Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I always thought it was 'Nyet' with a y. Then again, I spent a few years thinking Spasibo was Spasiba because of the pronunciation.

Slovene language officially doesn't have a ''Y'' and we have a rock group called Niet.

Then there's the Russian cyrillic that's like serb cyrillic only has a few more letters...

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

No one here would have understood that.

(but I also keep correcting people here when it comes to bogus German...)

Wouldn't that be bogüs German?

[nikimcbee]

Is that Brian Williams there?

Slovene language officially doesn't have a ''Y'' and we have a rock group called Niet.

Why?

yuck yuck yuck.
Next show is at 8.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I always thought it was 'Nyet' with a y. Then again, I spent a few years thinking Spasibo was Spasiba because of the pronunciation.

Linguist here

The "nyet"/"net"/"niet" thing is basically because Russian has two main "e"s: the "э", which is closer to the English e in "net" or "bet", and the "е", which is often stylized as "ye", but in actuality sounds like only the "e" part of "yet" or "yes". The difference between them being "hard"/"soft" or "low"/"high" - easiest explanation would be the difference between the German "u" and "ü". So the Russian word "нет" sounds like "nyet" if you took out the "y" but still pronounced the "e" in the same way as with the "y".

The "spasibo"/"spasiba" thing is a phonological issue with stress. Say in English, you have the noun "perfect" (pErfect) vs. the verb "to perfect" (perfEct) which, in most dialects, sound different because of which vowel you stress. Russian is similar, but with a caveat: in standard modern Russian (i.e. the dialects spoken in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and most other large cities), the vowels which are not stressed in a word are relatively "weak" sounds and sort of blend together, with "a"s and "o"s, and "i"s and "e"s that sound kind of the same or like some generic vowel in between. In "spasibo" (spasIbo), spelling rules aside, it doesn't matter if you make it "sposiba" or "spasibo" or "sposibo" or "spasiba" - as long as the "i" is clearly pronounced, the other two vowels really don't matter and will sound exactly the same when read out loud by a standard Russian speaker. Russian phonological tendencies like that are the basis of Russian memes and internet-speak, where people will intentionally misspell stuff because, hey, "privet" and "preved" sound exactly the same when read out by a normal Russian anyway!

That's not true of all dialects, and often for example someone who clearly enunciates their "o"s (regardless of stress in the word) is considered to sound "provincial". For example, my grandfather, who grew up in a village near Demyansk, pronounced his vowels very clearly and distinctly. But it wasn't the way they were written, either. For example, he always pronounced "ogorod" (vegetable garden) as a very clear and distinct "ugarod". Go figure!

tl;dr, Russian phonology is pretty funky

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Why?

yuck yuck yuck.
Next show is at 8.

Zakaj?

Fuj fuj fuj,
naslednji nastop je ob 8.


we have a J to use as a Y

[August]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

No one here would have understood that.

(but I also keep correcting people here when it comes to bogus German...)

Veiny donkey chute mine froynd.

[mapuc]

According to the Danish News page the meeting between Putin, Merkel and Hollande was-unsuccessful

Markus

[XabbaRus]

According to BBC talks were constructive and substantial. Go figure.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

According to BBC talks were constructive and substantial. Go figure.

Now they have changed the title:
After the summit with Putin: Ceasefire must wait

The text is more positive than the title.

Markus

[XabbaRus]

Well just read the latest and it seems positive. Regardless of who is doing what I want a peaceful solution. My wife really fears the balloon could do up. I think Merkel and Hollande have the better chance.

[Skybird]

Merkel is the only Western heavyweight Putin really still speaks with, Hollande is just an alibi for the rest of Europe. German-Russian relations had been very close before this all came upon us/them.

However, there is a risk involved. If Merkel cannot acchieve anything substantial, then this is a signal that indeed all is lost. There will come nobody after her, she is the biggest calliber on offer to meet with Putin.

And as I said, things aren't anymore like they used to be. I am not certain that Putin still is interested in at least Germany/Merkel. He better would. Germany depends to some degree on Russian gas, yes, one third of its oil and one third of its gas is coming from Russia. But Russia needs German economic cooperation and stimuli even more desperately. This whole mess costs German economy an awful lot, the lost investments right now are stellar. But it costs Russia even more in the long run.

P.S.
At the security conference in Munich today, Merkel said this: "Das Problem ist, dass ich mir keine Situation vorstellen kann, in der eine verbesserte Ausrüstung der ukrainischen Armee dazu führt, dass Präsident Putin so beeindruckt ist, dass er glaubt, militärisch zu verlieren. Ich muss das so hart sagen. (...) Militärisch ist das nicht zu gewinnen, das ist die bittere Wahrheit."

Translation:
"The problem is that I cannot imagine any situation where a better military equipment for the Ukrainian army would lead to president Putin being so much impressed that he would believe that he could militarily lose this. (...) By military means, this case cannot be won, that is the bitter truth."

[XabbaRus]

I agree but tell John McCain that. No offense to Americans here but I think this is something that will be made worse with more weapons. Positions are so entrenched in both sides. There has to be a compromise, rebels give up ideas for a separate state and possibly some short of federalist structure. Also NATO should be of the table. What gets me over the whole thing is the hypocrisy.

[Skybird]

Agreed, if enough military assistance gets delivered that it would make a difference, it would be necessarily be at a scale where war with Russia is an extreme and incalculatable (is there such a word?) risk, if it is only enough assistance to not make a difference, then America only helps to extent the local conflict over time, and the suffering of the population.

If the suffering of the population should be brought to a quick end, one of the two sides there are must be defeated, else the conflict just simmers on and on.

I usually listen when MacCain thinks he wants to say something, but here he is thinking with his little Willy. He is too much a prisoner of cold war thinking, when it comes to Russia, he already was like that when Russia naively put some trust in Westsern promises 15, 20 years ago, and tried to mover closer to Europe. Having suffered in one stupidly launched and fought war himself, and then seeing three other wars (not counting) being either launched for stupid reasons or fought in inadeqwuate manners by his country, number of more smaller military operations not counted, he really should know it better.

America is often very easy with daring military adventures without thinking them to the end or having a longtime plan and perspective. Just emotional arousal and ideals and indignation - is just not enough. But the lion's share of the suffering and blood tool is payed by foreign populations, always. IOt wa sliike that in Vietnam. In Iraq 2.0. In Afghanistan. In Iraq 3.0. And always America claimed to have meant it well, as if that would excuse the immense bloodshed and failure it left behind. If it would be the nAmerican population suffering nthe chaos these policies have caused, it would act with much more foresight, and self-restraint, I'm certain - own experience with pain and misery makes for a formidable teacher. The WIA and KIA American forces so far suffered, in n umbers and scale in no way compare to the blood toll paid by foreign populations.

Why I mention all that "anti-American" ranting? Because especially MacCain should know it better. He really should, by his own biography, and by three later stupid wars after his own war story.

Getting involved and messing up foreign places, is easy. Bringing it all to a good end - in that regard mentioned four wars were disasters, and failures. How many more repetition of this lesson are needed to make US politics finally learn?

So far, all in all I am with Merkel here. Her views are not perfect, but the smallest evil of all bad options the West is left with.

Split the Ukraine, have the Western half as a pufferzone to Russia, let Russia pay (and ruin its finances even more) for the Eastern half, and have the EU establishing supportive trade relations but no political union with the West, or the EU. NATO membership is out of the question. After all, Western Ukraine/Kiev is so corrupt and criminally infested that one really should not want to have anything to do with it, their biographies and reputations should never be forgotten, for it speaks volumes.

It is said a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and I am a strong believer of this truth. Seen that way adding weak members that are doomed to stay net receivers of money for years and decades, never strenghten the union they become members of, but weaken it (how could it be any different, by all reason and logic...?) . The history of several of the newest EU members and the Balkans confirms me.

[Catfish]

As the (western!) News also said yesterday, Russia has not intervened or supported the eastern parts for three months now.

As for the photos showing russian tanks in Sevastopol, has anyone of who posted that, a map of the Ukraine ?

[Oberon]