations with the IMF and decided to deal solely with Russia. How does joining the EU involve this? Well, it cancels the deal with Russia and restarts negotiations with the IMF. Dealing $15 billion with Russia was seen as a bad decision because Putin was known to have long-term "pay back" consequences. It was very much like slowly selling off your country piece by piece to Russia. Whatever the IMF restructuring imposed on the Ukraine will (hopefully) benefit the people and fix the country's economy.

That's all I've got. Will update when I can think or look for more.

 

[Zombie]

By Western you mean France and Germany? Because Portugal is as far west as you can get and, from what I heard, it too was forced to shut down weaponry production and industry in general; also, farmers were literally payed to let crops die out. Weapon production went to Germany and I presume so did agriculture.

Yes, I mean France and Germany (as well as other dominant countries of that region), as indicated in my post. It's exactly my point that these countries (and their American/Israeli [American as in USA, Argentina, Brazil] market partners) essentially use newer EU members (Spain, Portugal, Eastern Europe) as their outlets.

I'm actually happy that FORCED military duty was canceled.

You might be, but it definitely decreases a country's military potential. It also helps men build a manly character more so than anything, which would be needed for an ever increasing portion of our generation of geeks, whiners and metrosexuals.

Same problem with Portugal. Just yesterday I watched on television a news report about 50 nurses leaving from Porto to England.
The large majority of the population is old and retired. Since the recent austerity measures have blown the lot of employment, the youth that could be producing something isn't.

Indeed. Another example why the EU is bad for you.

Might I ask what country that it? Not to be condescending. Just curious. I can't respond to each of your argument against joining the EU, so I'll just pitch in some of my pro-EU reasons.

Hungary.

In 2013, Ukraine was issued the lowest possible credit rating that could be possibly published by Moody and S&P. This means that they can't just issue bonds to get loans like the US does. At the same time, Ukraine also had a severe budget shortfall of about $15 billion. So that means that the Ukrainian government actually had to come up with the cash, instead of just loaning it. They negotiated with two entities: the IMF (via the EU) and Russia. In November 2013, Yanukovych cancelled negotiations with the IMF and decided to deal solely with Russia. How does joining the EU involve this? Well, it cancels the deal with Russia and restarts negotiations with the IMF. Dealing $15 billion with Russia was seen as a bad decision because Putin was known to have long-term "pay back" consequences. It was very much like slowly selling off your country piece by piece to Russia. Whatever the IMF restructuring imposed on the Ukraine will (hopefully) benefit the people and fix the country's economy.

Well, we were in a similar situation back in the end of the '80s and in the end of the '90s, except that we managed to get a loan from the IMF after a few negotiations.

The consequences were that we were not able to start up our economy in a manner we hoped to, since the IMF (and the EU) pretty much told us what we can and cannot invest into. The result of that was that our economy repeatedly went to hell every 5 years, forcing us to take up further loans. Since we eventually got to the point that we couldn't even pay interest, they started up a deficit policy against us, essentially meaning that the IMF and the EU assumed an unwritten full control of our economic policy making.

That was what resulted in the breakdown of our economy I mentioned in my previous post. Our debt-slavery lasted until the end of 2013, where, after a brutal wave of populace taxation and nationalization, our government prepaid our loan to the IMF. This marks the end of the IMF's dictatorship over us, but the time until which we'll be able to recover will take decades.

In summary, the last 20 years under which we could develop our country to an EU conform level, we spent downgrading our economy to post WW2 level. Why? Because they told us to. Because they could. Because they were the ones to lend us money, thus they felt the right that they could do this to us. They did all the necessary steps to prevent us from being their concurrency.

Russia might be no better than the IMF, I honestly have no idea what loan construction they offered, but my point was simply that what Ukraine expects from the West, why this whole civil war thing went on, is actually a cause not in any way reasonable, it is solely guided by a false, self-generated optimism of people who do not understand that their country's future is their own interest: They can expect no help from foreign powers.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

It also helps men build a manly character more so than anything, which would be needed for an ever increasing portion of our generation of geeks, whiners and metrosexuals.

...aaand that's where I stopped reading.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

...aaand that's where I stopped reading.

You don't wanna be a man? Like He-Man.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

You don't wanna be a man? Like He-Man.

By the power of greyskull, you dropped dat soap!

 

[Nuclear]

...aaand that's where I stopped reading.

My IQ lowered by 5 when I read that.

 

[Rui]

...aaand that's where I stopped reading.

Be more specific, please

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Be more specific, please

What specification is needed? That the writer of that post actually believes that army service will make you more manly or his belief that a strong force is the most important thing for a nation that is highly in dept?

 

[Nuclear]

It's idiotic and sexist, there's the elaboration.

 

[Zombie]

Army service teaches, or is supposed to teach, a very important characteristic that is missing from most men these days, that's being able to stand up for yourself and whom you consider valuable in your life. If they teach you how to fight, how to be tough and how to do what you do with pride, you have less of a chance to be stomped into the ground in your private life as well.

What specification is needed? That the writer of that post actually believes that army service will make you more manly or his belief that a strong force is the most important thing for a nation that is highly in dept?

Who the fuck said it was the most important thing for a nation in debt? Especially to a degree that you had to highlight it? Get a hold of yourself and get your facts right before you reply to a post.

I said that obviously, having a small military makes you depend on other countries' forces, who might abuse this fact.

My opinion might be subjective, you do not have to agree with it, but you should give it respect regardless by at least bothering to read the whole thing.

My IQ lowered by 5 when I read that.

The same applies to this bullshit.

You have the right to disagree, but in that case do it properly. That's what Rui intended to say as well.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Army service teaches, or is supposed to teach, a very important characteristic that is missing from most men these days, that's being able to stand up for yourself and whom you consider valuable in your life. If they teach you how to fight, how to be tough and how to do what you do with pride, you have less of a chance to be stomped into the ground in your private life as well.

How can submission teach you anything?
I had to go to forced military service several years ago and I learned literally nothing. It was a mixture of boredom, stupidity and most important: a complete waste of time.
And no, blindly obeying orders does not make you a better man. In fact, that's the recipe for something else.


Forced military duty is a relic of the past, where globalisation wasn't as present as nowadays. And so are national armies.


The only real thing that society misses about the forced military service here is that forced civil service was removed aswell (which was important). Guess what: if you work in a hospital, retirement home or kindergarden, chances are, it will teach you more about life than any army in the world could. You know, things like responsibility, decision-making, socializing with people of all race and gender and morality.


Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying army service is a bad thing. I'm just failing to see how it makes you a better man.

 

[Zombie]

I assume you're from Germany? It's a country (among many others), which wasn't exactly famous of conscription working too well. I heard dozens of tales that there it's all about playing with guns, sitting in a barracks and drinking booze.

It is true that you can't work with an army that doesn't want to work and you can't really motivate people to learn if they refuse to study. If someone is conscripted and refuses to act like a soldier, it is highly likely that he will disregard other 'necessary' obligations in his later life as well.

Conscription is a tool to shape people who might have useful, albeit less developed characteristics. It will never work on people who have a mentality I mentioned above, and it will never work on anyone if it's not an elaborate system, but the concept itself works and has been proven to work.

 

[Nuclear]

I call bullshit. Where are your sources and studies? Or are you just posting your own speculation as an armchair psychologist?

 

[GhostWolf]

3 [forced] years in our army didn't really give me much. Either way, please go back to the topic instead of starting a flame war.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Army service teaches, or is supposed to teach, a very important characteristic that is missing from most men these days, that's being able to stand up for yourself and whom you consider valuable in your life. If they teach you how to fight, how to be tough and how to do what you do with pride, you have less of a chance to be stomped into the ground in your private life as well.

Learning to kill is not necessarily equal to learning how to fight. If anything, you should force people to learn martial arts instead of joining the army.

Maybe I'm just terrified of my own countries army lol

And no, blindly obeying orders does not make you a better man. In fact, that's the recipe for something else.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Zombie]

Learning to kill is not necessarily equal to learning how to fight. If anything, you should force people to learn martial arts instead of joining the army.

That's true, but in the army you also learn martial arts and other stuff that keeps you physically fit.

I call bullshit. Where are your sources and studies? Or are you just posting your own speculation as an armchair psychologist?

About the German army part: I had about a dozen more or less known acquaintances who all told me a similar tale of their respective battalions. It might be that they all served in the one very battalion that spent their entire day drinking booze, but I find that highly unlikely.

About conscription being effective: Attend a history class. Learn about Janissaries, the Red Army during the Second World War, the Wehrmacht or the IDF, just to mention a very few, notable examples. There always have been objectors and evaders, but each of these militaries were legendarily efficient.

I don't assume you require me to dig up sources on stuff that's common knowledge.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

About conscription being effective: Attend a history class. Learn about Janissaries, the Red Army during the Second World War, the Wehrmacht or the IDF, just to mention a very few, notable examples. There always have been objectors and evaders, but each of these militaries were legendarily efficient.

I don't assume you require me to dig up sources on stuff that's common knowledge.

I still don't get why it makes you a better man?

 

[Zombie]

It doesn't make you a 'better man' in the direct sense of you becoming more ethical or manly (although chicks do love soldiers).

It does however:

[...]shape people who might have useful, albeit less developed characteristics. It will never work on people who have a mentality I mentioned above, and it will never work on anyone if it's not an elaborate system, but the concept itself works and has been proven to work.

...and...

[...] is supposed to teach, a very important characteristic that is missing from most men these days, that's being able to stand up for yourself and whom you consider valuable in your life. If they teach you how to fight, how to be tough and how to do what you do with pride, you have less of a chance to be stomped into the ground in your private life as well.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

It doesn't make you a 'better man' in the direct sense of you becoming more ethical or manly (although chicks do love soldiers).

It does however:

...and...

Social work does the same - to a much higher degrees. Plus it actually contributes something useful to the society.
And growing older probably also does the same... or any kind regular work.

I'm an engineer and had to deal with soldiers before, both in private and through my work. Some of them were nice people, but also, some of them were just a pain to work/deal with (and it certainly doesn't help that most soldiers have lower level education here). I didn't see any difference between soldiers and non-soldiers from a social perspective. Both people can be equally as dumb.

 

[Zombie]

That's true, however social workers don't help much for your country's security nor ease its international dependence. Nor does it teach you how to be physically fit, basic martial arts, or a sense of duty.

Surely, any of that can come by itself and I'm not saying conscription is the only thing which can help you learn that stuff, I'm just saying that a lot of people, especially from the age group of those currently ~18 year olds could use the knowledge. A lot of them refuses to lift their asses up from the couch unless they're forced to do so. That's a bad thing, no one can disagree with that.

 

[TriggerHappy]

That's true, but in the army you also learn martial arts and other stuff that keeps you physically fit.

True but that still doesn't inherently make you a better person. Not saying it can't, though.

 

[Nuclear]

About the German army part: I had about a dozen more or less known acquaintances who all told me a similar tale of their respective battalions. It might be that they all served in the one very battalion that spent their entire day drinking booze, but I find that highly unlikely.

About conscription being effective: Attend a history class. Learn about Janissaries, the Red Army during the Second World War, the Wehrmacht or the IDF, just to mention a very few, notable examples. There always have been objectors and evaders, but each of these militaries were legendarily efficient.

I don't assume you require me to dig up sources on stuff that's common knowledge.

So: anecdotes and dubious references to history. Don't make me laugh with your talk about Red Army somehow enhancing its soldier's lives. They weren't "effective", they pretty much threw men at their enemies until they suffocated under the bodies.

A great example: http://puu.sh/7uaTU.png (the "casualties & losses" and "strength" part)

Besides, an army being effective means it's better than other armies, not that the soldiers are better persons. And for fuck's sake, do you think being emotionally scarred from battle makes your life better? Russian army has a nice history of mobbing by the way, yeah that'll enhance your civilian life a lot.


Sorry, not good enough.

 

[Zombie]

True but that still doesn't inherently make you a better person. Not saying it can't, though.

Never said it does. It was the misinterpretation of other posters, referring to one segment of a whole bunch of arguments against the NATO.

So: anecdotes and dubious references to history. Don't make me laugh with your talk about Red Army somehow enhancing its soldier's lives. They weren't "effective", they pretty much threw men at their enemies until they suffocated under the bodies.

A great example: http://puu.sh/7uaTU.png (the "casualties & losses" and "strength" part)

Besides, an army being effective means it's better than other armies, not that the soldiers are better persons. And for fuck's sake, do you think being emotionally scarred from battle makes your life better? Russian army has a nice history of mobbing by the way, yeah that'll enhance your civilian life a lot.


Sorry, not good enough.

I never said the Red Army shaped better people either. I simply said that the Red Army, thanks to conscription, was an effective army. It was exactly my point too, that it was effective because they won the war, not because there were good people fighting in it. I have to admit, I might have misinterpreted your reaction a bit. I was trying to refer back to my original thesis a few posts back, saying that conscription is effective.

Obviously, wartime armies work different from peacetime armies. My comparison was not meant to prove that the Red Army make good people, they did make however, good soldiers (those who survived, that is).

However, if we're at other examples: the Wehrmacht (or the SS, especially) did put a lot of effort into shaping people in mentality as well, not just as soldiers. I'm not saying all of it was good, but (especially during peacetime), the powers invested a lot into changing people's mindsets as well, not just physical properties.

Of course, war changes things. Having an army doesn't mean that you have it to go to war, it's exactly like nukes or any other weapon for that matter: It's a deterrent to prevent wars, not to start them. War is not a goal of a conscript, or any other soldier either, however training and the general life in the military do apply in the way indicated in my previous posts.

 

[Nuclear]

I still disagree that Red Army was an effective army. You could probably kill someone with small stones if you had loads of them to throw, but that doesn't make them an effective weapon.

Again, I haven't seen any evidence of military service helping anyone as a person, only speculation and anecdotes.

And talking about the need for having an army is besides the discussion, this varies for different countries and historical eras.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

However, if we're at other examples: the Wehrmacht (or the SS, especially) did put a lot of effort into shaping people in mentality as well, not just as soldiers. I'm not saying all of it was good, but (especially during peacetime), the powers invested a lot into changing people's mindsets as well, not just physical properties.

"I'm not saying all of it was good" ... dafuq?!
That you actually try to establish the Wehrmacht as a positive example of "shaping people in mentality" is an insult for three european nations that still struggle to get that nazi image of their tails and the millions of holocaust victims.
Seriously, Go **** yourself. I'm having enough of your nationalist bullshit.

 

[gorillabull]

in other news Crimea has decided to go with russia thus worsening the situation and leading to more riots, violence and unrest.............

 

[Zombie]

I still disagree that Red Army was an effective army. You could probably kill someone with small stones if you had loads of them to throw, but that doesn't make them an effective weapon.

Again, I haven't seen any evidence of military service helping anyone as a person, only speculation and anecdotes.

And talking about the need for having an army is besides the discussion, this varies for different countries and historical eras.

I'm sorry, I won't coin together a statistic consistent of the opinions and mentality of a few thousand ex-conscripts and compare it to another few thousand people who never served in the army for an internet post.

We clearly have different opinions, but both are based on speculation and not on an actual statistic. I'll leave it to that.

About the Red Army, we can distinguish between efficient and effective. The Red Army was effective. It wasn't efficient. It won the war. But the results and the general way of doing things was horrid.

"I'm not saying all of it was good" ... dafuq?!
That you actually try to establish the Wehrmacht as a positive example of "shaping people in mentality" is an insult for three european nations that still struggle to get that nazi image of their tails and the millions of holocaust victims.
Seriously, Go **** yourself. I'm having enough of your nationalist bullshit.

q___q

Now, if you can to get over your brainwashed hate of stuff you have no idea about and stop flaming like a child whose toy I broke, let me tell you that you totally missed my point.

I said the Wehrmacht put a lot of effort into shaping (aka. changing) people mentally.

Mental training, not just physical.

It happened.

It was an example I brought up for an army using psychological and mental training too, not just physical. My intent was not to say that the Wehrmacht specifically taught people right things. I'm saying they taught people things.

I'm not saying what they taught the soldiers was right (or wrong). It's not my part to say and it is neither yours. If you really want to hear me out on this, saying "all of the Wehrmacht is an army of murderers who brought shame on their country" is like saying "all black people are stupid and make a living out of stealing".

It is stereotypical and retarded. Just because there were a few radical examples out of millions of people, you can't say your piece on the rest.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Now, if you can to get over your brainwashed hate of stuff you have no idea about and stop flaming like a child whose toy I broke, let me tell you that you totally missed my point.

I said the Wehrmacht put a lot of effort into shaping (aka. changing) people mentally.

Mental training, not just physical.

It happened.

It was an example I brought up for an army using psychological and mental training too, not just physical. My intent was not to say that the Wehrmacht specifically taught people right things. I'm saying they taught people things.

I'm not saying what they taught the soldiers was right (or wrong). It's not my part to say and it is neither yours. If you really want to hear me out on this, saying "all of the Wehrmacht is an army of murderers who brought shame on their country" is like saying "all black people are stupid and make a living out of stealing".

It is stereotypical and retarded. Just because there were a few radical examples out of millions of people, you can't say your piece on the rest.

The Wehrmacht used both fear of it's own soldiers to share the fate of their victims and the natural instinct of humans to appreciate group affiliation to make people shut off their sense of guilt and morality, blaming only their superiors for all the wrongdoings they did.
The Wehrmacht is a perfect example of how wrong any kind of "mental shaping" can be.
And now, after all the stuff you wrote, I'm actually glad the german Bundeswehr has an image of beer-drinking-good-for-nothing-slackers. At least it prevents a nationalist mindset and war-mongering within its ranks.
I prefer an army of slackers with their own mind disobeying rules if they find them inapproprate over an army of "mentally shaped" braindead minions.
And I prefer a country being part of a military pact consisting of a large number of nations (and thus, only working for a common interest everyone can agree on) over a nationalist army any day.

 

[Zombie]

The Wehrmacht used both fear of it's own soldiers to share the fate of their victims and the natural instinct of humans to appreciate group affiliation to make people shut off their sense of guilt and morality, blaming only their superiors for all the wrongdoings they did.

You mean the SS-Totenkopfverbände or the Einsatzgruppen. Certainly not the Wehrmacht. A very small portion of the German army was responsible for the nazi party's misdeeds and though indeed, atrocities were committed by some members of both the Wehrmacht and other branches of the German armed forces, there were (little to) no higher orders issued for all the 'wrongdoings' some units committed. Bad people exist, my point was exactly that you can't write off millions of people based on the deeds of a small minority.

The Wehrmacht is a perfect example of how wrong any kind of "mental shaping" can be.

Mental shaping can be wrong and can be right. You have all reasons to think that the Wehrmacht was an organization wherein mental shaping was bad, but not all armies in the universe are the Wehrmacht. Again, do not judge based on one example. If you hate the national socialists for being stereotypical and judgmental, don't do the same mistake they did.

And now, after all the stuff you wrote, I'm actually glad the german Bundeswehr has an image of beer-drinking-good-for-nothing-slackers. At least it prevents a nationalist mindset and war-mongering within its ranks.
I prefer an army of slackers with their own mind disobeying rules if they find them inapproprate over an army of "mentally shaped" braindead minions.
And I prefer a country being part of a military pact consisting of a large number of nations (and thus, only working for a common interest everyone can agree on) over a nationalist army any day.

A national army exists to protect the interests of its people, not for war-mongering. Don't expect a foreign army to protect your interests, simply because it's not their concern. It might be that one can more or less rightfully blame the Third Reich for war mongering, but again: Not all national armies are the Wehrmacht.

There is no 'common interest' in an international pact. Similarly how in politics, the strongest party dictates. You have little to no power to overwrite their decision and while they demand you to take part in their conflicts, you can hardly expect them to provide you help if a crisis occurs in your own home. Not in a way it could be solved by a national army at least.

Submission to such a rulership is like submitting to a foreign army's conquest, minus the bloodshed. You have all rights to accept such a rule, but don't expect them to prioritize your interest in a way you prioritize theirs.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

You mean the SS-Totenkopfverbände or the Einsatzgruppen. Certainly not the Wehrmacht. A very small portion of the German army was responsible for the nazi party's misdeeds and though indeed, atrocities were committed by some members of both the Wehrmacht and other branches of the German armed forces, there were (little to) no higher orders issued for all the 'wrongdoings' some units committed. Bad people exist, my point was exactly that you can't write off millions of people based on the deeds of a small minority.

I didn't even say that.

Mental shaping can be wrong and can be right. You have all reasons to think that the Wehrmacht was an organization wherein mental shaping was bad, but not all armies in the universe are the Wehrmacht. Again, do not judge based on one example. If you hate the national socialists for being stereotypical and judgmental, don't do the same mistake they did.

And I didn't say that either.

Besides, YOU brought up that example, not me, so you're pretty much contradicting yourself.

And seriously, you can be glad I didn't take that last sentence personally. Comparing someone (especially a german) to the national socialists will not make you friends with anyone, I'll guarantee that.

A national army exists to protect the interests of its people, not for war-mongering. Don't expect a foreign army to protect your interests, simply because it's not their concern. It might be that one can more or less rightfully blame the Third Reich for war mongering, but again: Not all national armies are the Wehrmacht.

And what exactly are the interests it protects? Give me just one example why a national army is important in the modern globalized world! A country can not simply walk into the territory of another country nowadays. That's not how world politics work anymore. The ukraine conflict shows how its done nowadays: You set the mood via mass media and then gullible people will voluntarily hand over all their belongings to the new dictator.

There is no 'common interest' in an international pact. Similarly how in politics, the strongest party dictates. You have little to no power to overwrite their decision and while they demand you to take part in their conflicts, you can hardly expect them to provide you help if a crisis occurs in your own home. Not in a way it could be solved by a national army at least.

There is. It's part of the treaty. The nato is FORCED to act if a member country is threatened. Do your researches before stating something like that.
And believe it or not, the north atlantic pact is not a dictatorship, but a democracy.