World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
If you're not in the U.S., what's up in your part of the world?
As for Nik's links, as far as I can tell only the last one is relevant. Things like the Helsinki accord was only an agreement but not binding. Those involving the breakup of the USSR actually don't say anything specific to this issue, as far as I can tell. The last one eventually leads to a promise Russia can use the base until 2040 or thereabouts. After Ukrainian nationalists took power in Kyiv, they made no attempt whatsoever to assure Moscow that they would honour that agreement, and all their signals were they wanted to join NATO.Nik, you wrote "They are in NATO for defenses in EU - for money". The last two words tell it all. And you think those in Ukraine would not sell out for a fistful of dollars? The grab of Crimea was simply because strategically Moscow could not afford to lose it. If Kyiv was not seemingly backing far right nationalists, maybe Moscow could have trusted them, but really, when you see the images of that revolution, and the subsequent emergence of things like the Above battalion, Russia simply could not afford to take the risk.
Nik wrote: "Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, Wagner fighters and more. Sure, not the insignia is important, everyone knows a Russian from a mile away, it’s just telling that even Russians themselves don’t see it as a ..."Yeah and all the Blackwater or are they Ze now and all the paramilitary ops doing, drone-wielding regular US army shooting at various Muslim people are not taken into account? Wagner thingy was a copycat from Blackwater, okay?
Nik wrote: "Sure, Mis, I’ll leave emotions to you about how criminal, moronic and whatever Ukrainians are. Nothing of it justifies sending Russian troops. I wonder why doesn’t anyone feel excited about righteo..."I love how you ignored a list of facts proving Crimea being independent from Ukraine and didn't bring up any facts to the contrary. Duly noted.
Ian wrote: "...Russia simply could not afford to take the risk..."To avoid the risk Russia should retake all the republics back, for the fear and hatred towards Russia grows... Good that NATO pretends to being involved, otherwise further grabs wouldn't wait for long. I wouldn't worry about Russia - it's safe as it is and capable to annihilate the planet
There is no evidence that Russia wants to take the republics back. And to know that your basis of Russia being safe is that "We all die" is touching.
Ian wrote: "There is no evidence that Russia wants to take the republics back. And to know that your basis of Russia being safe is that "We all die" is touching."Funny that you say that, when Russia has under military control parts of 3 republics already and NATO is berserk about mounting troops on Ukraine's border again... You like to say that on different occasions, I really start to wonder what's evidence for you
Funny you shopuld say "parts of three republics". I don't suppose one would be Crimea?Asv for NATO being berserk, have you seen a map of all the bases surrounding Russia? Yes, i know, they are all there to defend against Iranian aggression.
Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, Transnistria - Moldova, Abkhazia - Georgia. That’s live evidence. Plus mounting troops on the border with Ukraine.Why you have any evidence NATO is preparing to attack Russia? Patriots battery systems and other anti air is clearly of defensive nature. Nuclear sharing is pretty far away: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucle...
Nik, especially considering you’ve been in hospital, your energy and the quality of your arguments against this unrelenting attack on Ukraine are commendable. Respect to you in the face of extreme Russian aggression.
I’m beginning to wonder if Mis is a Putin bot. She appeared a while back encouraging decadent Westerners to cover their faces with dirty rags to protect themselves from coughs and colds, knowing full well that it would weaken us mentally and physically. Now she has revealed herself as a hardcore Russian nationalist, we know why she put forward those arguments.
To all Russian nationalists, don’t forget who sent you packing during the Crimean War. I like and respect you but no more of this bullying and aggression towards Ukraine.
I’m beginning to wonder if Mis is a Putin bot. She appeared a while back encouraging decadent Westerners to cover their faces with dirty rags to protect themselves from coughs and colds, knowing full well that it would weaken us mentally and physically. Now she has revealed herself as a hardcore Russian nationalist, we know why she put forward those arguments.
To all Russian nationalists, don’t forget who sent you packing during the Crimean War. I like and respect you but no more of this bullying and aggression towards Ukraine.
You deserve a pint of Obolon beer 🍺 and a shot of pepper horilka. Just need Villa to return to international arena to make the voyage 😎
Nik wrote: "You deserve a pint of Obolon beer 🍺 and a shot of pepper horilka. Just need Villa to return to international arena to make the voyage 😎"
Honestly, Nik, I've always been sympathetic to Russia because I believe that the West often handles what is a delicate situation clumsily. The US, and particularly the EU, does come across as unnecessarily aggressive sometimes. As you know, I also quite admire Putin, whom I regard as a personal friend.
However, this debate has been a real eye-opener for me. It does seem like the overall picture is of a big kid in the playground who is bullying the little guy. I hate bullies and now firmly stand behind Ukraine (thumbs up).
Honestly, Nik, I've always been sympathetic to Russia because I believe that the West often handles what is a delicate situation clumsily. The US, and particularly the EU, does come across as unnecessarily aggressive sometimes. As you know, I also quite admire Putin, whom I regard as a personal friend.
However, this debate has been a real eye-opener for me. It does seem like the overall picture is of a big kid in the playground who is bullying the little guy. I hate bullies and now firmly stand behind Ukraine (thumbs up).
Nik, yes, the three examples are where there are predominantly Russians under difficulty. The basic problem goes back to Yeltsin, who preferred to party than do his job. You mentioned a link to th4e breakup of the USSR, but that treaty was not signed by all parties, and as you almost certainly know, any contract not signed by all parties is not a contract at all. The side that signs first in good faith cannot be held to it if the others do not. The breakup of the USSR was essentially a mess. Unfortunately, that meant that the subsequent sortout was going to be messy, and the fact that Yeltsin was too drunk to be bothered, the fact that Yeltsin and smart advisors adopted the Chicago school of economic theory and thought that would endear them to the West were just p[lain wrong.Why does Russia think NATO is a problem for Russia? It knows there is no evidence of CURRENT PLANS to invade Russia, but it also knows there is a pox of US bases around it. What is the purpose of NATO? Why is the US spending increasing amounts of money on the military complex? Quite simply because the US economy can't afford to reduce its military spending because the economy would be in a worse state. That is why Trump demanded the rest of NATO upped its military spending - they would have to buy more US armaments because nobody makes an adequate range, and anyway an alliance has to have much of the same equipment. Yes, a country like Germany or France can make much of its own stuff, but if all NATO ups its spending, there will be an increase in US arms sales.
From Putin's point of view, he has to assume those arms will one day be used. He has to assume there could be another Rumsfeld who wants to use his new toys. If they don't, well and good. But he has, for better or worse, drawn a line in the sand over more NATO bases. He doesn't want Ukraine, although he is morally bound to support Russian in the east who don't want to have to put up with the antiRussian outlook of the Western Ukrainian nationalists.
We are not talking about the same thing. You are talking about the moral threat to Ukraine, and claim some sort of legal position. Putin is considering the strategic position of his country. War has no morality, and as Clausewitz noted, it is the failure of politics. Putin knows Russia has been heavily damaged by Western invasions before, and he cannot afford to ignore future threats. You talk aboput Russian forces deployed near the Ukrainian border as a threat, and claim all the NATO bases around Russia are just peace-loving entities. Putin does not share your view.
I am merely pointing out Putin's view point. I have no view on the morality because my view is irrelevant. I am merely saying that Putin will have to do what he feels best for the security of Russia, and in any interpretation, further NATO bases in Eastern Ukraine cannot improve that.
Ian, Crimea is about 0.15% of Russia’s territory, do you really think Russia’s strategic future depends on it? It has nothing to do with NATO, strategy, whatever. It was symbolic and at the time raised moral of those Russians who favor forceful approach (apparently a lot) and to punish Ukraine. As of agreements, if you’d care to check the links I placed, there are at least 7-8 bilateral and multilateral agreements where Russia recognizes Crimea as Ukraine, some of them signed by Pu himself.
Yeltsin, drinks, whatever - it’s Russian problem or pride. Russia has become a Stalin style state again and it’s quite unfortunate and unwarranted.
I’m sure Russia’s military has different contingency plans, which won’t depend on Crimea.
There is a basic overbearing approach that sees Russia at least the same magnitude as USSR and a ruling mentality (unlike Chinese, for example complex, or European petit bourgeois) of grabbing things by force rather than building or investing. It works inside, where all private biz is subjugated to the state apparatus, and similarly- outside
Nik wrote: "the fear and hatred towards Russia grows" It does not 'grow', it's not a cucumber, it is GROWN. It's bordering on antisemitism but against the Russians. It's information war being waged against Russia and trust me, it does not appreciate it. As I've been telling all along, Russia does not eat first-born newborns, it does nothing other world 'leaders' have not done in the very close past and/or are not doing right now. Shamelessly and w/o any criticisms against them. As a matter of fact, Russia's been quite conservative and reasonable in its endeavours getting its hands only where they demonstrably belong.
Nik wrote: " I wouldn't worry about Russia - it's safe as it is and capable to annihilate the planet"Paradoxically, that's about the only thing that has kept the planet from being annihilated so far. That and some luck.
Historically, if Russia remains the only nukes center, the world can relax: in its >1000 year history, Russia has never attacked unprovocked in some critical way. I couldn't vouch the same way about other countries whose history is one of major betrayals and messes and other less than honourable stuff.
Nik wrote: "Ian, Crimea is about 0.15% of Russia’s territory, do you really think Russia’s strategic future depends on it? It has nothing to do with NATO, strategy, whatever. It was symbolic and at the time ra..."If there are ballistic rockets in there, it about halves the time of their arrival to Russian strategic centers. In fact, Russia would probably still manage to fire off the responce nuclear hit (if shit hits) but it likely will manage to catch much less rockets than if their time of arrival is 2x more. And that would be what we've seen in the israel-Palestine recent military installment: a lot of damage still landing. In case of nukes, it could be critical.Nik wrote: "Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, Transnistria - Moldova, Abkhazia - Georgia. That’s live evidence. Plus mounting troops on the border with Ukraine.
Why you have any evidence NATO is preparing to attack ..."I've explained above why Georgia is not the case to bring up here. Moldova, from what I gather neither. Ukraine is a case of aggression. Ukraine's against its own citizens. Or else I'd like you to explain why you think attacking civilians with a military plane is acceptable behaviour from a non-aggressive country.
Nik wrote: "NATO is berserk about mounting troops on Ukraine's border again"Gosh, it's winter in Russia. And Ukraine's border is on the South of it. Where else should the military train? Norilsk? Murmansk? The border of China? Sakhalin?
Another consideration: why does Ukraine not take its troops away from LDNR? Not enough civilians shot, shelled, torn to pieces, burned, disfigured, dismembered? Pave the way and maybe then Russia's military will consider training somewhere where the white bears live.
Another one: why are all the military bases of NATO growing around Russia? I don't see them cropping up smack middle of Australia or in Peru.
Beau wrote: "a hardcore Russian nationalist"Maybe you should meet some hardcore Ukrainian nationalists to compare. I encorage you to travel. I also would like you to prove I'm a Russian nationalist. Proof? Why do you think so?
Beau wrote: "I’m beginning to wonder if Mis is a Putin bot."Considering you're an antiCOVID bot and Nik is not nearly as in to the Ukrainian picture as he'd like to make it sound so probably is another bot, you can wonder all you like :)
PS Of course I'm a bot which is why I'm actually informed unlike some of my opponents who can't read an irrelevant international treaty but would refer to it until I call them out on it and whose only agument could be summarised in 'Russia's the scary bad aggressor since everyone knows it. Crimea's Ukraine's because we think so. All the countries can do any shit they like but Russia, Russia's not allowed to sit up and mirror any nicer tricks of theirs.'
If I'm a bot then humanity's doomed. I'm off to go start the Skynet, now.
Well, I'm a Russian anti-Hildebeast bot which has been reprogrammed by a consortium of pro-2A groups, cooking supply stores, seed catalogs, woodworking journals, and some guy named Bob.
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Historically, if Russia remains the only nukes center, the world can relax: in its >1000 year history, Russia has never attacked unprovocked in some critical way. I couldn't vouch the same way about other countries whose history is one of major betrayals and messes and other less than honourable stuff."What did the Finn's do to provoke the Winter War?
How was splitting Poland with NAZI Germany moral?
And how is revolting against the Soviet boot moral grounds for sending columns of tanks into foreign nations?
Nik, you say that Crimea has nothing to do with NATO or military strategy. Then why did Putin act this way immediately after Kyiv was taken over by what appeared to be strong right-wingers, judging by the emblems on display during the rebellion. Putin did not try to do anything about the general problem, but he took Crimea. Why? The only reasons I can think of would be (a) the strategic value of the Black Sea port, and (b) just maybe the Crimean population.Russia has become a "Stalin-state" again. Really? Evidence? The gulags are all fired up? Good purges going on? I haven't heard of any. And as for Russia having different contingency plans, of course they will have many plans, but none of them involve making it easier for NATO.
As for this raising the issue of morality, was the Iraqi invasion moral? Take the following quote from the Oman Medical Journal, 2012, e219, "Almost all cancers (particularly lung and gastrointestinal) showed constantly raising trends, especially after 2007. Only cervical and laryngeal cancer had a decreasing trend. Most cancers were predominant in males." I published a letter in "Chemistry World" at the time of the invasion predicting an increase in cancers due to the use of depleted uranium, which burns on contact and makes a fine dust of uranium oxide. The Iraqi desert is a poor place to settle dust into a clay. Is that moral? Was shock and awe moral? Yeah, right.
Nik wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "It is actually sound policy for Russia to keep NATO out when you look at the history and why Russia took Eastern Europe to begin with. Ukraine is vital to their defense interests..."It is in Russian interests to protect its borders. As I am sure you are aware, the only thing that really protects Russia is the fact is it is vastly large. It is this vast amount of territory that protects it. By taking the satellite countries it did, that provided a barrier to protect Russia by forcing an invader to fight through these countries first. Except for Belarus and Ukraine, Russia has lost its western border protection. It has been invaded twice in its history and both times came from the same direction. Germany came very close to Moscow and if it would have taken it, The Soviet Union was done. That potential threat has not gone away. Ukraine provides Russia with a barrier.
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Beau wrote: "a hardcore Russian nationalist"Maybe you should meet some hardcore Ukrainian nationalists to compare. I encorage you to travel.
I also would like you to prove I'm a Russian nationali..."
Sorry, Mis, I was only pulling your leg. It’s been an education reading yours and Nik’s arguments on this thread, as well as the notable contributions from Ian, over at the digital-financial complex.
I might be a Westerner but I’m most certainly not hostile to Russia and don’t buy into the anti-Russian sentiment of the WEF/ Davos crowd, who now see to dominate our politics and media. Russia is a great country and President Putin is by far the most astute leader of the modern era. Just try and be kinder to Nik and Ukraine :)
I also would like you to prove I'm a Russian nationali..."
Sorry, Mis, I was only pulling your leg. It’s been an education reading yours and Nik’s arguments on this thread, as well as the notable contributions from Ian, over at the digital-financial complex.
I might be a Westerner but I’m most certainly not hostile to Russia and don’t buy into the anti-Russian sentiment of the WEF/ Davos crowd, who now see to dominate our politics and media. Russia is a great country and President Putin is by far the most astute leader of the modern era. Just try and be kinder to Nik and Ukraine :)
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "It does not 'grow', it's not a cucumber, it is GROWN. It's bordering on antisemitism but against the Russians. It's information war being waged against Russia and trust me, it does not appreciate it...."Yes, the world is not really fond with Russians. Not many connect with aggressive approach to fight the feeling of inferiority. Experiencing that from the West, Russia freely deliver the same to what they regard as "subordinate" nations, with all that naughtiness for nothing, adding to hatred and aversion among possible friends and brothers-in-arm. It's explicit on the streets too.
Yeah, Russia never attacked throughout its history, sure :) So they are making modern amendments to this peace-loving policy.
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Another one: why are all the military bases of NATO growing around Russia? I don't see them cropping up smack middle of Australia or in Peru...."Because countries want them, they come invited. I'm sure Poles, Czechs and other believe it's the best decision they made. "Invited" by assad Russia managed to set a naval base in Syria. Congratulations!
Ian wrote: "Nik, you say that Crimea has nothing to do with NATO or military strategy. Then why did Putin act this way immediately after Kyiv was taken over by what appeared to be strong right-wingers, judging..."Ian, sheer opportunism, of course, vengeance and desire to punish. The chain of events was that Ukraine under Yanukovitch was supposed to sign an association agreement with EU. Few weeks or days before Putin invited Yanyk to Sochi, gave money and promised more and an announcement came that Ukraine won't sign. Cox and Kwasnevski made a blunder not seeing it coming. Protests ensued, because obviously Ukrainians see themselves in Europe, not with the Russian bear. Peaceful at first it was dealt heavyhandedly on Russian instructions, which resulted in more antagonism. Infusing turmoil, Russia extracted Yanukovitch and used the moment to snatch Crimea. Nothing strategic there. And they are likely waiting for more "moments" to reinstate the empire.
If Brits seemingly chosen a more humane (some would say - weak) approach to not hold foreign/any assets by force, Russia has clearly chosen the opposite.
Russia is not a free country. No free press, no free biz. A king with a personal cult at the helm and a chain of accidental deaths and imprisonments among opposition and dissidents. Enough for "Stalin-esque"?
Didn't understand your chemical part and its relevance to anything.
Papaphilly wrote: "Ukraine provides Russia with a barrier...."If one sees a neighboring country as something solely instrumental, it'll add to confrontational ecosystem.
Nik wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Ukraine provides Russia with a barrier...."If one sees a neighboring country as something solely instrumental, it'll add to confrontational ecosystem."
North Korea plays a similar role. A buffer between China and the US beach head of South Korea.
The Chinese are perfectly comfortable with a mad dog running around loose in their front yard barking at the neighbours. But I suspect that Kim has a direct line to the CCP leadership to vet his policies.
Nik, the "chemical part" was this. When the US invaded Iraq it fired off a large number of shells made of depleted uranium which burns on contact with a solid obstruction and makes a fine dust, and that, in desert conditions, will be around for a very long time. If the dust gets blown up into the air, as it will in a dust storm, it will get breathed in, or alternatively be incorporated in food and ingested. In short, the local population will be exposed to radiation, which, until the dust can be incorporated into rock or gets washed away by rain, neither of which are likely in the Iraqi desert, will hang around and be breathed in or ingested in food for maybe centuries to come. Such radiation causes cancers, and the Iraqis are starting to show the evidence of such cancers, as shown by my link.My point was, what right does a country that happens to have a lot of that stuff lying around from its nuclear bomb-making program have to inflict cancers on generations of innocent civilians just because some politician has his nose out of joint?
I would make one other observation here. I am probably the only one in this discussion who has actually protested against a Russian military invasion (or anyone else's for that matter), who has nearly been killed or seriously injured through doing so, has seen the line not to be crossed, (actually an orange line painted across the ground) seen the consequences of crossing it, and risked my freedom in protest. I am probably the only one who has not exactly seen (because I put a concrete building between me and it when I saw what was going to happen) machine guns used on protestors and seen the ambulances that followed.In short, I am probably the only one who has actually experienced what you all think is wrong, but none of you have ever done anything about it and I doubt any actually really understand.
Thanks for clarifying that. As far as I read, it’s somehow considered legal. It doesn’t sound like it should be and I don’t see how it helped the States in Iraq, since they were victorious rather quick and effectively.On the other hand, as far as I understand you refer to findings of some ‘organizations’. I remember you easily dismissed use of chem weapons by assad despite official investigation’s results, judging by some TV footage that didn’t look right to you… So, I don’t know. I, on my part, doubt your communist inclination and am ready to be one, but your clearly anti American stand begs for some doubt 😎
I don't think that Ian is a commie. Nor does he seem excessively anti-American.I just know from experience that he'll be the first to defend the CCP, when one of us criticizes it.
Likewise, Nik will run to the defense of Israel.
Ian, I must’ve missed the part that you’d done it ‘protest’. If it was, it sounds heroic to me. I’m not joking.I thought you were sort there by accident concomitantly with Russian troops advance towards Prague. Also I do remember that you managed to have a philosophical conversation with the Soviet officer in charge and even bring a heirloom of a Jewish family to London. Even reminded me a story of d'Artagnan and the diamond tags. My respect to all this.
I missed euromaidan but I’ve visited the tent camp of protestors during Orange Revolution. Despite -25 Celsius outside it had a magical air and felt like a truly nation defining event.
Ian wrote: "Nik, the "chemical part" was this. When the US invaded Iraq it fired off a large number of shells made of depleted uranium which burns on contact with a solid obstruction and makes a fine dust, and..."Indeed Ian. Like mines left in fields, etc. But at least they could be cleared.
This is like salting the land.
Ian wrote: "I would make one other observation here. I am probably the only one in this discussion who has actually protested against a Russian military invasion (or anyone else's for that matter), who has nea..."I would have run away (I think). Kudos for having the guts to make a stand and the good luck/judgment to get away with skin intact.
Nik wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Ukraine provides Russia with a barrier...."If one sees a neighboring country as something solely instrumental, it'll add to confrontational ecosystem."
Absolutely. Yet this does have two sides. Ukraine and Russian. Russians might be acting aggressively, but there is historical considerations which does make their moves rational. I am not condoning it.
Graeme wrote: "Nik wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Ukraine provides Russia with a barrier...."If one sees a neighboring country as something solely instrumental, it'll add to confrontational ecosystem."
North Korea..."
I am not so sure how much China controls Kim, but he is useful to their positions. I do agree with your statement about a border buffer. China has their history of invasions also to consider.
Nik wrote: "Ian, I must’ve missed the part that you’d done it ‘protest’. If it was, it sounds heroic to me. I’m not joking.I thought you were sort there by accident concomitantly with Russian troops advance t..."
Nik, the most annoying part of my protesting was to show the locals in a small village how to divide a division. All through the place, road signs were being turned around, and at this intersection I simply advised, during a break in the division, to have someone out there waving the correct way to go. As expected, the drivers did not believe him and they all went down the wrong way. The Division got broken into three pieces at this intersection, and eventually it apparently ended up in five pieces and it took about three days to get it all back together again. (I later had up the last part in an account of the invasion.)
As another protest, driving into Praha (with a Czech flag on my aerial) I was closely followed by a tank convoy. What I found was what I assume was T55 winds 22 mph rather uncomfortable, so I oscillated between 23 and 21 mph, and each time the tank had to try to match to, requiring a gear change and tanks have crash boxes. This driver's double clutching was not that great so there continual graunching noises from the gear box. The only time in my life when a crowd on many thousands lining the road were cheering vociferously for me.
As for speaking to the Russian officer, that was about an hour and a half after the machine guns cut down a rather large number of protestors. Amongst other things, that took self control.
Just to clarify, I am anything but anti-American. I have always enjoyed my times in the US and I find there is a lot to like about it. That does not mean I endorse the activities of the US government at times. (Nor, for that matter, do some of my US friends.) I also want to make sure both sides of an argument are given. To quote George Patton, if everybody is agreeing, somebody is not thinking.
Ian wrote: "Just to clarify, I am anything but anti-American. I have always enjoyed my times in the US and I find there is a lot to like about it. That does not mean I endorse the activities of the US governme..."BAH, your anti-American and your friends that criticize America are anti-American..... 8^)
Bah! That might even convert me if Americans think like that :-)
Currently at the stage of muscle flexing and diplomacy, however in 2022 we might be looking at two major conflagrations, none of which is in the major US focus, on the one hand, but couldn't be ignored, on the other:Russia vs Ukraine (backed to some degree? by US/NATO):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh...
US/Israel vs Iran:
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/i...
Neither look promising. As for the US-Iran talks it looks like Biden's previous assertion that he would find a nuclear deal with Iran has been abandoned, either by him or the negotiators.My guess, on the Iran deal, is there will be increased sanctions but there will not be an invasion. If it is limited to that, nothing much will change other than the economic cost to the average Iranian. If there are military strikes, like bombing riuns, apart from killing some Iranians I don't think the outcome is at all predicatble, but it could get ugly.
Thousands flee as Indonesia's Mount Semeru volcano eruptshttps://www.cnn.com/2021/12/04/asia/i...
While watching the video of people running from the pyroclastic flow, I kept thinking, "run faster." The death toll will increase.
You can't run from a pyroclastic flow - it travels at about 400 mph. You can run during the prequel though. I think Vesuvius was giving signs for a few days before the real event. There were four days of earthquakes and rumblings and two days of eruption before the big bang.
I just caught up on this thread, and I need some help understanding what you guys are saying. But first of all, I think Misery is a troll, here to stir things up and get a laugh out of it. I don't take this person seriously. Next, is Putin not a threat? Just a good ole guy. This guy who once said, "There is no such thing as a former KGB man." I wondered what's going on in Russia with civil and human rights, and this is what I found, if you're interested: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021... If you don't read it, suffice it to say that Russia is not a good place to live unless you toe the Putin line. Bad things happen if you don't. Why would we trust this guy or give him leeway to expand his influence?
Ian, that story about the protest is chilling. Why would you be anything but negative toward Russia?
I want to understand the pro-Russia point of view if you guys want to explain.
Papa, you said, "BAH, your anti-American and your friends that criticize America are anti-American..... 8^)" Are you serious?
Scout, I want to be clear i am not "pro-Russian"; I am trying to analyse from their point of view. The same reason I could talk to a Russian officer a couple of hours after a major shooting event. If you want to understand you have to suppress your emotions because as soon as you start saying "they are the bad guys" that is the end of proper analysis, and the end of understanding. The Russian position is not just to accommodate the West. Remember, there have been three major conflicts against the West in the ;aster two hundred years, and the odd lesser one, like the Crimean war and the Western interference to the revolution. Each country acts in their own best interests.Regarding Czechoslovakia, remember NATO could have had exercises along the border in advance. It was not as if everyone did not have signs it was likely, and the surprises if there was one, was that it had not happened earlier. By not doing anything, not even flying planes near the border, NATO had effectively sent a message that the invasion was OK by them. At the time I was just as upset with NATO as with Russia.
But, Ian, aren't they the bad guys if they suppress free thought and actions in their country? I'm not saying the U.S. is always right, just that we have freedom of expression and action within the law, which supposedly applies to everyone, even the most powerful. I can't think of Russia as a free country; therefore, they're the bad guys in my eyes. I wouldn't want them to rule the world. What a place that would be!
Scout, one of the strengths of the US is its Constitution, and while the rights of everyone have not always been upheld, by and large you do have these freedoms, but they are not always quite as free as you might like. I recall when I was in Samarkand in the old USSR, there were a few foreigners there, and before we quit and went our separate ways we decided to throw a party for the Russians that had helped us, mainly Intourist guides, although one I am sure was KGB. Anyway, we felt a little guilty about having the women have to walk home at about 2 in the morning so we decided to escort them home. The young women could not understand this - the idea that they might be molested walking home was simply not comprehensible to them. Would you recommend young women walk alone through US cities at that time in the morning?
The point is, they were quite happy with their lives. They thought things were really good. There was no crime, They had guaranteed free education and health care, they had a guaranteed job. They did not see the general inefficiency of the economy because they had no idea what Western stores were like. It is not what way I would like to live - it was for them, were they happy, and by and large I think they were .
Scout wrote: "I want to understand the pro-Russia point of view if you guys want to explain. ..."It needs to be understood from the historical perspective. Solely my interpretation and maybe no scholar would agree with it.
After WW2 and through the Cold War - it was mostly an ideological grandstanding: personal freedoms and individual rights vs community approach and collective rights, private property and initiative of the few vs working class domination, equality vs segregation, etc..
After the break up of the USSR and after communists were briefly outlawed in Russia and they turned capitalist, some naively thought the world would embrace them as brothers. For different reasons it didn't happen nor was ever intended to. By the establishment Russia was still painted as opponent. At some stage it sank.
Now, States have inherited an ex- "colonial" mindset. They sought independence but not expansion into empires like most European countries: Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Spain and more... States don't conquer to expand and annex. Europe in the past did just that.
Snubbed by the West and treated savage like and inferior, Russia "pays it forward" to those they consider in their orbit and subordinate. They do maintain an ideology of the Great Russia, an empire, the biggest country in the world, a leader and protector of the Slavic world, and so on...
First they'd hardened things inside, primarily by force.
If States would rather use money to acquire territories like Russian America (Alaska) or like Trump's proposal to buy Greenland from Danes, Russians would rather revert to force. If those around pay tribute in respect and submission, they'd let them enjoy relative independence, if some go rogue like Ukraine or Georgia they'd make them pay.
Turning authoritarian forms the milieu: partnering with other authoritarians like assad, ayatollas, kim, xi and more...
Now, Ukraine is the crossfire. It's not that States care for it, but it's important to keep Russia's at bay. While Russia fears that the free spirit and people's uprising may encourage and spill into Russia, plus they never really viewed it as independent. All of it.
Yes, USSR was invaded by Germany and previously Russian empire - by Napoleon, but currently it's used more as a pretext than any real fear anyone would repeat the same from that direction.
As of US vs Russia their points of friction are mostly regional/peripheral they don't deny each other's existence nor have any territorial disputes among them.. Maybe not the best grounds for a perfect friendship, but certainly enough for a modus vivendi
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
1984 (other topics)Common Sense (other topics)
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (other topics)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (other topics)
Lolita (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Mel Brooks (other topics)Victor Davis Hanson (other topics)
Peter Zeihan (other topics)
Bobby Fischer (other topics)
Jordan B. Peterson (other topics)
More...
Anyway, what's so wrong about Ukraine's submission to Russia but great about the same to the US?
If they want to be indedependent let them be. But if they still need to leech money and weapons and everything from everyone, hust how independent is that?
A strong and sane Ukraine would've been actually cool. But a looted one, looking for a Western warlord guidance is not.