|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
@LegalLord
If Russia does not want enemies on its borders, then it probably should stop making them. For centuries Russia has been a major bully in the region. When you try to be on good terms with that country, it sees it as a weakness and abuses that. Germany was Poland's mortal enemy for a thousand years. Now we are on good terms and have a relatively healthy relationship. Change is possible, but requires good will on both sides.
Also, can you give any evidence proving that the USSR subsidized Eastern Europe? You can't even get contemporary data right (saying that the output of the Baltic states or Poland is mostly agricultural and other nonsense like that), why should we trust you in terms of historical data? From what I learned, the USSR sucked its satellite states dry for the most part.
|
On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 16:02 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 02 2017 15:29 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 14:10 TheLordofAwesome wrote: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.
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! 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. 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. 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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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. The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia?
Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press.
|
On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 16:02 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 02 2017 15:29 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 14:10 TheLordofAwesome wrote: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.
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! 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. 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. 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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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. The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press.
I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is.
|
|
|
On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 16:02 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 02 2017 15:29 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 14:10 TheLordofAwesome wrote: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.
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! 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. 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. 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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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. The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press. I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is.
I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different.
In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics.
I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does.
Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves.
It's ridiculous.
|
yes, this becomes at best a "but who is the most evilest!" competition and quantifying the value of <actions, credited or otherwise> is a subjective affair.
|
On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 16:02 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 02 2017 15:29 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 14:10 TheLordofAwesome wrote: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.
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! 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. 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. 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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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. The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press. I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous.
When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is.
We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe.
We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence.
|
On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 16:02 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 02 2017 15:29 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 14:10 TheLordofAwesome wrote: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.
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! 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. 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. 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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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. The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press. I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence.
I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point.
Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever.
|
On March 02 2017 19:32 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 16:02 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 02 2017 15:29 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 14:10 TheLordofAwesome wrote: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.
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! 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. 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. 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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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. The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press. I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence. I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point. Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever.
Yes, there are clearly degrees of free press. They tend to go hand in hand with how authoritarian a country's government is (although not always; freedom of press can be hampered by other things than just government... e.g. Mexico's cartels).
Pointing out that just because the freedom of press in the US is not perfect is not a counterargument to freedom of press in Russia being apalling. Re: Novaya Gazeta, I'd argue that fucking with Mikhail Gorbachev's pet project is probably not something even Putin wants to do, which is why Novaya Gazeta is allowed to exist... within limits: quite a few of its journalists have ended up dead, regardless of whether the paper itself is tolerated.
|
On March 02 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 19:32 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 16:02 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 02 2017 15:29 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 14:10 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
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! 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. 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. 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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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. The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press. I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence. I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point. Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever. Yes, there are clearly degrees of free press. They tend to go hand in hand with how authoritarian a country's government is (although not always; freedom of press can be hampered by other things than just government... e.g. Mexico's cartels). Pointing out that just because the freedom of press in the US is not perfect is not a counterargument to freedom of press in Russia being apalling. Re: Novaya Gazeta, I'd argue that fucking with Mikhail Gorbachev's pet project is probably not something even Putin wants to do, which is why Novaya Gazeta is allowed to exist... within limits: quite a few of its journalists have ended up dead, regardless of whether the paper itself is tolerated.
I'm really not trying to compare the two at all. I'm trying to point out how different things are better for different countries and the world at large. There was less Sunni extremism in Iraq and Syria and less exporting of global terrorism while Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi were in charge. Yes, they had relatively harsh holds over the citizens of their countries, but we were better off for it. I'm suggesting that the same may be true for Russia. To take it to an extreme example: suppressing the press may be necessary to stop some army general from going rogue and getting control of part of the nuclear arsenal or something like that, you know?
|
On March 02 2017 19:50 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 19:32 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 16:02 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 02 2017 15:29 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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. The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press. I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence. I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point. Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever. Yes, there are clearly degrees of free press. They tend to go hand in hand with how authoritarian a country's government is (although not always; freedom of press can be hampered by other things than just government... e.g. Mexico's cartels). Pointing out that just because the freedom of press in the US is not perfect is not a counterargument to freedom of press in Russia being apalling. Re: Novaya Gazeta, I'd argue that fucking with Mikhail Gorbachev's pet project is probably not something even Putin wants to do, which is why Novaya Gazeta is allowed to exist... within limits: quite a few of its journalists have ended up dead, regardless of whether the paper itself is tolerated. I'm really not trying to compare the two at all. I'm trying to point out how different things are better for different countries and the world at large. There was less Sunni extremism in Iraq and Syria and less exporting of global terrorism while Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi were in charge. Yes, they had relatively harsh holds over the citizens of their countries, but we were better off for it. I'm suggesting that the same may be true for Russia. Suppressing the press may be necessary to stop some army general from going rogue and getting control of part of the nuclear arsenal or something like that, you know?
Really?
The lack of free press is what might stop a rogue Russian from nuking the world?
Your desperately stretching for defences so slim you can look right through them.
|
On March 02 2017 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 19:50 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 19:32 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 16:02 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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. The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press. I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence. I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point. Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever. Yes, there are clearly degrees of free press. They tend to go hand in hand with how authoritarian a country's government is (although not always; freedom of press can be hampered by other things than just government... e.g. Mexico's cartels). Pointing out that just because the freedom of press in the US is not perfect is not a counterargument to freedom of press in Russia being apalling. Re: Novaya Gazeta, I'd argue that fucking with Mikhail Gorbachev's pet project is probably not something even Putin wants to do, which is why Novaya Gazeta is allowed to exist... within limits: quite a few of its journalists have ended up dead, regardless of whether the paper itself is tolerated. I'm really not trying to compare the two at all. I'm trying to point out how different things are better for different countries and the world at large. There was less Sunni extremism in Iraq and Syria and less exporting of global terrorism while Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi were in charge. Yes, they had relatively harsh holds over the citizens of their countries, but we were better off for it. I'm suggesting that the same may be true for Russia. Suppressing the press may be necessary to stop some army general from going rogue and getting control of part of the nuclear arsenal or something like that, you know? Really? The lack of free press is what might stop a rogue Russian from nuking the world? Your desperately stretching for defences so slim you can look right through them.
Let me pose you this: did you see the Islamic State coming? Saddam Hussein did.
I suppose it would be better to argue on the basis of economics rather than the extreme example of nukes, since we have some clear evidence that economically things went to shit without some strongman holding control, as various people just ran off with what had previously been state property. I don't know Russia well enough to predict what would happen if the various factions that hold power in that country were set free. I do know that it did not work out well economically under Yeltzin.
|
On March 02 2017 19:55 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:50 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 19:32 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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.
The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press. I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence. I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point. Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever. Yes, there are clearly degrees of free press. They tend to go hand in hand with how authoritarian a country's government is (although not always; freedom of press can be hampered by other things than just government... e.g. Mexico's cartels). Pointing out that just because the freedom of press in the US is not perfect is not a counterargument to freedom of press in Russia being apalling. Re: Novaya Gazeta, I'd argue that fucking with Mikhail Gorbachev's pet project is probably not something even Putin wants to do, which is why Novaya Gazeta is allowed to exist... within limits: quite a few of its journalists have ended up dead, regardless of whether the paper itself is tolerated. I'm really not trying to compare the two at all. I'm trying to point out how different things are better for different countries and the world at large. There was less Sunni extremism in Iraq and Syria and less exporting of global terrorism while Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi were in charge. Yes, they had relatively harsh holds over the citizens of their countries, but we were better off for it. I'm suggesting that the same may be true for Russia. Suppressing the press may be necessary to stop some army general from going rogue and getting control of part of the nuclear arsenal or something like that, you know? Really? The lack of free press is what might stop a rogue Russian from nuking the world? Your desperately stretching for defences so slim you can look right through them. Let me pose you this: did you see the Islamic State coming? Saddam Hussein did.
Stupidest argument I have ever heard.
|
On March 02 2017 19:55 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:50 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 19:32 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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.
The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press. I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence. I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point. Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever. Yes, there are clearly degrees of free press. They tend to go hand in hand with how authoritarian a country's government is (although not always; freedom of press can be hampered by other things than just government... e.g. Mexico's cartels). Pointing out that just because the freedom of press in the US is not perfect is not a counterargument to freedom of press in Russia being apalling. Re: Novaya Gazeta, I'd argue that fucking with Mikhail Gorbachev's pet project is probably not something even Putin wants to do, which is why Novaya Gazeta is allowed to exist... within limits: quite a few of its journalists have ended up dead, regardless of whether the paper itself is tolerated. I'm really not trying to compare the two at all. I'm trying to point out how different things are better for different countries and the world at large. There was less Sunni extremism in Iraq and Syria and less exporting of global terrorism while Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi were in charge. Yes, they had relatively harsh holds over the citizens of their countries, but we were better off for it. I'm suggesting that the same may be true for Russia. Suppressing the press may be necessary to stop some army general from going rogue and getting control of part of the nuclear arsenal or something like that, you know? Really? The lack of free press is what might stop a rogue Russian from nuking the world? Your desperately stretching for defences so slim you can look right through them. Let me pose you this: did you see the Islamic State coming? Saddam Hussein did.
No he bloody didn't. He brutally oppressed his people because he was a dictator trying to hold on to power. Not a good man making tough choices to keep the world safe...
|
On March 02 2017 20:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 19:55 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:50 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 19:32 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press.
I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence. I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point. Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever. Yes, there are clearly degrees of free press. They tend to go hand in hand with how authoritarian a country's government is (although not always; freedom of press can be hampered by other things than just government... e.g. Mexico's cartels). Pointing out that just because the freedom of press in the US is not perfect is not a counterargument to freedom of press in Russia being apalling. Re: Novaya Gazeta, I'd argue that fucking with Mikhail Gorbachev's pet project is probably not something even Putin wants to do, which is why Novaya Gazeta is allowed to exist... within limits: quite a few of its journalists have ended up dead, regardless of whether the paper itself is tolerated. I'm really not trying to compare the two at all. I'm trying to point out how different things are better for different countries and the world at large. There was less Sunni extremism in Iraq and Syria and less exporting of global terrorism while Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi were in charge. Yes, they had relatively harsh holds over the citizens of their countries, but we were better off for it. I'm suggesting that the same may be true for Russia. Suppressing the press may be necessary to stop some army general from going rogue and getting control of part of the nuclear arsenal or something like that, you know? Really? The lack of free press is what might stop a rogue Russian from nuking the world? Your desperately stretching for defences so slim you can look right through them. Let me pose you this: did you see the Islamic State coming? Saddam Hussein did. No he bloody didn't. He brutally oppressed his people because he was a dictator trying to hold on to power. Not a good man making tough choices to keep the world safe...
I'm basing that statement largely on this sort of thing: https://www.dawn.com/news/1303186
more here: https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/cia_interrogator_at_time_of_us
and here: https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/part_2_cia_interrogator_reveals_saddam
Yes, he had his own interests at heart and wanted to stay in control. But he was basically doing us all a favour as he did that. These things are never clear-cut or one-sided or whatever. Do you think that our politicians don't have their own personal motives for the things that they do? They're all doing what they do for the greater good of us? Do you work purely to benefit of the company that employs you, or do you have your own selfish reasons for working?
|
On March 02 2017 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 19:50 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 19:32 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2017 16:02 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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. The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press. I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence. I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point. Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever. Yes, there are clearly degrees of free press. They tend to go hand in hand with how authoritarian a country's government is (although not always; freedom of press can be hampered by other things than just government... e.g. Mexico's cartels). Pointing out that just because the freedom of press in the US is not perfect is not a counterargument to freedom of press in Russia being apalling. Re: Novaya Gazeta, I'd argue that fucking with Mikhail Gorbachev's pet project is probably not something even Putin wants to do, which is why Novaya Gazeta is allowed to exist... within limits: quite a few of its journalists have ended up dead, regardless of whether the paper itself is tolerated. I'm really not trying to compare the two at all. I'm trying to point out how different things are better for different countries and the world at large. There was less Sunni extremism in Iraq and Syria and less exporting of global terrorism while Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi were in charge. Yes, they had relatively harsh holds over the citizens of their countries, but we were better off for it. I'm suggesting that the same may be true for Russia. Suppressing the press may be necessary to stop some army general from going rogue and getting control of part of the nuclear arsenal or something like that, you know? Really? The lack of free press is what might stop a rogue Russian from nuking the world? Your desperately stretching for defences so slim you can look right through them.
Also, I'm not particularly worried about that theoretical rogue Russian general actually nuking us, but more about him selling the nukes for his own personal gain to another rogue entity.
|
On March 02 2017 19:55 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:50 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 19:32 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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.
The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press. I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence. I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point. Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever. Yes, there are clearly degrees of free press. They tend to go hand in hand with how authoritarian a country's government is (although not always; freedom of press can be hampered by other things than just government... e.g. Mexico's cartels). Pointing out that just because the freedom of press in the US is not perfect is not a counterargument to freedom of press in Russia being apalling. Re: Novaya Gazeta, I'd argue that fucking with Mikhail Gorbachev's pet project is probably not something even Putin wants to do, which is why Novaya Gazeta is allowed to exist... within limits: quite a few of its journalists have ended up dead, regardless of whether the paper itself is tolerated. I'm really not trying to compare the two at all. I'm trying to point out how different things are better for different countries and the world at large. There was less Sunni extremism in Iraq and Syria and less exporting of global terrorism while Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi were in charge. Yes, they had relatively harsh holds over the citizens of their countries, but we were better off for it. I'm suggesting that the same may be true for Russia. Suppressing the press may be necessary to stop some army general from going rogue and getting control of part of the nuclear arsenal or something like that, you know? Really? The lack of free press is what might stop a rogue Russian from nuking the world? Your desperately stretching for defences so slim you can look right through them. Let me pose you this: did you see the Islamic State coming? Saddam Hussein did. I suppose it would be better to argue on the basis of economics rather than the extreme example of nukes, since we have some clear evidence that economically things went to shit without some strongman holding control, as various people just ran off with what had previously been state property. I don't know Russia well enough to predict what would happen if the various factions that hold power in that country were set free. I do know that it did not work out well economically under Yeltzin.
So, essentially your argument is that Russia's political, economic, and social integrity is no better than Libya's, Syria's, or Iraq's.
Also, I feel you are conflating two very important points. You are arguing that Russia's essential nature requires a strongman to keep order in the country. I find this argument somewhat plausible. Putin did fix certain domestic problems in Russia during his first term. However, that does not defend in any way the countless covert assassinations, the extraordinary military adventurism, and the constant extremely anti-Western rhetoric coming from the Kremlin. As I have stated repeatedly, America is once again the "Main Adversary" of the Kremlin. We are going back to the Cold War, like it or not. As James Mattis said, "No war is ever over until your enemy says it is. You may believe it over, you may declare it over, but your enemy gets a vote too." I don't like what is coming from Moscow. I think it will lead to proxy war, just like Korea or Vietnam. And as an American male in the 19-25 age range, guess who gets sent off to war at first?
|
On March 02 2017 20:03 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 20:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:55 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:50 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 19:32 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence. I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point. Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever. Yes, there are clearly degrees of free press. They tend to go hand in hand with how authoritarian a country's government is (although not always; freedom of press can be hampered by other things than just government... e.g. Mexico's cartels). Pointing out that just because the freedom of press in the US is not perfect is not a counterargument to freedom of press in Russia being apalling. Re: Novaya Gazeta, I'd argue that fucking with Mikhail Gorbachev's pet project is probably not something even Putin wants to do, which is why Novaya Gazeta is allowed to exist... within limits: quite a few of its journalists have ended up dead, regardless of whether the paper itself is tolerated. I'm really not trying to compare the two at all. I'm trying to point out how different things are better for different countries and the world at large. There was less Sunni extremism in Iraq and Syria and less exporting of global terrorism while Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi were in charge. Yes, they had relatively harsh holds over the citizens of their countries, but we were better off for it. I'm suggesting that the same may be true for Russia. Suppressing the press may be necessary to stop some army general from going rogue and getting control of part of the nuclear arsenal or something like that, you know? Really? The lack of free press is what might stop a rogue Russian from nuking the world? Your desperately stretching for defences so slim you can look right through them. Let me pose you this: did you see the Islamic State coming? Saddam Hussein did. No he bloody didn't. He brutally oppressed his people because he was a dictator trying to hold on to power. Not a good man making tough choices to keep the world safe... I'm basing that statement largely on this sort of thing: https://www.dawn.com/news/1303186Yes, he had his own interests at heart and wanted to stay in control. But he was basically doing us all a favour as he did that. These things are never clear-cut or one-sided or whatever. Do you think that our politicians don't have their own personal motives for the things that they do? They're all doing what they do for the greater good of us? Do you work purely to benefit of the company that employs you, or do you have your own selfish reasons for working?
I hate to Godwin this but...
"Hitler did Europe a favour with the second world war because it ended up uniting us and stopped constant wars from breaking out".
No.
The lack of freedom of press in Russia is not 'a good thing' or 'potentially stopping a worst thing'.
Your seriously just tried to equate a politician working to better the country he has to live in himself or a person working to feed himself and his family with a dictator who brutally murders anyone who dares oppose him?
I'd get a better argument out of Zeo.
I'm done.
|
On March 02 2017 20:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 20:03 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 20:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:55 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:50 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 19:32 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:
[quote]
I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different.
In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics.
I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does.
Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves.
It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence. I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point. Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever. Yes, there are clearly degrees of free press. They tend to go hand in hand with how authoritarian a country's government is (although not always; freedom of press can be hampered by other things than just government... e.g. Mexico's cartels). Pointing out that just because the freedom of press in the US is not perfect is not a counterargument to freedom of press in Russia being apalling. Re: Novaya Gazeta, I'd argue that fucking with Mikhail Gorbachev's pet project is probably not something even Putin wants to do, which is why Novaya Gazeta is allowed to exist... within limits: quite a few of its journalists have ended up dead, regardless of whether the paper itself is tolerated. I'm really not trying to compare the two at all. I'm trying to point out how different things are better for different countries and the world at large. There was less Sunni extremism in Iraq and Syria and less exporting of global terrorism while Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi were in charge. Yes, they had relatively harsh holds over the citizens of their countries, but we were better off for it. I'm suggesting that the same may be true for Russia. Suppressing the press may be necessary to stop some army general from going rogue and getting control of part of the nuclear arsenal or something like that, you know? Really? The lack of free press is what might stop a rogue Russian from nuking the world? Your desperately stretching for defences so slim you can look right through them. Let me pose you this: did you see the Islamic State coming? Saddam Hussein did. No he bloody didn't. He brutally oppressed his people because he was a dictator trying to hold on to power. Not a good man making tough choices to keep the world safe... I'm basing that statement largely on this sort of thing: https://www.dawn.com/news/1303186Yes, he had his own interests at heart and wanted to stay in control. But he was basically doing us all a favour as he did that. These things are never clear-cut or one-sided or whatever. Do you think that our politicians don't have their own personal motives for the things that they do? They're all doing what they do for the greater good of us? Do you work purely to benefit of the company that employs you, or do you have your own selfish reasons for working? I hate to Godwin this but... "Hitler did Europe a favour with the second world war because it ended up uniting us and stopped constant wars from breaking out". No. The lack of freedom of press in Russia is not 'a good thing' or 'potentially stopping a worst thing'. Your seriously just tried to equate a politician working to better the country he has to live in himself or a person working to feed himself and his family with a dictator who brutally murders anyone who dares oppose him? I'd get a better argument out of Zeo. I'm done.
Regarding my mentioning of our own politicians, I'm just looking at it from the basics as detailed in the YouTube video in the spoiler below and then apply that post-modern relativism thing that people talk about when it comes to foreign governments. I really wish I could explain myself better than this. It makes perfect sense for me to look at the world in this way and it confounds me that you don't see what I mean.
+ Show Spoiler +
I was particularly interested in the comparison made between dictators and democracies.
Like, the fundamental truth of all rulers is that they have to appease certain people in order to retain their power. Dictators have to appease only the very few people who are directly under them who in turn suppress the larger demographics and keep them happy enough not to rebel. Democratically elected rulers have to appease a lot of people, but those people still have to be kept happy or they will vote for someone else.
Very different levels (with one form is being easily morally justified, the other not so much), but they operate on the same fundamental truth: keeping sufficient people happy enough to stay in power. + Show Spoiler +Take this reasoning in relation to some previous comments I made: if the Russian population becomes unhappy enough as a result of the press exposing corruption and constantly flinging criticism at the "Russian establishment", and this unhappiness sufficiently affects a Russian general, he might decide to sell off some nukes as an expression of his dissatisfaction (thereby increasing his happiness through monetary means), or other points of instability may arise
So, considering you brought up Hitler, I'll go with that one. If a man points a gun at your family, and you do not realize that its a toy gun, you might perceive the man as a threat and may want to eliminate him. If you consider Hitler's family to be "the Aryan race" and the perceived threat as inferior genes, the same can be applied here: the threat must be eliminated.
Again, very different levels (one easily justified, the other not so much), but the same fundamental truth applies: perceived threats to the family must be eliminated. + Show Spoiler +In Russia, one might say that a free press is a perceived threat to the stability that Putin & the Kremlin provide. In the Middle East, Sunni extremism might be considered the perceived threat. It is important to note that the absolute reality of either statements is irrelevant, as it is the perception that matters and motivates people. In the Middle East, I'd say there was some reality in that perceived threat, made evident by the whole ISIS mess
So when I bring up things such as our own politicians who might also be motivated by selfish reasons, I am just trying to look at it in a very fundamental level. If you apply some relativism to the modern day situations in the Middle East and Russia (which are wildly less horrifying than Hitler), maybe it's not so hard to understand that leaving them alone to work out their own situations is better, rather than complaining about how they work internally or even trying to intervene?
Focus on the things that influence us directly. Such as attempts to destabilize us. From any source - inside our own borders, or outside.
Again, please remember what I was responding to in my original post, which was some criticism against an internal matter of a country outside the EU.
|
On March 02 2017 20:13 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:50 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 19:32 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2017 19:13 a_flayer wrote:On March 02 2017 18:38 maybenexttime wrote:On March 02 2017 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On March 02 2017 16:22 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
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. He is much maligned in the West, especially during times of disagreement (basically it comes and goes) and the perception of him in the Westernlands is generally quite far removed from the kind of leader he actually is. 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.
The last part: I mean, have you ever seen Russian programming to make the comparison to how left-wing comedians treat Trump to how it is in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya is really all that should need to be said here. You trying too whitewash Putin's shutdown of free press is not going anywhere while he is out and about murdering journalists. One doesn't need to watch Russian TV to know there is no free press. I would argue that there is some semblance of free press that is being tolerated by the Kremlin. E.g. "Novaya Gazeta" is quite clearly an opposition newspaper. What is not tolerated is digging too deep and exposing the ruling class for what it really is. I tend to look at this sort of thing in what I believe may be described as a 'post-modern relativistic way' (but I'm not a learned man and may be using the terms wrong). As in, I get hungry if I skip one of my three meals, but in Africa and South East Asia they may have different standards about this sort of thing... You know what I mean? Expectations are different. In that same relativistic way, we have a free press in the west, but there are limits and certain rules to this. For example, if you leak detailed government information to the press they will hunt you down, claiming security reasons. In Russia and the Middle East, they have different standards regarding this, but it's still a matter of how much is exposed and how objectionable it is - and they will also claim security reasons, or maybe stability of the country. And rightfully so, I'd say, from their relativistic situation. Setting people free beyond the bounds set up by those in power in Iraq and Syria didn't really make things better for the population there, did it? Russia was not going down a particularly healthy path either before Putin in terms of economics. I say instead of criticizing the internal functioning of a country, we should look at ourselves. Instead of complaining about a certain country furthers its agenda/protecting its interests, we should make sure our own policies protect our interests (our interests hopefully being a rigorously egalitarian democracy and humanitarian efforts). We can't control what other nations/people do, but we can control what our own nation/person does. Is it in our best interest to support the US? Who invades Iraq and through that, as well as many other actions supported the destabilization of Syria with the help of her allies (Israel and SA)? And then basically lets us deal with the humanitarian mess while it cuts support for refugees, foreign aid and blocks immigration? I mean, holy shit. I'm pretty sure we're going to end up having to feed Yemen and take care of refugees from there as well. The UK is also guilty of this - it supplies SA with weapons so it can ruin Yemen right as the UK leaves the EU and essentially tells refugees to go fuck themselves. It's ridiculous. When people run out of arguments to make Russia not look bad they turn to talking about how bad someone else is. We were not talking about how great the US is for Europe. We were talking about who Eastern Europe is very wary about Russian influence. I probably shouldn't have added that last part, it was an unnecessary extension of looking at European interests. My point about relativism was about the Russian press and Putins harsh control of it. Look at what I was responding to. I think its a perfectly valid point. Still, part of European interests is combating ridiculous attempts from both the US and Russia to destabilize us. The current US administration seems just as eager to break up the EU as the Russians do. Lets look out for own interests, rather than the internal policies of Russia and their lack of free press or whatever. Yes, there are clearly degrees of free press. They tend to go hand in hand with how authoritarian a country's government is (although not always; freedom of press can be hampered by other things than just government... e.g. Mexico's cartels). Pointing out that just because the freedom of press in the US is not perfect is not a counterargument to freedom of press in Russia being apalling. Re: Novaya Gazeta, I'd argue that fucking with Mikhail Gorbachev's pet project is probably not something even Putin wants to do, which is why Novaya Gazeta is allowed to exist... within limits: quite a few of its journalists have ended up dead, regardless of whether the paper itself is tolerated. I'm really not trying to compare the two at all. I'm trying to point out how different things are better for different countries and the world at large. There was less Sunni extremism in Iraq and Syria and less exporting of global terrorism while Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi were in charge. Yes, they had relatively harsh holds over the citizens of their countries, but we were better off for it. I'm suggesting that the same may be true for Russia. Suppressing the press may be necessary to stop some army general from going rogue and getting control of part of the nuclear arsenal or something like that, you know? Really? The lack of free press is what might stop a rogue Russian from nuking the world? Your desperately stretching for defences so slim you can look right through them. Also, I'm not particularly worried about that theoretical rogue Russian general actually nuking us, but more about him selling the nukes for his own personal gain to another rogue entity.
I'm actually not particularly worried about Russia losing control of its nuclear arsenal. The Russian military guards its ultimate guarantors of national sovereignty pretty damn well. Don't forget that Russia has dealt with radical Islamist terrorism in the not so recent past. Nobody in Russia wants to get one of their own cities vaporized by one of their own weapons.
The country to worry about losing control of a nuke to crazy suicidal jihadists who would actually use the thing is Pakistan. The reason is that Pakistan distributed its nukes out in remote locations in the desert as far away from India as possible, in order to best protect the weapons against the possibility of an Indian first strike. The result is that most of Pakistan's nukes are very widely spread along the border with Afghanistan, and I for one have very little confidence in the Pakistani military's ability to guard the things properly. I hope to God that this fear of mine is never realized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
