I just finished Bloodlands by Snyder a few months ago. Can't recommend it highly enough.
Russia Discussion
- Thread starter iSparky
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I just finished Bloodlands by Snyder a few months ago. Can't recommend it highly enough.
Even accepting all your factual premises, which I don't, because they are somewhat eccentric, your conclusion is illogical.
Thought experiment: A community is largely self-governing, meaning that there are no police to resolve disputes, no courts, no child protection services etc. A little boy, Oleksandr, has two parents, a mum, Barackella, and a dad, Vlad. They are separated and both want custody. Barackella is psychologically abusive to Oleksandr, calling him "fat" etc. Vlad, in addition to calling him fat, beats the living daylights out of him as well. There is a village council, that governs the village, and its decisions are law. It disallows adoption, as well as children living without parents. As such, it decides that the only way to stop Vlad's abusive behaviours - which are beginning to threaten Oleksandr's life - is to award custody to Barackella.
Just as she is about to be awarded custody by the council, you step in and say "Now, like I said before, we're not debating here if Vlad is in the wrong at all or not. I can find many reasons to prove that Barackella is in the wrong too... I'm all for tackling every single wrong anybody does, but we have to keep things in perspective. Barackella is looking for an excuse to take Oleksandr away."
There's a guy in the newb equivalent of this thread, @Skovoroda . He's a Russian-speaking Ukrainian who lives in the east of the country. He's precisely the kind of person Putin has been trumpeting is terrified of the fascists and needs Mother Russia's protection. Guess what? He fu*king hates the Russian intervention, and he's pissed off as hell about the annexation of the Crimea. he doesn't know a single person who supports the intervention. I wonder if you'd go down there and tell him that he should put up with the Russian invasion of his country, and that America - the only country in the world that can stop Putin from rolling tanks into Kiev if he wanted - has no right to intervene because it bombed Syria, or something.
I'm impressed by the amount of thought and energy that you spent on that experiment, but it's a really poor one. And just to illustrate to you simply how it fails to make a point, I can just tell you: Right, Vlad is the US/EU/Ukraine/whatever you want, and Barackella is Russia.
The only way to try and have an objective debate about it, is by discussing the actual wrongs involved and try to compare them to each other to know which is worse, instead of using arbitrary examples (beating up a child, calling somebody "fat") that don't accurately represent the situation in reality.
As for Skovoroda, I respect everybody here, and everybody's opinion. However we've had the exact same situation (and same discussion) before in the Syria thread, and we saw how things turned out in that thread.
Skovoroda's opinion is definitely respected, but when the West acknowledges that the people in Crimea would (most probably) go for independence no matter how the referendum was held, and when the current Ukrainian PM acknowledges that what the people in East Ukraine want is more autonomy/independence and even promised them to give them more autonomy to try and calm the situation there, I think it's fair to say that a considerable percentage of the people there do actually support the idea of independence.
And no, I don't think Russia has the right to invade East Ukraine, and I have made that clear many times before. I think that would be wrong.
However, will you admit that toppling Yanukovic (the elected president) illegally was wrong too?
It took me no thought and energy at all because that analogy occurred to me quite a while ago, while working with some severely dysfunctional families as part of pro bono work. I'm not a policeman, but I understand that their rule number one in dealing with family disputes is: make sure the kids are OK. It's the same principle here. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan - pardon my French but leave that shit at the door. Let's protect the Ukraine from further territorial aggression before we start bringing up God knows what from God knows when.
What frustrates me about the Putin apologists is how they handwave away the plight of the Ukraine and its citizens. This is the first direct annexation of territory in Europe, from one country to another, since the Anschluss. I have absolutely no idea how you come to the conclusion that American influence is more potent in the Ukraine than Russian influence, that America is the "Vlad" in my example - last I checked, those aren't GIs storming Ukrainian military bases, flying American flags. That's not President Obama on primetime television casually admitting that yes, American military elements are in the Ukraine, but it's ok since "Ukraine is American" anyway, and "only God knows" how it came to leave. That's not the 51st State of the USA that Crimea just became. Seriously, no offence Danny, but quit while you're ahead, before Putin invades eastern Ukraine and you're forced into even more intellecutal contortions to defend this latest outrage.
As for your last point, I will admit no such thing. All revolutions are ipso facto unconstitutional and therefore "illegal" per se, but the right to revolt is inherent to the natural rights of man. The Philippine government traces direct descent from a people's power movement. So do those of Spain and Portugal.
Two things here:
1- You can't leave that "sh*t" at the door. If Vlad is not getting custody, then Paul (who is as bad as Vlad) can't either. And if Vlad can, then Paul can too. (I'm still maintaining here that Vlad is the US).
I think you're now deliberately trying to miss the point. I know you would love to erase everything from the history of everything in the world and start a totally blank page in Ukraine, so you can blow anything a hundred times out of proportion to justify your reaction, but things don't work that way. If you're gonna try to act like a policeman of the world, then you have to have known rules to rule by, and the best way to know the rules is by seeing how you acted in the past (10-15 years at least).
2- What I found very interesting is that in your example you said "protect the kids", you didn't say protect "the house", while when you applied it to the reality, you don't seem to care about the kids (the people/the Ukrainians), you only seem to care about the house (Ukraine), who should get it, the father or the mother? Which in reality reflects the true position of yours and the US/EU. You don't really care about the people, you're just afraid that your enemy (Russia) will get a piece of land that might make them stronger. Something you obviously don't like. Actually deep inside you know what the people want, you know whom the kid prefers, you're just trying to argue that the kid is still underage, and can't legally decide his future by himself.
Since I have already made my position known about Eastern Ukraine, rest assured, there is nothing I'm worried about. I'm not really like you. You calling me a Putin-apologist won't change my opinion (I think I have never even mentioned Putin in my posts lol). It just tells me that you're a bit mad right now. Calm down.
Don't talk on behalf of the Ukrainian citizens. We all know what the Ukrainian citizens in those regions want, so stop kidding yourself.
There is a deep division in Ukraine right now (which was fuelled further by the coup), and you and the US/EU are simply siding with the half that leans towards the West. That's the whole story really. Please wipe out those tears you shed on the Ukrainian citizens.
I know you would not admit to such thing, that's why I said I'm not like you.
By the way, there is no "people revolution" in a democratic country. Just wait for your turn and vote him out if you think you represent the majority (just like Yanukovic waited for his turn until he won). You can't just "revolt" whenever the elected president makes a decision you don't like.
When protests are aimed at forcing the president to sign a deal with the EU, and then when he doesn't, a small percentage of the people (that is nowhere near a majority) topple him by force, even though he was elected democratically by the majority of people (from all parts of the country), then the word you're looking for is "coup" not "revolution".
I don't expect you to say this is wrong though, because it serves the interests of the US/EU, so it's right by default. Wait until the next time a similar thing happens but against the interests of the US/EU and you'll see that you'll call them "terrorists/foreigners/spies/Russians...etc." illegally seizing power and need to be shot!
Oh wait that's already happened and you already said that?
Ok dude. I agree, this is getting unnecessarily heated. Let's drop this and see what happens in a few weeks. If Putin goes ahead with the invasion of E. Ukraine - I look forward to listening to what you have to say then.Who the heck is Paul?
Oh this is a long(er) story.. For another time probably. (in a few weeks
)Oh this is a long(er) story.. For another time probably. (in a few weeks
I look forward to it mate.
Gascoigne was bound to come into this somehow.
8. Russia Claims: Ukraine’s new government is led by radical nationalists and fascists.
Fact: The Ukrainian parliament (Rada) did not change in February. It is the same Rada that was elected by all Ukrainians, comprising all of the parties that existed prior to February’s events, including former president Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. The new government, approved by an overwhelming majority in the parliament -- including many members of Yanukovych’s former party -- is committed to protecting the rights of all Ukrainians, including those in Crimea.
It doesn't deny it but it does simply skip over the question and then gives a general babble about how the government is committed to protecting all rights, something I can't really say they'd know with any confidence.
The news about the Jews in the East is disgusting and deplorable if true and there needs to be a response quickly.
Something I've found a bit strange about some people who actively support Putin (I'm not talking about people in this thread) is their choice of where to live. I was talking to a woman I know on this topic. She was saying about how she's so grateful that Putin is around to help stop the West and the 'NWO', that his 4 hour talk in thing showed how kind and gentle he was, how his words about not wanting to enter East Ukraine was him being naive about the intentions of the West etc etc. Amongst other things.
Yet she spends all her time between the UK and the Netherlands. Strange that...
Sounds about right.
I'm noticing that the people who have come to the conclusion that Russian actions in the Ukraine are remotely legally or morally justified never hold that belief in isolation. It's never just "Putin is right to do what he's doing because I have examined the evidence and sincerely believe that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are under threat." It's always "Putin is right to do what he's doing because NWO." "Putin is right to do what he's doing because the US is trying to dominate the world." "Putin is right to do what he's doing and the media are part of a huge conspiracy to hide the truth from us."
It's a frame of mind, not a good-faith attempt to study the facts and come to a reasoned conclusion.
There are so many people in the world so bitterly twisted and hateful that they would blindly 'befriend' a shark in order to get rid of the killer whale.
This draws so many parallels to 1936 it's eerily frightening.
Germany takes the Rhineland - Russia invades and creates a buffer state in Georgia.
Germany demands concession from the Czech Republic - Russia annexes the Crimea using a ballot as a disguise.
Germany takes over the rest of the Ukraine - Well, look what's happening just about right now.
What will it take for NATO to grow some balls and do something other than writing angry letters stating how angry they are.
This draws so many parallels to 1936 it's eerily frightening.
Germany takes the Rhineland - Russia invades and creates a buffer state in Georgia.
Germany demands concession from the Czech Republic - Russia annexes the Crimea using a ballot as a disguise.
Germany takes over the rest of the Ukraine - Well, look what's happening just about right now.
What will it take for NATO to grow some balls and do something other than writing angry letters stating how angry they are.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27104904
No Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine, not a chance, never ever could it happen.
No Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine, not a chance, never ever could it happen.
This is so wrong on so many levels.
Germany was not attacked by anyone before taking Rhineland back. Russia was attacked by Georgia. Germany took over the whole of Czechoslovakia and the western powers did nothing at all, for they were hoping that Nazi Germany would attack the USSR someday. Crimea has been Russian for centuries now. Germany, and its allies, took over Ukraine (and subsequently got hammered there in 1943) by starting WWII. Russia has not taken but a small part of the Ukraine (a traditionally Russian part) and demands autonomy for the several regions of the Ukraine that have Russian populations (and have been traditionally Russian since basically for ever.
First of all, there was a typo there, it's meant to say Germany takes over rest of Czech.
1) Not attacked by anyone? Are you high? Point out when Georgia attacked Russia please. In the whole of history this has never happened. Apparently firing on hundreds of Russian tanks as they role into your country is considered 'attacking the Russians'.
2) Bollocks. Hitler demanded a concession of the Sudetenland as did the Russians for the Crimea. In both examples the west did feck all. Only in the half year, months, proceeding this event did Germany take over the rest of the Czech Republic, which is exactly what is happening now in terms of the Russians taking over the rest of Ukraine.
3) Again, pot of shit. Ukraine as an ethnic entity has never existed. 'Ukrainians' and 'Russian's' are the same race of people and are ethnically identical. If we're to go beyond the middle ages then Eastern Asians settled there, ie the Huns and before that Scythians were there. Now, ever since 1649 the territory that is known as 'Ukraine' was occupied by the Hetmanate Cossacks, a Russian tribe. So if we are basing your definition on what is Russian, then technically the whole of Eastern Europe pretty much belongs to Russia. Obviously nobody is actually stupid enough to go by this definition because if we did then hell, all of the middle east should belong to one individual state, Germany and Austria should be a singular entity and all of the Arabian penisula should be one state bar of course Israel. Do Germany have a right to invade Poland and take back the Danzig corridor as the majority of the people there are German and it originally belonged to the Prussian Empire? Do they bollocks.
A European Union investigation concluded that Georgia had started the war, but noted that this was a "not proportionate" response to pre-war South Ossetian attacks. It also concluded that Russia did have the right to intervene in cases of attacks against Russian peacekeepers, but did not have facts to substantiate the claimed attack on the peacekeepers. The report further claimed that Russian citizenship, conferred to the vast part of Abkhazians and Ossetians may not be considered legally binding and as a result, the defense of Russian citizens living abroad may not be used as a reason for starting military actions by Russia. The report stated that further Russian advance into Georgia proper had been unjustified. The commission found that all parties involved in the conflict had violated international law.
That is from wikipedia. In any case, who started the war matters little. Russia won, because Georgia (and whoever their backers were at the time) had vastly overplayed their hand. They are doing something similar now in the Ukraine. Some people in the West (read: USA and UK) have a tough time realizing that they cannot rule the planet anymore.
And yes, Belarus and Ukraine will be under the influence of Russia (or direct control) unless the EU takes them in and buys them off (more than unlikely) Even in that highly unlikely scenario, Russia will have massive influence in those countries.
http://time.com/73522/time-vice-journalists-detained-ukraine/
The journalist who was in the VICE videos posted earlier in the thread has been kidnapped by the pro-Russians in the east.
Kidnapping an American/Israeli is not a very intelligent move though.
The journalist who was in the VICE videos posted earlier in the thread has been kidnapped by the pro-Russians in the east.
Kidnapping an American/Israeli is not a very intelligent move though.
Last edited:
The Ukraine crisis is the latest of a long string of antagonistic moves by the US (aka NATO) against Russia. There is the NATO membership of the former Soviet block countries, then the missile shield on Russia's doorstep, now they want to block Russian export of gas to Europe (see this to see how this ties in with Syria also). This is about the US's global hegemony, steamrolling it's way around the globe with no regard for anything other than satisfying the appetite of their corporations, in the name of this democracy!!
The incredible thing about this whole affair is the fact that even after all the 'untruths', 'misinformation', or as i like to call them, blatant lies, told by the US and UK governments over the decades to excuse their murderous rampage, the vast majority of people are too blinkered by their nationalistic bias to call a spade a spade, and blindly go along with the narrative as dictated to them by the media.
Even though I don't believe Putin is the epitome of moral governance, he now represents the only kid on the playground willing to stand up to the school bully.
The incredible thing about this whole affair is the fact that even after all the 'untruths', 'misinformation', or as i like to call them, blatant lies, told by the US and UK governments over the decades to excuse their murderous rampage, the vast majority of people are too blinkered by their nationalistic bias to call a spade a spade, and blindly go along with the narrative as dictated to them by the media.
Even though I don't believe Putin is the epitome of moral governance, he now represents the only kid on the playground willing to stand up to the school bully.
Yeah, Putin is a real hero and a real human being.
Putin gives off the air of being a bit of a bully himself so not really sure he gets to wear the cape in this situation.
It's not what he is, it's what he now represents; an opposition to the so far unopposed superpower. As a government needs the shadow government to ensure it remains accountable, so too do global superpowers. Otherwise it's a dictatorship, but of the entire world.
That's a bit extreme. You call other people blinkered by nationalism but you are so blinkered by anti-Americanism that you end up supporting someone even worse.
I am not anti-American in the slightest. I am anti-imperialist, as I believe in democracy in the true sense of the word and not in this bastardized version they're flogging.
How can you have a democracy, when the media, the source of information on which people form their decisions to elect their leaders, is supported by and thus serves a tiny minority of the population.
We know it is rigged, but because we live a comfortable existence we remain apathetic to our nation's immoral and unjust conduct.
What is rigged?
Essentially what Putin does is okay because it is against the West and the US. Even though much of what you just described about the US is equally applicable to Putin's Russia.
But what does he really represents now.
In govt he is the guy who strangled a nascent Russian democracy at birth so he could roll up their free press and imprison or kill any opposition to him or the oligarchs he enriches with the Russian peoples money? Champion of the oppressed peoples of the world but not if you are gay or disagree with him about how you want Russia run because then its Putin time at the London Polonium.
Those nasty mericans with their EU buddies bullying the world into thinking democracy and free speech are the way to go. Vlad will save us from our shocking fate by funding extremists across Europe, then using fantasy fascist threats as an excuse to send in the tanks and annex parts of other countries whose borders Russia had signed treaties to protect.
That’s defiantly the way to go about tackling the injustice of the US hegemony.
Actually the only side doing the empire building is Putin's Russia. In case you haven't heard, he just invaded and annexed a part of Ukraine. If you're genuinely anti-imperialist, then you should be spending all your time denouncing Russia's neo-imperialist, mafia state leadership.
Russia is not an imperialistic superpower. It may be portrayed as such by the media, but from what I can recall, the only wars started over the past couple of decades involved the US (either as instigator, or supporter).
Essentially what Putin does is okay because it is against the West and the US. Even though much of what you just described about the US is equally applicable to Putin's Russia.
I'll make it simple
One single unopposed global super power = bad
Whether it is called Russia, US, China, or Nazi Germany.
You're going back too far in history. Try two months ago.
Russia doing empire building? Hmmm. Don't know if you're serious or not? If the US had not supported and coordinated a pro-Western coup of the Ukraine a key political and strategic ally of Russia, then this would never have occurred. It was a reaction to US provocation, and certainly not unexpected.
Without even touching on your wider point, even this is wrong.
The greatest eras of human flourishing and prosperity came with the peace stability provided by a single hegemon. Roman times - Ming Chinese domination of East Asia - the Pax Britannica - the American Century.
Of the examples you list, Russia and Nazi Germany were never unopposed global hegemons. China is, depending on the timeframe you're looking at. Whether the American century has been bad for the world as a whole is arguable but an extremely dubious proposition factually.
You seem to think the opposite of hegemony is peace. You're wrong. It's anarchy.
That's actually not the case. Russia's bullying of Ukraine far predates the events of the past few months and is grounded in a Russian nationalist yearning to reclaim the former Soviet empire into the Russian sphere. Ukraine considering western options obviously didn't fit into that scheme, so Putin invaded. Europe and the USA were dragged into this by Russian aggression because they aren't interested in tolerating a manipulative, authorization state on Europe's doorstep.
The ultimate demise of the empires you listed illustrates the fact that prosperity (for the hegemon and his allies) and peace (under the sword) were not enough to stop populations from wanting their liberation.
You misunderstood me. I did not list them as examples of unopposed global hegemons, merely stated that if Russia, China, or Nazi Germany where doing what the US is currently doing around the world, I would be opposing them in a similar fashion.
Thought your response was worth replying to till I read the hi-lighted bit; I really don't know where to begin. Your ignorance is staggering. Do some proper reading on the subject before spewing what you were spoon-fed.
Here's a good piece of reading for you on the history of it all.
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2014-04-16-snyder-en.html
First two points; You're mixing things up already. I believe that was Boris Yeltsin (see loans for shares), and yes that was utterly abhorrent.
3rd point; Russia enacted a law prohibiting any positive mention of homosexuality in the presence of minors. There are over 76 countries were homosexuality is illegal. Russia is not one of them, but many of them are close allies to the US. Media hype.
4th Point; wow.
5th Point; which strictly speaking, it has done. Against an unelected government.
Generally speaking: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...NTERNET?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Putin has further enriched those oligarchs who plays his game while imprisoning or killing those who don't. He lets them get away with anything they want as long as they don't challenge him. They can be key members of his government or officials while pulling in dirty money hand over fist. He has also played billionaire-maker with a number of individuals, including the guy who supervised his plagiarized PhD. Speak out against him though, and it's all gone: money, reputation, and freedom.
Putin has further enriched those oligarchs who plays his game while imprisoning or killing those who don't. He lets them get away with anything they want as long as they don't challenge him. They can be key members of his government or officials while pulling in dirty money hand over fist. He has also played billionaire-maker with a number of individuals, including the guy who supervised his plagiarized PhD. Speak out against him though, and it's all gone: money, reputation, and freedom.
1. Are you seriously going to argue that Putin hasn't suppressed opposition inside Russia and continues to do so?
2, Putin was part of Yeltsin’s govt. His pockets are loaded with the cash he took for playing his part in the rip off. Yeltsin put him into power and favoured him because of the job he had done. You can't condemn Yeltsin's actions without condemning Putin's too.
3. Make your mind up whether you want the US to decide world laws or not.
4. US /Western systems of govt versus Russia system of govt, you choose Russian if you want but you can't hold that opinion without it having the consequence of undermining most or all of the rest of your arguments. It is a nonsense to critique the West and hold up Russia as an example. It is like you have lost all perspective.
5. It has done no such thing. There never was any part of any treaty with Ukraine which allowed for the annexation of Crimea. The exact opposite is true and wriggle all you want on this point, it just makes your argument look ill-conceived , even the deposed former President says the Russians are wrong to annex Crimea and here you are still trotting out the same old propaganda. Next you will be saying there were no Russian troops or that the basing treaty allowed them to invade. It is so obviously wrong that I wonder whether you actually still think this stuff or are you just defending it because you can’t bear to admit you were wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/w...said-to-tie-russia-units-to-ukraine.html?_r=0
Ouch. Pretty sure there are some Russians on the ground, but that's got to be pretty bad press though? Same photos handed over by Kerry turning out to be probable hoax? Lends further credence to the story that the number of Russians in Ukraine is vastly over-estimated. Russia will have it's way with Crimea, manage to pressurize Ukraine in not accepting a deal with NATO by sweetening some energy deals. US and EU will no doubt try to expand their NATO with other regions. Not everything is black and white, US imposed/imposes trade restrictions in Cuba citing a lot of reasons, and still maintain very good ties with Saudi Arabia.
Ouch. Pretty sure there are some Russians on the ground, but that's got to be pretty bad press though? Same photos handed over by Kerry turning out to be probable hoax? Lends further credence to the story that the number of Russians in Ukraine is vastly over-estimated. Russia will have it's way with Crimea, manage to pressurize Ukraine in not accepting a deal with NATO by sweetening some energy deals. US and EU will no doubt try to expand their NATO with other regions. Not everything is black and white, US imposed/imposes trade restrictions in Cuba citing a lot of reasons, and still maintain very good ties with Saudi Arabia.
Apparently the founder of Russia's leading social network was just ousted after he rebuffed the Government's attempts to turn over account information related to various Ukrainian groups. The social network is now apparently controlled by Russia's richest man and a Putin cronie.