The difference though, is that the US has worked towards greater stability and individual freedom throughout the world for the most part, whereas Russia (incapable of matching the technological sophistication of the US, it's economic power or diplomatic skills) is doing the exact opposite; fostering discord throughout the rest of the world in order to bring everyone else down to there level.
Instead of an overt military invasion, the first volleys of a U.S. attack come from the installment of a political opposition through state propaganda (e.g., CNN, BBC), the Internet and social media, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
After successfully instilling political dissent, separatism, and/or social strife, the legitimate government has increasing difficulty maintaining order. As the security situation deteriorates, separatist movements can be stoked and strengthened, and undeclared special operations, conventional, and private military forces (defense contractors) can be introduced to battle the government and cause further havoc. Once the legitimate government is forced to use increasingly aggressive methods to maintain order, the United States gains a pretext for the imposition of economic and political sanctions, and sometimes even military sanctions such as no-fly zones, to tie the hands of the besieged governments and promote further dissent.
Eventually, as the government collapses and anarchy results, military forces under the guise of peacekeepers can then be employed to pacify the area, if desired, and a new government that is friendly to the United States and the West can be installed.
That's why the Russians keep kicking out Western NGOs- they think it's the first step to their government being overthrown. It's why they brought back the Cossacks and it's why they formed yet another internal troops force. In Russian eyes any protests and demonstrations are an excuse for the West to split Russia apart, just like the Color Revolution countries of Yugoslavia, Georgia, and Ukraine.
The difference though, is that the US has worked towards greater stability and individual freedom throughout the world for the most part, whereas Russia (incapable of matching the technological sophistication of the US, it's economic power or diplomatic skills) is doing the exact opposite; fostering discord throughout the rest of the world in order to bring everyone else down to there level.
Instead of an overt military invasion, the first volleys of a U.S. attack come from the installment of a political opposition through state propaganda (e.g., CNN, BBC), the Internet and social media, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
After successfully instilling political dissent, separatism, and/or social strife, the legitimate government has increasing difficulty maintaining order. As the security situation deteriorates, separatist movements can be stoked and strengthened, and undeclared special operations, conventional, and private military forces (defense contractors) can be introduced to battle the government and cause further havoc. Once the legitimate government is forced to use increasingly aggressive methods to maintain order, the United States gains a pretext for the imposition of economic and political sanctions, and sometimes even military sanctions such as no-fly zones, to tie the hands of the besieged governments and promote further dissent.
Eventually, as the government collapses and anarchy results, military forces under the guise of peacekeepers can then be employed to pacify the area, if desired, and a new government that is friendly to the United States and the West can be installed.
That's why the Russians keep kicking out Western NGOs- they think it's the first step to their government being overthrown. It's why they brought back the Cossacks and it's why they formed yet another internal troops force. In Russian eyes any protests and demonstrations are an excuse for the West to split Russia apart, just like the Color Revolution countries of Yugoslavia, Georgia, and Ukraine.
Russia did not back the war in Libya, neither did China. NATO countries chose to interpret the UN resolution as one giving them license to proceed with regime change, but to say it was an exercise backed by Russia contorts the truth beyond recognition.
At a certain point the argument "Should we really get mad at Russia for zealously pursuing its own interests?" isn't actually worth anything, because moral relativism works both ways. If I can't get mad at Russia for expanding its influence in opposition to ours, you can't get mad at the United States for expanding its own influence in opposition to Putin or for being frustrated when Putin succeeds at our expense.
If all things were equal this line of logic would make a lot of sense.
The difference though, is that the US has worked towards greater stability and individual freedom hroughout the world for the most part, whereas Russia (incapable of matching the technological sophistication of the US, it's economic power or diplomatic skills) is doing the exact opposite; fostering discord throughout the rest of the world in order to bring everyone else down to there level.
This representation of the US ignores the Libya war and Iraq war, support for dictatorships around the world, repeated undermining of democracy, etc. If we compare the annexation of Crimea versus the invasion of Iraq, we could describe both acts illegal under international law, but that is like saying robbing a bank and murdering a family are both illegal; not all crimes are morally equal. Compare magnitude of immediate humanitarian severity as well as global fallout in each case. US fomented a coup in Ukraine led by Nazis, now remembering what Nazis did to Russia last time they attacked through Ukraine what would you expect Russia to do?
Russia backs Assad in war; US backs Saudi Arabia at war in Yemen.
A G.I. Joe cartoon worldview or repeating PR from the government itself is not an objective representation of reality and seems not even a good faith attempt at that.
And then we're back to the aforementioned 19th century Great Powers "what morals?"/"might makes right"/"because I can".
How is that a representation of "balance of power" more than "one power must maintain dominance at all costs"?
That depends on the one power in question, doesn't it? Would you prefer a world where we live under a China hegemony instead? They're next in line to take that prize, not Russia.
At a certain point the argument "Should we really get mad at Russia for zealously pursuing its own interests?" isn't actually worth anything, because moral relativism works both ways. If I can't get mad at Russia for expanding its influence in opposition to ours, you can't get mad at the United States for expanding its own influence in opposition to Putin or for being frustrated when Putin succeeds at our expense.
If all things were equal this line of logic would make a lot of sense.
The difference though, is that the US has worked towards greater stability and individual freedom hroughout the world for the most part, whereas Russia (incapable of matching the technological sophistication of the US, it's economic power or diplomatic skills) is doing the exact opposite; fostering discord throughout the rest of the world in order to bring everyone else down to there level.
This representation of the US ignores the Libya war and Iraq war, support for dictatorships around the world, repeated undermining of democracy, etc. If we compare the annexation of Crimea versus the invasion of Iraq, we could describe both acts illegal under international law, but that is like saying murdering a family and robbing a bank are both illegal; not all crimes are morally equal. Compare magnitude of immediate humanitarian severity as well as global fallout in each case. US fomented a coup in Ukraine led by Nazis, now remembering what Nazis did to Russia last time they attacked through Ukraine what would you expect Russia to do?
Russia backs Assad in war; US backs Saudi Arabia at war in Yemen.
A G.I. Joe cartoon worldview or repeating PR from the government itself is not an objective representation of reality and seems not even an good faith attempt at that.
Just to be clear, you think that Russia is worried about the Ukraine invading them?
Tsar Nicholas was by all accounts a pretty cool dude who really didn't even wanna be Tsar. Russia came to Serbia's defense in WW1 because of Austrian aggression against them (For very good reasons obviously) and sure you you can certainly blame the -system- that was set up at the time but you can't blame any individual country. You either played within the system at this point in time or you got shoved into someone's circle of influence and basically wound up having some other country tell you what to do and basically exploit your entire country.
The last Tsar did have a sympathetic past & family life... but he still took on the mantle, impoverished so many people in Russia that probably more people died due to malnourishment & serf life than died in Stalin's famine genocide & participated with great enthusiasm in multiple wars. The theme one tends to get from reading Nicholas's correspondence is that he was more detached than he was malicious, but the end result was still choking squalor across the country while he lived in a gilded palace.
Yes, but tactically it was also considered less proper to murder entire cities of civilians as during the 20th century. And major wars themselves were just less frequent. The latter point is important to consider regarding conceptually what geopolitical order is most beneficial to humanity going forward.
This is pure fucking nonsense.
Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them.
I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself.
You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execreble Race.
The colonial powers had at their disposal torches, sabers, some early howitzers and smallpox infected clothing/blankets. They did what terrible things they could with the tools they had; there was no pact or code of ethics that was abandoned going into the 20th century. Maxim invented an easy to reproduce machine gun, Bell & Wright cracked the code on powered flight; as soon as bombers and bullet hoses became available, they replaced the torches & blankets as the means by which population centers could be attacked. Napoleon didn't think it was 'improper' to simply engage in wholesale massacre & looting (in fact that is precisely how he sustained his armies in the field) - he was just limited to what grapeshot & bayonets could accomplish.
Also, Europe only exists in a state of peace post-Waterloo if for some reason you discount all civil wars & flashpoints like Serbia.
I addressed both of your points explicitly. Is my English that bad, or are others deliberately arguing in bad faith?
I overtly mentioned that outside the multipolar "balance of power" system in Europe, the rest of the world were not regarded as equals. I overtly mentioned the US genocide against Indians in North America. I also think it is strange for a partisan of US hegemony to bring that up as it undermines the case for US morality; Americans used the same "freedom" bullshit PR then as now, and it was just as hypocritical then as now. I also mentioned that plenty of small wars still happened -- as small and medium wars happen often in the present system.
My point was, looking specifically at the confines in which it was recognized, what is more conducive toward peace: a recognized balance of power respected by those participating, or a system in which one power attempts to dominate all others against their will indefinitely?
At a certain point the argument "Should we really get mad at Russia for zealously pursuing its own interests?" isn't actually worth anything, because moral relativism works both ways. If I can't get mad at Russia for expanding its influence in opposition to ours, you can't get mad at the United States for expanding its own influence in opposition to Putin or for being frustrated when Putin succeeds at our expense.
If all things were equal this line of logic would make a lot of sense.
The difference though, is that the US has worked towards greater stability and individual freedom hroughout the world for the most part, whereas Russia (incapable of matching the technological sophistication of the US, it's economic power or diplomatic skills) is doing the exact opposite; fostering discord throughout the rest of the world in order to bring everyone else down to there level.
This representation of the US ignores the Libya war and Iraq war, support for dictatorships around the world, repeated undermining of democracy, etc. If we compare the annexation of Crimea versus the invasion of Iraq, we could describe both acts illegal under international law, but that is like saying murdering a family and robbing a bank are both illegal; not all crimes are morally equal. Compare magnitude of immediate humanitarian severity as well as global fallout in each case. US fomented a coup in Ukraine led by Nazis, now remembering what Nazis did to Russia last time they attacked through Ukraine what would you expect Russia to do?
Russia backs Assad in war; US backs Saudi Arabia at war in Yemen.
A G.I. Joe cartoon worldview or repeating PR from the government itself is not an objective representation of reality and seems not even an good faith attempt at that.
Just to be clear, you think that Russia is worried about the Ukraine invading them?
Russia is worried about Ukraine joining NATO, and participating in a general western invasion seeking regime change and dismemberment of Russia.
And the Ukrainian far-right does have irredentist demands on parts of Russia:
I addressed both of your points explicitly. Is my English that bad, or are others deliberately arguing in bad faith?
I overtly mentioned that outside the multipolar "balance of power" system in Europe, the rest of the world were not regarded as equals. I overtly mentioned the US genocide against Indians in North America. I also think it is strange for a partisan of US hegemony to bring that up as it undermines the case for US morality; Americans used the same "freedom" bullshit PR then as now, and it was just as hypocritical then as now. I also mentioned that plenty of small wars still happened -- as small and medium wars happen often in the present system.
My point was, looking specifically at the confines in which it was recognized, what is more conducive toward peace: a recognized balance of power respected by those participating, or a system in which one power attempts to dominate all others against their will indefinitely?
Yeah, the US has done some really bad shit - I doubt you'll have anyone on this forum suggesting what America did to the Indians was a Good Thing.
I'd be up for some other country picking up the hegemony role from the US, that would be better for world peace - and Russia isn't in the running for a solid replacement. They don't have the moral high ground with America, and unlike Russia America has at least successfully tried to clean up its act on the domestic and global stage with Obama. Someone that Putin hated with a passion. Meanwhile Russia's went from one bad system of government to another, where before was borne from Stalin's Communism now they've become a twisted form of the US merged with a dystopia.
At least in America the press is free, it may be severely corrupted and inept at times but no one is worried if they piss off Dear Leader they'll end up dead. Do I need to bring up the problems the LGBT face in Russia, because I will. The US also pays its military personnel. Their history with women isn't exactly thrilling, either.
The dismal condition of the assigned housing for the officers is a telling sign of the state of the armed forces nearly two decades after the Soviet Union’s fall. And now, the officers are facing what they view as a final humiliation: they are to be discharged in the coming months as part of the most significant military overhaul in generations.
The Kremlin wants to revamp a top-heavy institution by sharply cutting the number of officers and carrying out a long overdue transition from a cumbersome military machine designed for a land war in Europe to a lithe force that would handle regional wars and terrorism.
Russia Rejects the Notion of a Joint Missile System in Europe JUNE 11, 2009
Though praised by military analysts, the plan seems likely to create a corps of tens of thousands of disgruntled former officers who are entering an economy suffering from the financial crisis.
With Russia’s economy strong in the years before the crisis, the Kremlin tried to improve the military by increasing spending on equipment and training. But senior officials acknowledge that the war in Georgia last August exposed severe deficiencies, despite Russia’s easy victory.
The armed forces have 1.1 million people now, including 360,000 officers, and the plan is to cut the officer corps to 150,000, officials said. The reductions, first announced last year, have stirred sporadic demonstrations by officers, and some longtime generals have resigned in protest or been pushed out.
The editorial heads of Lenta.ru were replaced by its owner when the news website was seen as taking its Kremlin criticism too far; the independent television station TV Rain was forced to broadcast from an apartment after being kicked out of its studios; and most recently, there was a purge of the newspaper RBC after a string of reports on the wealth of Vladimir Putin’s inner circle and an investigation into one of the president’s daughters.
Angry RBC journalists taped their conversation with the two new editors appointed to take over the newspaper. The new bosses compared the work of the paper to driving: “If you drive over the solid double line, they take away your licence... Unfortunately, nobody knows where the solid double line is.”
In a media landscape where most people steer clear of the solid double lines, another rare independent voice in the Russian media landscape is the New Times, a weekly political magazine with sharp design and even sharper analysis, edited since its founding nearly a decade ago by veteran journalist Yevgenia Albats.
The magazine is permitted to survive because of its small circulation, but nevertheless has frequent problems. Recently, its publisher refused to release an issue with a cover illustration of sheep at the Kremlin’s gates. “We’d been using the publishers since 2008 and we didn’t owe them a cent, and then suddenly they just refused to publish us,” said Albats.
The implication in your posts is that Russia is not that bad, yet I don't hear why. What do you honestly like about Putin's Russia?
edit: Putin is encouraging this type of behavior with his new pal, Trump.
edit: America will always have a moral high ground over Russia* thanks too two words: Joseph Stalin.
* except if Trump becomes a worst case scenario, which is possible.
Harry Dresden on
+2
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
At a certain point the argument "Should we really get mad at Russia for zealously pursuing its own interests?" isn't actually worth anything, because moral relativism works both ways. If I can't get mad at Russia for expanding its influence in opposition to ours, you can't get mad at the United States for expanding its own influence in opposition to Putin or for being frustrated when Putin succeeds at our expense.
If all things were equal this line of logic would make a lot of sense.
The difference though, is that the US has worked towards greater stability and individual freedom hroughout the world for the most part, whereas Russia (incapable of matching the technological sophistication of the US, it's economic power or diplomatic skills) is doing the exact opposite; fostering discord throughout the rest of the world in order to bring everyone else down to there level.
This representation of the US ignores the Libya war and Iraq war, support for dictatorships around the world, repeated undermining of democracy, etc. If we compare the annexation of Crimea versus the invasion of Iraq, we could describe both acts illegal under international law, but that is like saying murdering a family and robbing a bank are both illegal; not all crimes are morally equal. Compare magnitude of immediate humanitarian severity as well as global fallout in each case. US fomented a coup in Ukraine led by Nazis, now remembering what Nazis did to Russia last time they attacked through Ukraine what would you expect Russia to do?
Russia backs Assad in war; US backs Saudi Arabia at war in Yemen.
A G.I. Joe cartoon worldview or repeating PR from the government itself is not an objective representation of reality and seems not even an good faith attempt at that.
Just to be clear, you think that Russia is worried about the Ukraine invading them?
Russia is worried about Ukraine joining NATO, and participating in a general western invasion seeking regime change and dismemberment of Russia.
And the Ukrainian far-right does have irredentist demands on parts of Russia:
Like literal invasion by the west? Wouldn't that be completely out of the question given that nukes would fly immediately?
I think they were worried about Ukraine leaning more toward western influence, and with potential NATO join becoming a hard wall. They don't want their sphere of influence to shrink further.
Russia's invasion of Crimea seems really logical, even if I greatly dislike it, in hindsight I suspect any Russian ruler would have reacted in a similar way. It's hard to separate Russia and Putin though. Putin wants to remain in power forever, western influence is a nuisance and he wants as little of it as possible. Anything to lessen that it seems likely he would do. Russian foreign relation actions have a number 1 priority of serving Putin personally, and might serve Russia as well often enough.
I addressed both of your points explicitly. Is my English that bad, or are others deliberately arguing in bad faith?
I overtly mentioned that outside the multipolar "balance of power" system in Europe, the rest of the world were not regarded as equals. I overtly mentioned the US genocide against Indians in North America. I also think it is strange for a partisan of US hegemony to bring that up as it undermines the case for US morality; Americans used the same "freedom" bullshit PR then as now, and it was just as hypocritical then as now. I also mentioned that plenty of small wars still happened -- as small and medium wars happen often in the present system.
My point was, looking specifically at the confines in which it was recognized, what is more conducive toward peace: a recognized balance of power respected by those participating, or a system in which one power attempts to dominate all others against their will indefinitely?
Yeah, the US has done some really bad shit - I doubt you'll have anyone on this forum suggesting what America did to the Indians was a Good Thing.
I'd be up for some other country picking up the hegemony role from the US, that would be better for world peace - and Russia isn't in the running for a solid replacement. They don't have the moral high ground with America, and unlike Russia America has at least successfully tried to clean up its act on the domestic and global stage with Obama. Someone that Putin hated with a passion. Meanwhile Russia's went from one bad system of government to another, where before was borne from Stalin's Communism now they've become a twisted form of the US merged with a dystopia.
At least in America the press is free, it may be severely corrupted and inept at times but no one is worried if they piss off Dear Leader they'll end up dead. Do I need to bring up the problems the LGBT face in Russia, because I will. The US also pays its military personnel. Their history with women isn't exactly thrilling, either.
The dismal condition of the assigned housing for the officers is a telling sign of the state of the armed forces nearly two decades after the Soviet Union’s fall. And now, the officers are facing what they view as a final humiliation: they are to be discharged in the coming months as part of the most significant military overhaul in generations.
The Kremlin wants to revamp a top-heavy institution by sharply cutting the number of officers and carrying out a long overdue transition from a cumbersome military machine designed for a land war in Europe to a lithe force that would handle regional wars and terrorism.
Russia Rejects the Notion of a Joint Missile System in Europe JUNE 11, 2009
Though praised by military analysts, the plan seems likely to create a corps of tens of thousands of disgruntled former officers who are entering an economy suffering from the financial crisis.
With Russia’s economy strong in the years before the crisis, the Kremlin tried to improve the military by increasing spending on equipment and training. But senior officials acknowledge that the war in Georgia last August exposed severe deficiencies, despite Russia’s easy victory.
The armed forces have 1.1 million people now, including 360,000 officers, and the plan is to cut the officer corps to 150,000, officials said. The reductions, first announced last year, have stirred sporadic demonstrations by officers, and some longtime generals have resigned in protest or been pushed out.
Man, firing all those military officers seems like a crazy move on the surface. You already have inequality and financial uncertainty: summarily laying off a huge portion of your trained soldiers (officers no less) seems like tempting rebellion. Bush/Cheney dissolving Iraq's military caused all sorts of problems that we're still paying for now.
Unless it is some sort of strategy to move a large number of rule-bound military personnel into unaccountable PMCs or a false flag or something, which seems implausible, but is not something I would put past Putin.
At a certain point the argument "Should we really get mad at Russia for zealously pursuing its own interests?" isn't actually worth anything, because moral relativism works both ways. If I can't get mad at Russia for expanding its influence in opposition to ours, you can't get mad at the United States for expanding its own influence in opposition to Putin or for being frustrated when Putin succeeds at our expense.
If all things were equal this line of logic would make a lot of sense.
The difference though, is that the US has worked towards greater stability and individual freedom hroughout the world for the most part, whereas Russia (incapable of matching the technological sophistication of the US, it's economic power or diplomatic skills) is doing the exact opposite; fostering discord throughout the rest of the world in order to bring everyone else down to there level.
This representation of the US ignores the Libya war and Iraq war, support for dictatorships around the world, repeated undermining of democracy, etc. If we compare the annexation of Crimea versus the invasion of Iraq, we could describe both acts illegal under international law, but that is like saying murdering a family and robbing a bank are both illegal; not all crimes are morally equal. Compare magnitude of immediate humanitarian severity as well as global fallout in each case. US fomented a coup in Ukraine led by Nazis, now remembering what Nazis did to Russia last time they attacked through Ukraine what would you expect Russia to do?
Russia backs Assad in war; US backs Saudi Arabia at war in Yemen.
A G.I. Joe cartoon worldview or repeating PR from the government itself is not an objective representation of reality and seems not even an good faith attempt at that.
Just to be clear, you think that Russia is worried about the Ukraine invading them?
Russia is worried about Ukraine joining NATO, and participating in a general western invasion seeking regime change and dismemberment of Russia.
And the Ukrainian far-right does have irredentist demands on parts of Russia:
So how does annexing eastern Ukraine make that less likely?
Sputnik (pronounced spʊtnɪk) is a news agency, news websites and radio broadcast service established by the Russian government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya.[2] Headquartered in Moscow, Sputnik has regional editorial offices in Washington, Cairo, Beijing, London and Edinburgh. It focuses on global politics and economics and is geared entirely towards a non-Russian audience.[3] Sputnik has been widely accused of bias, disinformation[4] and being a Russian propaganda outlet.[5][6]
Sputnik (pronounced spʊtnɪk) is a news agency, news websites and radio broadcast service established by the Russian government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya.[2] Headquartered in Moscow, Sputnik has regional editorial offices in Washington, Cairo, Beijing, London and Edinburgh. It focuses on global politics and economics and is geared entirely towards a non-Russian audience.[3] Sputnik has been widely accused of bias, disinformation[4] and being a Russian propaganda outlet.[5][6]
Thanks, Echo. So it's worse than useless as a source.
At a certain point the argument "Should we really get mad at Russia for zealously pursuing its own interests?" isn't actually worth anything, because moral relativism works both ways. If I can't get mad at Russia for expanding its influence in opposition to ours, you can't get mad at the United States for expanding its own influence in opposition to Putin or for being frustrated when Putin succeeds at our expense.
If all things were equal this line of logic would make a lot of sense.
The difference though, is that the US has worked towards greater stability and individual freedom hroughout the world for the most part, whereas Russia (incapable of matching the technological sophistication of the US, it's economic power or diplomatic skills) is doing the exact opposite; fostering discord throughout the rest of the world in order to bring everyone else down to there level.
This representation of the US ignores the Libya war and Iraq war, support for dictatorships around the world, repeated undermining of democracy, etc. If we compare the annexation of Crimea versus the invasion of Iraq, we could describe both acts illegal under international law, but that is like saying murdering a family and robbing a bank are both illegal; not all crimes are morally equal. Compare magnitude of immediate humanitarian severity as well as global fallout in each case. US fomented a coup in Ukraine led by Nazis, now remembering what Nazis did to Russia last time they attacked through Ukraine what would you expect Russia to do?
Russia backs Assad in war; US backs Saudi Arabia at war in Yemen.
A G.I. Joe cartoon worldview or repeating PR from the government itself is not an objective representation of reality and seems not even an good faith attempt at that.
Just to be clear, you think that Russia is worried about the Ukraine invading them?
Russia is worried about Ukraine joining NATO, and participating in a general western invasion seeking regime change and dismemberment of Russia.
And the Ukrainian far-right does have irredentist demands on parts of Russia:
Like literal invasion by the west? Wouldn't that be completely out of the question given that nukes would fly immediately?
A "revolution in military affairs" in the future could render the nuclear issue neutralised somehow, the general flow of technological history of warfare is that there is always a new unexpected advent just over the horizon.
Also someone could just be reckless/crazy enough to play nuclear "chicken" against Russia. That was basically the idea behind a no-fly zone in Syria, which in order to implement would have required US military action against Russian forces on the ground in Syria.
A situation could be such that US/NATO pushes little by little, step by step, degree by degree such that it is ambiguous when an invasion, as such, even began, or combining some degree of military force with other irregular means, cyber attacks and sponsorship of internal dissent in order to try to force regime change in Russia without it coming to a situation in which nuclear exchange was probable. The dynamics caused by being surrounded on all sides by hostile military forces conducting all sorts of war games and psychological exercises could contribute to instability or regime collapse in Russia even if they did not or only marginally crossed into Russian territory.
If Russia is so worried about NATO pushing for regime change, why are they invading their neighbors and conducting propaganda exercises in the United States?
That seems like the kind of thing likely to piss NATO off and make them conduct war games and psychological exercises in Russia. You don't calm people down by acting aggressively, you calm people down by being rational and working with them.
There is such a thing as cause and effect. Cause: Russia is an asshole. Effect: NATO and the U.S. now really fucking dislike Russia again.
Exactly. A decade ago, Europe was pretty damn friendly towards Russia.
Now you have some voices in Germany (although not many) calling for *our own nuclear arms program*
And this is almost 100% Russia's doing.
Edit. I just think that while Putin is a pretty damn good manipulator and effective despot, he really totally underestimates the potential for it all to blow up in his face.
Like right now. A few solid proofs he really did influence the US election and the whole atmosphere gets extremely unfriendly for Russia
Exactly. A decade ago, Europe was pretty damn friendly towards Russia.
Now you have some voices in Germany (although not many) calling for *our own nuclear arms program*
And this is almost 100% Russia's doing.
Edit. I just think that while Putin is a pretty damn good manipulator and effective despot, he really totally underestimates the potential for it all to blow up in his face.
Like right now. A few solid proofs he really did influence the US election and the whole atmosphere gets extremely unfriendly for Russia
Including the US if he doesn't play cards right, which wouldn't be the first time Nazis white supremacists turned on them.
Yeah seriously. I mean they're friendly towards Russia as long as they need them, but soon they're in power, and geopolitical reality kicks in - meaning Russia is still on an antagonistic course, and suddenly you have extremely volatile Nazis in charge. I can't even imagine how someone thought this might be a good idea. It's a recipe for disaster.
Yeah seriously. I mean they're friendly towards Russia as long as they need them, but soon they're in power, and geopolitical reality kicks in - meaning Russia is still on an antagonistic course, and suddenly you have extremely volatile Nazis in charge. I can't even imagine how someone thought this might be a good idea. It's a recipe for disaster.
Putin is taking a massive risk with this game. I assume he thinks he can control Trump, but it remains to be seen how this'll turn out long term. Trump is only going to get more paranoid and eccentric now he's POTUS, the stress is going to magnify his weaknesses 100 fold.
Edit. I just think that while Putin is a pretty damn good manipulator and effective despot, he really totally underestimates the potential for it all to blow up in his face.
Yeah seriously. I mean they're friendly towards Russia as long as they need them, but soon they're in power, and geopolitical reality kicks in - meaning Russia is still on an antagonistic course, and suddenly you have extremely volatile Nazis in charge. I can't even imagine how someone thought this might be a good idea. It's a recipe for disaster.
Putin is taking a massive risk with this game. I assume he thinks he can control Trump, but it remains to be seen how this'll turn out long term. Trump is only going to get more paranoid and eccentric now he's POTUS, the stress is going to magnify his weaknesses 100 fold.
It's an enormous risk for possibly enormous reward, but I think his risk assessment was faulty. You can control a narcissist as long as you have the power to control the outcome of their personal story, but once he's in power, all Putin has is very, very soft power over Trump himself, and Trump suddenly has the red button aimed at Russia.
I think Putin's meeting him ASAP so he can reign him in. I think he's in for a bad surprise, especially if the Inauguration is a shit show from Trump's point of view, making him even angrier.
Yeah seriously. I mean they're friendly towards Russia as long as they need them, but soon they're in power, and geopolitical reality kicks in - meaning Russia is still on an antagonistic course, and suddenly you have extremely volatile Nazis in charge. I can't even imagine how someone thought this might be a good idea. It's a recipe for disaster.
Putin is taking a massive risk with this game. I assume he thinks he can control Trump, but it remains to be seen how this'll turn out long term. Trump is only going to get more paranoid and eccentric now he's POTUS, the stress is going to magnify his weaknesses 100 fold.
It's an enormous risk for possibly enormous reward, but I think his risk assessment was faulty. You can control a narcissist as long as you have the power to control the outcome of their personal story, but once he's in power, all Putin has is very, very soft power over Trump himself, and Trump suddenly has the red button aimed at Russia.
I think Putin's meeting him ASAP so he can reign him in. I think he's in for a bad surprise, especially if the Inauguration is a shit show from Trump's point of view, making him even angrier.
This is something that was mentioned in Eichenwald's original Newsweek piece on Russia influencing the election;
By October, “buyer’s remorse” had set in at the Kremlin, according to a report obtained by Western counterintelligence. Russia came to see Trump as too unpredictable and feared that, should he win, the Kremlin would not be able to rely on him or even anticipate his actions.
It's not entirely implausible that Putin's administration are already very worried that they've unleashed an uncontrollable monster.
When I read all this stuff about Ukraine I'm reminded of what happened in Yugoslavia. Milosevic used the same justification to support serb separatists in Croatia, accusing the government of the newly independent Croatia of being fascist. This while he was negotiating with them how to divide Bosnia and Herzegovina. But the thing is, Milosevic and his supporters had no expectations that this would be taken seriously by non-serbs, it was just propaganda for unifying serbs for military action against non-serbs in Croatia and BiH so all serbs could unified to create a "Greater Serbia". Strangely enough, it caught on outside of Serbia and to this day if I get into a discussion with western far-left anti-imperialists about Yugoslavia, some will spout bullshit about the US being responsible for supporting a fascist uprising in Yugoslavia.
Why it was so completely ridiculous in Croatia's case was because the government that sought independence from Yugoslavia was filled with communist partisans installed by the communist party of Yugoslavia. It's absolutely true that the government and public sentiment at the time was ethnocentric and it is to this day in lingering and anti-democratic ways, but there was no credible threat of a genuine fascist regime and there still isn't. The right-wing political party is filled with vile douchebags, in my opinion, but they're not fascist. They exist within the democratic process and when they have taken power, they haven't torn down that process.
It's really easy to find vague historical links to fascism for any person or party in a country that was completely occupied by Nazi Germany or a proxy fascist government in WWII. Any nationalistic or patriotic movement in such a country can easily be suspect in that way. And when an outside military power is actively arming and fermenting an armed rebellion among a minority ethnicity, you're going to find some heated discussion and sentiment in the public sphere. But is the government of Ukraine advocating that Russians or non-Ukranians be treated as second class citizens? I doubt it. Are they pushing through non-democratic reforms to eliminate dissent and enshrine their hold on power? If all of this was because they wanted to join the EU, then that's unlikely.
It seems like bullshit, and no news organization funded by the Russian government should be trusted on this topic. This is an established propaganda strategy.
So far I can find only a few sources for this proposition, and which look like cheaply made propaganda pieces
The best evidence supporting Russia's accusations of US involvement in the Ukrainian government's overthrow and replacement is the leaked call between Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine. This forum spent some time debating exactly how sinister it was when it happened, but I think "significantly more sinister than any of us would be comfortable with in our own countries" is a safe bet.
John McCain, a consistent advocate for regime change in countries opposed to the US and a man who has never stopped fighting the Cold War, was chilling with the leadership of the far right Svoboda shortly before the uprising. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the far right groups, while not the only people protesting, were the violent spearhead of the protest movement. Svoboda and the Right Sector can't be handwaved away as having vague historical ties to fascism; they are about as moderate today as the National Front and Golden Dawn, respectively.
edit - Russian propaganda referring to the post-revolt authorities in Kiev as a "Nazi government" is still a couple steps past reality, I'd say. It's hard to get a clear picture of what really went down when both sides are just shameless in their propaganda campaigns against the other.
The first article from UK Channel 4 described how US Senator McCain (who it should be noted was accompanied by Sen. Murphy, meaning both US parties were represented) directly stood on stage with the Nazi leader endorsing his regime change effort as having American backing. How was that not noticed? Did people read the article or even see the images accompanying it?
You know, you think about where we've been in terms of U.S.-Russian relations; when I came into office, we talked about reset, and I established, I think, an effective working relationship with Mr. Medvedev.
And as a consequence, Russia's economy was growing, they had to the opportunity to begin diversifying their economy, their relations across Europe and around the world were sound, they joined the WTO with assistance from us. And since Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine - not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine - since that time, this improvisation that he's been doing has getting - has gotten him deeper and deeper into a situation that is a violation of international law, that violates the integrity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, has isolated Russia diplomatically, has made Europe wary of doing business with Russia, has allowed the imposition of sanctions that are crippling Russia's economy at a time when their oil revenues are dropping.
Please read what I have highlighted in bold, which contradicts 90% of the anti-Russia arguments in this forum, which sounds more like a right-wing Republican perspective like from McCain.
I am not a fan of Obama, but at least he is not a neoconservative moron who imagines the world is just like in a G.I. Joe cartoon, and at least respects his audience's intelligence enough that he is not framing geopolitics as a "good vs evil" fable for children. I am unsure what sources others are relying on, but they contradict the president's own words in in a very crude, jingoistic manner.
The Sputnik link was quoting George Friedman from an interview in another Russian-language publication. For what it's worth, I found Friedman has either mildly backtracked or else he was misquoted or mistranslated in the Russian publications.
But his perspective is still far more nuanced than a "RUSSIA BAD!! MURKA GOOD!!" line many people are unthinkingly adopting. I am arguing in good faith and will link to Friedman's more recent discussion. https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russia-examines-its-options-responding-ukraine
Were Belarus and Ukraine both admitted to NATO, the city of Smolensk, which had been deep inside the Soviet Union, would have become a border town. Russia has historically protected itself with its depth. It moved its borders as far west as possible, and that depth deterred adventurers — or, as it did with Hitler and Napoleon, destroyed them. The loss of Ukraine as a buffer to the West leaves Russia without that depth and hostage to the intentions and capabilities of Europe and the United States.
There are those in the West who dismiss Russia's fears as archaic. No one wishes to invade Russia, and no one can invade Russia. Such views appear sophisticated but are in fact simplistic. Intent means relatively little in terms of assessing threats. They can change very fast. So too can capabilities. The American performance in World War I and the German performance in the 1930s show how quickly threats and capabilities shift. In 1932, Germany was a shambles economically and militarily. By 1938, it was the dominant economic and military power on the European Peninsula. In 1941, it was at the gates of Moscow. In 1916, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson ran a sincere anti-war campaign in a country with hardly any army. In 1917, he deployed more than a million American soldiers to Europe.
Russia's viewpoint is appropriately pessimistic. If Russia loses Belarus or Ukraine, it loses its strategic depth, which accounts for much of its ability to defend the Russian heartland. If the intention of the West is not hostile, then why is it so eager to see the regime in Ukraine transformed? It may be a profound love of liberal democracy, but from Moscow's perspective, Russia must assume more sinister motives.
Quite apart from the question of invasion, which is obviously a distant one, Russia is concerned about the consequences of Ukraine's joining the West and the potential for contagion in parts of Russia itself. During the 1990s, there were several secessionist movements in Russia. The Chechens became violent, and the rest of their secession story is well known. But there also was talk of secession in Karelia, in Russia's northwest, and in the Pacific Maritime region.
What was conceivable under Boris Yeltsin was made inconceivable under Vladimir Putin. The strategy Putin adopted was to increase Russia's strength moderately but systematically, to make that modest increase appear disproportionately large. Russia could not afford to remain on the defensive; the forces around it were too powerful. Putin had to magnify Russia's strength, and he did. Using energy exports, the weakness of Europe and the United States' distraction in the Middle East, he created a sense of growing Russian power. Putin ended talk of secession in the Russian Federation. He worked to create regimes in Belarus and Ukraine that retained a great deal of domestic autonomy but operated within a foreign policy framework acceptable to Russia. Moscow went further, projecting its power into the Middle East and, in the Syrian civil war, appearing to force the United States to back out of its strategy.
It is not clear what happened in Kiev. There were of course many organizations funded by American and European money that were committed to a reform government. It is irrelevant whether, as the Russians charge, these organizations planned and fomented the uprising against former President Viktor Yanukovich's regime or whether that uprising was part of a more powerful indigenous movement that drew these groups along. The fact was that Yanukovich refused to sign an agreement moving Ukraine closer to the European Union, the demonstrations took place, there was violence, and an openly pro-Western Ukrainian government was put in place.
The Russians cannot simply allow this to stand. Not only does it create a new geopolitical reality, but in the longer term it also gives the appearance inside Russia that Putin is weaker than he seems and opens the door to instability and even fragmentation. Therefore, the Russians must respond. The issue is how.
The first article from UK Channel 4 described how US Senator McCain (who it should be noted was accompanied by Sen. Murphy, meaning both US parties were represented) directly stood on stage with the Nazi leader endorsing his regime change effort as having American backing. How was that not noticed? Did people read the article or even see the images accompanying it?
You know, you think about where we've been in terms of U.S.-Russian relations; when I came into office, we talked about reset, and I established, I think, an effective working relationship with Mr. Medvedev.
And as a consequence, Russia's economy was growing, they had to the opportunity to begin diversifying their economy, their relations across Europe and around the world were sound, they joined the WTO with assistance from us. And since Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine - not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine - since that time, this improvisation that he's been doing has getting - has gotten him deeper and deeper into a situation that is a violation of international law, that violates the integrity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, has isolated Russia diplomatically, has made Europe wary of doing business with Russia, has allowed the imposition of sanctions that are crippling Russia's economy at a time when their oil revenues are dropping.
Please read what I have highlighted in bold, which contradicts 90% of the anti-Russia arguments in this forum, which sounds more like a right-wing Republican perspective like from McCain.
I am not a fan of Obama, but at least he is not a neoconservative moron who imagines the world is just like in a G.I. Joe cartoon, and at least respect's his audience's intelligence enough that he is not framing geopolitics as a "good vs evil" fable for children. I am unsure what sources others are relying on, but they contradict the president's own words in in a very crude, jingoistic manner,
Transition power away from an opposed leader who had lost fair elections. The entire point of a US agreement was to allow free and fair elections to be held and the will of the people to be respected. Instead Russia rolled in the tanks and executed a war of conquest.
Literally every single defense of Russian policy you post is rooted in one constant: Russia is right, fuck the people being oppressed. Stability means leave the dictators in charge.
The first article from UK Channel 4 described how US Senator McCain (who it should be noted was accompanied by Sen. Murphy, meaning both US parties were represented) directly stood on stage with the Nazi leader endorsing his regime change effort as having American backing. How was that not noticed? Did people read the article or even see the images accompanying it?
You know, you think about where we've been in terms of U.S.-Russian relations; when I came into office, we talked about reset, and I established, I think, an effective working relationship with Mr. Medvedev.
And as a consequence, Russia's economy was growing, they had to the opportunity to begin diversifying their economy, their relations across Europe and around the world were sound, they joined the WTO with assistance from us. And since Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine - not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine - since that time, this improvisation that he's been doing has getting - has gotten him deeper and deeper into a situation that is a violation of international law, that violates the integrity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, has isolated Russia diplomatically, has made Europe wary of doing business with Russia, has allowed the imposition of sanctions that are crippling Russia's economy at a time when their oil revenues are dropping.
Please read what I have highlighted in bold, which contradicts 90% of the anti-Russia arguments in this forum, which sounds more like a right-wing Republican perspective like from McCain.
I am not a fan of Obama, but at least he is not a neoconservative moron who imagines the world is just like in a G.I. Joe cartoon, and at least respect's his audience's intelligence enough that he is not framing geopolitics as a "good vs evil" fable for children. I am unsure what sources others are relying on, but they contradict the president's own words in in a very crude, jingoistic manner,
Transition power away from an opposed leader who had lost fair elections. The entire point of a US agreement was to allow free and fair elections to be held and the will of the people to be respected. Instead Russia rolled in the tanks and executed a war of conquest.
Literally every single defense of Russian policy you post is rooted in one constant: Russia is right, fuck the people being oppressed. Stability means leave the dictators in charge.
There are not this many Nazi's in the Ukraine.
Wait, what are you talking about? What election? The Maidan protests did not follow an election. Yanukovych was the elected leader at the time, and had not served his entire term when he was overthrown.
The piece by Max Blumenthal I linked to described that 30% of the Maidan protesters were far-right nationalists, and leftists were violently prevented from joining the protest. In any event, look at Svoboda's vote totals (to say nothing of smaller, more extreme fascist parties) -- clearly there are more supporters of Nazi parties in Ukraine than people in the image you posted.
The first article from UK Channel 4 described how US Senator McCain (who it should be noted was accompanied by Sen. Murphy, meaning both US parties were represented) directly stood on stage with the Nazi leader endorsing his regime change effort as having American backing. How was that not noticed? Did people read the article or even see the images accompanying it?
You know, you think about where we've been in terms of U.S.-Russian relations; when I came into office, we talked about reset, and I established, I think, an effective working relationship with Mr. Medvedev.
And as a consequence, Russia's economy was growing, they had to the opportunity to begin diversifying their economy, their relations across Europe and around the world were sound, they joined the WTO with assistance from us. And since Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine - not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine - since that time, this improvisation that he's been doing has getting - has gotten him deeper and deeper into a situation that is a violation of international law, that violates the integrity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, has isolated Russia diplomatically, has made Europe wary of doing business with Russia, has allowed the imposition of sanctions that are crippling Russia's economy at a time when their oil revenues are dropping.
Please read what I have highlighted in bold, which contradicts 90% of the anti-Russia arguments in this forum, which sounds more like a right-wing Republican perspective like from McCain.
I am not a fan of Obama, but at least he is not a neoconservative moron who imagines the world is just like in a G.I. Joe cartoon, and at least respect's his audience's intelligence enough that he is not framing geopolitics as a "good vs evil" fable for children. I am unsure what sources others are relying on, but they contradict the president's own words in in a very crude, jingoistic manner,
Transition power away from an opposed leader who had lost fair elections. The entire point of a US agreement was to allow free and fair elections to be held and the will of the people to be respected. Instead Russia rolled in the tanks and executed a war of conquest.
Literally every single defense of Russian policy you post is rooted in one constant: Russia is right, fuck the people being oppressed. Stability means leave the dictators in charge.
There are not this many Nazi's in the Ukraine.
Wait, what are you talking about? What election? The Maidan protests did not follow an election. Yanukovych was the elected leader at the time, and had not served his entire term when he was overthrown.
The piece by Max Blumenthal I linked to described that 30% of the Maidan protesters were far-right nationalists, and leftists were violently prevented from joining the protest. In any event, look at Svoboda's vote totals (to say nothing of smaller, more extreme fascist parties) -- clearly there are more supporters of Nazi parties in Ukraine than people in the image you posted.
Ukraine granted harbor to Weev for Christ's sake.
This seems be a huge surprise to you, but in territories with long histories of having their populations exterminated by Russian governments, building up binding ties to Russia is kind of a big issue. Ukraine wasn't some isolated incident - Russian business agreements were political hot button issues all over former Soviet states around that time, I know because the government of Bulgaria was being protested while I was there. There is nothing especially surprising or requiring outside influence to require this.
So welcome to democracy, where by the people, for the people also means you don't have a guaranteed term if you abuse the people. Holy hell dude - my country has replaced Prime Ministers multiple times between elections over the past 8 years.
I'm also ignoring everything you have to say about Nazi's, because frankly everything findable about it reeks to high heaven - it's a known propaganda button people like to push, and it's always easy to find some undesirable associated groups attaching to popular movements. And frankly, there's no need to defend it: the US didn't prosecute a war of conquest in the Ukraine to topple a populist movement, Russia did.
electricitylikesme on
+18
Options
Gennenalyse RuebenThe Prettiest Boy is Ridiculously PrettyRegistered Userregular
Yeah seriously. I mean they're friendly towards Russia as long as they need them, but soon they're in power, and geopolitical reality kicks in - meaning Russia is still on an antagonistic course, and suddenly you have extremely volatile Nazis in charge. I can't even imagine how someone thought this might be a good idea. It's a recipe for disaster.
Putin is taking a massive risk with this game. I assume he thinks he can control Trump, but it remains to be seen how this'll turn out long term. Trump is only going to get more paranoid and eccentric now he's POTUS, the stress is going to magnify his weaknesses 100 fold.
Isn't that a recurring theme with Trump?
"Oh, he screwed those OTHER guys over but me? I can control him!"
*proceeds to be unable to control him and gets screwed over*
EDIT: I really wish posts I wrote but never made weren't eternally saved in the comment box down there.
The first article from UK Channel 4 described how US Senator McCain (who it should be noted was accompanied by Sen. Murphy, meaning both US parties were represented) directly stood on stage with the Nazi leader endorsing his regime change effort as having American backing. How was that not noticed? Did people read the article or even see the images accompanying it?
You know, you think about where we've been in terms of U.S.-Russian relations; when I came into office, we talked about reset, and I established, I think, an effective working relationship with Mr. Medvedev.
And as a consequence, Russia's economy was growing, they had to the opportunity to begin diversifying their economy, their relations across Europe and around the world were sound, they joined the WTO with assistance from us. And since Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine - not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine - since that time, this improvisation that he's been doing has getting - has gotten him deeper and deeper into a situation that is a violation of international law, that violates the integrity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, has isolated Russia diplomatically, has made Europe wary of doing business with Russia, has allowed the imposition of sanctions that are crippling Russia's economy at a time when their oil revenues are dropping.
Please read what I have highlighted in bold, which contradicts 90% of the anti-Russia arguments in this forum, which sounds more like a right-wing Republican perspective like from McCain.
I am not a fan of Obama, but at least he is not a neoconservative moron who imagines the world is just like in a G.I. Joe cartoon, and at least respects his audience's intelligence enough that he is not framing geopolitics as a "good vs evil" fable for children. I am unsure what sources others are relying on, but they contradict the president's own words in in a very crude, jingoistic manner.
The Sputnik link was quoting George Friedman from an interview in another Russian-language publication. For what it's worth, I found Friedman has either mildly backtracked or else he was misquoted or mistranslated in the Russian publications. But his perspective is still far more nuanced than a "RUSSIA BAD!! MURKA GOOD!!" line many people are unthinkingly adopting. I am arguing in good faith and will link to Friedman's more recent discussion. https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russia-examines-its-options-responding-ukraine
Were Belarus and Ukraine both admitted to NATO, the city of Smolensk, which had been deep inside the Soviet Union, would have become a border town. Russia has historically protected itself with its depth. It moved its borders as far west as possible, and that depth deterred adventurers — or, as it did with Hitler and Napoleon, destroyed them. The loss of Ukraine as a buffer to the West leaves Russia without that depth and hostage to the intentions and capabilities of Europe and the United States.
There are those in the West who dismiss Russia's fears as archaic. No one wishes to invade Russia, and no one can invade Russia. Such views appear sophisticated but are in fact simplistic. Intent means relatively little in terms of assessing threats. They can change very fast. So too can capabilities. The American performance in World War I and the German performance in the 1930s show how quickly threats and capabilities shift. In 1932, Germany was a shambles economically and militarily. By 1938, it was the dominant economic and military power on the European Peninsula. In 1941, it was at the gates of Moscow. In 1916, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson ran a sincere anti-war campaign in a country with hardly any army. In 1917, he deployed more than a million American soldiers to Europe.
Russia's viewpoint is appropriately pessimistic. If Russia loses Belarus or Ukraine, it loses its strategic depth, which accounts for much of its ability to defend the Russian heartland. If the intention of the West is not hostile, then why is it so eager to see the regime in Ukraine transformed? It may be a profound love of liberal democracy, but from Moscow's perspective, Russia must assume more sinister motives.
Quite apart from the question of invasion, which is obviously a distant one, Russia is concerned about the consequences of Ukraine's joining the West and the potential for contagion in parts of Russia itself. During the 1990s, there were several secessionist movements in Russia. The Chechens became violent, and the rest of their secession story is well known. But there also was talk of secession in Karelia, in Russia's northwest, and in the Pacific Maritime region.
What was conceivable under Boris Yeltsin was made inconceivable under Vladimir Putin. The strategy Putin adopted was to increase Russia's strength moderately but systematically, to make that modest increase appear disproportionately large. Russia could not afford to remain on the defensive; the forces around it were too powerful. Putin had to magnify Russia's strength, and he did. Using energy exports, the weakness of Europe and the United States' distraction in the Middle East, he created a sense of growing Russian power. Putin ended talk of secession in the Russian Federation. He worked to create regimes in Belarus and Ukraine that retained a great deal of domestic autonomy but operated within a foreign policy framework acceptable to Russia. Moscow went further, projecting its power into the Middle East and, in the Syrian civil war, appearing to force the United States to back out of its strategy.
It is not clear what happened in Kiev. There were of course many organizations funded by American and European money that were committed to a reform government. It is irrelevant whether, as the Russians charge, these organizations planned and fomented the uprising against former President Viktor Yanukovich's regime or whether that uprising was part of a more powerful indigenous movement that drew these groups along. The fact was that Yanukovich refused to sign an agreement moving Ukraine closer to the European Union, the demonstrations took place, there was violence, and an openly pro-Western Ukrainian government was put in place.
The Russians cannot simply allow this to stand. Not only does it create a new geopolitical reality, but in the longer term it also gives the appearance inside Russia that Putin is weaker than he seems and opens the door to instability and even fragmentation. Therefore, the Russians must respond. The issue is how.
I really don't appreciate your characterization of the posters on this forum as jingoistic nationalists who say "America good, Russia evil." Please post examples of that happening, most of our attempts to engage with you have been to ask why you defend what Russia has been doing, but decry it when you see it in United States policy.
I'll say it again, a lot of posters agree with you that the United States has historically done some pretty awful shit. My question to you has always, consistently, been why do you seem so willing to explain away Russia's flaws while pouncing on the flaws of the U.S. at every opportunity?
I would super appreciate it if you would engage with us instead of coming in here with an infodump every 6 hours and claim that it proves your point. I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop putting words in our collective mouths.
Posts
That's why the Russians keep kicking out Western NGOs- they think it's the first step to their government being overthrown. It's why they brought back the Cossacks and it's why they formed yet another internal troops force. In Russian eyes any protests and demonstrations are an excuse for the West to split Russia apart, just like the Color Revolution countries of Yugoslavia, Georgia, and Ukraine.
@Captain Marcus I didn't write that.
The little matter of the Franco-Prussian war at the very least.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
How is that a representation of "balance of power" more than "one power must maintain dominance at all costs"?
This representation of the US ignores the Libya war and Iraq war, support for dictatorships around the world, repeated undermining of democracy, etc. If we compare the annexation of Crimea versus the invasion of Iraq, we could describe both acts illegal under international law, but that is like saying robbing a bank and murdering a family are both illegal; not all crimes are morally equal. Compare magnitude of immediate humanitarian severity as well as global fallout in each case. US fomented a coup in Ukraine led by Nazis, now remembering what Nazis did to Russia last time they attacked through Ukraine what would you expect Russia to do?
Russia backs Assad in war; US backs Saudi Arabia at war in Yemen.
A G.I. Joe cartoon worldview or repeating PR from the government itself is not an objective representation of reality and seems not even a good faith attempt at that.
That depends on the one power in question, doesn't it? Would you prefer a world where we live under a China hegemony instead? They're next in line to take that prize, not Russia.
I addressed both of your points explicitly. Is my English that bad, or are others deliberately arguing in bad faith?
I overtly mentioned that outside the multipolar "balance of power" system in Europe, the rest of the world were not regarded as equals. I overtly mentioned the US genocide against Indians in North America. I also think it is strange for a partisan of US hegemony to bring that up as it undermines the case for US morality; Americans used the same "freedom" bullshit PR then as now, and it was just as hypocritical then as now. I also mentioned that plenty of small wars still happened -- as small and medium wars happen often in the present system.
My point was, looking specifically at the confines in which it was recognized, what is more conducive toward peace: a recognized balance of power respected by those participating, or a system in which one power attempts to dominate all others against their will indefinitely?
Russia is worried about Ukraine joining NATO, and participating in a general western invasion seeking regime change and dismemberment of Russia.
And the Ukrainian far-right does have irredentist demands on parts of Russia:
You've said this a few times now
So far I can find only a few sources for this proposition, and which look like cheaply made propaganda pieces
Yeah, the US has done some really bad shit - I doubt you'll have anyone on this forum suggesting what America did to the Indians was a Good Thing.
I'd be up for some other country picking up the hegemony role from the US, that would be better for world peace - and Russia isn't in the running for a solid replacement. They don't have the moral high ground with America, and unlike Russia America has at least successfully tried to clean up its act on the domestic and global stage with Obama. Someone that Putin hated with a passion. Meanwhile Russia's went from one bad system of government to another, where before was borne from Stalin's Communism now they've become a twisted form of the US merged with a dystopia.
At least in America the press is free, it may be severely corrupted and inept at times but no one is worried if they piss off Dear Leader they'll end up dead. Do I need to bring up the problems the LGBT face in Russia, because I will. The US also pays its military personnel. Their history with women isn't exactly thrilling, either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/world/europe/12russia.html
http://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/researchdigest/russia/gender.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/05/ten-years-putin-press-kremlin-grip-russia-media-tightens
The implication in your posts is that Russia is not that bad, yet I don't hear why. What do you honestly like about Putin's Russia?
edit: Putin is encouraging this type of behavior with his new pal, Trump.
edit: America will always have a moral high ground over Russia* thanks too two words: Joseph Stalin.
* except if Trump becomes a worst case scenario, which is possible.
Like literal invasion by the west? Wouldn't that be completely out of the question given that nukes would fly immediately?
I think they were worried about Ukraine leaning more toward western influence, and with potential NATO join becoming a hard wall. They don't want their sphere of influence to shrink further.
Russia's invasion of Crimea seems really logical, even if I greatly dislike it, in hindsight I suspect any Russian ruler would have reacted in a similar way. It's hard to separate Russia and Putin though. Putin wants to remain in power forever, western influence is a nuisance and he wants as little of it as possible. Anything to lessen that it seems likely he would do. Russian foreign relation actions have a number 1 priority of serving Putin personally, and might serve Russia as well often enough.
UK Channel 4: Anti-Semitic far-right Svoboda Party at heart of Ukraine protests:
https://www.channel4.com/news/ukraine-mccain-far-right-svoboda-anti-semitic-protests?x
Newsweek: Far-right Ukrainian militias committing ISIS-style atrocities:
http://europe.newsweek.com/evidence-war-crimes-committed-ukrainian-nationalist-volunteers-grows-269604?rm=eu
Stratfor CEO: US coup in Ukraine was most overt in history:
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201412191016024377/
Max Blumenthal: US backing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine:
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/us-backing-neo-nazis-ukraine
Ukrainian fascist militia caught on video raping children:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Ukrainian-Pro-Govt-Unit-Caught-on-Video-Raping-Young-Girls-20160808-0006.html
Man, firing all those military officers seems like a crazy move on the surface. You already have inequality and financial uncertainty: summarily laying off a huge portion of your trained soldiers (officers no less) seems like tempting rebellion. Bush/Cheney dissolving Iraq's military caused all sorts of problems that we're still paying for now.
Unless it is some sort of strategy to move a large number of rule-bound military personnel into unaccountable PMCs or a false flag or something, which seems implausible, but is not something I would put past Putin.
How do you feel about Russia's actions which lead to them conquering Ukraine? Did you think it was on the up-and-up?
How reliable is Sputnik for an unbiased new source?
I'll just assume for the sake of argument that the Svoboda party is a Nazi group
4 of these 5 sources have nothing to do with whether the US instigated a coup in Ukraine
The one source for your coup-instigation proposition is bought and paid for by Russia
And all it says is that according to Russia the US instigated a coup
I remain unconvinced
It's essentially a state channel.
Thanks, Echo. So it's worse than useless as a source.
A "revolution in military affairs" in the future could render the nuclear issue neutralised somehow, the general flow of technological history of warfare is that there is always a new unexpected advent just over the horizon.
Also someone could just be reckless/crazy enough to play nuclear "chicken" against Russia. That was basically the idea behind a no-fly zone in Syria, which in order to implement would have required US military action against Russian forces on the ground in Syria.
A situation could be such that US/NATO pushes little by little, step by step, degree by degree such that it is ambiguous when an invasion, as such, even began, or combining some degree of military force with other irregular means, cyber attacks and sponsorship of internal dissent in order to try to force regime change in Russia without it coming to a situation in which nuclear exchange was probable. The dynamics caused by being surrounded on all sides by hostile military forces conducting all sorts of war games and psychological exercises could contribute to instability or regime collapse in Russia even if they did not or only marginally crossed into Russian territory.
Russia overtly states US is seeking regime change: http://www.wsj.com/articles/lavrov-says-west-is-seeking-regime-change-in-russia-1416672419
That seems like the kind of thing likely to piss NATO off and make them conduct war games and psychological exercises in Russia. You don't calm people down by acting aggressively, you calm people down by being rational and working with them.
There is such a thing as cause and effect. Cause: Russia is an asshole. Effect: NATO and the U.S. now really fucking dislike Russia again.
Now you have some voices in Germany (although not many) calling for *our own nuclear arms program*
And this is almost 100% Russia's doing.
Edit. I just think that while Putin is a pretty damn good manipulator and effective despot, he really totally underestimates the potential for it all to blow up in his face.
Like right now. A few solid proofs he really did influence the US election and the whole atmosphere gets extremely unfriendly for Russia
Including the US if he doesn't play cards right, which wouldn't be the first time Nazis white supremacists turned on them.
Putin is taking a massive risk with this game. I assume he thinks he can control Trump, but it remains to be seen how this'll turn out long term. Trump is only going to get more paranoid and eccentric now he's POTUS, the stress is going to magnify his weaknesses 100 fold.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/12/youre-only-supposed-to-blow-th.html
It's an enormous risk for possibly enormous reward, but I think his risk assessment was faulty. You can control a narcissist as long as you have the power to control the outcome of their personal story, but once he's in power, all Putin has is very, very soft power over Trump himself, and Trump suddenly has the red button aimed at Russia.
I think Putin's meeting him ASAP so he can reign him in. I think he's in for a bad surprise, especially if the Inauguration is a shit show from Trump's point of view, making him even angrier.
This is something that was mentioned in Eichenwald's original Newsweek piece on Russia influencing the election;
It's not entirely implausible that Putin's administration are already very worried that they've unleashed an uncontrollable monster.
Why it was so completely ridiculous in Croatia's case was because the government that sought independence from Yugoslavia was filled with communist partisans installed by the communist party of Yugoslavia. It's absolutely true that the government and public sentiment at the time was ethnocentric and it is to this day in lingering and anti-democratic ways, but there was no credible threat of a genuine fascist regime and there still isn't. The right-wing political party is filled with vile douchebags, in my opinion, but they're not fascist. They exist within the democratic process and when they have taken power, they haven't torn down that process.
It's really easy to find vague historical links to fascism for any person or party in a country that was completely occupied by Nazi Germany or a proxy fascist government in WWII. Any nationalistic or patriotic movement in such a country can easily be suspect in that way. And when an outside military power is actively arming and fermenting an armed rebellion among a minority ethnicity, you're going to find some heated discussion and sentiment in the public sphere. But is the government of Ukraine advocating that Russians or non-Ukranians be treated as second class citizens? I doubt it. Are they pushing through non-democratic reforms to eliminate dissent and enshrine their hold on power? If all of this was because they wanted to join the EU, then that's unlikely.
It seems like bullshit, and no news organization funded by the Russian government should be trusted on this topic. This is an established propaganda strategy.
John McCain, a consistent advocate for regime change in countries opposed to the US and a man who has never stopped fighting the Cold War, was chilling with the leadership of the far right Svoboda shortly before the uprising. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the far right groups, while not the only people protesting, were the violent spearhead of the protest movement. Svoboda and the Right Sector can't be handwaved away as having vague historical ties to fascism; they are about as moderate today as the National Front and Golden Dawn, respectively.
edit - Russian propaganda referring to the post-revolt authorities in Kiev as a "Nazi government" is still a couple steps past reality, I'd say. It's hard to get a clear picture of what really went down when both sides are just shameless in their propaganda campaigns against the other.
More from London Guardian: "It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
Also, Obama in 2015 openly admitted US involvement in the Ukraine regime change:
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/02/01/pres-obama-on-fareed-zakaria-gps-cnn-exclusive/
Please read what I have highlighted in bold, which contradicts 90% of the anti-Russia arguments in this forum, which sounds more like a right-wing Republican perspective like from McCain.
I am not a fan of Obama, but at least he is not a neoconservative moron who imagines the world is just like in a G.I. Joe cartoon, and at least respects his audience's intelligence enough that he is not framing geopolitics as a "good vs evil" fable for children. I am unsure what sources others are relying on, but they contradict the president's own words in in a very crude, jingoistic manner.
The Sputnik link was quoting George Friedman from an interview in another Russian-language publication. For what it's worth, I found Friedman has either mildly backtracked or else he was misquoted or mistranslated in the Russian publications.
But his perspective is still far more nuanced than a "RUSSIA BAD!! MURKA GOOD!!" line many people are unthinkingly adopting. I am arguing in good faith and will link to Friedman's more recent discussion.
https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russia-examines-its-options-responding-ukraine
Transition power away from an opposed leader who had lost fair elections. The entire point of a US agreement was to allow free and fair elections to be held and the will of the people to be respected. Instead Russia rolled in the tanks and executed a war of conquest.
Literally every single defense of Russian policy you post is rooted in one constant: Russia is right, fuck the people being oppressed. Stability means leave the dictators in charge.
There are not this many Nazi's in the Ukraine.
Wait, what are you talking about? What election? The Maidan protests did not follow an election. Yanukovych was the elected leader at the time, and had not served his entire term when he was overthrown.
The piece by Max Blumenthal I linked to described that 30% of the Maidan protesters were far-right nationalists, and leftists were violently prevented from joining the protest. In any event, look at Svoboda's vote totals (to say nothing of smaller, more extreme fascist parties) -- clearly there are more supporters of Nazi parties in Ukraine than people in the image you posted.
Ukraine granted harbor to Weev for Christ's sake.
Now I know that you are a shill.
This seems be a huge surprise to you, but in territories with long histories of having their populations exterminated by Russian governments, building up binding ties to Russia is kind of a big issue. Ukraine wasn't some isolated incident - Russian business agreements were political hot button issues all over former Soviet states around that time, I know because the government of Bulgaria was being protested while I was there. There is nothing especially surprising or requiring outside influence to require this.
So welcome to democracy, where by the people, for the people also means you don't have a guaranteed term if you abuse the people. Holy hell dude - my country has replaced Prime Ministers multiple times between elections over the past 8 years.
I'm also ignoring everything you have to say about Nazi's, because frankly everything findable about it reeks to high heaven - it's a known propaganda button people like to push, and it's always easy to find some undesirable associated groups attaching to popular movements. And frankly, there's no need to defend it: the US didn't prosecute a war of conquest in the Ukraine to topple a populist movement, Russia did.
Isn't that a recurring theme with Trump?
"Oh, he screwed those OTHER guys over but me? I can control him!"
*proceeds to be unable to control him and gets screwed over*
EDIT: I really wish posts I wrote but never made weren't eternally saved in the comment box down there.
I really don't appreciate your characterization of the posters on this forum as jingoistic nationalists who say "America good, Russia evil." Please post examples of that happening, most of our attempts to engage with you have been to ask why you defend what Russia has been doing, but decry it when you see it in United States policy.
I'll say it again, a lot of posters agree with you that the United States has historically done some pretty awful shit. My question to you has always, consistently, been why do you seem so willing to explain away Russia's flaws while pouncing on the flaws of the U.S. at every opportunity?
I would super appreciate it if you would engage with us instead of coming in here with an infodump every 6 hours and claim that it proves your point. I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop putting words in our collective mouths.