|
|
On March 11 2014 04:59 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:54 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:
[quote]
It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:
[quote]
It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries. Putting aside debating Cold War aggression, in what way could Russia be remotely seen as aggressive between 1900 and 1945? The Soviet Union was born and baptised in foreign aggression against them. Probably you can count Soviet-Finnish war as kind of aggression even if Finns were reasons for it and Poles will whine about 4th divide of their country as well. But it's probably as minor as Crimea now.
...what?
Parallel Information Universe indeed.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/russian-oligarchs-fear-economic-casualties-if-ukraine-crisis-escalates/article17411339/
Anxiety about possible economic fallout has begun to radiate from business circles, and some wondered whether Putin had been warned clearly about the magnitude of the possible damage to the economy. One analyst described their mindset as one of “cognitive dissonance.”
“I’ve seen 10 people from the Forbes list in the recent few days. They’re pale; they don’t understand,” said Alexander Y. Lebedev, a prominent banker who sold most of his Russian assets after public disputes with Putin.
But the oligarchs realize, he said, that their interests carry no weight in this situation, especially if they, like Lebedev himself, own property outside Russia.
“It’s those who are here who will take the burden,” said Lebedev, speaking from Moscow. “They all keep their mouths shut.”
|
On March 11 2014 04:35 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:30 mcc wrote:On March 11 2014 04:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Also this isn't just one country annexing some other country. This is the guy who called the fall of the soviet union the "biggest tragedy of the 20th century" who tries to invade a country which has suffered millions of deaths during the Holodomor.
Just imagine Germany being lead by someone who would call the fall of the third Reich 'the greatest tragedy of the 20th century' and then proceeds annexing a part of Poland. Would we be discussing the pro's and cons of that? Why do people have such problem with calling fall of Soviet Union a tragedy (the "biggest" is clearly nonsense) ? I am not saying that Baltics should have been kept in Soviet Union. And possibly others. But in general dissolution of Soviet Union was a great tragedy that caused untold suffering in economic collapse that followed. I always thought that tragedies are measured by suffering they cause, but apparently if that happens to "them" it is all ok. I am sure that Putin might ave had slightly different reason to call it that, but the phrase itself is not without merit. That's absolute nonsense, people suffered IN the soviet union. The economy collapsed IN the soviet union. The fact that many countries finally received their freedom, and their people were no longer oppressed, is not in any way a tragedy.
No your version is pretty much nonsense. People suffered much more in 1990s than in 1980s in nearly all of the former Soviet Union territory. If Soviet Union was left to exist (with some republics, where it was popular to leave, leaving) and continued on a path of slower reforms to democracy and market, without the Yeltsin/Kucma robber-barons era, it is quite likely a lot of unnecessary suffering would be spared and current state would be possibly much more democratic than it is now. Or are you going to claim that Russia and Belarus are better of than they were in this regard ? And Ukraine is not much better, ruled by robber barons of one color or another. Baltics turned out okay, but I am not arguing that they should have stayed in.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 11 2014 05:08 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:59 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 11 2014 04:54 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries. Putting aside debating Cold War aggression, in what way could Russia be remotely seen as aggressive between 1900 and 1945? The Soviet Union was born and baptised in foreign aggression against them. Probably you can count Soviet-Finnish war as kind of aggression even if Finns were reasons for it and Poles will whine about 4th divide of their country as well. But it's probably as minor as Crimea now. ...what? Parallel Information Universe indeed. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/russian-oligarchs-fear-economic-casualties-if-ukraine-crisis-escalates/article17411339/Show nested quote +Anxiety about possible economic fallout has begun to radiate from business circles, and some wondered whether Putin had been warned clearly about the magnitude of the possible damage to the economy. One analyst described their mindset as one of “cognitive dissonance.”
“I’ve seen 10 people from the Forbes list in the recent few days. They’re pale; they don’t understand,” said Alexander Y. Lebedev, a prominent banker who sold most of his Russian assets after public disputes with Putin.
But the oligarchs realize, he said, that their interests carry no weight in this situation, especially if they, like Lebedev himself, own property outside Russia.
“It’s those who are here who will take the burden,” said Lebedev, speaking from Moscow. “They all keep their mouths shut.”
And who cares about oligarchs? I know this shit which you're pasting here, everyone in Russia knows it.
They will lose their flats in London and actives in Swiss banks, not population here. Prices will go up probably, there might be inflation, but it happened already in the past and we survived without any problems.
|
On March 11 2014 04:36 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:34 mcc wrote:On March 11 2014 04:17 radiatoren wrote:On March 11 2014 04:13 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:
[quote]
While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early?
So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. Especially 1999, right, they definitely prevented the genocide. He did say stop and not prevent. Obviously preventing genocide would be impossible to achieve. Especially in 2008 they stopped genocide that was not happening. It is important to stop genocides that are not happening, which Russia is doing currently, no ? /sarcasm EDIT: 1998 of course. huh?
There was no genocide in Kosovo. Unlike some, I see the ethical difference between NATO's Kosovo action and Russia's Crimea action, although to different degree than you of course. But I see not much difference in terms of any international rules being violated.
|
On March 11 2014 04:54 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality.
Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality.
Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries. Putting aside debating Cold War aggression, in what way could Russia be remotely seen as aggressive between 1900 and 1945? The Soviet Union was born and baptised in foreign aggression against them.
Euhh, The Soviet Union invaded and annexed the Baltic states and bessarabia, fought a war of aggression against Finland, made a deal with nazi Germany, stabbed the Poles in the back (twice) and I am sure I am missing a couple. Much of it could be blamed on Stalin tough.
The last sentence is correct tough, many foreign countries helped the white army against the red army in the early years of the Bolshevik revolution.
|
On March 11 2014 04:41 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:34 SkelA wrote:On March 11 2014 04:25 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2014 04:19 Liman wrote:On March 11 2014 04:13 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality.
Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. Especially 1999, right, they definitely prevented the genocide. Lets just say that in 1999 NATO was preventing genocide just as Russia is now protecting Crimea from fascists. Imaginary. I think you might have to reveal a little bit of your ancestry here because your objectivity seems a little questionable at best. Comparing the Kosovo war to what is ongoing in crimeria seems a little uhhh off... Serbia(Ukraine) had an autonomous province of Kosovo(Crimea) which had an majority of Albanians(Russians) that didnt want to be part of Serbia(Ukraine) which were backed by NATO(Russia). Albanians(Russians) instaged conflict with the Serbs(Ukraines/Tatars) in Kosovo( Crimea) and etc. The rest what happened in Kosovo will happen in the future in Crimea Yep its not the same in any way or form... Kosovo was no longer an autonomous Republic. Its status was stripped by Milosevic in 89. The local Serbian military units in Kosovo in 98 were not staffed with Albanians, they were staffed with Serbs, unlike Crimea where the local military units are 80% or more made up of Russian-Ukrainians. And there are no Crimean Liberation Army rebels attacking Ukrainian Army installations that lead to reprisals by Ukrainian Army troops against Russian villages. Finally, Ukraine isnt run by a war criminal who has launched wars against almost all of his neighbors at one point or another or built the first concentration camps in Europe since World War 2. But yes, other than all the basic facts Kosovo is a lot like Crimea.
Funny, you see differences and ignore similarities and he sees similarities and ignores differences. Hmm, it is like there is some similarity 
|
On March 11 2014 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:
[quote]
While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early?
So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 11 2014 02:55 Warfie wrote:
[quote]
While the idea behind this way of thinking is nice enough, that's not how politics work, and probably never will. In west vs east politics the assumption is always worst case scenario it seems. Of course NATO has no intention to attack Russia we might say, but then Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries, so let's just remove all missile defenses in positions more or less obviously intended to detect strikes from Russia early?
So we can argue back and forth whether Russia should care or not, but if we want to keep in touch with reality and facts of today we can be damn sure Russia will care who joins NATO and not, and where NATO places its 'anti muslim' missile defenses - and I don't think it'll change in a very long time. You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries.
Really , you can't ? Even though it was a Russian/USSR strategy for much longer. To create territorial buffer between itself and enemies that invaded Russia multiple times in history ?
|
On March 11 2014 04:54 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality.
Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality.
Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries. Putting aside debating Cold War aggression, in what way could Russia be remotely seen as aggressive between 1900 and 1945? The Soviet Union was born and baptised in foreign aggression against them.
Baltics, Finland, Poland 1918 (possibly, as both sides are to blame to some degree).
EDIT: Poland 1939, Romania and possibly others ?
|
On March 11 2014 05:14 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 mcc wrote:On March 11 2014 04:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Also this isn't just one country annexing some other country. This is the guy who called the fall of the soviet union the "biggest tragedy of the 20th century" who tries to invade a country which has suffered millions of deaths during the Holodomor.
Just imagine Germany being lead by someone who would call the fall of the third Reich 'the greatest tragedy of the 20th century' and then proceeds annexing a part of Poland. Would we be discussing the pro's and cons of that? Why do people have such problem with calling fall of Soviet Union a tragedy (the "biggest" is clearly nonsense) ? I am not saying that Baltics should have been kept in Soviet Union. And possibly others. But in general dissolution of Soviet Union was a great tragedy that caused untold suffering in economic collapse that followed. I always thought that tragedies are measured by suffering they cause, but apparently if that happens to "them" it is all ok. I am sure that Putin might ave had slightly different reason to call it that, but the phrase itself is not without merit. That's absolute nonsense, people suffered IN the soviet union. The economy collapsed IN the soviet union. The fact that many countries finally received their freedom, and their people were no longer oppressed, is not in any way a tragedy. No your version is pretty much nonsense. People suffered much more in 1990s than in 1980s in nearly all of the former Soviet Union territory. If Soviet Union was left to exist (with some republics, where it was popular to leave, leaving) and continued on a path of slower reforms to democracy and market, without the Yeltsin/Kucma robber-barons era, it is quite likely a lot of unnecessary suffering would be spared and current state would be possibly much more democratic than it is now. Or are you going to claim that Russia and Belarus are better of than they were in this regard ? And Ukraine is not much better, ruled by robber barons of one color or another. Baltics turned out okay, but I am not arguing that they should have stayed in. But there was no way to do 'slow' reforms because after 10 years of Gorbachev's reforms the robber baron era had already began, the directors of big state companies had already 'privatized' their businesses as Gorbachev removed Communist Party supervision over them, the first Russian oligarchs all made their first millions in the late 80s, not the 90s, the reason they became billionaires was they were the few people in the country with hard currency to either afford to privatize a business or afford to bribe the people to let them 'win' the privatization. The local political dynasties were also entrenched in many of the Republics, the Central Asian states and Azerbaijan would have the exact same people in charge of them.
The hyper inflation that happened in many of the Republics happened because the Central Bank of the USSR was detached from its regional banks but the ruble remained in place, so each republic just kept printing rubles to the obvious inflationary effect.
The only thing they could have done differently was to drastically cut military spending but the mass unemployment/poverty was going to happen anyway since most of the industry economically destructive welfare for its employees and cuts in the military budget would have transferred not only to the poverty of those serving -- which happened anyway -- but also poverty for all the one industry towns that almost wholly depended on military demand -- which happened anyway. But even then, trade with the West would be basically the same pattern as its in Russia/Kazakhstan today, sell oil/gas and import everything. And since oil prices didnt begin growing until 2001, the neo-Soviet state would still have to somehow survive for another 10+ years while dealing with spikes of nationalism all over the place -- Azeri-Aremnian war would be what, internal civil war? Would the Soviet troops go in and shoot them like they did in the late 80s or would they be allowed to leave as well? Ditto Georgia. Ditto Tajikistan.
The only winners would be the Turkmen because they wouldnt get some Kim Jong Il wannabe to completely destroy their education system.
|
On March 11 2014 05:24 AA.spoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:54 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:
[quote]
It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:
[quote]
It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries. Putting aside debating Cold War aggression, in what way could Russia be remotely seen as aggressive between 1900 and 1945? The Soviet Union was born and baptised in foreign aggression against them. Euhh, The Soviet Union invaded and annexed the Baltic states and bessarabia, fought a war of aggression against Finland, made a deal with nazi Germany, stabbed the Poles in the back (twice) and I am sure I am missing a couple. Much of it could be blamed on Stalin tough. The last sentence is correct tough, many foreign countries helped the white army against the red army in the early years of the Bolshevik revolution.
Baltics, Finland and Poland are all easily seen as pre-emptive defensive measures against the eventual Nazi invasion, which did come and was only barely stopped. You can blame Stalin's amorality in invading these countries, but wasn't he right in the end? Did his strategy not save Europe from Nazi occupation of indeterminate length?
|
On March 11 2014 05:27 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality.
Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 03:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality.
Of course Russia cares who joins NATO. Russia has every intention of reestablishing dominance over its former Soviet client states. It can't do that if those client states join NATO. The root problem is that Russia won't relinquish its imperial ambitions and join the West. Russia still wants to be the asshole of the world. Thus, Russia's adversarial relationship with the West is of its own creation. So they can go fuck themselves if they're going to complain about NATO's expanding influence into their backyard. It's Russia's own fault for driving its smaller neighbors into the big wide open arms of Uncle Sam. It's pretty impressive that you are able to acknowledge that NATO has been gobbling up eastern European nations one by one while simultaneously denouncing Russian imperialism. Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries. Really , you can't ? Even though it was a Russian/USSR strategy for much longer. To create territorial buffer between itself and enemies that invaded Russia multiple times in history ?
Isnt that what they have nuclear weapons for? that major invaders can no longer invade them?
|
After the "iron curtain" fell, Russia did everything that was asked for. They stepped down, they took all their military out of eastern Germany, Poland, ... (the USA, British, ... are still in Germany and important bases for coordination of "attacks" in Afghanistan, Irak, ...). And they did it in good will, that the NATO will also step down and they didn't!
If someone says, this is "derailing" he doesn't understand, what Russia is going through now! It's all connected!
Aside from that: Shit got real:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/10/ukraine-nuclear/6250815/
"Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY."
|
On March 11 2014 05:34 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 05:24 AA.spoon wrote:On March 11 2014 04:54 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries. Putting aside debating Cold War aggression, in what way could Russia be remotely seen as aggressive between 1900 and 1945? The Soviet Union was born and baptised in foreign aggression against them. Euhh, The Soviet Union invaded and annexed the Baltic states and bessarabia, fought a war of aggression against Finland, made a deal with nazi Germany, stabbed the Poles in the back (twice) and I am sure I am missing a couple. Much of it could be blamed on Stalin tough. The last sentence is correct tough, many foreign countries helped the white army against the red army in the early years of the Bolshevik revolution. Baltics, Finland and Poland are all easily seen as pre-emptive defensive measures against the eventual Nazi invasion, which did come and was only barely stopped. You can blame Stalin's amorality in invading these countries, but wasn't he right in the end? Did his strategy not save Europe from Nazi occupation of indeterminate length?
You are derailing the thread and calling things USSR did in 1939 "pre-emptive defensive measures" is just wrong. Please stay on topic or at least stop spreading lies.
|
You guys are insane... The Soviet Union, before it was actually born, preemptively attacked the Baltics to form a buffer against Nazi's who would arrive 20 years later. I've had it, you're just spouting random stuff.
|
On March 11 2014 04:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:05 MoltkeWarding wrote:Let's analyse xDaunt's doctrine of Foreign Policy here and see whether, when abstracted, we can derive some general principles from them: Who's Russia to say who can join NATO or otherwise ally themselves with the West? Interpretation: International Agreements are as worthless as Bethmann-Hollweg's proverbial scraps of paper. Nations which bargain on the basis of good faith with other nations are deluding themselves. To paraphrase Anthony Eden about Stalin: "You can only count on his word if the answer is no." Strike one for the Budapest Memorandum. More to the point, why exactly should Russia care unless they intend to be assholes and impose imperial control over their neighbors? Interpretation: Any nation which interferes in the domestic politics of a foreign country, regardless of cultural, historical or security interests, is exercising "Imperial control", and is "an asshole." Fortunately, xDaunt cannot hold assholery against Russia, for: You're talking to the guy who has argued that foreign policy should not be dictated by considerations of morality. I am wondering though whether xDaunt's meticulous defense of Putin is not overplaying the hand slightly. Obviously, Putin is seeking to justify his behaviour with an eclectic set of appeals to international standards and norms. This is obviously an unacceptable standard of weakness for xDaunt, who insists that in the global game of Power for Power's sake, such behaviour upsets the entire balance of the board. Putin is merely using the language of morality to accomplish his goals. That's not a weakness. That's solid strategy. No one in their right mind believes that Putin has any interest in actually adhering to the international standards and norms to which he appeals for his own purposes.
I see. But surely what goes for solid strategy on the global stage surely goes for good strategy here. You may have a little more success with your arguments if you at least cloaked them in the sugary language of good causes, as most "debaters" here have instinctively elected to do. They appeal to women, children, and even most grown-up men. No one here has the intention of adhering to international standards of fair and unbiased debate, but it's simply not good rhetoric to announce your talents as freelance propagandists upon arrival.
Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 04:59 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 11 2014 04:54 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries. Putting aside debating Cold War aggression, in what way could Russia be remotely seen as aggressive between 1900 and 1945? The Soviet Union was born and baptised in foreign aggression against them. Probably you can count Soviet-Finnish war as kind of aggression even if Finns were reasons for it and Poles will whine about 4th divide of their country as well. But it's probably as minor as Crimea now.
Following up my prior post on the West being a model for Russian foreign policy: the problem with the late-30s was the inevitable rise of Germany in Europe. In the early-30s, the USSR attempted to contain this rise with United Front tactics, but as it became clear in the late-30s, that Hitler and Mussolini were the future, and the Western international order was quickly disintegrating, Stalin quickly changed gears and imitated the latest European fashions (anyway, for the Russians, “Europe” in the cultural sense was merely a synonym for “Germany.”) His series of aggressive moves into the Baltics, Eastern Poland and Finland after conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact were not, as his postwar apologists have claimed, a defensive move against German invasion, but following a widespread trend of national irredentism, whereby he could recover most of what the Russian Empire lost in 1918 with minimal risk.
The point is: at various points in their history, Russian foreign policy has been more or less aggressive. In its interactions with Europe, however, they have generally been of an uncreative instinct, conducting their behaviour in the nature of “follow the leader”, whereby they have largely imitated external habits and norms.
|
On March 11 2014 05:34 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 05:24 AA.spoon wrote:On March 11 2014 04:54 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:44 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:30 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:14 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 04:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. You're just going to ignore his (and my own) point, aren't you? Sorry, what did I ignore? On March 11 2014 04:08 Sub40APM wrote:On March 11 2014 04:04 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
Gobbling up...you mean...allowing independent democratic countries to choose to join a defensive military alliance of other democracies that has kept peace on a continent generally known for bloody warfare? NATO has been officially involved in four wars by my count, none of which involved an attack on a NATO member. So while in theory it is a defensive alliance, it has not actually served that purpose. Claiming the lack of general war in Europe since WWII as a NATO achievement is ridiculous. In Europe? The only wars they've been involved in Europe were interventions to stop genocide. I didn't say NATO wars and interventions have all been bad, but by definition they have not been defensive. It's not hard to take a Russian perspective and see the NATO that, in spite of promises not to expand eastward, has done nothing but steadily creep towards the Russian border. Only if you create the false equivalency that NATO and Russia are antagonists, which of course the elite around Kremlin has re-asserted in order to create a foreign enemy to wave in front of the common people to foster a nasty form of nationalism while forestalling dirty Western ideas like rule of law or independence of the media. This is a chicken and egg problem where the West treats Russia as the enemy only because Russia sees them as an enemy, while Russia in turn is treated as an enemy and naturally acts like an enemy. Or Russia acts aggressively as it has in the last one hundred years, and other countries want to protect themselves from it. I honestly cannot imagine the mechanism by which Russia's rational reaction to the West seeing it as an enemy is to try to assimilate countries. Putting aside debating Cold War aggression, in what way could Russia be remotely seen as aggressive between 1900 and 1945? The Soviet Union was born and baptised in foreign aggression against them. Euhh, The Soviet Union invaded and annexed the Baltic states and bessarabia, fought a war of aggression against Finland, made a deal with nazi Germany, stabbed the Poles in the back (twice) and I am sure I am missing a couple. Much of it could be blamed on Stalin tough. The last sentence is correct tough, many foreign countries helped the white army against the red army in the early years of the Bolshevik revolution. Baltics, Finland and Poland are all easily seen as pre-emptive defensive measures against the eventual Nazi invasion, which did come and was only barely stopped. You can blame Stalin's amorality in invading these countries, but wasn't he right in the end? Did his strategy not save Europe from Nazi occupation of indeterminate length?
You can argue about Poland, and even then you would be wrong. But Finland and Baltics did not help against Nazi invasion one bit, actually the opposite.
|
Ok, time to get back on topic, as reported earlier, the Russian forces are on the move today, today's target appears to be Simferopol.
|
On March 11 2014 05:42 Ghanburighan wrote:
You guys are insane... The Soviet Union, before it was actually born, preemptively attacked the Baltics to form a buffer against Nazi's who would arrive 20 years later. I've had it, you're just spouting random stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states
In any case, Ukraine re-arming itself could make things pretty tense.
|
On March 11 2014 05:53 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 05:42 Ghanburighan wrote:
You guys are insane... The Soviet Union, before it was actually born, preemptively attacked the Baltics to form a buffer against Nazi's who would arrive 20 years later. I've had it, you're just spouting random stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_statesIn any case, Ukraine re-arming itself could make things pretty tense.
"Between years of 1918–1920, the bolsheviks tried to establish Soviet republics in the Baltic area. In November 1918 the Red Army conquested Narva. They proclaimed the Commune of the Working People of Estonia, but it was able to function only for a six week.[4] In December, the Latvian communists controlled Riga and proclaimed the Latvian Socialist Soviet Republic. In May 1919, the communist control ended when the city was taken by combined German, Latvian and White Russian troops.[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_of_the_occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Independence_process
|
On March 11 2014 05:55 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 05:53 Alzadar wrote:On March 11 2014 05:42 Ghanburighan wrote:
You guys are insane... The Soviet Union, before it was actually born, preemptively attacked the Baltics to form a buffer against Nazi's who would arrive 20 years later. I've had it, you're just spouting random stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_statesIn any case, Ukraine re-arming itself could make things pretty tense. "Between years of 1918–1920, the bolsheviks tried to establish Soviet republics in the Baltic area. In November 1918 the Red Army conquested Narva. They proclaimed the Commune of the Working People of Estonia, but it was able to function only for a six week.[4] In December, the Latvian communists controlled Riga and proclaimed the Latvian Socialist Soviet Republic. In May 1919, the communist control ended when the city was taken by combined German, Latvian and White Russian troops.[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_of_the_occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Independence_process
Point?
Ghanburighan's post suggests he was unaware of the 1940 occupation, which is what I was referring to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
