European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 688

On March 02 2017 04:43 LegalLord wrote:
Dutch elections are in March, yes? Anything interesting in that part of the world?

On February 27 2017 07:56 LegalLord wrote:
And I'm sure the elephant in the room is the question of "what's good for Russia" and if that's why I support the end of the EU. Simple answer is that no, that's not the reason. Whether or not the EU is bad for Russia is a question of where the allegiances lie. If the EU chooses to be a coalition of determined opposition to Russia, then yes, it's bad for Russia and it's best for it to go away. If, as the case actually is, it's a set of nations who aren't exactly friendly but aren't exactly unfriendly, then it's not clear that it would be beneficial. If the question was about the US or NATO then that would be a different story; there really is no peace between the US (or its most loyal Russophobic vassals) and Russia and until we (the US) have a president who understands how to make peace, there isn't going to be (a clown who says he loves Russia isn't going to do that). Trump is going to fail miserably on improving relations with Russia, for one.

On March 02 2017 14:10 TheLordofAwesome wrote:

quoting the whole paragraph because I don't want to be accused of taking you out of context.

I am curious to know who you consider the primary aggressor/instigator of conflict in US / Russia relations. From what you say above, it appears to me that you think that the reason tensions between Russia and America have been rising recently is due to US ineptitude or deliberate US provocation of Russia. However, I may be misinterpreting your words.

I would like clarification on this issue. Thanks!

On March 02 2017 15:29 LegalLord wrote:

That's a deceptively difficult question to answer in that tensions between the two go way back - to the point that it becomes almost moot to talk about who started what. I could point to any number of events or actions by Russia or the US, but that would be a long and fruitless debate. At this point I am content to say that US-Russia tensions simply are, and that a lot of the Cold War Russophobia is alive and well, and Russians think none too positively of Americans either. But I will offer a few specific points of commentary that help explain what I'm trying to get at.

1. Americans, as a whole, are remarkably inept on all matters of foreign countries. You'd have to have a point of reference to see it but it's very clearly and obviously true. The intelligence agencies are staffed with these same inept people, with a few exceptions, and it shows.
2. Following from (1), the US has a tendency to blunder stupidly into foreign conflicts before truly understanding what it is that they're getting themselves into. They look at it from a short-term self-interest and whether or not it works out in America's favor it always makes things shittier overall. I do agree that top-level elected US decision makers in power over the last 16 years have been awful at their jobs. Worth noting is that Bush invaded Iraq, an unquestionably bad decision, against the advice of the CIA. Obama's foreign policy was a disaster in virtually all respects, see below for some details.
3. The US has a few loyal, deep-seated Russophobes amongst their closest allies. Who? The UK is most notable in that it's not irrelevant.
4. The US generally has no understanding of what it is that Russia wants in East Europe. A lot of Europeans may feel as the Americans do but it's far less unanimous. What does Russia want?
5. Under these conditions, there is no realistic chance of peace. Trump saying unusually kind things about Russia doesn't mean much - nor does Obama promising a "reset."

I agree Obama's reset was a failure. Obama's foreign policy towards Russia was a total unmitigated disaster. The results under Obama's watch: the Snowden Operation, other still-hidden moles inside NSA and other intel agencies, Crimean annexation, war in Ukraine, anti-ship and anti-air missiles in Kaliningrad, successful Russian support for their client state in Syria, etc. The list goes on and on.

Trump says unusually nice things about Russia because he is a pawn of the Kremlin, wittingly or not. I guess he could bring "peace" so far as that peace involved capitulating to Putin at every step as long as he had the power to.

Most of the more sane and/or realistic Russian thinkers knew from the beginning that there was no way that Trump, for all his bluster, would change anything. Nor any others. So while Russia may be able to court favor with nations in the EU (which ones?), the US remains firmly in the territory of "consistent enemy." And it shouldn't be a surprise if Russia drops the pretenses and treats it like one.

On March 02 2017 15:57 opisska wrote:



I find your usage of the made-up world "Russophobe" equal to the recent proliferation of words like "islamophobe", powered by the need to mark your opposition with a label that sounds negative and makes the impression of a psychic condition in such person. It's really the same approach as the people who label anyone who disagrees with the policies of Israel as an antisemite.

But OK, being a Russophobe of the hardest kind probably, I'd like to know what is it that Russia "wants in Eastern Europe" according to you? Because as an eastern European, my biggest problem with Russia is that is has "wanted something" in Eastern Europe for a long time. I do not understand why should we ask Russia for permission on our internal matters or let them anyhow influence the development in our countries if we do not want that. I am not saying that the US doesn't stick their nose into matters of foreign countries, but is that really an excuse for our independence to be compromised? I do not subscribe to the idea that just because an expansive country is located nearby, they somehow own rights to my country.

Again, 30 years ago the USSR has been forcefully occupying a quarter of today's EU. That was a bloody aggression if you want an example. Why do you think we should forget it all of a sudden and be BFFs now?

On March 02 2017 15:57 opisska wrote:



I find your usage of the made-up world "Russophobe" equal to the recent proliferation of words like "islamophobe", powered by the need to mark your opposition with a label that sounds negative and makes the impression of a psychic condition in such person. It's really the same approach as the people who label anyone who disagrees with the policies of Israel as an antisemite.

But OK, being a Russophobe of the hardest kind probably, I'd like to know what is it that Russia "wants in Eastern Europe" according to you? Because as an eastern European, my biggest problem with Russia is that is has "wanted something" in Eastern Europe for a long time. I do not understand why should we ask Russia for permission on our internal matters or let them anyhow influence the development in our countries if we do not want that. I am not saying that the US doesn't stick their nose into matters of foreign countries, but is that really an excuse for our independence to be compromised? I do not subscribe to the idea that just because an expansive country is located nearby, they somehow own rights to my country.

Again, 30 years ago the USSR has been forcefully occupying a quarter of today's EU. That was a bloody aggression if you want an example. Why do you think we should forget it all of a sudden and be BFFs now?

On March 02 2017 16:02 TheLordofAwesome wrote:

Russia has in fact "dropped the pretenses" and has done so for some time. The Kremlin today calls the United States its "Main Adversary" just as it did during the Cold War.

Russia was just exposed trying to murder the highest levels of Montenegro's government, likely because it is currently in the process of joining NATO. Possibly this attempt was due to the fact that Montenegro joining NATO would cut Serbia, traditionally a Russian client state, off from the Adriatic completely.

Ultimately, I can understand your argument that the US has made plenty of mistakes in last decade and a half. But Putin's ruthless and murderous aggression has been so blatant that I cannot fathom why you would defend the actions of such a man.

EDIT: To more clearly highlight the differences between the US and Russia: In America, I can say whatever the heck I want about Trump (just look at every left-wing "comedian" for the past 2 years), and no one from the government is going to even show up at my door, much less murder me. The same cannot be said about Russians living under Putin.

On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:

Let me put it simply that if you start with the pretense "Putin is evil and everything he does is evil" then there is little that can be done to convince you otherwise. The coup in Montenegro is an odd thing to bring in, given that I haven't seen the government provide much more than an unsubstantiated assertion that it was Russia.

At this point, though, there's not much that can be done. Look at how the two parties in the US are willing to rip each other apart over the Russia issue. There is no room for better relations at the moment.

Therefore. It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.

This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that "security for one is security for all". As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: "When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger."

These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference -- global crises, global responsibility -- exemplifies this.

Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.

This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community's and the world's agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.

The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.

The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn't happened in world history?

However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

Incidentally, Russia - we - are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today's - and precisely in today's - world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.

On March 02 2017 16:46 opisska wrote:


And here goes another round of "teaching LL how not to behave in civilized discussion": Dissing other people's view based on their nationality is not an argument and does not give you any credibility.

Your final paragraph is completely disgusting and is the essence of the reason why "Russophobia" is a thing - because many Russians actually think in the exact same way. Just because I was born in a small country, I don't get less of human rights, including the right for self-determination. If you disagree with this concept, you do not belong to the modern civilized society.

So now you are going to question the occupation of Czechoslovakia? The tanks never rolled in? There wasn't Soviet army stationed for 21 years in barracks across the country making sure that there will not be a change of regime nor free elections? I have already made a joking remark about how we technically invited the Warsaw pact troops (of which the Soviet part then remained) - I really do hope you are not ready to pull that kind of argument, after Crimea and Doneck.

Even though the troops were not in stationed (at least in such an extent) in the other "Soviet satellites", 1956 Hungary clearly shows you that the threat was always present. Any attempt on self-government was impossible, because it would face Soviet military action. That is what I call occupation.

On March 02 2017 16:49 LegalLord wrote:

I don't mean to be a dick, but this is precisely the kind of conversation I wasn't interested in having. You extrapolated a lot from a snide remark and a half and made the generic "Russia abused us" whine out of it.

Another time, perhaps - it won't do any good to continue this. In the old Ukraine thread I had more than a lifetime's fill of people blaming Russia for their poor, poor East European plight.

And just so you're aware: I always reserve the right not to talk to people who are so blinded by bias that the only possible outcome of talking to them is to start a flame war. 2017, 2016, or on January 20, 2021.

On March 02 2017 16:46 opisska wrote:


And here goes another round of "teaching LL how not to behave in civilized discussion": Dissing other people's view based on their nationality is not an argument and does not give you any credibility.

Your final paragraph is completely disgusting and is the essence of the reason why "Russophobia" is a thing - because many Russians actually think in the exact same way. Just because I was born in a small country, I don't get less of human rights, including the right for self-determination. If you disagree with this concept, you do not belong to the modern civilized society.

So now you are going to question the occupation of Czechoslovakia? The tanks never rolled in? There wasn't Soviet army stationed for 21 years in barracks across the country making sure that there will not be a change of regime nor free elections? I have already made a joking remark about how we technically invited the Warsaw pact troops (of which the Soviet part then remained) - I really do hope you are not ready to pull that kind of argument, after Crimea and Doneck.

Even though the troops were not in stationed (at least in such an extent) in the other "Soviet satellites", 1956 Hungary clearly shows you that the threat was always present. Any attempt on self-government was impossible, because it would face Soviet military action. That is what I call occupation.

edit: LL2017 in a nutshell: make up his own history and reality and then leave because "discussion leads nowhere". Why we still pay any attention to him is a mystery.

On March 02 2017 16:46 LegalLord wrote:
Also, as something of an aside. Not sure why I didn't post this earlier, but Putin made a rather famous speech at the same Munich conference, 10 years ago, where Mattis and Pence this year were trying to convince the Europeans that America would still stand with them. Was a long and interesting speech that is interesting as a tool to line up against current events.

www.washingtonpost.com