NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Quite an interesting point of view. According to this guy the invasion is a direct result of US interventions in UA politics even before 2014 and the West encroaching on Russia's sphere of influence.
Makes sense to me. Full disclosure: I'm a fan of Dave Smith (as a comedian and also an aspiring libertarian politician,) so I may be a bit biased. However, he brings up a few good points about the fact that our government conveniently ignored a shitload of facts when it comes to war(s) in order to paint the correct narrative to include themselves in. It isn't the first time, and I doubt it will be the last. America got to where it is by infiltrating, obstructing, destroying, and denying involvement in any part of the world worth giving a shit about, why would they change that now? Why the fuck would anyone trust us now? I believe US had significant involvement in Euromaiden. I believe they have interests involved in aiding Ukraine in succeeding against Russia. I won't go into Burisma because it touches on conspiracy, which most of this forum is quick to dismiss if it doesn't fit their worldview, but it's pretty evident that many high-powered people in the US had economic or political involvement in Ukraine before, during, and/or after the current conflict.
What's so strange about this concept? I thought most of this was common knowledge at this point. Why wouldn't anyone care to investigate or post personal opinions about a conflict before reading about what lead up to it? Asking for a friend, of course.
Anyway, congrats to the 4 new oblasts being included into Russia. Ukraine won't recognize Luhansk, Donbass, Zaporozhye, or Kherson as Russian territories, so look forward to escalation soon. See y'all on the other side of WW3, I suppose.
Well, the only problem with this narrative is that it doesn't really paint the full picture. Sure, the West did encroach on Russia's sphere of influence but that sphere has been dwindling of its own accord for decades now. One of the big driving forces for Russia has also been the mentality of a cornered dog, where they're convinced everyone is out there to get them so after the fall of the Soviet Union they wanted to keep some ex-soviet countries as a buffer zone. Unfortunately for them the West had more to offer and those countries naturally started gravitating towards it and further away from Russia, despite all their efforts. Obviously the West was somewhat involved in the process as it's beneficial for it and also against its core values to deny countries that want to get closer to it (would look kinda bad if they just waved them away and told them to go deal with Russia instead).
What we're seeing now is a result of decades of cultural and economic changes in central and eastern Europe. I don't think we would have this war if only Russia could for once stop acting like it usually does. Personally I could see Russia vying for #1 spot in world powers with US and China if it also adopted more of a western philosophy and would try to act friendly instead of hostile for a change. It could seriously disturb the balance of power since EU would then flock to it instead of US (it's good to be friends with Uncle Sam but he's behind the Great Water...), there would be possibilities for some great trade agreements that would benefit both EU and Russia a lot and it would lead to them developing much better.
I'm sure you're right in that Russia could genuinely benefit from some more tolerant and open trade agreements and political posturing. Could. Yet Russia continues to act in such a way that both denies the value of and disrupts the legitimacy of the powers "the west." Why do you think that is? I'm not baiting you, I'm just here for conversation.
To be honest, I'm surprised that Ukraine is doing as well as it is on the battlefield in these recent two weeks. It is quite hard to realistically draw up who would triumph in a battle between Russia (who has been preparing for a war against the entire world since at least 1991) or the second largest military in eastern Europe with the help of the US, UK, etc [NATO for short.] I had my predictions on Russia slowly and surely taking ground, but issues with counterattacks in Lyman (and Oskil) are proving to be quite a thorn. I would not be surprised if Russia begins to really stop giving a fuck once their referendums are finalized and begin a true full-war campaign to retake and secure their 4 new areas. I'm hoping for a swift end to this conflict. It's a heartbreaking situation.
Quite an interesting point of view. According to this guy the invasion is a direct result of US interventions in UA politics even before 2014 and the West encroaching on Russia's sphere of influence.
Makes sense to me. Full disclosure: I'm a fan of Dave Smith (as a comedian and also an aspiring libertarian politician,) so I may be a bit biased. However, he brings up a few good points about the fact that our government conveniently ignored a shitload of facts when it comes to war(s) in order to paint the correct narrative to include themselves in. It isn't the first time, and I doubt it will be the last. America got to where it is by infiltrating, obstructing, destroying, and denying involvement in any part of the world worth giving a shit about, why would they change that now? Why the fuck would anyone trust us now? I believe US had significant involvement in Euromaiden. I believe they have interests involved in aiding Ukraine in succeeding against Russia. I won't go into Burisma because it touches on conspiracy, which most of this forum is quick to dismiss if it doesn't fit their worldview, but it's pretty evident that many high-powered people in the US had economic or political involvement in Ukraine before, during, and/or after the current conflict.
What's so strange about this concept? I thought most of this was common knowledge at this point. Why wouldn't anyone care to investigate or post personal opinions about a conflict before reading about what lead up to it? Asking for a friend, of course.
Anyway, congrats to the 4 new oblasts being included into Russia. Ukraine won't recognize Luhansk, Donbass, Zaporozhye, or Kherson as Russian territories, so look forward to escalation soon. See y'all on the other side of WW3, I suppose.
Well, the only problem with this narrative is that it doesn't really paint the full picture. Sure, the West did encroach on Russia's sphere of influence but that sphere has been dwindling of its own accord for decades now. One of the big driving forces for Russia has also been the mentality of a cornered dog, where they're convinced everyone is out there to get them so after the fall of the Soviet Union they wanted to keep some ex-soviet countries as a buffer zone. Unfortunately for them the West had more to offer and those countries naturally started gravitating towards it and further away from Russia, despite all their efforts. Obviously the West was somewhat involved in the process as it's beneficial for it and also against its core values to deny countries that want to get closer to it (would look kinda bad if they just waved them away and told them to go deal with Russia instead).
What we're seeing now is a result of decades of cultural and economic changes in central and eastern Europe. I don't think we would have this war if only Russia could for once stop acting like it usually does. Personally I could see Russia vying for #1 spot in world powers with US and China if it also adopted more of a western philosophy and would try to act friendly instead of hostile for a change. It could seriously disturb the balance of power since EU would then flock to it instead of US (it's good to be friends with Uncle Sam but he's behind the Great Water...), there would be possibilities for some great trade agreements that would benefit both EU and Russia a lot and it would lead to them developing much better.
I'm sure you're right in that Russia could genuinely benefit from some more tolerant and open trade agreements and political posturing. Could. Yet Russia continues to act in such a way that both denies the value of and disrupts the legitimacy of the powers "the west." Why do you think that is? I'm not baiting you, I'm just here for conversation.
Because it is a threat to those currently in power in Russia and they do not have the Russians best interest at heart but their own.
What is it that presents a threat those in Russia who hold power? Politics? Economics? Philosophy?
Quite an interesting point of view. According to this guy the invasion is a direct result of US interventions in UA politics even before 2014 and the West encroaching on Russia's sphere of influence.
Makes sense to me. Full disclosure: I'm a fan of Dave Smith (as a comedian and also an aspiring libertarian politician,) so I may be a bit biased. However, he brings up a few good points about the fact that our government conveniently ignored a shitload of facts when it comes to war(s) in order to paint the correct narrative to include themselves in. It isn't the first time, and I doubt it will be the last. America got to where it is by infiltrating, obstructing, destroying, and denying involvement in any part of the world worth giving a shit about, why would they change that now? Why the fuck would anyone trust us now? I believe US had significant involvement in Euromaiden. I believe they have interests involved in aiding Ukraine in succeeding against Russia. I won't go into Burisma because it touches on conspiracy, which most of this forum is quick to dismiss if it doesn't fit their worldview, but it's pretty evident that many high-powered people in the US had economic or political involvement in Ukraine before, during, and/or after the current conflict.
What's so strange about this concept? I thought most of this was common knowledge at this point. Why wouldn't anyone care to investigate or post personal opinions about a conflict before reading about what lead up to it? Asking for a friend, of course.
Anyway, congrats to the 4 new oblasts being included into Russia. Ukraine won't recognize Luhansk, Donbass, Zaporozhye, or Kherson as Russian territories, so look forward to escalation soon. See y'all on the other side of WW3, I suppose.
Well, the only problem with this narrative is that it doesn't really paint the full picture. Sure, the West did encroach on Russia's sphere of influence but that sphere has been dwindling of its own accord for decades now. One of the big driving forces for Russia has also been the mentality of a cornered dog, where they're convinced everyone is out there to get them so after the fall of the Soviet Union they wanted to keep some ex-soviet countries as a buffer zone. Unfortunately for them the West had more to offer and those countries naturally started gravitating towards it and further away from Russia, despite all their efforts. Obviously the West was somewhat involved in the process as it's beneficial for it and also against its core values to deny countries that want to get closer to it (would look kinda bad if they just waved them away and told them to go deal with Russia instead).
What we're seeing now is a result of decades of cultural and economic changes in central and eastern Europe. I don't think we would have this war if only Russia could for once stop acting like it usually does. Personally I could see Russia vying for #1 spot in world powers with US and China if it also adopted more of a western philosophy and would try to act friendly instead of hostile for a change. It could seriously disturb the balance of power since EU would then flock to it instead of US (it's good to be friends with Uncle Sam but he's behind the Great Water...), there would be possibilities for some great trade agreements that would benefit both EU and Russia a lot and it would lead to them developing much better.
I'm sure you're right in that Russia could genuinely benefit from some more tolerant and open trade agreements and political posturing. Could. Yet Russia continues to act in such a way that both denies the value of and disrupts the legitimacy of the powers "the west." Why do you think that is? I'm not baiting you, I'm just here for conversation.
Because it is a threat to those currently in power in Russia and they do not have the Russians best interest at heart but their own.
What is it that presents a threat those in Russia who hold power? Politics? Economics? Philosophy?
Actual democracy. They want a buffer of authoritarianism, they have said and shown it. Why make up a complicated conspiracy with the americans or west as bad guys?
Is it not clear why people woukd rather live under the flawed democracies over Putins rule? For one thing way less people fall out of windows for disagreeing with government choices.
Okay, so you believe that Russia's largest threat is democracy? That sounds oddly familiar as an American.. there were quite a few nations who were afraid to embrace democracy, and then were on the receiving end of the American military industrial complex. I don't remember many of those past nations being very happy about the US involvement.
Why make up a complicated conspiracy with the americans or west as bad guys?
Not sure what "complicated conspiracy" you're claiming. I'm only citing how my nation has acted upon others for the past hundred plus years.
Quite an interesting point of view. According to this guy the invasion is a direct result of US interventions in UA politics even before 2014 and the West encroaching on Russia's sphere of influence.
Makes sense to me. Full disclosure: I'm a fan of Dave Smith (as a comedian and also an aspiring libertarian politician,) so I may be a bit biased. However, he brings up a few good points about the fact that our government conveniently ignored a shitload of facts when it comes to war(s) in order to paint the correct narrative to include themselves in. It isn't the first time, and I doubt it will be the last. America got to where it is by infiltrating, obstructing, destroying, and denying involvement in any part of the world worth giving a shit about, why would they change that now? Why the fuck would anyone trust us now? I believe US had significant involvement in Euromaiden. I believe they have interests involved in aiding Ukraine in succeeding against Russia. I won't go into Burisma because it touches on conspiracy, which most of this forum is quick to dismiss if it doesn't fit their worldview, but it's pretty evident that many high-powered people in the US had economic or political involvement in Ukraine before, during, and/or after the current conflict.
What's so strange about this concept? I thought most of this was common knowledge at this point. Why wouldn't anyone care to investigate or post personal opinions about a conflict before reading about what lead up to it? Asking for a friend, of course.
Anyway, congrats to the 4 new oblasts being included into Russia. Ukraine won't recognize Luhansk, Donbass, Zaporozhye, or Kherson as Russian territories, so look forward to escalation soon. See y'all on the other side of WW3, I suppose.
Well, the only problem with this narrative is that it doesn't really paint the full picture. Sure, the West did encroach on Russia's sphere of influence but that sphere has been dwindling of its own accord for decades now. One of the big driving forces for Russia has also been the mentality of a cornered dog, where they're convinced everyone is out there to get them so after the fall of the Soviet Union they wanted to keep some ex-soviet countries as a buffer zone. Unfortunately for them the West had more to offer and those countries naturally started gravitating towards it and further away from Russia, despite all their efforts. Obviously the West was somewhat involved in the process as it's beneficial for it and also against its core values to deny countries that want to get closer to it (would look kinda bad if they just waved them away and told them to go deal with Russia instead).
What we're seeing now is a result of decades of cultural and economic changes in central and eastern Europe. I don't think we would have this war if only Russia could for once stop acting like it usually does. Personally I could see Russia vying for #1 spot in world powers with US and China if it also adopted more of a western philosophy and would try to act friendly instead of hostile for a change. It could seriously disturb the balance of power since EU would then flock to it instead of US (it's good to be friends with Uncle Sam but he's behind the Great Water...), there would be possibilities for some great trade agreements that would benefit both EU and Russia a lot and it would lead to them developing much better.
I'm sure you're right in that Russia could genuinely benefit from some more tolerant and open trade agreements and political posturing. Could. Yet Russia continues to act in such a way that both denies the value of and disrupts the legitimacy of the powers "the west." Why do you think that is? I'm not baiting you, I'm just here for conversation.
Because it is a threat to those currently in power in Russia and they do not have the Russians best interest at heart but their own.
What is it that presents a threat those in Russia who hold power? Politics? Economics? Philosophy?
Actual democracy. They want a buffer of authoritarianism, they have said and shown it. Why make up a complicated conspiracy with the americans or west as bad guys?
Is it not clear why people woukd rather live under the flawed democracies over Putins rule? For one thing way less people fall out of windows for disagreeing with government choices.
Okay, so you believe that Russia's largest threat is democracy? That sounds oddly familiar as an American.. there were quite a few nations who were afraid to embrace democracy, and then were on the receiving end of the American military industrial complex. I don't remember many of those past nations being very happy about the US involvement.
Why make up a complicated conspiracy with the americans or west as bad guys?
Not sure what "complicated conspiracy" you're claiming. I'm only citing how my nation has acted upon others for the past hundred plus years.
Yes you are not stating anything explictly, thats the schtick.
Yes regime change by mitary has been an abject failure and did not happen here.
Yes the biggest threat to democracy is dictatorship and vice versa.
1) What schtick? I was inquiring from someone [who isn't you] what it is that keeps Russia acting like Russia.
2) Regime change seems to have worked due to US involvement in 2013.
On September 30 2022 09:40 NrG.Bamboo wrote: [quote] Makes sense to me. Full disclosure: I'm a fan of Dave Smith (as a comedian and also an aspiring libertarian politician,) so I may be a bit biased. However, he brings up a few good points about the fact that our government conveniently ignored a shitload of facts when it comes to war(s) in order to paint the correct narrative to include themselves in. It isn't the first time, and I doubt it will be the last. America got to where it is by infiltrating, obstructing, destroying, and denying involvement in any part of the world worth giving a shit about, why would they change that now? Why the fuck would anyone trust us now? I believe US had significant involvement in Euromaiden. I believe they have interests involved in aiding Ukraine in succeeding against Russia. I won't go into Burisma because it touches on conspiracy, which most of this forum is quick to dismiss if it doesn't fit their worldview, but it's pretty evident that many high-powered people in the US had economic or political involvement in Ukraine before, during, and/or after the current conflict.
What's so strange about this concept? I thought most of this was common knowledge at this point. Why wouldn't anyone care to investigate or post personal opinions about a conflict before reading about what lead up to it? Asking for a friend, of course.
Anyway, congrats to the 4 new oblasts being included into Russia. Ukraine won't recognize Luhansk, Donbass, Zaporozhye, or Kherson as Russian territories, so look forward to escalation soon. See y'all on the other side of WW3, I suppose.
Well, the only problem with this narrative is that it doesn't really paint the full picture. Sure, the West did encroach on Russia's sphere of influence but that sphere has been dwindling of its own accord for decades now. One of the big driving forces for Russia has also been the mentality of a cornered dog, where they're convinced everyone is out there to get them so after the fall of the Soviet Union they wanted to keep some ex-soviet countries as a buffer zone. Unfortunately for them the West had more to offer and those countries naturally started gravitating towards it and further away from Russia, despite all their efforts. Obviously the West was somewhat involved in the process as it's beneficial for it and also against its core values to deny countries that want to get closer to it (would look kinda bad if they just waved them away and told them to go deal with Russia instead).
What we're seeing now is a result of decades of cultural and economic changes in central and eastern Europe. I don't think we would have this war if only Russia could for once stop acting like it usually does. Personally I could see Russia vying for #1 spot in world powers with US and China if it also adopted more of a western philosophy and would try to act friendly instead of hostile for a change. It could seriously disturb the balance of power since EU would then flock to it instead of US (it's good to be friends with Uncle Sam but he's behind the Great Water...), there would be possibilities for some great trade agreements that would benefit both EU and Russia a lot and it would lead to them developing much better.
I'm sure you're right in that Russia could genuinely benefit from some more tolerant and open trade agreements and political posturing. Could. Yet Russia continues to act in such a way that both denies the value of and disrupts the legitimacy of the powers "the west." Why do you think that is? I'm not baiting you, I'm just here for conversation.
Because it is a threat to those currently in power in Russia and they do not have the Russians best interest at heart but their own.
What is it that presents a threat those in Russia who hold power? Politics? Economics? Philosophy?
Actual democracy. They want a buffer of authoritarianism, they have said and shown it. Why make up a complicated conspiracy with the americans or west as bad guys?
Is it not clear why people woukd rather live under the flawed democracies over Putins rule? For one thing way less people fall out of windows for disagreeing with government choices.
Okay, so you believe that Russia's largest threat is democracy? That sounds oddly familiar as an American.. there were quite a few nations who were afraid to embrace democracy, and then were on the receiving end of the American military industrial complex. I don't remember many of those past nations being very happy about the US involvement.
Why make up a complicated conspiracy with the americans or west as bad guys?
Not sure what "complicated conspiracy" you're claiming. I'm only citing how my nation has acted upon others for the past hundred plus years.
Yes you are not stating anything explictly, thats the schtick.
Yes regime change by mitary has been an abject failure and did not happen here.
Yes the biggest threat to democracy is dictatorship and vice versa.
1) What schtick? I was inquiring from someone [who isn't you] what it is that keeps Russia acting like Russia.
2) Regime change seems to have worked due to US involvement in 2013.
3) No. Shit.
Did the Ukrainians want US involvement?
As with anyone who makes deals with the US: either a few people profited or they didn't have a choice. I'm not a Ukrainian oligarch, though, so please take my word with a tiny pinch of salt.
Well, the only problem with this narrative is that it doesn't really paint the full picture. Sure, the West did encroach on Russia's sphere of influence but that sphere has been dwindling of its own accord for decades now. One of the big driving forces for Russia has also been the mentality of a cornered dog, where they're convinced everyone is out there to get them so after the fall of the Soviet Union they wanted to keep some ex-soviet countries as a buffer zone. Unfortunately for them the West had more to offer and those countries naturally started gravitating towards it and further away from Russia, despite all their efforts. Obviously the West was somewhat involved in the process as it's beneficial for it and also against its core values to deny countries that want to get closer to it (would look kinda bad if they just waved them away and told them to go deal with Russia instead).
What we're seeing now is a result of decades of cultural and economic changes in central and eastern Europe. I don't think we would have this war if only Russia could for once stop acting like it usually does. Personally I could see Russia vying for #1 spot in world powers with US and China if it also adopted more of a western philosophy and would try to act friendly instead of hostile for a change. It could seriously disturb the balance of power since EU would then flock to it instead of US (it's good to be friends with Uncle Sam but he's behind the Great Water...), there would be possibilities for some great trade agreements that would benefit both EU and Russia a lot and it would lead to them developing much better.
I'm sure you're right in that Russia could genuinely benefit from some more tolerant and open trade agreements and political posturing. Could. Yet Russia continues to act in such a way that both denies the value of and disrupts the legitimacy of the powers "the west." Why do you think that is? I'm not baiting you, I'm just here for conversation.
Because it is a threat to those currently in power in Russia and they do not have the Russians best interest at heart but their own.
What is it that presents a threat those in Russia who hold power? Politics? Economics? Philosophy?
Actual democracy. They want a buffer of authoritarianism, they have said and shown it. Why make up a complicated conspiracy with the americans or west as bad guys?
Is it not clear why people woukd rather live under the flawed democracies over Putins rule? For one thing way less people fall out of windows for disagreeing with government choices.
Okay, so you believe that Russia's largest threat is democracy? That sounds oddly familiar as an American.. there were quite a few nations who were afraid to embrace democracy, and then were on the receiving end of the American military industrial complex. I don't remember many of those past nations being very happy about the US involvement.
Why make up a complicated conspiracy with the americans or west as bad guys?
Not sure what "complicated conspiracy" you're claiming. I'm only citing how my nation has acted upon others for the past hundred plus years.
Yes you are not stating anything explictly, thats the schtick.
Yes regime change by mitary has been an abject failure and did not happen here.
Yes the biggest threat to democracy is dictatorship and vice versa.
1) What schtick? I was inquiring from someone [who isn't you] what it is that keeps Russia acting like Russia.
2) Regime change seems to have worked due to US involvement in 2013.
3) No. Shit.
Did the Ukrainians want US involvement?
As with anyone who makes deals with the US: either a few people profited or they didn't have a choice. I'm not a Ukrainian oligarch, though, so please take my word with a tiny pinch of salt.
The opposite in fact. Many countries want to deal with the US even if they sometimes aren't the best partner. It's why the US has alliances spanning the globe while Russia can't even get neighbouring countries aligned.
On September 30 2022 11:49 NrG.Bamboo wrote: To be honest, I'm surprised that Ukraine is doing as well as it is on the battlefield in these recent two weeks. It is quite hard to realistically draw up who would triumph in a battle between Russia (who has been preparing for a war against the entire world since at least 1991) or the second largest military in eastern Europe with the help of the US, UK, etc [NATO for short.] I had my predictions on Russia slowly and surely taking ground, but issues with counterattacks in Lyman (and Oskil) are proving to be quite a thorn. I would not be surprised if Russia begins to really stop giving a fuck once their referendums are finalized and begin a true full-war campaign to retake and secure their 4 new areas. I'm hoping for a swift end to this conflict. It's a heartbreaking situation.
They’ve been trying their hardest with this land grab but a fascist kleptocracy does not lead to an effective military.
They lost. Their citizens are not stakeholders in their society and their national resources were spent on yachts.
On September 30 2022 15:39 plasmidghost wrote: Can someone provide more insight on this? Is there actually this high of a chance or are they trying to get more military aid?
I don't think anybody actually knows outside of the highest levels of intelligence/government.
What would nuking Ukraine actually accomplish though? Tactical nukes in the right spot would definitely kill thousands per Nuke(tens or hundreds of thousands if they nuke a town/city, millions if they nuked chernobyl or some other reactor), and sow incomprehensible chaos in Ukraine, but then what?
Nukes as a defensive tool make sense, but as an invasive tool, it just makes an area completely unusable by both sides.
On September 30 2022 15:39 plasmidghost wrote: Can someone provide more insight on this? Is there actually this high of a chance or are they trying to get more military aid?
I don't think anybody actually knows outside of the highest levels of intelligence/government.
What would nuking Ukraine actually accomplish though? Tactical nukes in the right spot would definitely kill thousands per Nuke(tens or hundreds of thousands if they nuke a town/city, millions if they nuked chernobyl or some other reactor), and sow incomprehensible chaos in Ukraine, but then what?
Nukes as a defensive tool make sense, but as an invasive tool, it just makes an area completely unusable by both sides.
Well assuming they would use it similar to how during the first cold war NATO planned to use tactical nukes in a scenario where Soviet Union were invading western and northern Europe, they would use it on large amount of troops advancing or troop fortifications. So that's the best case scenario for them.
Highly doubt that they'll use tactical nukes against cities, if they were to use a tactical nuke, but the idea of actually already using nukes in an invasion is so batshit insane mad that I can't rule that out.
Regarding the probability of it actually happening, I would say is still very low. However some dictators have historically been really bad at accepting defeat, and (also won't stop) do stupid stupid shit that everyone around them knows will destroy their empire and its citizens. Dictators like Francisco Solano López, Karl 12 and Nicholas II.
On September 30 2022 15:39 plasmidghost wrote: Can someone provide more insight on this? Is there actually this high of a chance or are they trying to get more military aid?
What would nuking Ukraine actually accomplish though? Tactical nukes in the right spot would definitely kill thousands per Nuke(tens or hundreds of thousands if they nuke a town/city, millions if they nuked chernobyl or some other reactor), and sow incomprehensible chaos in Ukraine, but then what?
I find this argument somewhat persuasive:
Basically, the Kremlin might view escalation, even including a nuclear exchange with NATO, as a catastrophic, yet welcome "out" of what is currently a sure loss.
Well, the only problem with this narrative is that it doesn't really paint the full picture. Sure, the West did encroach on Russia's sphere of influence but that sphere has been dwindling of its own accord for decades now. One of the big driving forces for Russia has also been the mentality of a cornered dog, where they're convinced everyone is out there to get them so after the fall of the Soviet Union they wanted to keep some ex-soviet countries as a buffer zone. Unfortunately for them the West had more to offer and those countries naturally started gravitating towards it and further away from Russia, despite all their efforts. Obviously the West was somewhat involved in the process as it's beneficial for it and also against its core values to deny countries that want to get closer to it (would look kinda bad if they just waved them away and told them to go deal with Russia instead).
What we're seeing now is a result of decades of cultural and economic changes in central and eastern Europe. I don't think we would have this war if only Russia could for once stop acting like it usually does. Personally I could see Russia vying for #1 spot in world powers with US and China if it also adopted more of a western philosophy and would try to act friendly instead of hostile for a change. It could seriously disturb the balance of power since EU would then flock to it instead of US (it's good to be friends with Uncle Sam but he's behind the Great Water...), there would be possibilities for some great trade agreements that would benefit both EU and Russia a lot and it would lead to them developing much better.
I'm sure you're right in that Russia could genuinely benefit from some more tolerant and open trade agreements and political posturing. Could. Yet Russia continues to act in such a way that both denies the value of and disrupts the legitimacy of the powers "the west." Why do you think that is? I'm not baiting you, I'm just here for conversation.
Because it is a threat to those currently in power in Russia and they do not have the Russians best interest at heart but their own.
What is it that presents a threat those in Russia who hold power? Politics? Economics? Philosophy?
Actual democracy. They want a buffer of authoritarianism, they have said and shown it. Why make up a complicated conspiracy with the americans or west as bad guys?
Is it not clear why people woukd rather live under the flawed democracies over Putins rule? For one thing way less people fall out of windows for disagreeing with government choices.
Okay, so you believe that Russia's largest threat is democracy? That sounds oddly familiar as an American.. there were quite a few nations who were afraid to embrace democracy, and then were on the receiving end of the American military industrial complex. I don't remember many of those past nations being very happy about the US involvement.
Why make up a complicated conspiracy with the americans or west as bad guys?
Not sure what "complicated conspiracy" you're claiming. I'm only citing how my nation has acted upon others for the past hundred plus years.
Yes you are not stating anything explictly, thats the schtick.
Yes regime change by mitary has been an abject failure and did not happen here.
Yes the biggest threat to democracy is dictatorship and vice versa.
1) What schtick? I was inquiring from someone [who isn't you] what it is that keeps Russia acting like Russia.
2) Regime change seems to have worked due to US involvement in 2013.
3) No. Shit.
Did the Ukrainians want US involvement?
As with anyone who makes deals with the US: either a few people profited or they didn't have a choice. I'm not a Ukrainian oligarch, though, so please take my word with a tiny pinch of salt.
Perhaps you should stick your head outside your US media bubble and see just how clueless you are. :<
On September 30 2022 11:37 NrG.Bamboo wrote: I'm sure you're right in that Russia could genuinely benefit from some more tolerant and open trade agreements and political posturing. Could. Yet Russia continues to act in such a way that both denies the value of and disrupts the legitimacy of the powers "the west." Why do you think that is? I'm not baiting you, I'm just here for conversation.
Again, it's a combination of things. Russia has a history of overthrown governments, being invaded and also having grandiose dreams of world domination. It all makes basically every regime there be paranoid, afraid and a bit delusional. They do build a lot of military and think they're strong but most of their recent combat experience was just bullying much smaller countries (and facing actual Western military was just a dream) which only strengthened their feeling of power. Unfortunately for them most of their military is stagnant, outdated and extremely corrupt (authoritarian governments are prone to corruption).
Note however that it's been getting worse recently, in the early 2000's Russia was much more lenient towards their own citizens at least and has been gradually increasing authoritarian tools over the past 2 decades, meaning they've chosen to go this way instead of a more democratic one.
As you can see, their actions and performance on the battlefield are directly tied to all of that: delusions of grandeur, illusory power, insecurity, corruption. When their plan of quickly capturing Kiev and subverting Ukraine in a matter of days failed and the West got involved they have found themselves on the back foot. That's why everyone is also afraid of the nuclear threat because authoritarian governments can only survive when they are able to project strength and power to their citizens. When this veil is lifted even a bit their entire existence is threatened and they can resort to illogical and erratic behavior. Basically, anything to stay in power because history teaches us that once an authoritarian government crumbles nothing good happens to members of the regime.
I like how the author is paraphrasing the famous quote from On War by Clausewitz (recommended reading BTW, much better than Sun Tzu's Art of War).
"war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means"
EPT
(recommended reading BTW, much better than Sun Tzu's Art of War).
