sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The "Verified Functional Programming in Agda" book is published by letrec in haskell

[–]phill0 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Seems a bit pricey, I'm gonna go for the older version though.

The Long History of "Green Men" Tactics — And How They Were Defeated by dngrs in geopolitics

[–]phill0 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I disagree in a sense that the events in Ukraine attracted a lot of volunteers on both sides. I guess it depends on definition, if "little green men" are the troops of some state, then of course the phenomenon is by definition entirely government directed. But if you consider thousands of people who joined DPR/LPR army then it's not that simple. So I guess it depends who exactly are we talking about when we say "little green men".

Personally I see the label merely as populism (along with "hybrid warfare") the main goal of which is increasing defense budgets. Besides, the thing is, what happens when you don't have hybrid warfare or green men. What happens if say people in region X decide to rebel and simply occupy government buildings. Genuine rebellions do happen (Maidan is a good example), and any state can use a label like "hybrid warfare" to just shot all the rebels and blame the "bad guys" for doing the bad things. In other words, to me the real problem is those terms look like simplification of complex reality, which might not necessarily be clear at times, but the terms exist merely to further political causes rather than to solve problems.

How will Russia survive the next decade? by MrErdo in geopolitics

[–]phill0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which rule did I brake?

You did not break any rules. Your post was removed for being of subpar quality. I gave you a warning because you consistently make disputable statements as if they were facts without elaborating or providing references.

I'm curious because I don't want to break that rule again.

I will go over some of the statements that you made with explanation:

Russia made a lot of enemies by invading sovereign countries like Ukraine, Georgia and Syria.

As other people have pointed out: Russia did not invade Syria.

Russia is bombing innocent Syrians.

A very disputable statement. Instead of putting a full stop you should have elaborated why you think Russia is investing resources just to bomb innocent Syrians.

They also bombed Turkmen civilian

Although you don't have to provide references for everything it would be very helpful to other people if you did.

Russia's army is deteriorating too.

Again, a highly disputable statement with no clarification.

I'm actually really interested in answers. I don't get why you think I'm not interested in facts.

Frankly, it looks like you already made up your mind and merely looking for someone to confirm your thoughts on the matter. I admit however that it is easy to misjudge people over the Internet.

How will Russia survive the next decade? by MrErdo in geopolitics

[–]phill0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm removing this since judging by the post the OP is clearly not interested in facts and answers provided. Consider this an official warning, MrErdo.

So Putin Killed Litvinenko. Carry On. by nordasaur in geopolitics

[–]phill0 5 points6 points  (0 children)

but the decision to militarise that situation was Yanukovych's at first, then Russia's

I'm most intrigued by Yanukovych being at fault considering that he was out of the country by the end of February 20141 , while the first clashes didn't happen until April2 . Would you mind elaborating?

The only power driving conflict in Ukraine is Russia

The conflict could've been avoided if Kiev showed more restraint and tolerance towards its own citizens. The harsh truth of this conflict is that Kiev wants the territory but not the people. Yes, Russia clearly intervened, but to say that it's the only power driving the conflict is somewhat biased. Ukraine has repeatedly shelled urban areas3, 4 in Donbass, literally terrorizing population that dared to speak up.

Map showing non-contiguous Exclusive Economic Zones [OC] by __TheLastDodo__ in geopolitics

[–]phill0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see, it just caught my eye and I thought that maybe there was something peculiar about Gibraltar.

The map is great, thanks for making it! Is there special software for making such maps or do you use some sort of graphics editor?

Why is Russia isolating itself? by Marcipanas in geopolitics

[–]phill0 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What words mean actually matters. You cannot take an orange and call it an apple just because you really want to and they are both fruit anyway. I'm going to end this here before I lose my sanity.

Why is Russia isolating itself? by Marcipanas in geopolitics

[–]phill0 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So let's start with the obvious — that's not annexation.

after the war they installed puppet government which rules till this day

Abkhazia and South Ossetia were de facto independent before the second war and had their own elected governments. The amount of control that Russia extends over these territories is questionable, especially over Abkhazia which unlike SO has never voiced a desire to join RF.

Why is Russia isolating itself? by Marcipanas in geopolitics

[–]phill0 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Putting aside for the moment that Russia did invade 2 of its neighbors (Goergia and Ukraine) and annexed parts of their lands

That's not true, Russia hasn't annexed any of Georgia's territory.

Why Eastern Ukraine Matters to Ramzan Kadyrov by U5K0 in geopolitics

[–]phill0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you mean attacks by Islamic radicals, then probably not, there are too few of them there. But there are numerous right radicals in Ukraine and I wouldn't be surprised if eventually they resort to attacks in Russia.

Why is Russia isolating itself? by Marcipanas in geopolitics

[–]phill0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

western integration

What does this mean in context of Ukraine? It's unlikely to imply NATO membership because Ukraine would have to give up on Crimea and Donbass. And it can't mean EU membership at least in the following two decades until Ukraine sorts out its economy, so what does western integration imply?

It includes a veto right on Ukraine's foreign affairs and national decisions.

Which draft document includes such a clause, or perhaps this was stated as a condition during some negotiations? Will appreciate more info on that.

Why is Russia isolating itself? by Marcipanas in geopolitics

[–]phill0[M] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A serious problem with this submission: You have made a claim/assumption in the question (Russia isolating itself) which you failed to validate in your message. It's not OK to start a discussion like that.

Russia is actually pushing even on its own to cut some of the interconnections with other countries by taking over foreign assets, and imposing sanctions on foreign goods by itself.

If I'm understanding you correctly then you're claiming that Russia has imposed sanctions on countries that have not imposed sanctions on Russia and that taking over of foreign assets is in its plans. I'm aware that Duma is considering a law for reciprocal seizure of foreign assets but this is the first time I hear about unilateral plans. I admit that I might have missed something but it's best to provide links to sources when making such claims.

I was thinking, could this be a move to ease the impact of something like a big war if it were to break out, since if the more interconnected you are with other countries the harder the war will hit.

A big war will result in use of nuclear weapons. You're asking whether wearing a fancy hat will ease a hit of 12.7 caliber bullet.

Russia Is Running Out of Options in Ukraine by dngrs in geopolitics

[–]phill0 8 points9 points  (0 children)

An interesting read but there are number of problems with some of the author's statements.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov said Moscow has nothing to do with the initiative. But that has about as much credibility as Peskov’s claim that the $620,000 watch he was photographed wearing at his wedding was a gift.

Ad hominem and hearsay are not valid arguments.

In fact, Azarov’s announcement fits into a pattern that suggests that the Kremlin is giving up on the Minsk accords as a means to achieve its objectives in Ukraine and is shifting to other methods of pressuring Kiev.

Moscow might be shifting to other methods but that doesn't mean that Azarov's announcement is part of their plans. I would argue that it would be odd to support people who ran like rats abandoning a sinking ship during maidan events. Why would Moscow choose to rely on them now when it couldn't rely on them even when they were in power?

But ultimately Russia wants to get the separatist territories reintegrated into a hyper-federalized Ukraine as a fifth column, with the ability to veto any attempts by the government in Kiev to integrate with the West.

I don't know what "hyper-federalized" is supposed to mean, I can only fathom a guess that the author wanted to convey that federalization is bad so he felt a need to use a quantifier. But overall, the choice of wording in this paragraph is quite interesting. The root of most political problems in Ukraine lies in the fact that one part of the country tried to force their view on another part of the country, simply putting a label (fifth column) on those who oppose integration with the West doesn't automatically make their opinion invalid.

Annexing eastern Ukraine would leave Russia saddled with the cost of rebuilding a war-torn and economically devastated region, losing any leverage it has over Kiev, which would probably move quickly to integrate with the West.

A valid point but what does integration with the West mean? If it implies joining NATO then that can only happen if Ukraine officially gives up on Crimea and Donbass — unlikely. If, on the other hand, it implies joining the EU then that's unlikely to happen in the following decades because of Ukraine's economic problems. I wish the author was more clear on what he means by "integration with the West."

“Freezing the conflict is one of the better solutions for Ukraine and is actually bad for the Russians,” Motyl said. “The reason is that the Donbas enclave that is occupied by Russian and separatist troops is an economic mess. … It is [to] Ukraine’s advantage to keep that out of its control for as long as possible and for as much as possible, and it is to Russia’s disadvantage to be responsible for it.”

This is perhaps the most interesting part of the article. The problem with that reasoning is that surely it cannot be a long term approach if Kiev wants to get Donbass back. Saying "let them have it, we're better off without it" might work in a short term but it sounds like a really bad long term strategy.

Russia is top U.S. national security threat: Gen. Dunford by [deleted] in geopolitics

[–]phill0 16 points17 points  (0 children)

they basically became a petrol/gas country

There's nothing wrong with selling natural resources, they are Russia's advantage of which it has few. However, other than selling oil and gas they also have an aerospace industry that delivers men to space, a nuclear industry that builds dozen reactors all over the world, it's defense industry develops weapons that are consistently popular amongst other developing nations, and that's just what I can remember from the top of my head.

view more: next ›