Brace up for new Crimean War

[gay_Aleks]

Curiously, I have noticed that the American response is pointing out the faults of the Russians, which results into them repeating the same old thing, and the mill keeps on spinning, as there's no beginning, no end. Because, as WoT says, the wheel will keep on turnin'.

 

[LamaGT]

The problem with your prophecy is that existence of Ukraine as it is now is itself a big question. If we are to evaluate different predicitions about Ukraine - the scenario where Ukraine is dissolute into 2, 3, n parts is much more probable. Ukraine economy is nearing its end, so there will be tensions between Kiev (central government) and eastern parts of Ukraine which will consider that living withing Russian Commonwealth is much better. Ukrainians easily can change their colors and become Russians as there is not this much difference, except Western Ukrainians which are closer to Poles by mentality, so they should go to Poland.

One assumes that a direct matchup between the crises in South Ossetia and the extrapolated one in the Crimea would not occur. Obviously if the situation's not the exact same as it was in South Ossetia the Ukrainians and Russians would according to Winner's prognosis find another way to create a crisis, such as a Russian intervention in the Crimea upon the outbreak of unstable conditions in Ukraine to "protect their sea base and their nationals" or some bullcrap like that.

Dude I don't agree with the five years thing either - hell even Winner said that it was his worst case scenario. If I were leading Russia it'd already have come to a war or crisis, but since saner people are in charge it's unlikely that anything of the sort will erupt.

It's actually will be interesting to watch what will happen on next Ukrainian elections. The current Western candidate for orange presidency went bad, they will have to do something with this. Finance new orange revolution with some other candidate, or may be try to revive Yuschenko.
The recent Russian diplomatic demarsh is also somehow linked with upcoming elections IMO.

Get ready to watch episod II "Ukrainian freedom-loving people against Russian tyranny", announced in December 2009.

The number of successful prophecies in this thread is too damn high! Although these all suffer from the Nostradamus fallacy (including of course Winner's). I'm sure that if you're willing to ignore a few of his mistakes you will do the same here.

Wow, the original post was made in 2009. Winner really hit it right on the head on this one, impressive.

And of course, the usual pro-Russia crowd, which just a few years ago was saying that Russia would never invade Crimea, is now saying that "Of course it was only natural that Russia was going to take Crimea back; Winner didn't actually predict anything that impressive."

Topkek.

When you spend your days wondering what "evil" Russia will do next like Winner, the first thing you'll think of is Crimea. Even though he completely failed on circumstances (and indeed he assumed that it would actually happen much earlier, not barely before the end of the 5 years of his predictions), the ingredients were always there and the cake could have been made, or in other words the end result could have happened no matter what were the means used.

The Russian response to getting caught doing something:

1. Deny, deny, deny. See also: insisting that those were not Russian soldiers pouring through the Crimea who illegally lacked military identification symbols.

2. Whataboutism. Deflect criticism by saying that America does it too, whether or not the comparison is valid, rather than attempt to defend the action.

3. Insist that it was actually not a bad thing, but a good thing.

You'll note that 1 and 3 directly contradict each other. This, however, cannot stop a nationalist.

Yeah, we got it the first time. The bolded part is also contradictory BTW. Also, pointing out hypocrisy (what you call whataboutism) doesn't necessarily imply you agree with the action, it actually implies the opposite. If you say [Russia is evil because] Crimea was invaded, I might point out, since we're talking about invasions, the countless military invasions the US has done, and think it's bad and shouldn't be done. If you hold the opinion that the US invasions are somehow better, this is a perfectly valid argument. If you hold the opinion that despite the fact that the US has done worse invasions it's still "good", while Russia is evil because of Crimea, it's also a valid argument.
One "person" who will think so is the USSD, which is why you often hear this "whataboutism" in official Russian diplomacy.

After that I might add that the invasion of Crimea is objectively different, and the only reason it's called the same name of the war in Iraq is pure semantics. I personally don't point out hypocrisy as an alternative to 3, it's only a secondary argument. I also never denied that there were troops.

So, suddenly only 3 is valid, and there are no contradictions

 

[luiz]

His point is that Russian Ultra-Nationalists will simply switch the arguments they use to justify something as facts become clearer. Crimea is hardly the only historical example.

1. Denial - E.g., "We didn't kill those thousands of Poles in Katyn! That was the Nazis' doing! How can you even accuse us of that?? Are you a Nazi sympathizer???"

2. Whataboutism - E.g., "Why focus on Katyn?? Let's talk about how the Poles helped carry out the Holocaust. Let's talk about about how the Poles screwed Czechoslovakia."

3. We did well! - E.g., "War loomed on the horizon and the Polish officer corps and intelligentsia represented a serious threat to the survival of Holy Mother Russia! Great Stalin did what needed to be done!"

So first they deny the whole event happened in the first place (no massacre at Katyn, no annexation of Crime, no Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine), then they deflect criticism by pointing at bad things other countries did (Holocaust! Guantanamo! The Burning of Carthage!) and finally they claim the thing they denied ever happened was actually a good thing.

 

[LamaGT]

His point is that Russian Ultra-Nationalists will simply switch the arguments they use to justify something as facts become clearer. Crimea is hardly the only historical example.

1. Denial - E.g., "We didn't kill those thousands of Poles in Katyn! That was the Nazis' doing! How can you even accuse us of that?? Are you a Nazi sympathizer???"

2. Whataboutism - E.g., "Why focus on Katyn?? Let's talk about how the Poles helped carry out the Holocaust. Let's talk about about how the Poles screwed Czechoslovakia."

3. We did well! - E.g., "War loomed on the horizon and the Polish officer corps and intelligentsia represented a serious threat to the survival of Holy Mother Russia! Great Stalin did what needed to be done!"

So first they deny the whole event happened in the first place (no massacre at Katyn, no annexation of Crime, no Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine), then they deflect criticism by pointing at bad things other countries did (Holocaust! Guantanamo! The Burning of Carthage!) and finally they claim the thing they denied ever happened was actually a good thing.

Well actually those are generic counter-attacks that anyone defending his own position. It could be applied to Americans, Europeans, Chinese, Eskimos etc.
And actually the third would at least be honest in that case.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Ukraine in today's condition won't last for a year and a half.

It either will be liberated and rejuvenate via the civil war and more uprisings in those regions currently controlled by the junta. Then we will see a relatively socialist, nationalized, egalitarian state with no oligarchs and with true self-goverment (not the fraudelent Western type democracy), and firmly pro-Russian.

Or - a more realistic scenario - Ukraine will collapse and disentegrate based on ethnic, historical and private property factors.

Either way Crimea will remain in Russia and no military clashes will happen there. It is small, extremely pro-Russian (even most of the Tatars are either pro-Russian, or neutral, and here in RF they are in a bigger family of Turkic/Muslim people under a sophisticated federal system), and with each year it will be more and more clear to everyone that Crimea doesn't belong to Ukraine and never was natural there.

And Winner is a failed foreteller a-priori...

 

[luiz]

Well actually those are generic counter-attacks that anyone defending his own position. It could be applied to Americans, Europeans, Chinese, Eskimos etc.
And actually the third would at least be honest in that case.

They are called logical fallacies and are terrible arguments. And of course coupled with a good dose of lying (Ie, denying everything until it is proved).

And not sure I get what you're saying about the third point. That the Katyn Massacre was justified??

Then we will see a relatively socialist, nationalized, egalitarian state with no oligarchs and with true self-goverment (not the fraudelent Western type democracy), and firmly pro-Russian.

Just like Putin's Russia! Paradise on Earth.

 

[LamaGT]

They are called logical fallacies and are terrible arguments. And of course coupled with a good dose of lying (Ie, denying everything until it is proved).

And not sure I get what you're saying about the third point. That the Katyn Massacre was justified??



Just like Putin's Russia! Paradise on Earth.

The first and third are not logical fallacies by any definition. The second one is, but as with all fallacies it depends on how it's used. Appealing to authority is in general a valid heuristics for many things (would you suddenly stop trusting a doctor if he said something like "trust me, I'm a doctor"?), and the "tu quoque" fallacy can also be meaningful in some cases because otherwise the term "hypocrisy" wouldn't exist. This is all covered by the "fallacy" fallacy.

Don't try to strawman me, I only said that a hypothetical person who believes Katyn was a necessary evil would be honest in saying it was a necessary evil.

 

[LoneRebel]

The number of successful prophecies in this thread is too damn high! Although these all suffer from the Nostradamus fallacy (including of course Winner's). I'm sure that if you're willing to ignore a few of his mistakes you will do the same here.

When you spend your days wondering what "evil" Russia will do next like Winner, the first thing you'll think of is Crimea. Even though he completely failed on circumstances (and indeed he assumed that it would actually happen much earlier, not barely before the end of the 5 years of his predictions), the ingredients were always there and the cake could have been made, or in other words the end result could have happened no matter what were the means used.

I confess that I find it hard to understand why you and all the other pro-Russian posters are so interested in trying to prove that Winner didn't successfully predict anything. Really, why? I mean, it's not as if proving that Winner is a failure of a prophet suddenly proves that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified, so the inordinate amount of attention you're paying to downplaying his prediction is rather silly.

Yeah, we got it the first time. The bolded part is also contradictory BTW. Also, pointing out hypocrisy (what you call whataboutism) doesn't necessarily imply you agree with the action, it actually implies the opposite. If you say [Russia is evil because] Crimea was invaded, I might point out, since we're talking about invasions, the countless military invasions the US has done, and think it's bad and shouldn't be done. If you hold the opinion that the US invasions are somehow better, this is a perfectly valid argument. If you hold the opinion that despite the fact that the US has done worse invasions it's still "good", while Russia is evil because of Crimea, it's also a valid argument.
One "person" who will think so is the USSD, which is why you often hear this "whataboutism" in official Russian diplomacy.

After that I might add that the invasion of Crimea is objectively different, and the only reason it's called the same name of the war in Iraq is pure semantics. I personally don't point out hypocrisy as an alternative to 3, it's only a secondary argument. I also never denied that there were troops.

So, suddenly only 3 is valid, and there are no contradictions

Was it really so difficult for you to understand that he was listing three types of arguments used by Russian nationalists? Not necessarily by the same people, and not at the same time. Yes, they contradict each other, that's the point. Deny it until it becomes undeniable, and then when you can no longer deny it, start saying "Yes, we did it, but it was the right thing to do."

By the way, that is the longest defense of the the appeal to hypocrisy I've ever read in my life. What if we believe that US invasions and Russian invasions are equally evil, and that the US's evil deeds do not give Russia the right to do the same? Where's your argument then?

And actually the third would at least be honest in that case.

Don't try to strawman me, I only said that a hypothetical person who believes Katyn was a necessary evil would be honest in saying it was a necessary evil.

What the heck does this even mean? Why would you even include this? How does this part strengthen your argument at all? All it means is that a person who used this argument and honestly believed it would be honestly stupid, or honestly deluded, or honestly evil. I fail to see how that helps your case. I'm sure a bunch of Nazis honestly believed that Russians were subhumans who deserved to be exterminated. That a person honestly believes something is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing. And besides, one could honestly and sincerely use the first two arguments as well, so your attempt to make a distinction between the first two arguments and the third one based on "honesty" fails.

 

[red_elk]

and the "tu quoque" fallacy can also be meaningful in some cases because otherwise the term "hypocrisy" wouldn't exist.

"tu quoque" argument is usually used to destroy the opponent's assumed moral highground. Often subtly claimed by his criticism, but non existing in reality.

Opponent 1. "You did wrong things, A and B!" (We have moral right to criticize you, because we are better)
Opponent 2. "And you did wrong things too, C and D!" (You are not better, in fact you are hypocrites)

In most cases, this is not an answer to the opponents argument literally, but instead an answer to opponents subtle message.

 

[Srdjan]

I prophetise that in the year 2020, Bulgarians will be eating burgers served by American forces in Crimea.

And burger price will be five rubles.

 

[LamaGT]

I confess that I find it hard to understand why you and all the other pro-Russian posters are so interested in trying to prove that Winner didn't successfully predict anything. Really, why? I mean, it's not as if proving that Winner is a failure of a prophet suddenly proves that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified, so the inordinate amount of attention you're paying to downplaying his prediction is rather silly.

Because he details of his prediction aren't true. When you're saying it is you're committing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, also called Nostradamus fallacy in the case of predictions.


Was it really so difficult for you to understand that he was listing three types of arguments used by Russian nationalists? Not necessarily by the same people, and not at the same time. Yes, they contradict each other, that's the point. Deny it until it becomes undeniable, and then when you can no longer deny it, start saying "Yes, we did it, but it was the right thing to do."

As it was right under my post talking about these things, I kind of felt the implication.

By the way, that is the longest defense of the the appeal to hypocrisy I've ever read in my life. What if we believe that US invasions and Russian invasions are equally evil, and that the US's evil deeds do not give Russia the right to do the same? Where's your argument then?


Good for you, if you can honestly tell yourself that. In that case my argument becomes disputing the fact that Russia's "invasions" are evil. The appeal to hypocrisy is kind of a counter-attack, and as I've said it would only work for people who think they've done nothing wrong. That said, not everyone is well versed in debate pitfalls.



What the heck does this even mean? Why would you even include this? How does this part strengthen your argument at all? All it means is that a person who used this argument and honestly believed it would be honestly stupid, or honestly deluded, or honestly evil. I fail to see how that helps your case. I'm sure a bunch of Nazis honestly believed that Russians were subhumans who deserved to be exterminated. That a person honestly believes something is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing. And besides, one could honestly and sincerely use the first two arguments as well, so your attempt to make a distinction between the first two arguments and the third one based on "honesty" fails.

Honesty is usually considered a good quality in itself. In any case, you're fighting a strawman here. I never said that a person who defends the Katyn massacre is good or anything, just that he was honest because he exposed what he really believed in. I'm not even sure why you felt the need to write several paragraphs on what was basically half a joke.

In quote.

 

[gay_Aleks]

And burger price will be five rubles.

Or, 0.5 US dollars best case scenario.

 

[Yeekim]

Or, 0.5 US dollars best case scenario.

Forgot a zero there...

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Then we will see a relatively socialist, nationalized, egalitarian state with no oligarchs and with true self-goverment (not the fraudelent Western type democracy), and firmly pro-Russian.

Just like Putin's Russia! Paradise on Earth.

Obviously it is not. But I'll make a note that you consider a socialist nationalized state a paradise.

 

[Domen]

Let's talk about about how the Poles screwed Czechoslovakia.

First please tell us who is buried in these graves from January 1919, and who was the aggressor in that conflict:

"Here was killed
Major Cezary Haller
Died bravely in defence
of Silesia against Czech invasion
on 26.01.1919
Glory to his memory"

"To the twenty fallen in Stonawa on 26.01.1919"

The one at the bottom (syn Alojzy):

"Karol Świrek, teacher, WW1 veteran,
Died as a self-defence militia volunteer, hero
in defence of the land of Silesia
during the Czech invasion
on 26.01.1919 in the battle of Olbrachcice"

"Fallen in 1919 in defence of Silesian land, hero
Franciszek Kubas"

"Ferdynand Knych. Died of wounds at the age of 21 in the battle of Skoczów, 1919"

And a mass grave of 20:

Spoiler :

Now from the opposite side:

Sources:

http://eksploratorzy.com.pl/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=620

http://eksploratorzy.com.pl/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=3851

 

[Domen]

The area had firm ethnic Polish and Polish-speaking majority (here a publication in Czech language showing data from all censuses):

http://www.polonica.cz/content/Polaci na Tesinsku.pdf

A plebiscite was planned, which was supposed to determine whether the area was to become part of Poland or part of Czechosloviakia.

There was a demarcation line. Most of the planned plebiscite area was under temporary Polish administration, some was under Czech administration.

Czech forces invaded on 23 January 1919 - before the plebiscite - to prevent it from taking place. And until 30 January captured the Polish area.

The planned plebiscite never took place. In 1938 Poland retook the area without casualties (unlike in 1919 Czech invasion, when few hundreds died).

 

[sophie]

Thank you. That was definitely necessary.

 

[Domen]

Well - I'm tired of people saying how Poland allegedly "took part in partition of Czechoslovakia as Hitler's ally" because in 1938 (AFTER the Munich betrayal by France and Britain) it took a tiny piece of land (the size of the annexed area was about 20 km x 40 km, or 800 square km - nothing comparable to Sudetenland - annexed by Germany - or Carpathian Ruthenia - annexed by Hungary; both annexed with cheerful approval from Britain and France), which had been previously sneak-attacked and bloodily occupied by Czechoslovakia in January 1919 (and that invasion was not without war crimes - in several localities Czech forces murdered POWs and civilians). Czechs invaded the area because they knew they could not win the plebiscite (that's why they had to prevent it). Period.

 

[Domen]

And you know what - Czechoslovakia also mobilized her army to invade Poland in 1945 - 1947.

Actually some small-scale combats at the border took place in June 1945 (Czech armoured train "charged" across the border into Poland).

In 1945 - 1947 there was such a political crisis that there almost took place another Polish-Czech war. This is not a well-known part of history, but both countries had armies concentrated along the border at that time. And it was not until 1958 (!!!) when Czechoslovakia finally accepted Poland's boders.

After WW2 Czechoslovakia demanded from Poland: 1) Kladsko region and 2) several counties in Silesia.

Poland wanted to give them Kladsko but in exchange for Zaolzie (area invaded by Czechoslovakia in 1919 and then annexed by Poland in 1938).

They did not want a compromise. I think it would have been better to exchange Kladsko (which had German and Czech population, but Germans got deported so only Czechs remained + new Polish immigrants arriving after 1945) for Zaolzie (which had a majority Polish population with Czech minority).

 

[warpus]

Yeah, that point that I've seen people make that Germany's & SU's split of Poland (or Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland) is in some way similar to Poland annexing this here land - it's a silly point and people need to stop making it.

I don't think we needed to see all those tombstones, but I agree with you.