Russia Discussion

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).

I'll make it simple
One single unopposed global super power = bad
Whether it is called Russia, US, China, or Nazi Germany.
Russia is an imperialist superpower, they literally just annexed part of another country because they could. There have been wars across the world over the last 2 decades which weren't started by America.


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.
Last time Russia and America had equal standing in the world, there was a cold war that had the world on the brink of total destruction. I don't know why you'd want that again. The world is measurably better because of the fall of the USSR.
 
I suppose if one starts from the premise that America is the Galactic Empire and Barack Obama is Darth Vader, the conclusion that Putin - leader of the country that has literally just annexed sovereign territory from a sovereign nation like he's playing Risk in real life - is "standing up to bullies" is a justifiable one.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The anti-American political hipster brigade are waxing eloquent now, because the "quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing" is to their eyes superficially shaping up as Putin 1, US 0. This is naivete on a stupefying scale. As American power and self-confidence continues to decline, they might start to find that they may not find the brave new world of "liberation" as enjoyable as they had imagined.
 
I suppose if one starts from the premise that America is the Galactic Empire and Barack Obama is Darth Vader, the conclusion that Putin - leader of the country that has literally just annexed sovereign territory from a sovereign nation like he's playing Risk in real life - is "standing up to bullies" is a justifiable one.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The anti-American political hipster brigade are waxing eloquent now, because the "quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing" is to their eyes superficially shaping up as Putin 1, US 0. This is naivete on a stupefying scale. As American power and self-confidence continues to decline, they might start to find that they may not find the brave new world of "liberation" as enjoyable as they had imagined.
:lol: well done
 
I suppose if one starts from the premise that America is the Galactic Empire and Barack Obama is Darth Vader, the conclusion that Putin - leader of the country that has literally just annexed sovereign territory from a sovereign nation like he's playing Risk in real life - is "standing up to bullies" is a justifiable one.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The anti-American political hipster brigade are waxing eloquent now, because the "quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing" is to their eyes superficially shaping up as Putin 1, US 0. This is naivete on a stupefying scale. As American power and self-confidence continues to decline, they might start to find that they may not find the brave new world of "liberation" as enjoyable as they had imagined.

:lol:
 
Last time Russia and America had equal standing in the world, there was a cold war that had the world on the brink of total destruction. I don't know why you'd want that again. The world is measurably better because of the fall of the USSR.
What? By 'the world' you mean the West?
 
So you think the world is worse off because the USSR fell?
Overall probably not that much difference to be honest. But in some areas, it's definitely worse.

By the way, it was the same USSR that helped defeat Hitler. It's not all black or white. Either Putin is angel or Obama is an angel.

Doesn't even matter who is marginally better. The democrats are marginally better than the republicans (and if Putin is a nutter, then so is Bush), but both are important for the US.

I'd rather live in a bipolar world, than a unipolar one where one side goes unopposed getting everything it wants. At least now if Russia does something wrong the US and the EU will be on their heels, but who will be on the US/EU heels if they do something wrong?

Remember, no superpower in the world cares about the rest of the world. They only care about themselves and their interests.
 
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.

:lol: But Putin said on his not at all contrived call in show with his favorite pet that Russia doesn't spy on its citizens!
 
Overall probably not that much difference to be honest. But in some areas, it's definitely worse.

By the way, it was the same USSR that helped defeat Hitler. It's not all black or white. Either Putin is angel or Obama is an angel.

Doesn't even matter who is marginally better. The democrats are marginally better than the republicans (and if Putin is a nutter, then so is Bush), but both are important for the US.

I'd rather live in a bipolar world, than a unipolar one where one side goes unopposed getting everything it wants. At least now if Russia does something wrong the US and the EU will be on their heels, but who will be on the US/EU heels if they do something wrong?


It was also the same USSR who signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. Given your extensive knowledge of all things, I'm sure you knew that too but just forgot to mention it.
 
It was also the same USSR who signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. I'm sure you knew that too.
I'm sure everybody knows the history of WW2 but that was not my point. I'm not saying they never done anything bad, I'm just saying when we're talking about impact on the world, they also had some good contributions as well that we shouldn't deny just because we hated them after that.
 
I'm sure everybody knows the history of WW2 but that was not my point. I'm not saying they never done anything bad, I'm just saying when we're talking about impact on the world, they also had some good contributions as well that we shouldn't deny just because we hated them after that.

I'm struggling to think of what positive outcomes the existence of the Soviet Union had for anyone other than Russian members of the politburo.

I can think of a few negatives; tyranny over other Soviet Socialist republics & eastern Europe, their part in the nuclear arms race, the gulag system, collectivization and that's just off the top of my head.

The only positives I can think of are Sputnik, Sergei Eisenstein and maybe that ballet guy who defected.
 
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.

Putin is a bully. He bullies the minorities within his own country, especially those that don't want to be part of mother Russia (ironic, considering his apparent love of self determination). He bullies the states around Russia.

I've said it before in this thread. Don't let your views on American foreign policy force you into blindly supporting Russia. I despise American foreign policy. I despise what it has done to my region, what it has done in countries I care deeply about. I despise what it does consistently around the world, as the majority of its citizens go happily along, until their army's or intelligence service's next adventure. This does not mean I support Putin or his actions, a man I find sinister and actions I find deplorable. Nor do I have to believe every single theory about Western involvement. Was the West involved with the protestors? Quite clearly now yes. Was Russia involved in propping up a corrupt regime? Not so surprisingly, yes.

The only difference right now is that the US has the ability to bully well beyond its borders, anywhere on the planet. Russia only currently has the ability to do so in its backyard.

So they're both pretty scummy correct? Or is involvement in a sovereign country's affairs only bad if it is the West?
 
They defeated Hitler by throwing tens of millions of lives at the situation entirely out of self-interest. So, uh, congrats.

As opposed to the Western powers who did so solely out of compassion?

I can see why the Russians I meet are pissed off about the Western attitude to WW2, they ripped the heart out of the German army, took the majority of the losses in the war, took the brunt of the damage (except finally Germany) and their role is hugely minimised.
 
Overall probably not that much difference to be honest. But in some areas, it's definitely worse.

By the way, it was the same USSR that helped defeat Hitler. It's not all black or white. Either Putin is angel or Obama is an angel.

Doesn't even matter who is marginally better. The democrats are marginally better than the republicans (and if Putin is a nutter, then so is Bush), but both are important for the US.

I'd rather live in a bipolar world, than a unipolar one where one side goes unopposed getting everything it wants. At least now if Russia does something wrong the US and the EU will be on their heels, but who will be on the US/EU heels if they do something wrong?

Remember, no superpower in the world cares about the rest of the world. They only care about themselves and their interests.

The rather large problem with your statement actually comes perfectly from your penultimate statement. 'At least now if Russia does something wrong, the US & EU will be on their heels'.

The problem with living in a bipolar or multi-polar world is that it sounds sensational in theory. Checks and balances right? Excellent.

Except of course, for those of us old enough to have lived through the cold war, we remember exactly how that turned out (and for those of us who pay a keen interest to history, how it played out even before that). the USSR and NATO had 'checks and balances' against each other. Which in reality meant what? They had all their nukes pointed at each other. So if one of them pushed too far, nuclear war and armageddon. So except for a few stupid moments when leaders on both sides brought the world to the edge of destruction, they contested and balanced each other by funding coups and civil wars in far off countries, in pretty much every corner of the planet. Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South America? No worries, both sides were channeling in money, intelligence officers or troops, trying to make sure their dictator came out on top, as hundreds of thousands died and were displaced. Similarly, back to WW2, the Europeans decided to drag the rest of the world into what was a mostly European conflict.

How did a truly bipolar world work for those approximately 40 years?

I completely agree with your final statement though.
 
As opposed to the Western powers who did so solely out of compassion?

I can see why the Russians I meet are pissed off about the Western attitude to WW2, they ripped the heart out of the German army, took the majority of the losses in the war, took the brunt of the damage (except finally Germany) and their role is hugely minimised.

Well the United States really had no need to be in Europe. We were fighting our own battle against the Japanese.
 
Well the United States really had no need to be in Europe. We were fighting our own battle against the Japanese.

So nothing to do with U boat attacks on American ships, Germany declaring war on the USA and the USA very clearly biding time to ensure they entered war when they were ready?
 
Last edited:
The checks and balances analogy is completely, 100%, misconceived.

In a constitutional democracy, the various organs of government "check" each other, preventing any one single branch becoming too powerful, through exercises of intangible power. Nobody gets hurt when the House of Lords strike down an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional, or where the heads of Congress refuse President Obama funding for some venture he wants to pursue. It's all paper combat.

Applying that logic to the real world, do people seriously believe a Tom Clancy world in which Russia "checks" America in the Caucasus, while American allies simultaneously "check" China in the Pacific, or whatever permutation of the above strikes your fancy, would be in any way remotely a good thing? That's WWIII you're describing. At best, it's a new Cold War which would completely annihilate the interconnected economy we live in. It's 1914 and 1939 and the Napoleonic Wars all over again.

The better analogy is a society with a somewhat corrupt, occasionally abusive police force at odds with various powerful rival gangs - Los Angeles in the 90s, with the LAPD as America and the Crips and the Bloods as Russia, China, etc. The police aren't angels or heroes, but removing them entirely from the scene wouldn't lead to peace on earth between men of good will, it'd lead to a bloodbath.
 
I wouldn't go quite that far naturalized. To many countries around the world, the USA is much much worse than Russia or China and rightly so considering their history in those countries. You can argue that overall their impact is better or 'not as bad' as those other two would be in the same situation (though the cold war would suggest differently tbh) but I would not classify the US as necessarily the 'good one' out of the 3.

Having said that, if I had to choose one monopolar world, I'd choose the US out of those 3. I think I just prefer their films more than the other 2 ;)
 
So nothing to do with U boat attacks on American ships, Germany declaring war on the USA and the USA very clearly biding time to ensure they entered war when they were ready?

Of course they waited until they were ready. Why wouldn't they? Fact is, the immediate threat to the United States was in the Pacific, while a lot of resources were being used in Europe.
 
Of course they waited until they were ready. Why wouldn't they? Fact is, the immediate threat to the United States was in the Pacific, while a lot of resources were being used in Europe.

Nobody said they shouldn't. However, you're attempting to portray American intervention in WW2 as an altruistic event when it was solely self interest, the same as every other nation in the war.

The biggest potential disaster for the US was Europe. To have the whole of Europe under either Communist Soviet rule or Fascist Nazi rule, including both Franc and GB would have been unacceptable for the US.

I'm slightly confused as to what you're arguing to be honest. That the US didn't act in self interest?
 
I wouldn't go quite that far naturalized. To many countries around the world, the USA is much much worse than Russia or China and rightly so considering their history in those countries. You can argue that overall their impact is better or 'not as bad' as those other two would be in the same situation (though the cold war would suggest differently tbh) but I would not classify the US as necessarily the 'good one' out of the 3.

Having said that, if I had to choose one monopolar world, I'd choose the US out of those 3. I think I just prefer their films more than the other 2 ;)

I disagree. For better or for worse, America is unique in the history of this world in being a superpower with at least a notional commitment to ideals that transcend "why? Because f*ck you, that's why." Many times, America has let its commitment to ideals it purports to hold dear down. Many times, America has acted in ways Americans should be ashamed of. But equally, many times, America has acted in ways that bear no relationship to self-interest - Somalia, Kosovo, Haiti.

If you feel the execution of these operations was flawed, if you feel America went too far or did too little, fine. But in their wildest dreams, can anyone imagine Putinist Russia even being in the slightest bit moved to give a flying shit about something that didn't suit the KGB worldview he exists in? Can anyone imagine China doing anything that wasn't finely calculated to the nth degree to further their own national interest? The latter are the only reason North Korea still exists! They truly are the Bloods and the Crips of geopolitics - neither believe in anything beyond the laws of the jungle.
 
I disagree. For better or for worse, America is unique in the history of this world in being a superpower with at least a notional commitment to ideals that transcend "why? Because f*ck you, that's why." Many times, America has let its commitment to ideals it purports to hold dear down. Many times, America has acted in ways Americans should be ashamed of. But equally, many times, America has acted in ways that bear no relationship to self-interest - Somalia, Kosovo, Haiti.

If you feel the execution of these operations was flawed, if you feel America went too far or did too little, fine. But in their wildest dreams, can anyone imagine Putinist Russia even being in the slightest bit moved to give a flying shit about something that didn't suit the KGB worldview he exists in? Can anyone imagine China doing anything that wasn't finely calculated to the nth degree to further their own national interest? The latter are the only reason North Korea still exists! They truly are the Bloods and the Crips of geopolitics - neither believe in anything beyond the laws of the jungle.

I'm not sure where we're disagreeing on the 2nd paragraph, we've both said if we were to live under a hegemon, we would both prefer the US over Russia or China.

My point was that in some countries, the residents would unsurprisingly not really agree. I wouldn't be too eager to try to convince an Iraqi or Vietnamese or Laotian that America acts with a notional commitment to ideals above self-interest.

Which Haitian adventure are you referring to here?
 
I disagree. For better or for worse, America is unique in the history of this world in being a superpower with at least a notional commitment to ideals that transcend "why? Because f*ck you, that's why." Many times, America has let its commitment to ideals it purports to hold dear down. Many times, America has acted in ways Americans should be ashamed of. But equally, many times, America has acted in ways that bear no relationship to self-interest - Somalia, Kosovo, Haiti.
You must be forking joking. Even George Kennan was honest enough to acknowledge that US foreign policy was all about self-interest,
 
North Korea v's South Korea. East Germany v's West Germany. If you got to choose the nation you lose a war with there isn't really a choice.
 
Thread too serious, need humor.

putin-palin.jpg
foxnews-putin-nobel.jpg
 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...aratists-european-observers-captive-slavyansk

Pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine were holding a group of European military observers in the city of Slavyansk on Friday night, claiming they had been travelling with a spy for the Kiev government.

The group was operating under the mandate of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and comprised four Germans, a Pole, a Dane, a Swede and a Czech officer. According to the Ukrainian interior ministry, they were being escorted by five members of the Ukrainian armed forces when their bus was seized by separatists.

The ministry said it believed they were being held in the state security service (SBU) building in Slavyansk, which is being occupied by separatists led by a militant leader, Vyacheslav Ponomarev, who has declared himself the city's mayor.

Ponomarev told journalists: "It was reported to me that among them was an employee of the Kiev secret military staff … People who come here as observers for the European community bringing with them a real spy – that is inappropriate."

The detention came as the US, UK, France, Germany and Italy threatened Russia with new sanctions, accusing Moscow of stoking tensions in eastern Ukraine with bellicose rhetoric and military manoeuvres on the border.

The new sanctions would take the form of an expansion in the list of prominent Russian individuals and companies accused of direct involvement in Moscow's intervention in Ukraine and subject to visa bans and asset freezes. The EU list has been provisionally enlarged from 33 names to about 50, but it will only take effect once it has been approved by all member states. A foreign ministers' meeting is expected next week to debate the Ukraine crisis and make a final decision on the list.

It was not clear on Friday night when new US sanctions would be implemented. The White House said further steps would be taken in consultation with G7 and EU leaders. It was also not immediately clear whether the two G7 leaders not involved in the call, Canada's Stephen Harper and Japan's Shinzo Abe, had already been consulted separately.

The sanctions threat came after a conference call between Barack Obama – during a visit to Seoul – David Cameron, François Hollande, Angela Merkel and Matteo Renzi.

"The leaders also agreed that Russia had not reciprocated – including by not publicly supporting the Geneva accord, nor calling on armed militant groups to lay down their arms and leave the government buildings they've occupied – and had in fact continued to escalate the situation through its increasingly concerning rhetoric and threatening military exercises on Ukraine's border," a White House statement said.

"The president noted that the United States is prepared to impose targeted sanctions to respond to Russia's latest actions."

Downing Street said the leaders had condemned "the absence of any efforts on the part of Russia to support the implementation of the Geneva agreement, and the further efforts to destabilise Ukraine".

The detained European observers were working for a small German-led military monitoring mission invited into the country by the Kiev government under an OSCE mandate. They report back directly to their national capitals, rather than to OSCE headquarters in Vienna.

Simon Ostrovsky, an American journalist from Vice News who was detained for four days in the same building as the monitors, gave a grim account of conditions. "On Monday night I was pulled out of a car at a checkpoint, then blindfolded, beaten, and tied up with tape. After spending hours alone on the floor of a damp cell with my hands tied behind my back and a hat pulled over my eyes, I was led into a room where I was accused of working for the CIA, FBI and Right Sector, the Ukrainian ultranationalist group," he wrote. "When I refused to give the password to my laptop, I was smacked in the arm with a truncheon. When I was asleep on the floor, masked men came to wake me up and tell me how no one would miss me if I died, and then kicked me in the ribs as they left."

He said he saw a dozen other detainees in the cellar, including Artyom Deyneha, a local computer programmer, Serhiy Lefter, a freelance journalist and Vadim Sukhonos, a deputy in the city council.

Ukraine announced it was launching the second phase of its "anti-terrorist operation" in the east of the country, designed to squeeze out separatist rebels from Slavyansk. The interior minister, Arsen Avakov, denied claims he had suspended the operation on Thursday because of the growing threat of Russian invasion.

A column of Ukrainian armoured vehicles flattened several checkpoints on the outskirts of the town, only to retreat. Avakov said on Facebook his troops had shown restraint in order to minimise risks to the "peaceful population".



Ukrainian officials said the latest operation was designed to encircle Slavyansk, the de facto rebel capital, controlled by heavily-armed pro-Russian gunmen. They said the "terrorists" inside the town – with a population of 120,000 – had hidden themselves in kindergartens and hospitals. Ukrainian forces would not try to weed them out because of the obvious risk of civilian casualties, they said.

There were few signs, however, that this blockade was real. Ukrainian forces maintained a checkpoint, set up on Thursday, some six miles east of the town, along a forest road. Several buses carrying troops arrived to the north. But there was no Ukrainian army presence on the main route between Donetsk, the regional capital, and Slavyansk. The separatists remained dug in at a key southern entrance over a bridge, as well as other entry points.

The body of a second person found tortured near Slavyansk was identified on Friday as Yuriy Popravko, a 19-year-old Kiev student and Maidan activist. He was found dumped next to Vladimir Rybak, a city councillor from the town of Horlivka, and a prominent opponent of separatism. Rybak was abducted shortly after trying to push his way into Horlivka city hall and remove the "Donetsk People's Republic" flag. Kiev says it has intercepts showing that Slavyansk's self-appointed mayor Vyacheslav Ponomarev was involved in Rybak's murder.

Popravko disappeared on 16 April, after apparently travelling to Kharkiv in the east of Ukraine to see his girlfriend. According to Vesti newspaper, his relatives are trying to retrieve his body from Slavyansk's pro-Russian militia, so far without success. Gruesome photos circulating on the internet show that Rybak and Popravko were tortured then drowned.

On Friday, meanwhile, at an airfield in Kramatorsk, 9 miles away, a Ukrainian military helicopter caught fire. Pro-Russian militants issued a statement saying they had shot it. Black and grey smoke billowed above the base, recaptured by Ukrainian forces last week. Defence officials in Kiev confirmed that a sniper had hit the fuel-tank, causing the Mi-8 helicopter to explode. The pilot managed to escape, they said.
 
Why would Ukraine supply free power to a territory that is now claimed and run by Russia ? How are the two situations in any way analogous ?
 
They defeated Hitler by throwing tens of millions of lives at the situation entirely out of self-interest. So, uh, congrats.

Soviet Union lost around 28 million lives in WW2. Some things should be taken very seriously, no matter what your opinion of the country or their government is.
 
Why would Ukraine supply free power to a territory that is now claimed and run by Russia ? How are the two situations in any way analogous ?

So you think, it's fine, then? Not that I'm surprised.

Following your logic, why should Russia continue supplying Ukraine with gas, if they stopped paying long time ago, accumulated a huge 2 billion dollar debt and show no intent of paying it off?
 
So you think, it's fine, then? Not that I'm surprised.

Following your logic, why should Russia continue supplying Ukraine with gas, if they stopped paying long time ago, accumulated a huge 2 billion dollar debt and show no intent of paying it off?

The situations aren't analogous as Russia invaded and annexed Crimea thereby voiding the Kharkov agreement (Black Sea fleet rights in Sevastopol in exchange for cash and reduced gas), and are now demanding money for something that was voided by their own invasion. If that isn't utterly laughable then I don't know what is.

On the other hand, is Ukraine bound by any agreement to supply Russian occupied land with electricity ? I doubt there is any such agreement.
 
The situations aren't analogous as Russia invaded and annexed Crimea thereby voiding the Kharkov agreement (Black Sea fleet rights in Sevastopol in exchange for cash and reduced gas), and are now demanding money for something that was voided by their own invasion. If that isn't utterly laughable then I don't know what is.

On the other hand, is Ukraine bound by any agreement to supply Russian occupied land with electricity ? I doubt there is any such agreement.

You're right, the situations aren't similar.

Crimea is actually paying for the water they aren't getting.
 
The world needs a policeman, but it doesnt have one. It has a powerful guy who picks his battles based on where he can gain most for himself, or where he can hinder other people from becoming as powerful as himself.

While I take your point, are there not many people who hold similar, or worse, opinions of the LAPD, particularly during its absolute nadir of the Rampart CRASH scandals in the 90s and so on? And yet, would those people genuinely prefer a world in which the LAPD disappeared, or was brought down to a level of influence on the streets comparable with any other street gang like the Crips and the Bloods?

We need to be careful not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Not everybody shares my opinion of America's fundamentally positive nature, are more struck by its crimes (which are many, particularly under its Republican presidents) than its contributions - I can accept that. But we don't get perfect worlds, just like we don't get perfect cops. We get "good enough", and we have to make do.