Comment Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1083
We moved away from no such definition because none existed. There is no requirement to have children as a condition of marriage.
It would make your comment look a lot more reliable if you at least got your measurement units right.
As noted in the article, it's not the speed alone that is the achievement, but the speed over distance.
There are multiple extremely serious reasons why Russia is extremely worried about China. First there's the territorial dispute that they more or less settled in 2004 over islands on Amur river. Russia was effectively forced to cede a significant chunk of territory to Chinese.
Second is the general state of border regions. I've read some studies that suggest they are now around 90% ethnic Han and 10% everyone else. That is on Russian side. Once you look at the region as a whole, you start seeing the severe strategic threat. It's a very difficult region, mostly taiga forests with very difficult logistics and little populace. And just a bit south you have China that has huge population density and distinct interest in the Siberian resources.
It's pretty easy to see the threat if you look at it from Russian side.
On your point #2, you have to remember that we have in fact ceded territory to Russia back when it was part of USSR, specifically because Stalin saw it of strategic importance to secure Leningrad. Right now, the main threat to Leningrad (modern St. Petersburg) is no longer from us - we are quite far away and the region is swampy, making it very difficult to advance over.
On the other hand Estonia is close and has a far better ground. They are far more dangerous to Russia from this angle.
Our strategic importance to Russia lies mostly in three aspects:
a. We are one of the two sides of the Gulf of Finland that can enable complete naval blockade of St. Petersburg. During WW2 not a single Russian sub succeeded in penetrating this blockade.
b. Our closeness to their Arctic supply lines, specifically Murmansk.
c. Ahvenanmaa/Åland islands and their strategic location in Baltic Sea.
On point a. Russia already has almost no submarine presence in the region. They have only two diesel attack subs total. Even Sweden has more than twice that. They learned their lesson from WW2.
On point b. Nazi Germany attacking from Finnish soil never succeeded in severing the supply lines to Murmansk during WW2. There's also the fact that far more dangerous Norway also has significant presence in the same region, which again reduces our priority.
Point c. is directly linked to point a.
As for Putin, I think you're too focused on looking at it from our side. Looking at the issues from his side, the logic becomes obvious. He wanted to uplift his country which was left in shambles by Yeltsin, and largely succeeded. Having learned from chaos of 1990s, he moved to secure Russia from next potential bout of West effectively raiding Russia (which let's be frank is an apt description of what was done to Russia in 1990s, even according to very people who were behind the plans to transition Russia to Western style economy) by bolstering nationalism and rebuilding links with former allies.
During this time his leadership clearly considered many deals made with the West to be made in good faith, even after they were breached one after another, mostly unilateral action from Western parties (i.e. agreement on conventional forces in Europe, enlargement of NATO, etc). Diplomatic sources appear to mostly confirm that Russian side made it very clear that any Ukraine was their "red line", for understandable reasons - Crimea is their main warm water port, and Ukraine was their chief military supplier.
Then the EU deal basically forced Ukraine to choose either Russia or EU. Yanukovich was apparently dithering and even willing to accept the EU side until Russians basically outlined the consequences that deal would unleash on Ukraine, like end of preferential income tariffs from Russian side as to avoid EU companies would simply use Ukraine to bypass Russian tariffs. Yanukovich balked, young Ukrainians thinking they could become like Poles and just migrate to UK/France/Germany to work if deal went through saw this as a vote for status quo instead of modernisation. This was the image that was clearly sold to many on Maidan. Months of protests followed.
The "weapon usage" part you're talking about, including the still-mysterious snipers that showed in the last days indeed occurred only in final days. Authorities didn't need "tanks" to break Maidan up early on. US approach of militarized police with heavy riot gear and APCs would have been more than enough. That did indeed happen when major demonstrations were attempted, but largely left out of main stream media. Shock treatment, scare most people off, leave only the most invested in and movement will die to lack of people.
In Ukraine they instead they started very soft and slowly hardened the approach all the way to the end. Which is the worst approach to this kind of event, as it is effectively both allowed and forced the movement to become more and more brutal and militant in response.
The rest is history.
On your last point, you are absolutely correct. I do not mind the "Western| view of the world, as I mostly share it. After all current US culture is basically a mix of European cultures with significant changes that come from frontier culture aspect of it. I mostly find it acceptable, in many parts far closer than that of Russia for example, which is an mix of European and Asian cultures. Much of their Asian point is quite alien to me, far more so than frontier aspect of US.
My main gripe is with its overwhelming forcefulness in approach to global issues. But if you were to ask me if I think that another state would do a better job as a world hegemon, my answer would be "unlikely".
Essentially I have a problem with having only one global hegemon who feels so powerful that it becomes a dictator. In this regard, a new Cold War may actually be a blessing in disguise as it would force multipolarity back to the world and hegemons struggling for control would have to become less malevolent and more benevolent to maintain control.
What this country needs is a good five cent nickel.
