‘Our land’: Russia tells US that Crimea won’t be ‘given back’ to Ukraine

[Slant]

Right, me pointing out that reading emails is a breach in our privacy is bing a "conspiracy theorist" now... Must be good living in a world where everything you do not want to know is people being conspiracy theorist, you must feel really safe.

I'm not interested in who's scanning who's email. Do you know how many people the US would have to employ to read every single email literally from beginning to end if they were to read all bullshit emails? I specifically told you twice at least that I was more concerned about them editing letters. And then you proceed to tell me the US Government is censoring emails?

Yeah, that's a conspiracy theory leaving any rationale argument. :P

Edit: Just to give you an idea of the scope:

In 2016, the number of business and consumer emails sent and received per day will
total over 215.3 billion, and is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 4.6%
over the next four years, reaching over 257.7 billion by the end of 2020.

http://www.radicati.com/wp/wp-conten...ve_Summary.pdf

So, let's assume for an average sized email, you need 30s to read it. Just to read the words, not even to understand the content. Let's say half of that email traffic is going through the US, because Google/Microsoft. I'm being generous here and give you half, when I think it's probably higher than that.

So, let's talk about 125 BILLION emails per day. Times 30 seconds... that's.. 3.75 TRILLION seconds of reading per day. Let's get that down to more manageable numbers... in minutes that's 62.5 BILLION minutes. Ok, we need hours here... shit, still 1.042 BILLION hours of reading PER DAY. Ok, but we can hire more than one guy to read this shit. Let's... pick... the entire US population of 140 million people. That's a whopping 7.4h per day reading emails. FOR THE ENTIRE US POPULATION.

Just to give you the inkling of an idea just how ridiculous your conspiracy is.

You would need to have the entire US population reading emails for 7.4h a day just to read half of all email traffic. And they haven't spent a second editing, yet. Or evaluating those emails.

Yeah, I'm pretty certain this is impossible.

[Deleted]

I'm not interested in who's scanning who's email. Do you know how many people the US would have to employ to read every single email literally from beginning to end if they were to read all bullshit emails? I specifically told you twice at least that I was more concerned about them editing letters. And then you proceed to tell me the US Government is censoring emails?

Yeah, that's a conspiracy theory leaving any rationale argument. :P

What a nice strawman you have put up there, of course they won't read everything, they have scans that reveal the things that they find interesting. If they really had to read everything then it would not be very efficient now would it. The problem is that they can can scan on whatever the fuck they want and they can read complete mails if they want too.
Yes, you keep being hung up on the editing part, and as i've asked you after that if you think that reading emails isn't bad enough. But you kept on whaling on about the editing.
As i've said multiple times now, i think that just reading the emails is a breach in our privacy, this includes scanning. Sorry if i do not buy into the whole "if you have got nothing to hide" argument, it is a silly one.

So no, it is not a conspiracy theory but rather you trying to build a strawman.

[Slant]

What a nice strawman you have put up there, of course they won't read everything, they have scans that reveal the things that they find interesting. If they really had to read everything then it would not be very efficient now would it. The problem is that they can can scan on whatever the fuck they want and they can read complete mails if they want too.
Yes, you keep being hung up on the editing part, and as i've asked you after that if you think that reading emails isn't bad enough. But you kept on whaling on about the editing.
As i've said multiple times now, i think that just reading the emails is a breach in our privacy, this includes scanning. Sorry if i do not buy into the whole "if you have got nothing to hide" argument, it is a silly one.

So no, it is not a conspiracy theory but rather you trying to build a strawman.

Yes, it is a breach of your privacy. But the fun bit is, this is a US problem that Europeans can do nothing about. The US population loves being spied on. You're right about that, but you've quite derailed the thread from me talking about actual, cold war censorship and propaganda to... the NSA scanning your email for keywords like "bomb" or "cocaine" and then investigating what those emails are about.

Point: . <--------------------------- You: -----------------------------> \o/

[Shalcker]

Yes, well. And he's pretty decent for Russia domestically. Apart from the sanctions he provokes from the EU and the US. Be that as it may, he needs to take a step back. I get it, it's easy to sell the NATO conspiracy to take over Russia to the Russian people. They might gobble that up like corn flakes. But Putin himself, he knows NATO isn't doing anything.

You're wrong on this part. And he said it many times, both to internal and international audience. Hell, you can go as far back as his Munich speech in 2007 and see same thing you hear from him today

I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleague, the Italian Defence Minister, just said or what he said was inexact. In any case, I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view. Or I didn't hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along with this, it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms.

...

Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.

Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.

And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.

NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues, as everybody knows. There are still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction.

But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.

So you're wrong in your conclusion as well.

So this whole shebang is really just a show to impress his own people. As long as he sticks to that, I don't give a fuck. But once he starts meddling in EU affairs, I'd be supporting pretty much whatever sanction or other punishment the EU dreams up. Russia has zero claim in the EU. Russia is European in geography only. Politically, they have no place here and can pretty much fuck off to Asia.

Sorry, but our affairs are linked as long as NATO exists and acts hostile to Russia.

[Deleted]

Yes, it is a breach of your privacy. But the fun bit is, this is a US problem that Europeans can do nothing about. The US population loves being spied on. You're right about that, but you've quite derailed the thread from me talking about actual, cold war censorship and propaganda to... the NSA scanning your email for keywords like "bomb" or "cocaine" and then investigating what those emails are about.

Point: . <--------------------------- You: -----------------------------> \o/

We Europeans can do something about it, it would just have to be very drastic and that has not yet been worth it.

But i think you have derailed the thread enough about talking about cold war censorship as the topic is about the Crimea.
As i've said in my second post, i just wanted to show that it is not just one side that has propaganda and does stuff that really should not happen. Yet it does.

[Shalcker]

Are Russians allowed to vote?

Parties can nominate their candidates, then people in regions vote on them (except for North Caucasus regions which do it via parliament vote - too much corruption for direct vote i guess). Non-party candidates are not allowed.

My point was that low-level corruption is not tied to performance metrics.

Because low-level corruption is preventable by other measures (which do exist and work).

In fact, governor isn't even supposed to control agencies which deal with corruption in his region, so unless he is personally implicated there is no metrics by which he could be judged there.

LOL, you did not really say that right? Let corruption ran rampant then. Afterall incompetence is worse.

Human life is limited, as does press/public attention. Got to focus on stuff that gives most bang for the buck.

They choose one expert and then have the opinion reviewed by another one blindly. It gives that impression. They then have those opinions reviewed by authorities to ensure it does not stray from the established. This does not really seem flawed unless I'm missing something.

That's how you get group-think established.

Those experts are vetted by the ones doing the transparency repport. I'll repeat it one more time you are going to have to prove that the experts are in fact incompetent or that their opinion does not match reality. Not just throw some vague platitudes.

Who vets those who vet results? :P

It is basically Western circle-jerk.

[caervek]

So im guessing you would be fine with people reading your mail.

No but that's not what was being discussed, it was automated software scanning the emails, something I have no issue with.

[NED funded]

Parties can nominate their candidates, then people in regions vote on them (except for North Caucasus regions which do it via parliament vote - too much corruption for direct vote i guess). Non-party candidates are not allowed.

Because low-level corruption is preventable by other measures (which do exist and work).

In fact, governor isn't even supposed to control agencies which deal with corruption in his region, so unless he is personally implicated there is no metrics by which he could be judged there.

Human life is limited, as does press/public attention. Got to focus on stuff that gives most bang for the buck.

That's how you get group-think established.

Who vets those who vet results? :P

It is basically Western circle-jerk.

1. Aside from the north caucuses then popularity or lack of an opposition matters.
2. Unless Russia is wasting on some massive projects, them waste on small things is infinitely more boring than corruption. So I would assume that does not get covered that much.
3. You have to make sure you have an authority to review if the results are consistent and if not why? This is called peer review on the academic field.
3. You can, everyone can. Check each one of their sources and point where they went wrong or misled.

[Elim Garak]

Yeah, when you deviate from what is established they better have a good reason as to why, else there is something wrong.

What do you mean why? It's the data, is it not? Or is it pure opinion? If it's opinion - there's nothing to discuss here. If it's data you don't ask for a reason - you accept it. If you ignore any deviations - you cannot accumulate them and every future deviation will be ignored on the same grounds. Great.

[NED funded]

What do you mean why? It's the data, is it not? Or is it pure opinion? If it's opinion - there's nothing to discuss here. If it's data you don't ask for a reason - you accept it. If you ignore any deviations - you cannot accumulate them and every future deviation will be ignored on the same grounds. Great.

Even of it's just data, the model can be questionable. Or the origin of said data. But that is off topic and you are boring to be frank.

[Elim Garak]

Even of it's just data, the model can be questionable. Or the origin of said data. But that is off topic and you are boring to be frank.

That's why we ignore indexes from opinion experts.

[Deleted]

No but that's not what was being discussed, it was automated software scanning the emails, something I have no issue with.

So you think that no one ever reads those mails when they found something that they are searching for??

[Slant]

Sorry, but our affairs are linked as long as NATO exists and acts hostile to Russia.

Um, they may be linked. But Russia is not a participant. Russia has absolutely zero say in what goes on in the EU or NATO. And if NATO wants to station a million soldiers in Lithuania, that is still not Russia's business. They can plant a million Russian soldiers on their soil anywhere they like. But it's rich coming from Putinistas talking about NATO acting hostile towards Russia... yes, well, we don't annex territory whenever it pleases us. So, that's pretty rich coming from you. :P

- - - Updated - - -

We Europeans can do something about it, it would just have to be very drastic and that has not yet been worth it.

But i think you have derailed the thread enough about talking about cold war censorship as the topic is about the Crimea.
As i've said in my second post, i just wanted to show that it is not just one side that has propaganda and does stuff that really should not happen. Yet it does.

First you derail the thread with meaningless rubble and then accuse me of doing so? Rofl, you're funny.

[Deleted]

Um, they may be linked. But Russia is not a participant. Russia has absolutely zero say in what goes on in the EU or NATO. And if NATO wants to station a million soldiers in Lithuania, that is still not Russia's business. They can plant a million Russian soldiers on their soil anywhere they like. But it's rich coming from Putinistas talking about NATO acting hostile towards Russia... yes, well, we don't annex territory whenever it pleases us. So, that's pretty rich coming from you. :P

- - - Updated - - -



First you derail the thread with meaningless rubble and then accuse me of doing so? Rofl, you're funny.

Right, because the cold war is totally isn't off topic

[caervek]

So you think that no one ever reads those mails when they found something that they are searching for??

If they found something they were searching for then the sender/recipient/both is a criminal/terrorist and the argument is moot.

[Shalcker]

Um, they may be linked. But Russia is not a participant. Russia has absolutely zero say in what goes on in the EU or NATO.

Say goodbye to INF then :P

Hypersonic Zircons are coming to production in 2018 already too...

And if NATO wants to station a million soldiers in Lithuania, that is still not Russia's business.

You did see that agreement from 1999 mentioned? Is that the part where NATO basically "well, we had this agreement and now we ignore it. Not sorry at all. You still have to abide by it though."?

They can plant a million Russian soldiers on their soil anywhere they like. But it's rich coming from Putinistas talking about NATO acting hostile towards Russia... yes, well, we don't annex territory whenever it pleases us. So, that's pretty rich coming from you. :P

Did you see Russia acting hostile toward NATO in 1999? 2007? Russian rhetoric and complaints hasn't changed one bit since then.

[Theodarzna]

Considering it was historically "their land," going back to the Keiven Rus, from which Russia owes its existence to, I am unsure why this is a huge shock.

[Hiricine]

Crimea is in an interesting predicament. They don't seem to like the Ukrainian Govt, they probably want to just be independent but they know it won't happen unless they can defend themselves from Ukraine. So they've partnered up with Russia just to have the guns to back them up.

If Russia offered Crimea its independence completely, would Ukraine allow it to be? The answer to that question says a lot about the relationship between the three.

[Deleted]

Another Crimea thread? We've gone over the facts a dozen times already. Crimea is Russian now and will be for the foreseeable future, deal with it.

[Deleted]

If they found something they were searching for then the sender/recipient/both is a criminal/terrorist and the argument is moot.

That all depends on what they are looking for, and that we do not know, specially since there is very little oversight.