On April 08 2014 05:21 Mc wrote: I don't really think that Putin will invade Eastern Ukraine. Manipulate, destabilize? Yes, and he has already. Invading is simply economic/political suicide. Europe and the US will have to impose really serious sanctions and that would really damage Russia's economy (and to a lesser extent Europe's). If I'm wrong, it's either that I'm too blind to the Europeans resolve to stand up to soviet aggresion, or Putin is too high on his power trip to realize that he's taking a step too far.
Soviet union is around? I think you're 23 years too late
But seriously, I cannot understand why people are looking at the smaller European countries as this independent bloc independent in its dealings with the current situation. This isn't a strictly "European affair", and nowhere close. The US has more say and leverage in this matter than all of non-Russian Europe combined. The US is the leader. It probably has the only functional military between the US and Europe (excluding Russia). It has enormous influence in your affairs and it's been noted in this thread multiple times (as anyone with any knowledge of the past 70 years knows). We run the show. But despite the fantasies of some people, it is the US that carries more leverage than anyone else with Russia, and in addition, on the flip side, the US will never allow Russia to have cozy relations with the rest of the European countries even if Russia wanted to. One of the Germans adamantly stated earlier in this thread that the US would oppose this more than anything else, and he is absolutely right. The US is a wolf leading a pack of toy poodles (NATO/EU countries) against a bear its existence is devoted to opposing. We have no interest in joining hands with Russia and we never did. Our only interest is in seeing them fall.
I don't see any power trip going on. There's no reason for Putin to go any further. Crimea was an extremely special case. Even for purely strategic reasons, huge instability, coup, and other political occurrences in Ukraine that could throw Ukraine under the US would compromise Russia's Black Sea fleet and bases in Crimea. That reasoning is infinitely more logical than the conspiracy theories being thrown around here going along the lines of "Oh no Putin is going to conquer all of Europe". The annexation of Crimea not justified as I've said repeatedly in this thread, but just that reason alone is a far more reasonable explanation than the Europe-conquest conspiracies. In any case, from what it appears Russia has no interest in conquering eastern Ukraine, or Poland, or Germany, or Britain, or whatever you guys want to throw out there.
I used the term 'Soviet' metaphorically- the Soviet Union broke up, but Russia still exhibits many of it's traits - paranoia of the West, imperialism, etc. The US isn't the one that is so "devoted to opposing" Russia, but the other way around. Barack Obama, cancelled/delayed plans for the missile shield. The US has been moving troops out of Europe (until the whole Crimea situation). Obama's whole philosophy was to move on from Europe and focus more on other allies, and in general had somewhat of an isolationist approach to power (withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, don't get involved in the Arab Spring, Syria, rapprochement with Russia, etc.). The USA is the one inviting Russia into the G8, inviting Russia into mulit-national organizations, trying to make Russia a partner rather than enemy (at the cost of getting vetoed on anything the US does via thethe security council). Russia insists on opposing almost all US foreign policy, and is making better relations impossible. I'm surprised someone from Germany not named Schroder sees this the other way around.
Few people in this thread think Russia will actually invade more countries. Even fewer believe Russia will invade NATO countries. However for non NATO countries, there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization as HAS HAPPENED in Georgia, Ukraine. This isn't paranoia, it's fact. Can we not be concerned about that? Also can you mention one person who was suggesting incursions beyond the former Soviet Union?
On April 08 2014 05:21 Mc wrote: I don't really think that Putin will invade Eastern Ukraine. Manipulate, destabilize? Yes, and he has already. Invading is simply economic/political suicide. Europe and the US will have to impose really serious sanctions and that would really damage Russia's economy (and to a lesser extent Europe's). If I'm wrong, it's either that I'm too blind to the Europeans resolve to stand up to soviet aggresion, or Putin is too high on his power trip to realize that he's taking a step too far.
Soviet union is around? I think you're 23 years too late
But seriously, I cannot understand why people are looking at the smaller European countries as this independent bloc independent in its dealings with the current situation. This isn't a strictly "European affair", and nowhere close. The US has more say and leverage in this matter than all of non-Russian Europe combined. The US is the leader. It probably has the only functional military between the US and Europe (excluding Russia). It has enormous influence in your affairs and it's been noted in this thread multiple times (as anyone with any knowledge of the past 70 years knows). We run the show. But despite the fantasies of some people, it is the US that carries more leverage than anyone else with Russia, and in addition, on the flip side, the US will never allow Russia to have cozy relations with the rest of the European countries even if Russia wanted to. One of the Germans adamantly stated earlier in this thread that the US would oppose this more than anything else, and he is absolutely right. The US is a wolf leading a pack of toy poodles (NATO/EU countries) against a bear its existence is devoted to opposing. We have no interest in joining hands with Russia and we never did. Our only interest is in seeing them fall.
I don't see any power trip going on. There's no reason for Putin to go any further. Crimea was an extremely special case. Even for purely strategic reasons, huge instability, coup, and other political occurrences in Ukraine that could throw Ukraine under the US would compromise Russia's Black Sea fleet and bases in Crimea. That reasoning is infinitely more logical than the conspiracy theories being thrown around here going along the lines of "Oh no Putin is going to conquer all of Europe". The annexation of Crimea not justified as I've said repeatedly in this thread, but just that reason alone is a far more reasonable explanation than the Europe-conquest conspiracies. In any case, from what it appears Russia has no interest in conquering eastern Ukraine, or Poland, or Germany, or Britain, or whatever you guys want to throw out there.
I used the term 'Soviet' metaphorically- the Soviet Union broke up, but Russia still exhibits many of it's traits - paranoia of the West, imperialism, etc. The US isn't the one that is so "devoted to opposing" Russia, but the other way around. Barack Obama, cancelled/delayed plans for the missile shield. The US has been moving troops out of Europe (until the whole Crimea situation). Obama's whole philosophy was to move on from Europe and focus more on other allies, and in general had somewhat of an isolationist approach to power (withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, don't get involved in the Arab Spring, Syria, rapprochement with Russia, etc.). The USA is the one inviting Russia into the G8, inviting Russia into mulit-national organizations, trying to make Russia a partner rather than enemy (at the cost of getting vetoed on literally EVERY vote in the security council). Russia insists on opposing almost all US foreign policy, and is making better relations impossible. I'm surprised someone from Germany not named Schroder sees this the other way around.
Few people in this thread think Russia will actually invade more countries. Even fewer believe Russia will invade NATO countries. However for non NATO countries, there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization as HAS HAPPENED in Georgia, Ukraine. This isn't paranoia, it's fact. Can we not be concerned about that? Also can you mention one person who was suggesting incursions beyond the former Soviet Union?
I'm one of the people who thinks the pessimist view of Russia is more likely to be right, entailing the threat that more countries will be invaded and annexed (it was a few weeks ago when no-one in this thread thought Crimea could be annexed...). Note that your last question was answered by the representative of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe, Roman Kokorev, who also included Finland in the list. While everyone thinks that's a way off from being plausible, that's not how security policy works. You take something that's improbable but possible and enact policies which make it impossible. I think your general outlook isn't too far from my own, though.
On April 08 2014 05:21 Mc wrote: I don't really think that Putin will invade Eastern Ukraine. Manipulate, destabilize? Yes, and he has already. Invading is simply economic/political suicide. Europe and the US will have to impose really serious sanctions and that would really damage Russia's economy (and to a lesser extent Europe's). If I'm wrong, it's either that I'm too blind to the Europeans resolve to stand up to soviet aggresion, or Putin is too high on his power trip to realize that he's taking a step too far.
Soviet union is around? I think you're 23 years too late
But seriously, I cannot understand why people are looking at the smaller European countries as this independent bloc independent in its dealings with the current situation. This isn't a strictly "European affair", and nowhere close. The US has more say and leverage in this matter than all of non-Russian Europe combined. The US is the leader. It probably has the only functional military between the US and Europe (excluding Russia). It has enormous influence in your affairs and it's been noted in this thread multiple times (as anyone with any knowledge of the past 70 years knows). We run the show. But despite the fantasies of some people, it is the US that carries more leverage than anyone else with Russia, and in addition, on the flip side, the US will never allow Russia to have cozy relations with the rest of the European countries even if Russia wanted to. One of the Germans adamantly stated earlier in this thread that the US would oppose this more than anything else, and he is absolutely right. The US is a wolf leading a pack of toy poodles (NATO/EU countries) against a bear its existence is devoted to opposing. We have no interest in joining hands with Russia and we never did. Our only interest is in seeing them fall.
I don't see any power trip going on. There's no reason for Putin to go any further. Crimea was an extremely special case. Even for purely strategic reasons, huge instability, coup, and other political occurrences in Ukraine that could throw Ukraine under the US would compromise Russia's Black Sea fleet and bases in Crimea. That reasoning is infinitely more logical than the conspiracy theories being thrown around here going along the lines of "Oh no Putin is going to conquer all of Europe". The annexation of Crimea not justified as I've said repeatedly in this thread, but just that reason alone is a far more reasonable explanation than the Europe-conquest conspiracies. In any case, from what it appears Russia has no interest in conquering eastern Ukraine, or Poland, or Germany, or Britain, or whatever you guys want to throw out there.
I used the term 'Soviet' metaphorically- the Soviet Union broke up, but Russia still exhibits many of it's traits - paranoia of the West, imperialism, etc. The US isn't the one that is so "devoted to opposing" Russia, but the other way around. Barack Obama, cancelled/delayed plans for the missile shield. The US has been moving troops out of Europe (until the whole Crimea situation). Obama's whole philosophy was to move on from Europe and focus more on other allies, and in general had somewhat of an isolationist approach to power (withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, don't get involved in the Arab Spring, Syria, rapprochement with Russia, etc.). The USA is the one inviting Russia into the G8, inviting Russia into mulit-national organizations, trying to make Russia a partner rather than enemy (at the cost of getting vetoed on literally EVERY vote in the security council). Russia insists on opposing almost all US foreign policy, and is making better relations impossible. I'm surprised someone from Germany not named Schroder sees this the other way around.
Few people in this thread think Russia will actually invade more countries. Even fewer believe Russia will invade NATO countries. However for non NATO countries, there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization as HAS HAPPENED in Georgia, Ukraine. This isn't paranoia, it's fact. Can we not be concerned about that? Also can you mention one person who was suggesting incursions beyond the former Soviet Union?
I'm one of the people who thinks the pessimist view of Russia is more likely to be right, entailing the threat that more countries will be invaded and annexed (it was a few weeks ago when no-one in this thread thought Crimea could be annexed...). Note that your last question was answered by the representative of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe, Roman Kokorev, who also included Finland in the list. While everyone thinks that's a way off from being plausible, that's not how security policy works. You take something that's improbable but possible and enact policies which make it impossible. I think your general outlook isn't too far from my own, though.
Couldn't have said it any better - we have to defend against improbable but possible threats. I don't think Russia invading farther is likely, but it's definitely possible given it's behaviour so far. We also have to defend against future threats. Will Russia see Europe not standing up to Russian aggression as an invitation to invade some E. European country 5 years from now? As long as Putin is in power, than I believe the answer is yes.
On April 08 2014 05:21 Mc wrote: I don't really think that Putin will invade Eastern Ukraine. Manipulate, destabilize? Yes, and he has already. Invading is simply economic/political suicide. Europe and the US will have to impose really serious sanctions and that would really damage Russia's economy (and to a lesser extent Europe's). If I'm wrong, it's either that I'm too blind to the Europeans resolve to stand up to soviet aggresion, or Putin is too high on his power trip to realize that he's taking a step too far.
Soviet union is around? I think you're 23 years too late
But seriously, I cannot understand why people are looking at the smaller European countries as this independent bloc independent in its dealings with the current situation. This isn't a strictly "European affair", and nowhere close. The US has more say and leverage in this matter than all of non-Russian Europe combined. The US is the leader. It probably has the only functional military between the US and Europe (excluding Russia). It has enormous influence in your affairs and it's been noted in this thread multiple times (as anyone with any knowledge of the past 70 years knows). We run the show. But despite the fantasies of some people, it is the US that carries more leverage than anyone else with Russia, and in addition, on the flip side, the US will never allow Russia to have cozy relations with the rest of the European countries even if Russia wanted to. One of the Germans adamantly stated earlier in this thread that the US would oppose this more than anything else, and he is absolutely right. The US is a wolf leading a pack of toy poodles (NATO/EU countries) against a bear its existence is devoted to opposing. We have no interest in joining hands with Russia and we never did. Our only interest is in seeing them fall.
I don't see any power trip going on. There's no reason for Putin to go any further. Crimea was an extremely special case. Even for purely strategic reasons, huge instability, coup, and other political occurrences in Ukraine that could throw Ukraine under the US would compromise Russia's Black Sea fleet and bases in Crimea. That reasoning is infinitely more logical than the conspiracy theories being thrown around here going along the lines of "Oh no Putin is going to conquer all of Europe". The annexation of Crimea not justified as I've said repeatedly in this thread, but just that reason alone is a far more reasonable explanation than the Europe-conquest conspiracies. In any case, from what it appears Russia has no interest in conquering eastern Ukraine, or Poland, or Germany, or Britain, or whatever you guys want to throw out there.
I used the term 'Soviet' metaphorically- the Soviet Union broke up, but Russia still exhibits many of it's traits - paranoia of the West, imperialism, etc. The US isn't the one that is so "devoted to opposing" Russia, but the other way around. Barack Obama, cancelled/delayed plans for the missile shield. The US has been moving troops out of Europe (until the whole Crimea situation). Obama's whole philosophy was to move on from Europe and focus more on other allies, and in general had somewhat of an isolationist approach to power (withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, don't get involved in the Arab Spring, Syria, rapprochement with Russia, etc.). The USA is the one inviting Russia into the G8, inviting Russia into mulit-national organizations, trying to make Russia a partner rather than enemy (at the cost of getting vetoed on anything the US does via thethe security council). Russia insists on opposing almost all US foreign policy, and is making better relations impossible. I'm surprised someone from Germany not named Schroder sees this the other way around.
Few people in this thread think Russia will actually invade more countries. Even fewer believe Russia will invade NATO countries. However for non NATO countries, there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization as HAS HAPPENED in Georgia, Ukraine. This isn't paranoia, it's fact. Can we not be concerned about that? Also can you mention one person who was suggesting incursions beyond the former Soviet Union?
Yes, I know you weren't using the term seriously.
You are being extremely selective, so you're trying to sound "technically" right, but you're not. You're only looking at the past couple of years of extremely dramatic changes in US foreign policy, and trying to make it sound like everything since the Soviet collapse, which is entirely false, as that was an era where the US was very aggressive in taking over the former Soviet sphere (even despite negotiations and promises). Of course we were going to increase our own dominance and power at any opportunity. Anyone in Moscow who actually trusted us was an idiot. But that's politics.
Russia opposes US foreign policy on things like bombing more countries or slapping on more sanctions on countries? Well, I'd be against that too, I'm sorry. If Russia wanted to bomb Poland, I'm sure you would be against that. I would be too.
Everyone knows Obama's administration are practically radicals due to what they're doing. This "scaling down" is entirely heretical to American ideology and politics. However, they have to. It's not only because we're coming to a point where most of the world hates us, it's not only because Russia is a functioning country again and China is 100x more relevant than in the 1990s which adds a ton of pressure that didn't exist in that decade, but because we simply cannot sustain it. We can barely even get a working budget (if you want to call it that), we nearly defaulted just a couple months ago, etc. etc., and if that preceding trend were to continue, we'd seriously be on borrowed time. This wasn't a matter of "being nice", because we certainly are not lol. Fuck with our interests and we will fuck you up more than a group of Bloods down in South-Central LA (and I've been there. Those gangsters are nasty). Specifically to the Mideast which you are discussing, the US govt. is also realizing that for the past 60 years, whenever it's touched anything in the Mideast, it's usually made things worse. Practically its only accomplishment was upholding a tyrant in Egypt (who is now gone) that they could pay off not to go to war with Israel. Speaking of Egypt, the loss of Egypt (specifically Mubarak's regime), one of our most valuable assets in the N. Africa/Mideast and probably the most influential nation in the Arab world, was a big hit to our power there. But regardless, I think the govt. is starting to wise up finally.
Russia was in the G8 since 1998. This isn't anything recent like you say.
there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization
The same fear goes for any regime that isn't sucking Uncle Sam's cock, and he's got one mighty penis. So, I don't see what your point is. We can even argue that Russia is a lot less destructive and aggressive. After Saakashivili decided that killing South Ossetians and Russian soldiers as part of his plan to take over South Ossetia, I'm surprised Russia didn't level Tbilisi and replace Saakashvili with a puppet regime. We would have, without a doubt. Also, Ukraine was already destabilized before Russia did anything lol. Coups followed by more unrest tend to do that. Well, there goes your two things.
By the way, who are these countries? Most countries in the world aren't in NATO, and yet almost none of them fear Russia land-grabbing and destabilizing. Most countries fear us though. But, besides Crimea maybe Russia took over Central Asia or Hokkaido or something and I missed it, so you have my apologies.
Can we not be concerned about that?
Poland isn't attacking Russian military and doesn't have centuries-old Russian military assets supposedly at risk of being compromised in some way or another due to a chaotic situation in Ukraine, so Russia has absolutely no justification or excuse to go marching through Warsaw even if they wanted to (which they wouldn't. Poland wouldn't have much value to them). So no, I wouldn't be concerned. You also have a giant wolf protecting its strategic assets of Europe, so what are you afraid of?
Unless Russia makes up shit that the Polish government had WMDs and they're supporting Islamic terrorists, then there's nothing to be concerned about imho.
----- And to the guy who said earlier Serbia is the only country doing worse than Ukraine in Europe (despite a decade of war), actually, Serbia is doing better as far as I'm aware. I think the only countries doing worse than Ukraine are Moldova and maybe Macedonia and Albania. All 3 of these places combined have like 8.5 million people. Very small countries, and unfortunately for them, they don't have infinite oil like Qatar and Oman.
On April 08 2014 05:21 Mc wrote: I don't really think that Putin will invade Eastern Ukraine. Manipulate, destabilize? Yes, and he has already. Invading is simply economic/political suicide. Europe and the US will have to impose really serious sanctions and that would really damage Russia's economy (and to a lesser extent Europe's). If I'm wrong, it's either that I'm too blind to the Europeans resolve to stand up to soviet aggresion, or Putin is too high on his power trip to realize that he's taking a step too far.
Soviet union is around? I think you're 23 years too late
But seriously, I cannot understand why people are looking at the smaller European countries as this independent bloc independent in its dealings with the current situation. This isn't a strictly "European affair", and nowhere close. The US has more say and leverage in this matter than all of non-Russian Europe combined. The US is the leader. It probably has the only functional military between the US and Europe (excluding Russia). It has enormous influence in your affairs and it's been noted in this thread multiple times (as anyone with any knowledge of the past 70 years knows). We run the show. But despite the fantasies of some people, it is the US that carries more leverage than anyone else with Russia, and in addition, on the flip side, the US will never allow Russia to have cozy relations with the rest of the European countries even if Russia wanted to. One of the Germans adamantly stated earlier in this thread that the US would oppose this more than anything else, and he is absolutely right. The US is a wolf leading a pack of toy poodles (NATO/EU countries) against a bear its existence is devoted to opposing. We have no interest in joining hands with Russia and we never did. Our only interest is in seeing them fall.
I don't see any power trip going on. There's no reason for Putin to go any further. Crimea was an extremely special case. Even for purely strategic reasons, huge instability, coup, and other political occurrences in Ukraine that could throw Ukraine under the US would compromise Russia's Black Sea fleet and bases in Crimea. That reasoning is infinitely more logical than the conspiracy theories being thrown around here going along the lines of "Oh no Putin is going to conquer all of Europe". The annexation of Crimea not justified as I've said repeatedly in this thread, but just that reason alone is a far more reasonable explanation than the Europe-conquest conspiracies. In any case, from what it appears Russia has no interest in conquering eastern Ukraine, or Poland, or Germany, or Britain, or whatever you guys want to throw out there.
I used the term 'Soviet' metaphorically- the Soviet Union broke up, but Russia still exhibits many of it's traits - paranoia of the West, imperialism, etc. The US isn't the one that is so "devoted to opposing" Russia, but the other way around. Barack Obama, cancelled/delayed plans for the missile shield. The US has been moving troops out of Europe (until the whole Crimea situation). Obama's whole philosophy was to move on from Europe and focus more on other allies, and in general had somewhat of an isolationist approach to power (withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, don't get involved in the Arab Spring, Syria, rapprochement with Russia, etc.). The USA is the one inviting Russia into the G8, inviting Russia into mulit-national organizations, trying to make Russia a partner rather than enemy (at the cost of getting vetoed on literally EVERY vote in the security council). Russia insists on opposing almost all US foreign policy, and is making better relations impossible. I'm surprised someone from Germany not named Schroder sees this the other way around.
Few people in this thread think Russia will actually invade more countries. Even fewer believe Russia will invade NATO countries. However for non NATO countries, there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization as HAS HAPPENED in Georgia, Ukraine. This isn't paranoia, it's fact. Can we not be concerned about that? Also can you mention one person who was suggesting incursions beyond the former Soviet Union?
I'm one of the people who thinks the pessimist view of Russia is more likely to be right, entailing the threat that more countries will be invaded and annexed (it was a few weeks ago when no-one in this thread thought Crimea could be annexed...). Note that your last question was answered by the representative of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe, Roman Kokorev, who also included Finland in the list. While everyone thinks that's a way off from being plausible, that's not how security policy works. You take something that's improbable but possible and enact policies which make it impossible. I think your general outlook isn't too far from my own, though.
Couldn't have said it any better - we have to defend against improbable but possible threats. I don't think Russia invading farther is likely, but it's definitely possible given it's behaviour so far. We also have to defend against future threats. Will Russia see Europe not standing up to Russian aggression as an invitation to invade some E. European country 5 years from now? As long as Putin is in power, than I believe the answer is yes.
Lol. You seriously believe that lol? Even if the US wasn't around, I don't see that happening. With the US around, without a doubt it became impossible. But you must excuse me. On second thought, I concur. Yes, you are exactly correct. As we speak, Putin and Merkel are making plans to partition Poland. [/sarcasm]
On April 08 2014 05:21 Mc wrote: I don't really think that Putin will invade Eastern Ukraine. Manipulate, destabilize? Yes, and he has already. Invading is simply economic/political suicide. Europe and the US will have to impose really serious sanctions and that would really damage Russia's economy (and to a lesser extent Europe's). If I'm wrong, it's either that I'm too blind to the Europeans resolve to stand up to soviet aggresion, or Putin is too high on his power trip to realize that he's taking a step too far.
Soviet union is around? I think you're 23 years too late
But seriously, I cannot understand why people are looking at the smaller European countries as this independent bloc independent in its dealings with the current situation. This isn't a strictly "European affair", and nowhere close. The US has more say and leverage in this matter than all of non-Russian Europe combined. The US is the leader. It probably has the only functional military between the US and Europe (excluding Russia). It has enormous influence in your affairs and it's been noted in this thread multiple times (as anyone with any knowledge of the past 70 years knows). We run the show. But despite the fantasies of some people, it is the US that carries more leverage than anyone else with Russia, and in addition, on the flip side, the US will never allow Russia to have cozy relations with the rest of the European countries even if Russia wanted to. One of the Germans adamantly stated earlier in this thread that the US would oppose this more than anything else, and he is absolutely right. The US is a wolf leading a pack of toy poodles (NATO/EU countries) against a bear its existence is devoted to opposing. We have no interest in joining hands with Russia and we never did. Our only interest is in seeing them fall.
I don't see any power trip going on. There's no reason for Putin to go any further. Crimea was an extremely special case. Even for purely strategic reasons, huge instability, coup, and other political occurrences in Ukraine that could throw Ukraine under the US would compromise Russia's Black Sea fleet and bases in Crimea. That reasoning is infinitely more logical than the conspiracy theories being thrown around here going along the lines of "Oh no Putin is going to conquer all of Europe". The annexation of Crimea not justified as I've said repeatedly in this thread, but just that reason alone is a far more reasonable explanation than the Europe-conquest conspiracies. In any case, from what it appears Russia has no interest in conquering eastern Ukraine, or Poland, or Germany, or Britain, or whatever you guys want to throw out there.
I used the term 'Soviet' metaphorically- the Soviet Union broke up, but Russia still exhibits many of it's traits - paranoia of the West, imperialism, etc. The US isn't the one that is so "devoted to opposing" Russia, but the other way around. Barack Obama, cancelled/delayed plans for the missile shield. The US has been moving troops out of Europe (until the whole Crimea situation). Obama's whole philosophy was to move on from Europe and focus more on other allies, and in general had somewhat of an isolationist approach to power (withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, don't get involved in the Arab Spring, Syria, rapprochement with Russia, etc.). The USA is the one inviting Russia into the G8, inviting Russia into mulit-national organizations, trying to make Russia a partner rather than enemy (at the cost of getting vetoed on anything the US does via thethe security council). Russia insists on opposing almost all US foreign policy, and is making better relations impossible. I'm surprised someone from Germany not named Schroder sees this the other way around.
Few people in this thread think Russia will actually invade more countries. Even fewer believe Russia will invade NATO countries. However for non NATO countries, there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization as HAS HAPPENED in Georgia, Ukraine. This isn't paranoia, it's fact. Can we not be concerned about that? Also can you mention one person who was suggesting incursions beyond the former Soviet Union?
Yes, I know you weren't using the term seriously.
You are being extremely selective, so you're trying to sound "technically" right, but you're not. You're only looking at the past couple of years of extremely dramatic changes in US foreign policy, and trying to make it sound like everything since the Soviet collapse, which is entirely false, and an era where the US was very aggressive in taking over the former Soviet sphere (even despite negotiations and promises).
Russia opposes US foreign policy on things like bombing more countries or slapping on more sanctions on countries? Well, I'd be against that too, I'm sorry. If Russia wanted to bomb Poland, I'm sure you would be against that. I would be too.
Everyone knows Obama's administration are practically radicals due to what they're doing. This "scaling down" is entirely heretical to American ideology and politics. However, they have to. It's not only because we're coming to a point where most of the world hates us, but because we simply cannot sustain it. We can't even get a working budget, we nearly defaulted just a couple months ago, etc. etc., and if that preceding trend were to continue, we'd seriously be on borrowed time. This wasn't a matter of "being nice", because we certainly are not lol. Fuck with our interests and we will fuck you up more than a group of Bloods down in South-Central LA (and I've been there. Those gangsters are nasty). Specifically to the Mideast which you are discussing, the US govt. is also realizing that for the past 60 years, whenever it's touched anything in the Mideast, it's usually made things worse. Practically its only accomplishment was upholding a tyrant in Egypt (who is now gone) that they could pay off not to go to war with Israel. Speaking of Egypt, the loss of Egypt, one of our most valuable assets in the N. Africa/Mideast and probably the most influential nation in the Arab world, was a big hit. But regardless, I think the govt. is starting to wise up finally.
Russia was in the G8 since 1998. This isn't anything recent like you say.
"there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization" The same fear goes for any regime that isn't sucking Uncle Sam's cock, and he's got one mighty penis. So, I don't see what your point is. We can even argue that Russia is a lot less destructive and aggressive. After Saakashivili decided that killing South Ossetians and Russian soldiers as part of his plan to take over South Ossetia, I'm surprised Russia didn't level Tbilisi and replace Saakashvili with a puppet regime. We would have, without a doubt. Also, Ukraine was already destabilized before Russia did anything lol. Coups followed by more unrest tend to do that. Well, there goes your two things.
"Can we not be concerned about that?" Poland isn't attacking Russian military and doesn't have Russian bases at risk due to a chaotic situation, so Russia has absolutely no justification to go marching through Warsaw even if they wanted to (which they wouldn't. Poland wouldn't have much value to them). So no, I wouldn't be concerned.
Unless Russia makes up shit that the Polish government had WMDs and they're supporting Islamic terrorists, then there's nothing to be concerned about imho.
----- And to the guy who said earlier Serbia is the only country doing worse than Ukraine in Europe (despite a decade of war), actually, Serbia is doing better as far as I'm aware. I think the only countries doing worse than Ukraine are Moldova and maybe Macedonia and Albania. All 3 of these places combined have like 8.5 million people. Very small countries, and unfortunately for them, they don't have infinite oil like Qatar and Oman.
So you are saying that the US "government is starting to wise up already", but when it comes to Russia that we are hell bent on making them our adversary (from your previous post)? Yeah, joining the G8 isn't very recent, but in general we have approached the dissolution of Soviet Russia with trying to include Russia in global politics, rather than isolate them. Did we also allow Eastern bloc countries to join NATO? Yes, and those countries were begging us to let them join. It was the right thing to do, because it guaranteed these countries that had been subjugated by Russia for decades, independence from Russia. Did this piss off Russia? Yes, this is the main reason Russia feels threatened (NATO encirclement), but it's Russia's own darn fault. If Russia didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy to E. Europe, then NATO wouldn't need to be there. This isn't a chicken or egg situation. Russia has raped/pillaged/controlled E. Europe for centuries, and has never once in it's history stopped doing that.
In response to some of the things you implied/said I said. I didn't say Ukraine was stable before the coup. I specifically stated that Russia is not going to invade NATO countries like Poland.
"Lol. You seriously believe that lol? Even if the US wasn't around, I don't see that happening. With the US around, without a doubt it became impossible. But you must excuse me. On second thought, I concur. Yes, you are exactly correct. As we speak, Putin and Merkel are making plans to partition Poland. [/sarcasm]"
I'm not referring to an invasion of Poland. I specifically used the term "E European countries". Russia won't invade Poland. And how is what I'm saying unreasonable. I said that Russia might invade some E. European country 5 years from now. In the past 5 years, he has invaded 2.
On April 08 2014 05:21 Mc wrote: I don't really think that Putin will invade Eastern Ukraine. Manipulate, destabilize? Yes, and he has already. Invading is simply economic/political suicide. Europe and the US will have to impose really serious sanctions and that would really damage Russia's economy (and to a lesser extent Europe's). If I'm wrong, it's either that I'm too blind to the Europeans resolve to stand up to soviet aggresion, or Putin is too high on his power trip to realize that he's taking a step too far.
Soviet union is around? I think you're 23 years too late
But seriously, I cannot understand why people are looking at the smaller European countries as this independent bloc independent in its dealings with the current situation. This isn't a strictly "European affair", and nowhere close. The US has more say and leverage in this matter than all of non-Russian Europe combined. The US is the leader. It probably has the only functional military between the US and Europe (excluding Russia). It has enormous influence in your affairs and it's been noted in this thread multiple times (as anyone with any knowledge of the past 70 years knows). We run the show. But despite the fantasies of some people, it is the US that carries more leverage than anyone else with Russia, and in addition, on the flip side, the US will never allow Russia to have cozy relations with the rest of the European countries even if Russia wanted to. One of the Germans adamantly stated earlier in this thread that the US would oppose this more than anything else, and he is absolutely right. The US is a wolf leading a pack of toy poodles (NATO/EU countries) against a bear its existence is devoted to opposing. We have no interest in joining hands with Russia and we never did. Our only interest is in seeing them fall.
I don't see any power trip going on. There's no reason for Putin to go any further. Crimea was an extremely special case. Even for purely strategic reasons, huge instability, coup, and other political occurrences in Ukraine that could throw Ukraine under the US would compromise Russia's Black Sea fleet and bases in Crimea. That reasoning is infinitely more logical than the conspiracy theories being thrown around here going along the lines of "Oh no Putin is going to conquer all of Europe". The annexation of Crimea not justified as I've said repeatedly in this thread, but just that reason alone is a far more reasonable explanation than the Europe-conquest conspiracies. In any case, from what it appears Russia has no interest in conquering eastern Ukraine, or Poland, or Germany, or Britain, or whatever you guys want to throw out there.
I used the term 'Soviet' metaphorically- the Soviet Union broke up, but Russia still exhibits many of it's traits - paranoia of the West, imperialism, etc. The US isn't the one that is so "devoted to opposing" Russia, but the other way around. Barack Obama, cancelled/delayed plans for the missile shield. The US has been moving troops out of Europe (until the whole Crimea situation). Obama's whole philosophy was to move on from Europe and focus more on other allies, and in general had somewhat of an isolationist approach to power (withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, don't get involved in the Arab Spring, Syria, rapprochement with Russia, etc.). The USA is the one inviting Russia into the G8, inviting Russia into mulit-national organizations, trying to make Russia a partner rather than enemy (at the cost of getting vetoed on anything the US does via thethe security council). Russia insists on opposing almost all US foreign policy, and is making better relations impossible. I'm surprised someone from Germany not named Schroder sees this the other way around.
Few people in this thread think Russia will actually invade more countries. Even fewer believe Russia will invade NATO countries. However for non NATO countries, there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization as HAS HAPPENED in Georgia, Ukraine. This isn't paranoia, it's fact. Can we not be concerned about that? Also can you mention one person who was suggesting incursions beyond the former Soviet Union?
Yes, I know you weren't using the term seriously.
You are being extremely selective, so you're trying to sound "technically" right, but you're not. You're only looking at the past couple of years of extremely dramatic changes in US foreign policy, and trying to make it sound like everything since the Soviet collapse, which is entirely false, and an era where the US was very aggressive in taking over the former Soviet sphere (even despite negotiations and promises).
Russia opposes US foreign policy on things like bombing more countries or slapping on more sanctions on countries? Well, I'd be against that too, I'm sorry. If Russia wanted to bomb Poland, I'm sure you would be against that. I would be too.
Everyone knows Obama's administration are practically radicals due to what they're doing. This "scaling down" is entirely heretical to American ideology and politics. However, they have to. It's not only because we're coming to a point where most of the world hates us, but because we simply cannot sustain it. We can't even get a working budget, we nearly defaulted just a couple months ago, etc. etc., and if that preceding trend were to continue, we'd seriously be on borrowed time. This wasn't a matter of "being nice", because we certainly are not lol. Fuck with our interests and we will fuck you up more than a group of Bloods down in South-Central LA (and I've been there. Those gangsters are nasty). Specifically to the Mideast which you are discussing, the US govt. is also realizing that for the past 60 years, whenever it's touched anything in the Mideast, it's usually made things worse. Practically its only accomplishment was upholding a tyrant in Egypt (who is now gone) that they could pay off not to go to war with Israel. Speaking of Egypt, the loss of Egypt, one of our most valuable assets in the N. Africa/Mideast and probably the most influential nation in the Arab world, was a big hit. But regardless, I think the govt. is starting to wise up finally.
Russia was in the G8 since 1998. This isn't anything recent like you say.
"there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization" The same fear goes for any regime that isn't sucking Uncle Sam's cock, and he's got one mighty penis. So, I don't see what your point is. We can even argue that Russia is a lot less destructive and aggressive. After Saakashivili decided that killing South Ossetians and Russian soldiers as part of his plan to take over South Ossetia, I'm surprised Russia didn't level Tbilisi and replace Saakashvili with a puppet regime. We would have, without a doubt. Also, Ukraine was already destabilized before Russia did anything lol. Coups followed by more unrest tend to do that. Well, there goes your two things.
"Can we not be concerned about that?" Poland isn't attacking Russian military and doesn't have Russian bases at risk due to a chaotic situation, so Russia has absolutely no justification to go marching through Warsaw even if they wanted to (which they wouldn't. Poland wouldn't have much value to them). So no, I wouldn't be concerned.
Unless Russia makes up shit that the Polish government had WMDs and they're supporting Islamic terrorists, then there's nothing to be concerned about imho.
----- And to the guy who said earlier Serbia is the only country doing worse than Ukraine in Europe (despite a decade of war), actually, Serbia is doing better as far as I'm aware. I think the only countries doing worse than Ukraine are Moldova and maybe Macedonia and Albania. All 3 of these places combined have like 8.5 million people. Very small countries, and unfortunately for them, they don't have infinite oil like Qatar and Oman.
So you are saying that the US "government is starting to wise up already", but when it comes to Russia that we are hell bent on making them our adversary (from your previous post)? Yeah, joining the G8 isn't very recent, but in general we have approached the dissolution of Soviet Russia with trying to include Russia in global politics, rather than isolate them. Did we also allow Eastern bloc countries to join NATO? Yes, and those countries were begging us to let them join. It was the right thing to do, because it guaranteed these countries that had been subjugated by Russia for decades, independence from Russia. Did this piss off Russia? Yes, this is the main reason Russia feels threatened (NATO encirclement), but it's Russia's own darn fault. If Russia didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy to E. Europe, then NATO wouldn't need to be there. This isn't a chicken or egg situation. Russia has raped/pillaged/controlled E. Europe for centuries, and has never once in it's history stopped doing that.
In response to some of the things you implied/said I said. I didn't say Ukraine was stable before the coup. I specifically stated that Russia is not going to invade NATO countries like Poland.
"Lol. You seriously believe that lol? Even if the US wasn't around, I don't see that happening. With the US around, without a doubt it became impossible. But you must excuse me. On second thought, I concur. Yes, you are exactly correct. As we speak, Putin and Merkel are making plans to partition Poland. [/sarcasm]"
I'm not referring to an invasion of Poland. I specifically used the term "E European countries". Russia won't invade Poland. And how is what I'm saying unreasonable. I said that Russia might invade some E. European country 5 years from now. In the past 5 years, he has invaded 2.
So you are saying that the US "government is starting to wise up already", but when it comes to Russia that we are hell bent on making them our adversary (from your previous post)?
Wising up in regards to the Mideast. I specified that. We've fucked it up pretty hard heh, so, yeah, doesn't take a genius to see that not trying to control everything over there is a good approach. With Russia, we haven't let up much. Pulling back a ridiculous missile shield is nothing, if you're meaning that to be something on the degree of the US pulling out of NATO or something. The US is not going to give up its assets in Europe. They are very important to us, especially with our losses (if you want to call it that) in the Mideast. In the face of a growing China that proves a very real threat to our East Asian assets, and a Russia that is actually functional, our European and East Asian assets are far more at risk than even the volatile ones anywhere else. (What's hilarious is when it was claimed to defend against Iranian missiles. I wonder how many idiots that fooled.)
but in general we have approached the dissolution of Soviet Russia with trying to include Russia in global politics, rather than isolate them
What's even crazier is attempting to imply Russia isn't an essential part of global politics ever since they decided to be a functioning nation again. Of course they would be included.
Yes, and those countries were begging us to let them join. It was the right thing to do, because it guaranteed these countries that had been subjugated by Russia for decades, independence from Russia.
And now they're Uncle Sam's toy poodles. I'm okay with this . Whatever increases our global dominance, it isn't a problem with me. Because obviously, this is Stalin era or Catherine the Great era, that Russia in the 21st century is super mean to these countries and "rapes and pillages" them. As we speak, Russian marauders are raping street-corner hookers in Minsk and burning witches in Vilnius. I don't know if you know about the Cold War, but the basis of it was splitting Europe between USA and USSR. Some could argue that the USSR brought a lot of these places out of the medieval era, because that's pretty much where some of them were beforehand. Communism was retarded without a doubt but giving these countries some modernization and industry was a huge bonus. Also, the part where lots of them sided with the Nazis :S. Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm not too fond of mass genocide and Hitler.
If Russia didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy to E. Europe, then NATO wouldn't need to be there. Russia has raped/pillaged/controlled E. Europe for centuries, and has never once in it's history stopped doing that.
Yeah, I'm sure NATO was created because of Catherine the Great back in the 18th century. NATO is totally the result of Russia "raping" E. Europe back then. Actually, NATO had nothing to do with Eastern Europe or how it was "treated" in the past LOL (This is the first time I heard this reason for NATO's creation). No one gave a flying care about any of that. I realize it's personal for you and you wish it did matter (as would I), but it didn't. NATO was created to counter fears of Communist influence and spread after WW2, and simply the fact that the Soviet Union was really powerful, not something you want if you're Uncle Sam. The Warsaw Pact was created in response. It wasn't because Russia was "pillaging" part of Eastern Europe centuries ago or at any time. I doubt few people cared or knew about that when NATO was created.
I'm not referring to an invasion of Poland. I specifically used the term "E European countries". Russia won't invade Poland. And how is what I'm saying unreasonable. I said that Russia might invade some E. European country 5 years from now. In the past 5 years, he has invaded 2.
Yes, I know you specifically used that term. Poland is considered to be in Eastern Europe, in case you weren't aware. I guess Russia was supposed to high-five Saakashvili after he killed South Ossetian civilians and Russian soldiers in his plan to take over SO. Even EU says Saakashvili was responsible for the war. They'd be among the last organizations to say that, but that's just how overwhelming the case against Saakashvili was. Let's just be thankful the Russians didn't do things Uncle Sam's way, because we don't fuck around. There'd be a lot of death, a lot of destruction, and a regime change. Somehow, iirc, Georgia came out of the war less scathed than Tskhinvali (excluding Georgian military infrastructure obviously).
I specifically stated that Russia is not going to invade NATO countries like Poland.
And I said that most countries aren't in NATO and almost none of them fear Russian assault. If anything, these countries fear us (USA), or if they're in the Far East, then China. lol
On April 08 2014 05:19 sekritzzz wrote: So let me get this straight, one group of ukranians overthrow the democratically elected president(twice!) , of course wih 5billion worth of funding for promoting "democracy" and people expect the oppressed people who got their voices cut to stay quiet?
Nice joke, putin is not going to play the west's hypocritical games anymore. Bullshit of an excuse, freedom of press, freedom of rights, freedom of self rule, you can keep all those, well as long as you become a slave to the wests interest. We have all read the same book before. Welcome to egypt, the land of democracy, just ask John Kerry about that road map.
Uhhhhh, 5 million dollars, eh? I've seen these numbers thrown out before. Could you give me a source? Was it economic aid or was it specifically political aid to anti-Russian elements as you seem to imply? While we're at it, how about giving me a source from countries not named Russia, Belarus, Syria, North Korea (i.e. countries were democracy functions)? It's either Russia is right, or all these media from dozens of different countries with very varying interest/politics all came to the the exact wrong conclusion, while all Russian media is right. Coincidentally, Russia media is not allowed to directly criticize Putin, are state funded (directly or inderectly), and happen to exist in a country happens to be one of the most common countries for journalists to be attacked/murdered.
i posted a us senate testimony signed neocon-succubus nuland herself earlier where she uses the number, you can go look it up. the money is used to subvert ukraine to us will and the us has clear on what their will in this case. nuland and kerry handing out cookies and getting pally pal with chief of svoboda.
So you don't provide me the source, and the source a single politician's opinion? Sounds very convincing. How about you give me a source and explain how this 5$ billion was used in the Orange Revolution as you directly imply.
i already provided the source earlier in the thread, testimony to us senate by assistant secretary of state for european blah blah affairs. nuland might be a bitch, but i'm sure she got her numbers on us govt spending in ukraine in order, don't you think?
Well, if you're trying to make a point that a lot of people in this thread might disagree with it's good to back it up directly with a link. Then I can personally assess the validity of your argument. I'm not going to search through this entire thread (or your post history) to find it. Also if it's such a certain fact, it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide it via an alternate news source?
And does the article in anyway suggest that the money was used or intended to foment revolution in Ukraine (i.e. the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Ukraine)? If you can't support that, then you're statement is completely groundless.
Since its independence in 1991, the American people have supported Ukraine’s transition to democracy and a free market economy with over $5 billion in assistance.
senate.gov now where's that paper trail connecting all these cheeseburger subsidies to all these chubsters.
On April 08 2014 05:37 Geisterkarle wrote: Economy? Looks grim I think! Actually for this their best hope could be to join Russia! Sounds crazy, but if we learned anything from Spain, Greece, ... then the "help" from the EU is something that not many people will like ...
On the contrary, the only way forward is to join societies that have rule of law, freeish press and follow rational economic decisions
there are no such societies, its only an image created in your head by powerful media
Not every country is stuck in the 19th century, you should travel more.
well i think France in 19th century was much more comfortable place than in 21th i kinda don't want to test "rule of law" when some french-arab or french-afro will rob me in the center of Paris
If this really represents the general mind of Russians, they have become closer to the Germans 75 years ago than anyone in between. Seems in line with their recent actions too.
Actually I'm pretty sure that pretty much everyone from western countries would have thought like that 75 years ago, casual racism was the norm back then.
On April 08 2014 05:37 Geisterkarle wrote: Economy? Looks grim I think! Actually for this their best hope could be to join Russia! Sounds crazy, but if we learned anything from Spain, Greece, ... then the "help" from the EU is something that not many people will like ...
On the contrary, the only way forward is to join societies that have rule of law, freeish press and follow rational economic decisions
there are no such societies, its only an image created in your head by powerful media
Not every country is stuck in the 19th century, you should travel more.
well i think France in 19th century was much more comfortable place than in 21th i kinda don't want to test "rule of law" when some french-arab or french-afro will rob me in the center of Paris
If this really represents the general mind of Russians, they have become closer to the Germans 75 years ago than anyone in between. Seems in line with their recent actions too.
Actually I'm pretty sure that pretty much everyone from western countries would have thought like that 75 years ago, casual racism was the norm back then.
I don't get the meaning of "casual racism", it can be either racism or not, casual racism sounds the same as jokes around places u born, a friend of mine is from Vietnam, and we have a few of "racism based jokes", but we know all of them are friendish. U just don't have to cross borders at some point.
Antiterroristic campaign is being launched in Ukraine. Again. At the moment separatists hold two administrative buildings: SBU headquarters in Lugansk, and RSA building in Donetsk. Situation in Donetsk has a pretty high chance to be resolved peacefully. The RSA in Kharkiv has been retaken by police special units a few hours ago
Around 30% of Harkiv police are exptected to be fired for their inactivity during the latest events. The Parliament has increased the penalties for separatism and state treason. Tygybko and his group are leaving the Party of Regions.
Are they still just kicking the Russian citizens who are caught with AK-47s or explosives out of the country or are they going to start charging them with something?
On April 08 2014 05:37 Geisterkarle wrote: Economy? Looks grim I think! Actually for this their best hope could be to join Russia! Sounds crazy, but if we learned anything from Spain, Greece, ... then the "help" from the EU is something that not many people will like ...
On the contrary, the only way forward is to join societies that have rule of law, freeish press and follow rational economic decisions
there are no such societies, its only an image created in your head by powerful media
Not every country is stuck in the 19th century, you should travel more.
well i think France in 19th century was much more comfortable place than in 21th i kinda don't want to test "rule of law" when some french-arab or french-afro will rob me in the center of Paris
If this really represents the general mind of Russians, they have become closer to the Germans 75 years ago than anyone in between. Seems in line with their recent actions too.
Actually I'm pretty sure that pretty much everyone from western countries would have thought like that 75 years ago, casual racism was the norm back then.
I don't get the meaning of "casual racism", it can be either racism or not, casual racism sounds the same as jokes around places u born, a friend of mine is from Vietnam, and we have a few of "racism based jokes", but we know all of them are friendish. U just don't have to cross borders at some point.
I guess it's the difference between 1950s and earlier culture, where people honestly believed that people of other races were inferior, but didn't really think about it a lot or make it a focus of their life, and the more extreme and more hate-based racism, where the main point is less "they are obviously worse then we are, but everyone knows that so why bother talking about it" and more "they need to be exterminated or driven off NOW because they take our jobs etc..."
Obviously both are bad, but that does not mean one can not differentiate between them.
Are they still just kicking the Russian citizens who are caught with AK-47s or explosives out of the country or are they going to start charging them with something?
Those resting on the ground have a long list of charges laid against them. How much forgiving the government is willing to be remains to be seen.
On April 08 2014 04:31 Cheerio wrote: By the latest social polls the Party of Regions sits at 6% vote rate, while Euromaidan forces enjoy full support (except Svoboda who dropped quite a bit). "Destroying one's own country" looks like a smart political move. Isn't it, zeo?
Funny how the man leading your polls (if they are to be believed) Poroshenko, had practically nothing to do with Euromaidan. And your glorious Klitchko pulled out. Seems like destroying your own country doesn't pay off.
Klichko would be running for the mayor of Kyiv. He admitted himself he doesn't have the political experience to run for the Presidency at the moment. And Poroshenko was a huge part of Euromaidan, he just wasnt the frontrunner, mainly working behind the scene.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/news.liga.net/upload/resize_cache/iblock/c9a/380_230_2/380x230xc9a01b93ef59c3a442f5b126c8c73a5f.jpg.pagespeed.ic.SYNoJkLAd6.webp)
