In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 13 2016 13:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Experienced enough to use a non secure email server for confidential emails? Still find it amazing to find defenders of US foreign policy after the clusterfuck of the past 15 years, especially in the mid east. Bizarre.
Experience coming from failures does not make lack of experience preferable to experience.
You should read the 2014 Valdai speech by Putin, he says something very much related to what you're saying. He suggests that, unlike Russia, America did not learn from the cold war era that meddling in the government affairs of other sovereign nations is ill-advised for long term stability of the world. You say that the country wants this experience, but it appears that it does not learn from its experience. Your politicians are now pushing to get rid Assad despite what happened in Iraq. You continue to sell weapons to some of the most awful people of the world, who give them to even worse people. All this despite what happened in Afghanistan in the 70s/80s or whatever when you tried to undermine the Russians by arming the rebels there. It just doesn't end.
How much more experience do you need? Are you going to see how far you can push until it all comes crashing down in the form of the precision nukes of your newly modernized nuclear arsenal versus whatever kind of WMDs the other side can come up with?
America meddling with other nations lead the western world to 70 years of peace and counting.
The western world maybe, but there's a ton of people in the Middle East who haven't seen much of that. Besides, I'm not sure you would've had to do much to stop the western world from going to war with each other in the past 70 years.
On October 13 2016 19:49 Gorsameth wrote: And again your ignoring Russia's own actions in regards to meddling with other nations and the wars it has drawn them in since the cold war...
May I suggest that you read the title of the thread.
On October 13 2016 17:11 Acrofales wrote: I love this discussion between our two lordships here. It reminds me of the Mafia games in the sub forum, sometimes two townies decide the other is scum, and give the most negative interpretation possible to one another's posts, both to make themselves look good, and to prove the other is in fact scum.
You both apparently know what you're talking about, so how about taking a step back, and reading each other's posts as an interesting window into a different view of Russia than your own, and respond to that instead of the caricatures you have made of each other's viewpoints.
On October 13 2016 13:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Experienced enough to use a non secure email server for confidential emails? Still find it amazing to find defenders of US foreign policy after the clusterfuck of the past 15 years, especially in the mid east. Bizarre.
Experience coming from failures does not make lack of experience preferable to experience.
You should read the 2014 Valdai speech by Putin, he says something very much related to what you're saying. He suggests that, unlike Russia, America did not learn from the cold war era that meddling in the government affairs of other sovereign nations is ill-advised for long term stability of the world. You say that the country wants this experience, but it appears that it does not learn from its experience. Your politicians are now pushing to get rid Assad despite what happened in Iraq. You continue to sell weapons to some of the most awful people of the world, who give them to even worse people. All this despite what happened in Afghanistan in the 70s/80s or whatever when you tried to undermine the Russians by arming the rebels there. It just doesn't end.
How much more experience do you need? Are you going to see how far you can push until it all comes crashing down in the form of the precision nukes of your newly modernized nuclear arsenal versus whatever kind of WMDs the other side can come up with?
America meddling with other nations lead the western world to 70 years of peace and counting.
The western world maybe, but there's a ton of people in the Middle East who haven't seen much of that. Besides, I'm not sure you would've had to do much to stop the western world from going to war with each other in the past 70 years.
One does have to wonder how much of the conflict in the Middle East would have happened anyway had the West not intervened at all, or done so in a different way, post WW2. The answer is not at all clear to me one way or the other, though. Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of the practical or moral implications of US foreign policy in the recent past, but I do acknowledge they could be doing a lot of things worse.
As for the second point, happily we have not found out the hard way that not enough was done to prevent war in the West. I don't advocate a course of action where we might find that out.
On October 13 2016 19:49 Gorsameth wrote: And again your ignoring Russia's own actions in regards to meddling with other nations and the wars it has drawn them in since the cold war...
May I suggest that you read the title of the thread.
What? You don't get to make an assertion about Russia, then complain that it's offtopic when somebody refutes you...
On October 13 2016 17:11 Acrofales wrote: I love this discussion between our two lordships here. It reminds me of the Mafia games in the sub forum, sometimes two townies decide the other is scum, and give the most negative interpretation possible to one another's posts, both to make themselves look good, and to prove the other is in fact scum.
You both apparently know what you're talking about, so how about taking a step back, and reading each other's posts as an interesting window into a different view of Russia than your own, and respond to that instead of the caricatures you have made of each other's viewpoints.
We must have read different posts.
I suspect you may have read those posts through an American lens that cannot see or simply dismisses when its own country is doing things that are harmful to the world at large. I hear it is a common problem experienced by people engulfed in media that speaks in one harmonious voice.
On October 13 2016 17:11 Acrofales wrote: I love this discussion between our two lordships here. It reminds me of the Mafia games in the sub forum, sometimes two townies decide the other is scum, and give the most negative interpretation possible to one another's posts, both to make themselves look good, and to prove the other is in fact scum.
You both apparently know what you're talking about, so how about taking a step back, and reading each other's posts as an interesting window into a different view of Russia than your own, and respond to that instead of the caricatures you have made of each other's viewpoints.
We must have read different posts.
I suspect you may have read those posts through an American lens that cannot see or simply dismisses when its own country is doing things that are harmful to the world at large. I hear it is a common problem experienced by people engulfed in media that speaks in one harmonious voice.
I suspect you have no idea what I'm talking about and are literally making things up to jive with your stilted European worldview. See how easy that was? Luckily, the vast majority of Europeans who post here don't post like you.
On October 13 2016 17:11 Acrofales wrote: I love this discussion between our two lordships here. It reminds me of the Mafia games in the sub forum, sometimes two townies decide the other is scum, and give the most negative interpretation possible to one another's posts, both to make themselves look good, and to prove the other is in fact scum.
You both apparently know what you're talking about, so how about taking a step back, and reading each other's posts as an interesting window into a different view of Russia than your own, and respond to that instead of the caricatures you have made of each other's viewpoints.
We must have read different posts.
I suspect you may have read those posts through an American lens that cannot see or simply dismisses when its own country is doing things that are harmful to the world at large. I hear it is a common problem experienced by people engulfed in media that speaks in one harmonious voice.
Well he didn't assume a vague, lofty, unearned superiority while lumping all of US media into a caricature that is common among non-Americans.
On October 13 2016 13:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Experienced enough to use a non secure email server for confidential emails? Still find it amazing to find defenders of US foreign policy after the clusterfuck of the past 15 years, especially in the mid east. Bizarre.
Experience coming from failures does not make lack of experience preferable to experience.
You should read the 2014 Valdai speech by Putin, he says something very much related to what you're saying. He suggests that, unlike Russia, America did not learn from the cold war era that meddling in the government affairs of other sovereign nations is ill-advised for long term stability of the world. You say that the country wants this experience, but it appears that it does not learn from its experience. Your politicians are now pushing to get rid Assad despite what happened in Iraq. You continue to sell weapons to some of the most awful people of the world, who give them to even worse people. All this despite what happened in Afghanistan in the 70s/80s or whatever when you tried to undermine the Russians by arming the rebels there. It just doesn't end.
How much more experience do you need? Are you going to see how far you can push until it all comes crashing down in the form of the precision nukes of your newly modernized nuclear arsenal versus whatever kind of WMDs the other side can come up with?
America meddling with other nations lead the western world to 70 years of peace and counting.
The western world maybe, but there's a ton of people in the Middle East who haven't seen much of that. Besides, I'm not sure you would've had to do much to stop the western world from going to war with each other in the past 70 years.
One does have to wonder how much of the conflict in the Middle East would have happened anyway had the West not intervened at all, or done so in a different way, post WW2. The answer is not at all clear to me one way or the other, though. Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of the practical or moral implications of US foreign policy in the recent past, but I do acknowledge they could be doing a lot of things worse.
As for the second point, happily we have not found out the hard way that not enough was done to prevent war in the West. I don't advocate a course of action where we might find that out.
On October 13 2016 19:49 Gorsameth wrote: And again your ignoring Russia's own actions in regards to meddling with other nations and the wars it has drawn them in since the cold war...
May I suggest that you read the title of the thread.
What? You don't get to make an assertion about Russia, then complain that it's offtopic when somebody refutes you...
What was my assertion about Russia? I'm not ignoring the wars Russia has been involved in since the Cold War ended, but they aren't relevant to what I was saying. I was pointing out how America has a ton of experience in what they're doing and they continue to do it despite the bad results in previous efforts. The only reference I made to Russia is that I was more or less paraphrasing a part of Putin's speech.
And yeah, maybe it would have been worse, maybe it would have been better in terms of casualties and human rights abuse in the Middle East. But regardless of the affairs they have amongst each other, they wouldn't have their collective and - at the very least partially - justified hatred for the west if we hadn't interfered for years. Which I think could have perhaps helped with that terrorism problem we've been having. But that is all hypothetical bullshit. The fact of the matter is that right now and today the US are supporting terrorism by giving weapons to rebels and they are still trying to overthrow regimes despite all the death and mayhem it causes. This is simply unacceptable in my view.
On October 13 2016 17:11 Acrofales wrote: I love this discussion between our two lordships here. It reminds me of the Mafia games in the sub forum, sometimes two townies decide the other is scum, and give the most negative interpretation possible to one another's posts, both to make themselves look good, and to prove the other is in fact scum.
You both apparently know what you're talking about, so how about taking a step back, and reading each other's posts as an interesting window into a different view of Russia than your own, and respond to that instead of the caricatures you have made of each other's viewpoints.
We must have read different posts.
I suspect you may have read those posts through an American lens that cannot see or simply dismisses when its own country is doing things that are harmful to the world at large. I hear it is a common problem experienced by people engulfed in media that speaks in one harmonious voice.
Well he didn't assume a vague, lofty, unearned superiority while lumping all of US media into a caricature that is common among non-Americans.
I'd say the American medias view on Russia is pretty cohesive and can easily be lobbed together. Or can you point me to a few positive stories about Russia in American mainstream media? Have there been neutral discussions regarding what happened with the convoy, or did they all echo Kerrys suggestion of "war crimes"?
It's not our job to prove you wrong, it's your job to offer support for what appears to be a baseless, self-superior assertion. Besides, on this new-fangled thing called the Internet, Americans can and do consume media from all over the world! Amazing, right? I mostly look to BBC and Reuters myself.
Edit: tsk tsk Biff, since you didn't say something nice about Russia, you must be hopelessly mired in an echo chamber.
On October 13 2016 19:03 LemOn wrote: To be honest what media focuses on is a joke, who cares about these "scandals", how they talk in private...
It should be about policy and what they'll actually do, what their stances are and people deciding on that.
Trump doesn't have any concrete detailed policy positions and the closest ones often contradicts the other attempts he's made on policy. The closest you get is how he in general feels about topics hence why his character is forefront for the election.
On October 13 2016 20:35 farvacola wrote: It's not our job to prove you wrong, it's your job to offer support for what appears to be a baseless, self-superior assertion. Besides, on this new-fangled thing called the Internet, Americans can and do consume media from all over the world! Amazing, right? I mostly look to BBC and Reuters myself.
Edit: tsk tsk Biff, since you didn't say something nice about Russia, you must be hopelessly mired in an echo chamber.
You're right, and I apologize for my comments directed at you. I get annoyed by the constant anti-Russian rhetoric while people being extremely forgiving of the terrible American foreign policy and lashed out unnecessarily at you personally.
On October 13 2016 20:35 farvacola wrote: It's not our job to prove you wrong, it's your job to offer support for what appears to be a baseless, self-superior assertion. Besides, on this new-fangled thing called the Internet, Americans can and do consume media from all over the world! Amazing, right? I mostly look to BBC and Reuters myself.
Edit: tsk tsk Biff, since you didn't say something nice about Russia, you must be hopelessly mired in an echo chamber.
To think that Putin has good intention and that Russia is looking for a friendly relationship with Europe or the US, one must be either completely clueless or living in an alternate universe.
We are talking of a cleptocracy that invades foreign countries, bullies and intimidates small neighbours with nuclear weapons, war planes and submarines, and who openly support and organize fascist parties in Europe (such as the FN) because it may destabilize the EU.
For the folks who still have illusions about Putin and his crew, I'd like to introduce one of Kremlin's ideologists, Alexander Dugin.
This guy is NOT a clown, he was the advisor of the speaker of the Duma. He has met numerous times leaders of the Front National, and is at the forefront of the Russian effort to support fascists in Europe.
And let him explain you what his ideas are :
We are all intellectuals here, and we prefer reading, right?
Today in Russia the lack of national idea is felt very acutely. On the one hand, everyone understands it is necessary, on the other hand, it's not that easy to offer something reasonable, something new or something convincing yet. For many years I have been thinking over this problem and poring at a problem of national idea and recently (while analyzing the events in the world, visiting different European countries) one thought crossed my mind – concerning the way to manage the issue of national idea. I will express it as an offer, as ahypothesis and then probably the society or, above all, the State will decide to accept it or not. The idea is that we need to occupy Europe!
To Conquer! And annex!
Here firstly many people would say: well, what is it, what does this idea mean: to conquer, to annex, to include in own borders, to win? How comes? And, on the other hand, after this initial hostility is over, or indignation, or the feeling that something wrong is said or thought. Or maybe it's a wrong time, a wrong epoch; and indeed, what does it mean to invade Europe? When it will take place, well, it is necessary to give people the opportunity to groan, shout there.
Liberals will say: well, we have always assumed that and that's why you have behaved in such a way... And when this wave will come down, squealing agents of the West, the fifth column, other forces of the kind and the bewilderment of patriots who, in general, understate the agenda in order to be saved, if only to survive, that's when the indignation wave is over, one might think: why not? And then remember, for example, the projects of our great poet Fyodor Tyutchev, who appeared with this concept in the 19th century.
He believed that the Russian empire must conquer Europe, that the Russian tsar (=monarch) must be the pan-European king and in such a way to recreate the Byzantine Empire. You can give them a high degree of autonomy within the framework of the global Roman Empire or the Third Rome. Orthodoxy may perfectly come to an agreement with the conservative Catholic circles.
We won't forbid Catholics to practice their religion on our imperial territory, as it was in earlier periods of imperial unity, let's say from the era of Constantine the Great to Charlemagne, and having a certain level of autonomy, Western Europe admitted the unity of the Byzantine emperor anyway.
On the other hand, the same imperial idea can be seen in Nietzsche's works. Nietzsche said: let Europe be like Greece under the protection of Rome, let Russians conquer Europe. Nietzsche have already said it from the position of the Germans. It will be much better, then we can focus on the development of our culture, our national identity, and we will not take care of the strategic issues. Russian troops put their guard, their patrols on our territory, they will just protect us, defend us and we'll rise as a unique cultural background.
In other words, there are representatives of this idea in Europe also.
Oswald Spengler thought the same way. A friend of Merezhkovskii, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, who admired Dostoevsky, shared the same opinion. In fact, the European elite (to a great extent) considered the prospect of surrendering Europe to Russia. Strong Russia, conservative Russia, self-confident Russia, Russia on the rise. In other words – we are sure to have a fifth column (pro-Russian) in Europe. These are the European intellectuals who want to strengthen their own identity.
You can look at the armed forces in Europe. And these are almost zero. Of course there is NATO, but the thing is that NATO doesn't meddle in harsh military operations. We can see it through the examples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We clashed with their friend Saakashvili and we emerged the winners. There was a lot of noise and some "water ballet" in the Black Sea – American cruisers, NATO cruisers, so what? South Ossetia and Abkhazia are ours! Or our own!
So, we will offer Europe to be itself. We will just establish a protectorate over them all!
So there is also a question that Europe is militarily weak. Of course we do not need to fight. And why would we fight with weapons? Let's fight the soft power. Let us offer to protect Europe from gay marriage, from FEMEN, from Pussy Riot and save Europe from itself (=save Europe from Europe). After all, Europe, European consciousness is decomposing and all sane Europeans understand that after a while Europe will turn into an abyss. There will be just enclaves of degenerates, archaic emigrants who simply destroy the European identity. They need to do something about it, and look they are like Breivik – they already shoot their own citizens. So they start to destroy themselves because they don't understand what to do. So let's tell them: this is under our protectorate, we will provide protection! You see our Pussy Riot serve time in prison! And we will put into prison yours! You have FEMEN roistering in churches; they quickly get a bludgeon in the snoot here and are sent to garbage trucks, which is their historic homeland! Then Ukraine or Georgia will havenowhere to hurry and while going to Europe, they will come to us.
Consequently Europe benefits from this Russian protectorate. Secondly, in fact Europe hates itself so much, repents so much in front of everybody, in fact Europe is tired of going down this path of nihilism. And we'll say: we have no complaints for you. It's enough to repent! We will establish the order! You aren't able to cope with emigration, but we will handle it. Well, the solution for immigrants is the following – a suitcase, train station, go back home! Of course we will have to tighten our migration laws a little bit too. But anyway the situation we have stands no comparison with what is happening in Europe. Europe is simply disappearing right in front of our eyes. Therefore, we are the Indo-European people. We can also remind that in this case we have a wide variety of other ethnic groups; we have the experience of the present, effective multiculturalism. So those who are afraid that they will be evicted immediately, don't worry, we will not evict them immediately. We'll offer them a system of adaptation measures in order to stay in our global Eurasian empire – empire that includes Europe. Another example of absolutely perfect use of our Eurasian cultural diversity in Europe, we will show what real tolerance is. Not by attitude, not as indifference to strangers, but as integration of a variety of societies and cultures into one civilization.
Then, our citizens will be satisfied, because the visa issues will be solved automatically. There won't be visa control questions and any borders. The EU will simply enter the Eurasian Union as a part of it. And then our pro-westerners will be completely satisfied also, because we will be in Europe. Russia will become Europe to some extent, because the borders will not exist. European values may move toward us if the Europeans save them, because these European values in their present post-modern terms, are exactly the thing that is killing Europe. So actually, we will introduce some patriotic censorship in the European media. Not liberal as now, when different levels of liberal newspapers are checked ten thousand times whether there is any non-liberal element.
In other words, there is a real totalitarian racist, Western, Eurocentric liberal censorship. We will cancel this censorship, give people the opportunity to express their opinions freely, but we will introduce censorship, for example, anti-nihilistic censorship, censorship that will deter or simply locate nihilistic manifestations of the human soul. Moreover, because we have had the experience of such an expansion in Europe during the Soviet era, when our Communist Party (Third International,
Comintern, the Cominform) achieved very powerful results... in penetrating the parliaments of European countries. Yes, it was an instrument of our foreign policy.
Today the situation has changed, we are no longer communist countries, but we can find other partners. And then, if we now put national ideas – the annexation of the European Union in the Eurasian Union, expansion in Europe – we can actually get together around a great purpose. Imagine, then, to join Europe! This, this is – in the Russian style! If we are told to increase the GDP by 0.1-3 percent, accommodate migrants, or vaccinate dogs – it is certainly cool, but it's not in Russian style.
That's why we don't do anything of this. We are not going to increase any GDP, because we don't care about it. Russians mobilize for a great purpose. To annex Europe – is a great goal. By the way, Russian Westerners of the 19th century, who admired the West – how did they admire it? They wanted to adopt Western technology for Russia to become powerful and great, so that Russia could win the West – let us also appeal to the same Westernism.
You like the European technology – let's, let us take it. How do we get it? They will give it in dribs and drabs – transfer one transistor in exchange for oil, for gas.
No, let's take it all together, all European high technologies at a time, it is simple: we grab Europe and we have all the high technology! Here it is -development, modernization, if we wanted it! Here it is – the Europeanization of our society! Peter I (the Great) opened a window to Europe and what did he show from there? He showed... He simply moved out the cannon (gun), and began to participate in European politics: launched Russian soldiers and Cossacks in the center of Europe. Bistro, we left such traces. Therefore, it seems to me that this throw to the West is extremely important now. This Eurasian idea, and, if you will, Europeanization and modernization, and national self-affirmation, and a great national project. Well, for example let's take Chubais with nanotechnology? Firstly, the whole country hates him. He was given nanotechnology in order for him not to see anything else, so then he is gone to this microcosm and never shows up. Now they look where the money is gone. There, in nano-micro world. Naturally, this microman, this micro idea, nano-idea, nano people they can't become national ideas. This is nano national idea of some sort. That means we will disappear in the microscopic space, and there will disappear the budget and the money too. We are able to do this easily. So, let's do macro-global macro-fundamental project, for real: the conquest of Europe! Yes, we will have to convince someone. So what? After all, I think we should use not the hard power but the soft power for this, Eurasian soft power, find the fifth column, to form and move forward, lead our people to power in Europe, to strengthen, for example, by means of the Gazprom money – to buy principal advertising agencies in European publications, which have influence on the press, and simply to operate as active as the West acts towards us. In fact – to counterattack. They attack us with their NGOs, with their doctors without borders, cyclists who help rebels and the Wahhabis.
Well, we'll play with them according to their rules. And there is nothing personal. In the paradigm of international politics realism it is quite natural. That is, we started with the fact that this thesis is impossible, absurd, paranoid, we haven't resources, desire, will. Well, these seem to be natural arguments, which are on the surface. But, if you look in a different way, if the discourse is configured differently, then it is a great national idea! Concerning this Solovyov, Vladimir Solovyov, the founder of Russian religious philosophy, thought that it is necessary to unite Russia and Europe, but under the auspices of the Russian Tsar! For some reason it is forgotten.
I gave a speech in a very large Catholic conservative center, there were loads of people, just almost the size of a stadium in Paris recently, and I told them about our things in common. They said: we want to unite with you! They say: you have such a conservative church, you have such a society, it still retains decency unlike our society, we simply admire you!
Let's unite! I say – let's! It is a good idea.
But let us remember those times that really allowed us to be together. It was before Charlemagne. This imperial period from the fourth to the ninth century, when we lived in a single empire, the united Christian world, and then it began to divide, well, it came to the great schism. So, let's unite not on the Catholic, Uniat papal principle, when all of you admit the greatness of the Pope, and everything else you want, let's unite not on this modernist principle, but on the Imperial: single Russian king or Russian President for the whole Europe with the diversity of the Eastern and the Western Church. We can unite, not exactly unite, but cooperate with each other, because we have a common enemy, we are attacked by evil. Their churches and our churches, their culture, and our culture are attacked. And Protestants, especially those that are believers (spiritual), not just nominal Protestants, but those who really accept Christ by faith, Christians, they also won't be against such an association.
Of course they won't, because Russia gives them protection from the kingdom of the Antichrist. That is the mission – the katahon and the mission of the withstanding, the mission of restricting the world of Antichrist and apostasy, which should not enter the society. This is the sense of the empire. We'll just bring back the European, Roman, and Greek Byzantine Empire in their place. We are building an empire. They are building the European Union, a kind of an empire too, but the principles are very miserable. They are weak, for example, if the economy does not work well, they just fall apart! And we'll say: we don't care if the economy is good or bad, we'll do what Russian – Eurasian well – European, Imperial, Roman king or our Russian Roman king will say. So where will you go? Economics – good, but it does not matter! Not by bread alone... the king will remind! The main thing is to respect human dignity. Here it is – a humane, new Roman idea. I think it is a good project for Russia. After all, the most optimal form of presentation of the national idea.
1) I'll address your post after the other backlogged posts I need to respond to.
2)
On October 13 2016 18:53 RenSC2 wrote: One theme I've noticed from a few posters here on foreign policy is that intervention = bad. They see any intervention by the United States as a terrible thing and will sometimes even call it a war crime. In a few cases, they then link Hillary Clinton to those interventions and use that as a reason why she's dangerous/evil/corrupt/theDevil.
I'll admit to not being as knowledgeable on FP as some of the members here. I don't know the entire history of every conflict or all the shady dealings going on behind the scenes. However, I do recognize that there is a lot of moral grey area in intervention that seems to be forgotten by some posters. It essentially boils down to, "If you have great power, do you also have great responsibility?" The US clearly has great military power, so does it have a responsibility to use it for good? If the Libyan military is about to slaughter rebels, do we have a responsibility to protect the rebels if we feel they are the side of "good"? In that case, we did intervene and the country did become a mess, but does that truly mean it was wrong to intervene? Should we have just let the "good" guys die? In other conflicts, should we accept genocide as "not our problem"? We've done that before and while we generally don't get blamed for the deaths, a lot of people look to the United States and say, "how could you not help stop this?"
When we're attacked by a foreign nation (such as in WWII), the situation becomes pretty black and white. However, most conflicts aren't that simple for us. When you look at US foreign policy as right/wrong, it won't make sense at all. It's a mess and you'll end up coming to some conclusions that aren't right and attribute it to evil/greed/etc. However, if you look at our foreign policy through the lens of a lot of moral grey area, it makes a lot more sense. There are a lot of people who genuinely feel that we should be using our military to help the "good" guys around the world. They see it as a moral responsibility. Of course, they too may be suffering from seeing the world as good vs bad rather than lots of shades of grey, so perhaps you aren't as different from them as you'd like to believe.
It's the morning and I'm tired as fuck but I'll try to paraphrase.
First, while morality does have a place in the formulation of US foreign policy and in geopolitics in general (though stay away from "good" and "evil", outside of a few exceptions it's usually grey all the way down), there are limits. While the United States has always set itself lofty goals and principles to follow, we have not followed through often enough. But besides that, there's a whole host of considerations to be given for each intervention, internal politics especially. As a democratic system, lobbying groups in the US have always had a strong influence on US policies, from AIPAC/Israel lobby to the pretty equally powerful Arab lobby, or the old China lobby back in the 30s and 40s. Lobbying is not in and of itself bad, but it does have a major impact on the formation of US policy. For instance, our policy towards Israel/Palestine is heavily influenced by it (and you really can't give it a good/evil dichotomy). There's also plenty of other influences and considerations, but there's one for now.
Second, the anti-interventionist sentiment has largely been a result of the aftermath of Afghanistan/Iraq, two protracted conflicts that have largely sapped US will to intervene or take up the mantle of world leadership. Well, that's abit too short-term: the US has, since WWII been on a long-term relative decline, compared to the rest of the world. At the end of WWII, the United States (and direct allies) controlled 4/5ths of the world's industrial capacity and economy. Really, with the raw economic figures (Kennedy provides some excellent ones), the US was truly the colossus that bestrode the world. Obviously, as the nations of Europe re-developed, and the rest of the world began to catch up, this overwhelming advantage in economic potential declined in comparison, and today we're facing the steady movement towards a more multipolar system of politics. The US no longer has the same overwhelming advantage in economic might (though retains a ludicrous edge in military strength), and the dimensions of power have been shifting. But still.
Third, Theodore Roosevelt once famously said the proverb, "speak softly and carry a big stick". In international and great power politics, however, that stick is mostly made of glass. The power that comes with overwhelming military advantage can easily be damaged or broken if used poorly, and why, in the aftermath of the Bush Jr. years, Obama has largely taken a much more...well, passive position on the world stage. Much to the consternation of many in the FP community on issues like Syria or the Ukraine, or even in the large drawdown of US foreign aid (which I personally find particularly heinous given the absolutely exemplary work and expansion of it under Bush Jr.: the HIV/AIDs crisis in Africa would be far worse without him, and the overall minuscule size of the budget of USAID anyways). While the United States does indeed wield great power as the sole hegemonic force (which has left great responsibilities on our lap as world leader), such power should not be carelessly be frittered away as we did in Iraq, and is usually used carefully to prevent another quagmire like Vietnam. And yes, we do have great responsibilities that come with our great power, to use that Spiderman quote. But we're a global hegemon with a vast array of concerns, interests, and commitments. That's why we generally try to work indirectly, with/through regional actors, and try not to intervene directly. This has been the hallmark policy of the Obama administration, for the most part. Libya was mostly a European-led affair (we provided much of the logistics and intelligence and whatnot, but we allowed the Euros to take the lead on that, and thus the intervention only cost a paltry 1 billion USD for us, pocket change in comparison to the running sore that is/was Afghanistan or Iraq), and Yemen is an "Arab coalition" affair.
Fourth, stuff's complicated. You can take my brief summary of Yemen for instance. You can indeed sympathize with the Houthis (the whole history of Yemen and the Houthis is pretty messy, but so is the Middle East in general [we can blame Sykes-Picot and almost certainly the UK/France for that]), but they are nonetheless backed by the Iranians whom we are not yet friendly with, while the official government of Yemen isn't pretty (nowhere near Assad level but eh), it and the Arab coalition (which contains a large number of our allies and partners in the region) are our best shot at containing Al Qaeda in the country, and prevent ISIS/ISIL from gaining a foothold.
On October 13 2016 18:53 RenSC2 wrote: One theme I've noticed from a few posters here on foreign policy is that intervention = bad. They see any intervention by the United States as a terrible thing and will sometimes even call it a war crime. In a few cases, they then link Hillary Clinton to those interventions and use that as a reason why she's dangerous/evil/corrupt/theDevil.
I'll admit to not being as knowledgeable on FP as some of the members here. I don't know the entire history of every conflict or all the shady dealings going on behind the scenes. However, I do recognize that there is a lot of moral grey area in intervention that seems to be forgotten by some posters. It essentially boils down to, "If you have great power, do you also have great responsibility?" The US clearly has great military power, so does it have a responsibility to use it for good? If the Libyan military is about to slaughter rebels, do we have a responsibility to protect the rebels if we feel they are the side of "good"? In that case, we did intervene and the country did become a mess, but does that truly mean it was wrong to intervene? Should we have just let the "good" guys die? In other conflicts, should we accept genocide as "not our problem"? We've done that before and while we generally don't get blamed for the deaths, a lot of people look to the United States and say, "how could you not help stop this?"
When we're attacked by a foreign nation (such as in WWII), the situation becomes pretty black and white. However, most conflicts aren't that simple for us. When you look at US foreign policy as right/wrong, it won't make sense at all. It's a mess and you'll end up coming to some conclusions that aren't right and attribute it to evil/greed/etc. However, if you look at our foreign policy through the lens of a lot of moral grey area, it makes a lot more sense. There are a lot of people who genuinely feel that we should be using our military to help the "good" guys around the world. They see it as a moral responsibility. Of course, they too may be suffering from seeing the world as good vs bad rather than lots of shades of grey, so perhaps you aren't as different from them as you'd like to believe.
You only support rebels when it's in your interests or your allies interests. I didn't see no support for palestinians when Israel was slaughtering them, or right now when Saudi's are slaughtering people in Yemen. And in the end the conflict gets worse, because a dictator would deal with a rebelion faster. While when you support the rebels people on both sides suffer for far longer, more people die in the end. After the dictator is dead, the country gets worse, because of struggle for power and corruption rises, not to mention humanitarion issues, any close family or friends of the dictator will most surely die as well. You are only supporting rebels from weaker countries were your dominance is almost assured if no one helps the other side. It's better to leave other countries's internal problems alone or help deal with a situation peacefully, other then that you aren't helping the country. You support rebels even if the dictator is "officialy elected" by the people.
See above for Palestine (which is a SUPER complex issue, and while I'd advocate that Israel needs to end the Occupation, it's a very complex issue that the US can't actually force anything on, really) and Yemen.
While yes, interventions should preferably include national interests, interventions held out of humanitarian concerns or basic human decency is never out of the cards.
In war there are no good or bad guys, just more people lay dead. When the rebels eventually win do to your support so what? It's just a crime you call victory paid for by the blood of the death and the defeated.
...there oftentimes times are, actually. Rwanda ring a bell?
It's not all, or even most, of the time, all conflicts are different. But to say "none" is false.
These thoughts are really disjointed. Good luck making sense of it.
On October 13 2016 20:35 farvacola wrote: It's not our job to prove you wrong, it's your job to offer support for what appears to be a baseless, self-superior assertion. Besides, on this new-fangled thing called the Internet, Americans can and do consume media from all over the world! Amazing, right? I mostly look to BBC and Reuters myself.
Edit: tsk tsk Biff, since you didn't say something nice about Russia, you must be hopelessly mired in an echo chamber.
To think that Putin has good intention and that Russia is looking for a friendly relationship with Europe or the US, one must be either completely clueless or living in an alternate universe.
We are talking of a cleptocracy that invades foreign countries, bullies and intimidates small neighbours with nuclear weapons, war planes and submarines, and who openly support and organize fascist parties in Europe (such as the FN) because it may destabilize the EU.
For the folks who still have illusions about Putin and his crew, I'd like to introduce one of Kremlin's ideologists, Alexander Dugin.
This guy is NOT a clown, he was the advisor of the speaker of the Duma. He has met numerous times leaders of the Front National, and is at the forefront of the Russian effort to support fascists in Europe.
Today in Russia the lack of national idea is felt very acutely. On the one hand, everyone understands it is necessary, on the other hand, it's not that easy to offer something reasonable, something new or something convincing yet. For many years I have been thinking over this problem and poring at a problem of national idea and recently (while analyzing the events in the world, visiting different European countries) one thought crossed my mind – concerning the way to manage the issue of national idea. I will express it as an offer, as ahypothesis and then probably the society or, above all, the State will decide to accept it or not. The idea is that we need to occupy Europe!
To Conquer! And annex!
Here firstly many people would say: well, what is it, what does this idea mean: to conquer, to annex, to include in own borders, to win? How comes? And, on the other hand, after this initial hostility is over, or indignation, or the feeling that something wrong is said or thought. Or maybe it's a wrong time, a wrong epoch; and indeed, what does it mean to invade Europe? When it will take place, well, it is necessary to give people the opportunity to groan, shout there.
Liberals will say: well, we have always assumed that and that's why you have behaved in such a way... And when this wave will come down, squealing agents of the West, the fifth column, other forces of the kind and the bewilderment of patriots who, in general, understate the agenda in order to be saved, if only to survive, that's when the indignation wave is over, one might think: why not? And then remember, for example, the projects of our great poet Fyodor Tyutchev, who appeared with this concept in the 19th century.
He believed that the Russian empire must conquer Europe, that the Russian tsar (=monarch) must be the pan-European king and in such a way to recreate the Byzantine Empire. You can give them a high degree of autonomy within the framework of the global Roman Empire or the Third Rome. Orthodoxy may perfectly come to an agreement with the conservative Catholic circles.
We won't forbid Catholics to practice their religion on our imperial territory, as it was in earlier periods of imperial unity, let's say from the era of Constantine the Great to Charlemagne, and having a certain level of autonomy, Western Europe admitted the unity of the Byzantine emperor anyway.
On the other hand, the same imperial idea can be seen in Nietzsche's works. Nietzsche said: let Europe be like Greece under the protection of Rome, let Russians conquer Europe. Nietzsche have already said it from the position of the Germans. It will be much better, then we can focus on the development of our culture, our national identity, and we will not take care of the strategic issues. Russian troops put their guard, their patrols on our territory, they will just protect us, defend us and we'll rise as a unique cultural background.
In other words, there are representatives of this idea in Europe also.
Oswald Spengler thought the same way. A friend of Merezhkovskii, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, who admired Dostoevsky, shared the same opinion. In fact, the European elite (to a great extent) considered the prospect of surrendering Europe to Russia. Strong Russia, conservative Russia, self-confident Russia, Russia on the rise. In other words – we are sure to have a fifth column (pro-Russian) in Europe. These are the European intellectuals who want to strengthen their own identity.
You can look at the armed forces in Europe. And these are almost zero. Of course there is NATO, but the thing is that NATO doesn't meddle in harsh military operations. We can see it through the examples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We clashed with their friend Saakashvili and we emerged the winners. There was a lot of noise and some "water ballet" in the Black Sea – American cruisers, NATO cruisers, so what? South Ossetia and Abkhazia are ours! Or our own!
So, we will offer Europe to be itself. We will just establish a protectorate over them all!
So there is also a question that Europe is militarily weak. Of course we do not need to fight. And why would we fight with weapons? Let's fight the soft power. Let us offer to protect Europe from gay marriage, from FEMEN, from Pussy Riot and save Europe from itself (=save Europe from Europe). After all, Europe, European consciousness is decomposing and all sane Europeans understand that after a while Europe will turn into an abyss. There will be just enclaves of degenerates, archaic emigrants who simply destroy the European identity. They need to do something about it, and look they are like Breivik – they already shoot their own citizens. So they start to destroy themselves because they don't understand what to do. So let's tell them: this is under our protectorate, we will provide protection! You see our Pussy Riot serve time in prison! And we will put into prison yours! You have FEMEN roistering in churches; they quickly get a bludgeon in the snoot here and are sent to garbage trucks, which is their historic homeland! Then Ukraine or Georgia will havenowhere to hurry and while going to Europe, they will come to us.
Consequently Europe benefits from this Russian protectorate. Secondly, in fact Europe hates itself so much, repents so much in front of everybody, in fact Europe is tired of going down this path of nihilism. And we'll say: we have no complaints for you. It's enough to repent! We will establish the order! You aren't able to cope with emigration, but we will handle it. Well, the solution for immigrants is the following – a suitcase, train station, go back home! Of course we will have to tighten our migration laws a little bit too. But anyway the situation we have stands no comparison with what is happening in Europe. Europe is simply disappearing right in front of our eyes. Therefore, we are the Indo-European people. We can also remind that in this case we have a wide variety of other ethnic groups; we have the experience of the present, effective multiculturalism. So those who are afraid that they will be evicted immediately, don't worry, we will not evict them immediately. We'll offer them a system of adaptation measures in order to stay in our global Eurasian empire – empire that includes Europe. Another example of absolutely perfect use of our Eurasian cultural diversity in Europe, we will show what real tolerance is. Not by attitude, not as indifference to strangers, but as integration of a variety of societies and cultures into one civilization.
Then, our citizens will be satisfied, because the visa issues will be solved automatically. There won't be visa control questions and any borders. The EU will simply enter the Eurasian Union as a part of it. And then our pro-westerners will be completely satisfied also, because we will be in Europe. Russia will become Europe to some extent, because the borders will not exist. European values may move toward us if the Europeans save them, because these European values in their present post-modern terms, are exactly the thing that is killing Europe. So actually, we will introduce some patriotic censorship in the European media. Not liberal as now, when different levels of liberal newspapers are checked ten thousand times whether there is any non-liberal element.
In other words, there is a real totalitarian racist, Western, Eurocentric liberal censorship. We will cancel this censorship, give people the opportunity to express their opinions freely, but we will introduce censorship, for example, anti-nihilistic censorship, censorship that will deter or simply locate nihilistic manifestations of the human soul. Moreover, because we have had the experience of such an expansion in Europe during the Soviet era, when our Communist Party (Third International,
Comintern, the Cominform) achieved very powerful results... in penetrating the parliaments of European countries. Yes, it was an instrument of our foreign policy.
Today the situation has changed, we are no longer communist countries, but we can find other partners. And then, if we now put national ideas – the annexation of the European Union in the Eurasian Union, expansion in Europe – we can actually get together around a great purpose. Imagine, then, to join Europe! This, this is – in the Russian style! If we are told to increase the GDP by 0.1-3 percent, accommodate migrants, or vaccinate dogs – it is certainly cool, but it's not in Russian style.
That's why we don't do anything of this. We are not going to increase any GDP, because we don't care about it. Russians mobilize for a great purpose. To annex Europe – is a great goal. By the way, Russian Westerners of the 19th century, who admired the West – how did they admire it? They wanted to adopt Western technology for Russia to become powerful and great, so that Russia could win the West – let us also appeal to the same Westernism.
You like the European technology – let's, let us take it. How do we get it? They will give it in dribs and drabs – transfer one transistor in exchange for oil, for gas.
No, let's take it all together, all European high technologies at a time, it is simple: we grab Europe and we have all the high technology! Here it is -development, modernization, if we wanted it! Here it is – the Europeanization of our society! Peter I (the Great) opened a window to Europe and what did he show from there? He showed... He simply moved out the cannon (gun), and began to participate in European politics: launched Russian soldiers and Cossacks in the center of Europe. Bistro, we left such traces. Therefore, it seems to me that this throw to the West is extremely important now. This Eurasian idea, and, if you will, Europeanization and modernization, and national self-affirmation, and a great national project. Well, for example let's take Chubais with nanotechnology? Firstly, the whole country hates him. He was given nanotechnology in order for him not to see anything else, so then he is gone to this microcosm and never shows up. Now they look where the money is gone. There, in nano-micro world. Naturally, this microman, this micro idea, nano-idea, nano people they can't become national ideas. This is nano national idea of some sort. That means we will disappear in the microscopic space, and there will disappear the budget and the money too. We are able to do this easily. So, let's do macro-global macro-fundamental project, for real: the conquest of Europe! Yes, we will have to convince someone. So what? After all, I think we should use not the hard power but the soft power for this, Eurasian soft power, find the fifth column, to form and move forward, lead our people to power in Europe, to strengthen, for example, by means of the Gazprom money – to buy principal advertising agencies in European publications, which have influence on the press, and simply to operate as active as the West acts towards us. In fact – to counterattack. They attack us with their NGOs, with their doctors without borders, cyclists who help rebels and the Wahhabis.
Well, we'll play with them according to their rules. And there is nothing personal. In the paradigm of international politics realism it is quite natural. That is, we started with the fact that this thesis is impossible, absurd, paranoid, we haven't resources, desire, will. Well, these seem to be natural arguments, which are on the surface. But, if you look in a different way, if the discourse is configured differently, then it is a great national idea! Concerning this Solovyov, Vladimir Solovyov, the founder of Russian religious philosophy, thought that it is necessary to unite Russia and Europe, but under the auspices of the Russian Tsar! For some reason it is forgotten.
I gave a speech in a very large Catholic conservative center, there were loads of people, just almost the size of a stadium in Paris recently, and I told them about our things in common. They said: we want to unite with you! They say: you have such a conservative church, you have such a society, it still retains decency unlike our society, we simply admire you!
Let's unite! I say – let's! It is a good idea.
But let us remember those times that really allowed us to be together. It was before Charlemagne. This imperial period from the fourth to the ninth century, when we lived in a single empire, the united Christian world, and then it began to divide, well, it came to the great schism. So, let's unite not on the Catholic, Uniat papal principle, when all of you admit the greatness of the Pope, and everything else you want, let's unite not on this modernist principle, but on the Imperial: single Russian king or Russian President for the whole Europe with the diversity of the Eastern and the Western Church. We can unite, not exactly unite, but cooperate with each other, because we have a common enemy, we are attacked by evil. Their churches and our churches, their culture, and our culture are attacked. And Protestants, especially those that are believers (spiritual), not just nominal Protestants, but those who really accept Christ by faith, Christians, they also won't be against such an association.
Of course they won't, because Russia gives them protection from the kingdom of the Antichrist. That is the mission – the katahon and the mission of the withstanding, the mission of restricting the world of Antichrist and apostasy, which should not enter the society. This is the sense of the empire. We'll just bring back the European, Roman, and Greek Byzantine Empire in their place. We are building an empire. They are building the European Union, a kind of an empire too, but the principles are very miserable. They are weak, for example, if the economy does not work well, they just fall apart! And we'll say: we don't care if the economy is good or bad, we'll do what Russian – Eurasian well – European, Imperial, Roman king or our Russian Roman king will say. So where will you go? Economics – good, but it does not matter! Not by bread alone... the king will remind! The main thing is to respect human dignity. Here it is – a humane, new Roman idea. I think it is a good project for Russia. After all, the most optimal form of presentation of the national idea.
Oh no, it's Geert Wilders in Russian. What am I going to do.
On October 13 2016 20:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 13 2016 20:35 farvacola wrote: It's not our job to prove you wrong, it's your job to offer support for what appears to be a baseless, self-superior assertion. Besides, on this new-fangled thing called the Internet, Americans can and do consume media from all over the world! Amazing, right? I mostly look to BBC and Reuters myself.
Edit: tsk tsk Biff, since you didn't say something nice about Russia, you must be hopelessly mired in an echo chamber.
To think that Putin has good intention and that Russia is looking for a friendly relationship with Europe or the US, one must be either completely clueless or living in an alternate universe.
We are talking of a cleptocracy that invades foreign countries, bullies and intimidates small neighbours with nuclear weapons, war planes and submarines, and who openly support and organize fascist parties in Europe (such as the FN) because it may destabilize the EU.
For the folks who still have illusions about Putin and his crew, I'd like to introduce one of Kremlin's ideologists, Alexander Dugin.
This guy is NOT a clown, he was the advisor of the speaker of the Duma. He has met numerous times leaders of the Front National, and is at the forefront of the Russian effort to support fascists in Europe.
We are all intellectuals here, and we prefer reading, right?
Today in Russia the lack of national idea is felt very acutely. On the one hand, everyone understands it is necessary, on the other hand, it's not that easy to offer something reasonable, something new or something convincing yet. For many years I have been thinking over this problem and poring at a problem of national idea and recently (while analyzing the events in the world, visiting different European countries) one thought crossed my mind – concerning the way to manage the issue of national idea. I will express it as an offer, as ahypothesis and then probably the society or, above all, the State will decide to accept it or not. The idea is that we need to occupy Europe!
To Conquer! And annex!
Here firstly many people would say: well, what is it, what does this idea mean: to conquer, to annex, to include in own borders, to win? How comes? And, on the other hand, after this initial hostility is over, or indignation, or the feeling that something wrong is said or thought. Or maybe it's a wrong time, a wrong epoch; and indeed, what does it mean to invade Europe? When it will take place, well, it is necessary to give people the opportunity to groan, shout there.
Liberals will say: well, we have always assumed that and that's why you have behaved in such a way... And when this wave will come down, squealing agents of the West, the fifth column, other forces of the kind and the bewilderment of patriots who, in general, understate the agenda in order to be saved, if only to survive, that's when the indignation wave is over, one might think: why not? And then remember, for example, the projects of our great poet Fyodor Tyutchev, who appeared with this concept in the 19th century.
He believed that the Russian empire must conquer Europe, that the Russian tsar (=monarch) must be the pan-European king and in such a way to recreate the Byzantine Empire. You can give them a high degree of autonomy within the framework of the global Roman Empire or the Third Rome. Orthodoxy may perfectly come to an agreement with the conservative Catholic circles.
We won't forbid Catholics to practice their religion on our imperial territory, as it was in earlier periods of imperial unity, let's say from the era of Constantine the Great to Charlemagne, and having a certain level of autonomy, Western Europe admitted the unity of the Byzantine emperor anyway.
On the other hand, the same imperial idea can be seen in Nietzsche's works. Nietzsche said: let Europe be like Greece under the protection of Rome, let Russians conquer Europe. Nietzsche have already said it from the position of the Germans. It will be much better, then we can focus on the development of our culture, our national identity, and we will not take care of the strategic issues. Russian troops put their guard, their patrols on our territory, they will just protect us, defend us and we'll rise as a unique cultural background.
In other words, there are representatives of this idea in Europe also.
Oswald Spengler thought the same way. A friend of Merezhkovskii, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, who admired Dostoevsky, shared the same opinion. In fact, the European elite (to a great extent) considered the prospect of surrendering Europe to Russia. Strong Russia, conservative Russia, self-confident Russia, Russia on the rise. In other words – we are sure to have a fifth column (pro-Russian) in Europe. These are the European intellectuals who want to strengthen their own identity.
You can look at the armed forces in Europe. And these are almost zero. Of course there is NATO, but the thing is that NATO doesn't meddle in harsh military operations. We can see it through the examples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We clashed with their friend Saakashvili and we emerged the winners. There was a lot of noise and some "water ballet" in the Black Sea – American cruisers, NATO cruisers, so what? South Ossetia and Abkhazia are ours! Or our own!
So, we will offer Europe to be itself. We will just establish a protectorate over them all!
So there is also a question that Europe is militarily weak. Of course we do not need to fight. And why would we fight with weapons? Let's fight the soft power. Let us offer to protect Europe from gay marriage, from FEMEN, from Pussy Riot and save Europe from itself (=save Europe from Europe). After all, Europe, European consciousness is decomposing and all sane Europeans understand that after a while Europe will turn into an abyss. There will be just enclaves of degenerates, archaic emigrants who simply destroy the European identity. They need to do something about it, and look they are like Breivik – they already shoot their own citizens. So they start to destroy themselves because they don't understand what to do. So let's tell them: this is under our protectorate, we will provide protection! You see our Pussy Riot serve time in prison! And we will put into prison yours! You have FEMEN roistering in churches; they quickly get a bludgeon in the snoot here and are sent to garbage trucks, which is their historic homeland! Then Ukraine or Georgia will havenowhere to hurry and while going to Europe, they will come to us.
Consequently Europe benefits from this Russian protectorate. Secondly, in fact Europe hates itself so much, repents so much in front of everybody, in fact Europe is tired of going down this path of nihilism. And we'll say: we have no complaints for you. It's enough to repent! We will establish the order! You aren't able to cope with emigration, but we will handle it. Well, the solution for immigrants is the following – a suitcase, train station, go back home! Of course we will have to tighten our migration laws a little bit too. But anyway the situation we have stands no comparison with what is happening in Europe. Europe is simply disappearing right in front of our eyes. Therefore, we are the Indo-European people. We can also remind that in this case we have a wide variety of other ethnic groups; we have the experience of the present, effective multiculturalism. So those who are afraid that they will be evicted immediately, don't worry, we will not evict them immediately. We'll offer them a system of adaptation measures in order to stay in our global Eurasian empire – empire that includes Europe. Another example of absolutely perfect use of our Eurasian cultural diversity in Europe, we will show what real tolerance is. Not by attitude, not as indifference to strangers, but as integration of a variety of societies and cultures into one civilization.
Then, our citizens will be satisfied, because the visa issues will be solved automatically. There won't be visa control questions and any borders. The EU will simply enter the Eurasian Union as a part of it. And then our pro-westerners will be completely satisfied also, because we will be in Europe. Russia will become Europe to some extent, because the borders will not exist. European values may move toward us if the Europeans save them, because these European values in their present post-modern terms, are exactly the thing that is killing Europe. So actually, we will introduce some patriotic censorship in the European media. Not liberal as now, when different levels of liberal newspapers are checked ten thousand times whether there is any non-liberal element.
In other words, there is a real totalitarian racist, Western, Eurocentric liberal censorship. We will cancel this censorship, give people the opportunity to express their opinions freely, but we will introduce censorship, for example, anti-nihilistic censorship, censorship that will deter or simply locate nihilistic manifestations of the human soul. Moreover, because we have had the experience of such an expansion in Europe during the Soviet era, when our Communist Party (Third International,
Comintern, the Cominform) achieved very powerful results... in penetrating the parliaments of European countries. Yes, it was an instrument of our foreign policy.
Today the situation has changed, we are no longer communist countries, but we can find other partners. And then, if we now put national ideas – the annexation of the European Union in the Eurasian Union, expansion in Europe – we can actually get together around a great purpose. Imagine, then, to join Europe! This, this is – in the Russian style! If we are told to increase the GDP by 0.1-3 percent, accommodate migrants, or vaccinate dogs – it is certainly cool, but it's not in Russian style.
That's why we don't do anything of this. We are not going to increase any GDP, because we don't care about it. Russians mobilize for a great purpose. To annex Europe – is a great goal. By the way, Russian Westerners of the 19th century, who admired the West – how did they admire it? They wanted to adopt Western technology for Russia to become powerful and great, so that Russia could win the West – let us also appeal to the same Westernism.
You like the European technology – let's, let us take it. How do we get it? They will give it in dribs and drabs – transfer one transistor in exchange for oil, for gas.
No, let's take it all together, all European high technologies at a time, it is simple: we grab Europe and we have all the high technology! Here it is -development, modernization, if we wanted it! Here it is – the Europeanization of our society! Peter I (the Great) opened a window to Europe and what did he show from there? He showed... He simply moved out the cannon (gun), and began to participate in European politics: launched Russian soldiers and Cossacks in the center of Europe. Bistro, we left such traces. Therefore, it seems to me that this throw to the West is extremely important now. This Eurasian idea, and, if you will, Europeanization and modernization, and national self-affirmation, and a great national project. Well, for example let's take Chubais with nanotechnology? Firstly, the whole country hates him. He was given nanotechnology in order for him not to see anything else, so then he is gone to this microcosm and never shows up. Now they look where the money is gone. There, in nano-micro world. Naturally, this microman, this micro idea, nano-idea, nano people they can't become national ideas. This is nano national idea of some sort. That means we will disappear in the microscopic space, and there will disappear the budget and the money too. We are able to do this easily. So, let's do macro-global macro-fundamental project, for real: the conquest of Europe! Yes, we will have to convince someone. So what? After all, I think we should use not the hard power but the soft power for this, Eurasian soft power, find the fifth column, to form and move forward, lead our people to power in Europe, to strengthen, for example, by means of the Gazprom money – to buy principal advertising agencies in European publications, which have influence on the press, and simply to operate as active as the West acts towards us. In fact – to counterattack. They attack us with their NGOs, with their doctors without borders, cyclists who help rebels and the Wahhabis.
Well, we'll play with them according to their rules. And there is nothing personal. In the paradigm of international politics realism it is quite natural. That is, we started with the fact that this thesis is impossible, absurd, paranoid, we haven't resources, desire, will. Well, these seem to be natural arguments, which are on the surface. But, if you look in a different way, if the discourse is configured differently, then it is a great national idea! Concerning this Solovyov, Vladimir Solovyov, the founder of Russian religious philosophy, thought that it is necessary to unite Russia and Europe, but under the auspices of the Russian Tsar! For some reason it is forgotten.
I gave a speech in a very large Catholic conservative center, there were loads of people, just almost the size of a stadium in Paris recently, and I told them about our things in common. They said: we want to unite with you! They say: you have such a conservative church, you have such a society, it still retains decency unlike our society, we simply admire you!
Let's unite! I say – let's! It is a good idea.
But let us remember those times that really allowed us to be together. It was before Charlemagne. This imperial period from the fourth to the ninth century, when we lived in a single empire, the united Christian world, and then it began to divide, well, it came to the great schism. So, let's unite not on the Catholic, Uniat papal principle, when all of you admit the greatness of the Pope, and everything else you want, let's unite not on this modernist principle, but on the Imperial: single Russian king or Russian President for the whole Europe with the diversity of the Eastern and the Western Church. We can unite, not exactly unite, but cooperate with each other, because we have a common enemy, we are attacked by evil. Their churches and our churches, their culture, and our culture are attacked. And Protestants, especially those that are believers (spiritual), not just nominal Protestants, but those who really accept Christ by faith, Christians, they also won't be against such an association.
Of course they won't, because Russia gives them protection from the kingdom of the Antichrist. That is the mission – the katahon and the mission of the withstanding, the mission of restricting the world of Antichrist and apostasy, which should not enter the society. This is the sense of the empire. We'll just bring back the European, Roman, and Greek Byzantine Empire in their place. We are building an empire. They are building the European Union, a kind of an empire too, but the principles are very miserable. They are weak, for example, if the economy does not work well, they just fall apart! And we'll say: we don't care if the economy is good or bad, we'll do what Russian – Eurasian well – European, Imperial, Roman king or our Russian Roman king will say. So where will you go? Economics – good, but it does not matter! Not by bread alone... the king will remind! The main thing is to respect human dignity. Here it is – a humane, new Roman idea. I think it is a good project for Russia. After all, the most optimal form of presentation of the national idea.
Oh no, it's Geert Wilders in Russian. What am I going to do.
Well, I'm happy you ask. First, you should start by listening to him and wonder why it happens that far right parties in Europe are openly pro russian, and often directly financed by Russia. And, then, ask yourself what is the agenda behind it. You should also maybe ask yourself what the gigantic propaganda machine Russia is deploying in Europe is for. Do you know that Putin's regime pay internet trolls to flood western website with russian propaganda. It's not a joke.
If then you hear someone who is close to Putin come and say "Oh but we are financing them because that's the way we did it in the 1940's and it worked very well: build a fifth column because Europe as it is is our enemy", you should MAYBE, but just maybe, start questioning the good intention of said Putin and his cleptocratic, dictatorial government.
If you like reading French, an article about that grand and very secret meeting in Vienna in 2014 organized by Malofeev, another of Putin's circle, that reunited all the far right parties Moscow is supporting: the FN included, of course. It's here. Of course Dugin was there.
I'm all for this self criticizing of the West, but about Russia, get real.
Saying USA = Russia is like saying Clinton = Trump. You might not like the former, and it's ok, but don't be stupid with ridiculous equivalences.
The U.S. military launched cruise missile strikes on Thursday to knock out three coastal radar sites in areas of Yemen controlled by Iran-aligned Houthi forces, retaliating after failed missile attacks this week on a U.S. Navy destroyer, U.S. officials said.
The strikes, authorized by President Barack Obama, represent Washington's first direct military action against suspected Houthi-controlled targets in Yemen's conflict.
Still, the Pentagon appeared to stress the limited nature of the strikes, aimed at radar that enabled the launch of at least three missiles against the U.S. Navy ship USS Mason on Sunday and Wednesday.
"These limited self-defense strikes were conducted to protect our personnel, our ships and our freedom of navigation," Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said.
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. Navy destroyer USS Nitze launched the Tomahawk cruise missiles around 4 a.m. (0100 GMT).
So, Zhirinovsky is one of those "opposition party" candidates who get off on saying crazy stuff. He spends a substantial amount of his time going on different talk shows and getting attention in a matter not unlike the Trump man himself. Russians laugh at him too.
So, Zhirinovsky is one of those "opposition party" candidates who get off on saying crazy stuff. He spends a substantial amount of his time going on different talk shows and getting attention in a matter not unlike the Trump man himself. Russians laugh at him too.
I said I wanted to lighten the mood, why so serious?
That being said, having an american president you can manipulate with a tweet must be incredibly appealing for former KGB official Vladimir Putin. Everybody plays 3D chess and suddenly your main enemy is an orange clown who struggles to play checker.
Also, you should look into the other tweet I posted, because that's not as fun, but it's actually quite enlightening.
EPT
