Russia Discussion

[711]

Your point about hypocrisy is well taken. The US usually gets its way because its the world's most powerful nation, and therefore sets the agenda around the world, usually with multilateral support. Whether we like it or not, in the end its all about power and ideas and the actor at the top of the pecking order gets to call the shots. In this case Russia is challenging that order and is getting a harsh reminder that its only the 9th most powerful country in the world.

And this is supposed to convince people to support you? You must not care if it will make them like you, fair enough, but I assume you are looking for support just by the fact you are posting.

It seems more and more to me that American strategists don't even try to think about the effect of their policies beyond the next week. Let's ignore the obvious danger of military escalation and all the additional deaths and misery that would bring, let's look at the economic effects of mass sanctions. Firstly Europe would be pushed into deep recession, the US less so, but it would not be immune to the fall-out either. Then Russia, having no markets for it's commodities in the West, would have to undercut everybody to sell to China and India, bringing them closer together, with the risk even of outright alliance.

The US hawks should start to wonder why so much of what they've advocated in the world has turned to shite, and maybe put some of their energy and ability into looking for non-confrontational solutions to the world problems.

 

[Raoul]

And this is supposed to convince people to support you? You must not care if it will make them like you, fair enough, but I assume you are looking for support just by the fact you are posting.

It seems more and more to me that American strategists don't even try to think about the effect of their policies beyond the next week. Let's ignore the obvious danger of military escalation and all the additional deaths and misery that would bring, let's look at the economic effects of mass sanctions. Firstly Europe would be pushed into deep recession, the US less so, but it would not be immune to the fall-out either. Then Russia, having no markets for it's commodities in the West, would have to undercut everybody to sell to China and India, bringing them closer together, with the risk even of outright alliance.

The US hawks should start to wonder why so much of what they've advocated in the world has turned to shite, and maybe put some of their energy and ability into looking for non-confrontational solutions to the world problems.

Who is talking about a military escalation here ? The measures the west have taken are nearly all economic. The only military escalation here involves Russia invading Ukraine.

 

[711]

Who is talking about a military escalation here ? The measures the west have taken are nearly all economic. The only military escalation here involves Russia invading Ukraine.

There have been calls to provide heavier weapons to the Ukraine, and the UK has just sent in 75 military advisers.

 

[Raoul]

There have been calls to provide heavier weapons to the Ukraine, and the UK has just sent in 75 military advisers.

Hardly anything wrong with providing defensive weapons when the Ukrainians are dealing with a mass invasion.

 

[CircusMonkey]

That's actually not a balanced perspective. This is fundamentally an issue of Vladimir Putin, his 15 years of government mismanagement involving himself and his Oligarch friends stealing from his own country, then attempting to cover everything up through nationalism and foreign conquest (latest stop Ukraine). That's the core of this story and the western media in particular have been lacking in covering it accurately in their relativist attempts at appearing impartial. The Russian media are obviously government sponsored stooges who will parrott Putin's narratives or else get sacked or imprisoned, so nothing they say can be taken seriously. The western media have 50% of the story correct, but need to go further in examining how an unemployed KGB official has somehow amassed somewhere from 40-200 billion dollars in wealth.

You are doing it again, we all know there is a high levels of corruption in Russia, make no mistake, we know Putin is a egotistical megalomanic.
But, (for the reader that can not be arsed to do any background reading) and (believes the western agencies are a shinning light in a world of darkness) it is IMPORTANT to understand the role our governments play in destabilising situations.
I am tired of hearing how bad Putin is, and how he is major threat to the stability of the world....blah blah blah. When we continue to support saudi arabia, who are promoting and bankrolling fundamentalism, which is spreading through out the countries which the western alliance has recently removed government.

 

[711]

You are doing it again, we all know there is a high levels of corruption in Russia, make no mistake, we know Putin is a egotistical megalomanic.
But, (for the reader that can not be arsed to do any background reading) and (believes the western agencies are a shinning light in a world of darkness) it is IMPORTANT to understand the role our governments play in destabilising situations.
I am tired of hearing how bad Putin is, and how he is major threat to the stability of the world....blah blah blah. When we continue to support saudi arabia, who are promoting and bankrolling fundamentalism, which is spreading through out the countries which the western alliance has recently removed government.

Fundamentalism is the greatest danger to the West, we need all the allies against it that we can get.

 

[Raoul]

You are doing it again, we all know there is a high levels of corruption in Russia, make no mistake, we know Putin is a egotistical megalomanic.
But, (for the reader that can not be arsed to do any background reading) and (believes the western agencies are a shinning light in a world of darkness) it is IMPORTANT to understand the role our governments play in destabilising situations.
I am tired of hearing how bad Putin is, and how he is major threat to the stability of the world....blah blah blah. When we continue to support saudi arabia, who are promoting and bankrolling fundamentalism, which is spreading through out the countries which the western alliance has recently removed government.

I'm not a proponent of cozy US relations with Saudi when the Saudis are obviously a deeply flawed society and the monarchy talk through both sides of their mouths. Its definitely a stain on US policy that needs to be corrected.

 

[antihenry]

Again, you can't compare the US and Ukraine. There's a reason why there isn't unauthorized mass protests in front of the White House with Molotov Cocktails.

OK, try Ferguson, Missouri then.

So no American can ever criticise any other nation that uses force on a smaller neighbour?

I don't care about the US and I fail to see why past (and even ongoing) US policies should be brought up EVERY time a criticism is aimed at Russia.

EDIT: It's the argument of a child. "But Mommy, my friend got to do it; why can't I?"

Criticize Putin, Russian politics and whatever the hell else you feel like. I'm no big fan of Putin or his politics and I said so more than once on this very thread. The point I'm constantly trying to make is that you have to have a balanced view. I defend Russia here most of the time not because I believe Putin is right, but rather because of how on sided the media coverage of the Ukraine crisis has been in the West right from the start.

The reason US policies are being brought up here every time a criticism is aimed at Russia is because a) much like American mass media, it's the US posters that are actively posting anti-Russian propaganda on this very thread without even a shred of objectivity, demonizing Putin and Russia evry step of the way and turning a blind eye towards anything that doesn't fit their view of the conflict, and b) the US government was heavily involved in organizing and supporting the Maidan protests, overthrowing legally and democratically elected president of the country and installing anti-Russian pro-American government in its place.

 

[Tyrion]

OK, try Ferguson, Missouri then.

I'm pretty sure that didn't turn out to be a revolution.

Also, Desert Eagle's original point was:

Do you see no differences between the protests in Kiev and what happened in Crimea?

Let me give you an obvious one, the Maidan protesters were peaceful for a couple months until they were fired on by the government while the first thing the "protestors" in Crimea did was show up in government buildings wearing ski masks and carrying weapons.

Again you try and shift the conversation onto the US. Go and post in another thread if you want to, this one is about Ukraine.

He was contrasting this:

Spoiler: Maidan

and these people

Spoiler: Maidan Protestors

with this:

Spoiler: A Spontaneous Uprising of "The People"

and these people

Spoiler: Proud Crimeans ;)

Do you want to play Spot the Difference? Trust me, I'll win.

 

[Sir Matt]

What do you call NATO airstrikes? A humanitarian aid?

Carrying out UN Security Council resolutions.

 

[Tyrion]

Let's ignore the obvious danger of military escalation and all the additional deaths and misery that would bring, let's look at the economic effects of mass sanctions. Firstly Europe would be pushed into deep recession, the US less so, but it would not be immune to the fall-out either. Then Russia, having no markets for it's commodities in the West, would have to undercut everybody to sell to China and India, bringing them closer together, with the risk even of outright alliance.

This winds me up. So the West can't use sanctions in response to a Russian attack based on flimsy justifications because Russia might attack somewhere based on flimsy justifications?

If Russia trading with China so much would be that good, they'd have done it already. If the West cuts off Russia, Russia would be begging for Chinese trade. They'd take full advantage and Russia would be a junior partner that China uses for it's natural resources - marginally better than a colony. Also, China wouldn't be willing to pay what the West has been (and it certainly wouldn't put up with Russia's random price hikes that coincide with doing something Putin doesn't like).

The US hawks should start to wonder why so much of what they've advocated in the world has turned to shite, and maybe put some of their energy and ability into looking for non-confrontational solutions to the world problems.

What do you call it when you keep making concessions and trying to negotiate with someone who makes ridiculous demands and uses force whenever they don't get their way?

Stupid is probably one word but this would have to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

It seems more and more to me that American strategists don't even try to think about the effect of their policies beyond the next week.

So probably at the same rate that Putin changes his story?

 

[Mihajlovic]

Carrying out UN Security Council resolutions.

The US have also carried out air strikes without having green light from the UN Security Council. As consequence thousands of civilians have been killed. Is that a war crime?

 

[Mihajlovic]

You're a bit of a troll, Tyrion.

 

[Tyrion]

You're a bit of a troll, Tyrion.

That's another deflection but at least it's kinda on topic, how exactly?

 

[711]

Stupid is probably one word but this would have to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

I'll take a huge risk and, without clicking on this, it's about Chamberlain and WW2?

In which case I presume it's talking about the Chamberlain whose appeasement policy bought just enough time to build the hurricanes, spitfires anti-submarine corvettes that saved Britain three years later? Desperate times then, I think.

Just a tip, before posting do a bit of research on the use of smilies on the Caf. I guarantee there is a direct correlation between use of smilie and shitness of poster. You can get on the right side of that one at any rate.

 

[Tyrion]

I'll take a huge risk and, without clicking on this, it's about Chamberlain and WW2?

In which case I presume it's talking about the Chamberlain whose appeasement policy bought just enough time to build the hurricanes, spitfires anti-submarine corvettes that saved Britain three years later? Desperate times then, I think.

Just a tip, before posting do a bit of research on the use of smilies on the Caf. I guarantee there is a direct correlation between use of smilie and shitness of poster. You can get on the right side of that one at any rate.

It's about the word which is normally used in reference to Chamberlain and WW2.
He also bought enough time for Germany to sign a non aggression pact with the USSR and carve up several small European countries as well as further build up it's military.

I will research the smilies. I'd also like to congratulate you on broadening your range of fallacies from solely tu quoque to now include ad hominem.

 

[711]

It's about the word which is normally used in reference to Chamberlain and WW2.
He also bought enough time for Germany to sign a non aggression pact with the USSR and carve up several small European countries as well as further build up it's military.

I will research the smilies. I'd also like to congratulate you on broadening your range of fallacies from solely tu quoque to now include ad hominem.

He did, complicated ain't it?

Thanks for the congrats, although I didn't understand the rest of it. And me with a latin O level too, but so long ago, I'm reduced to simple English nowadays, and I don't always get that right either.

 

[Tyrion]

He did, complicated ain't it?

Thanks for the congrats, although I didn't understand the rest of it. And me with a latin O level too, but so long ago, I'm reduced to simple English nowadays, and I don't always get that right either.

What non-confrontational measures do you think would work with Putin?

I was saying that both you and Mihajlovic seem to find difficulties discussing this issue without making barely related criticisms of the other side. Which just proves (IMHO) that you're wrong.

Oh and the smilies are what I do when words are having no impact. It's like a facepalm but it means I still have hope for you yet.

 

[Mihajlovic]

What non-confrontational measures do you think would work with Putin?

I was saying that both you and Mihajlovic seem to find difficulties discussing this issue without making barely related criticisms of the other side. Which just proves (IMHO) that you're wrong.

Oh and the smilies are what I do when words are having no impact. It's like a facepalm but it means I still have hope for you yet.

The bolded part is what you're having difficulties with. If you ever manage to comprehend that discussing the other's side involvement in the conflict is crucially important, this whole conversation will flow much better.

 

[711]

What non-confrontational measures do you think would work with Putin?

Well it seems that the ceasefire is at least partly-working, and that heavy weapons are being withdrawn, so that's a start. The media and the hawks will of course highlight the breeches, for their own reasons. Next step, find out what the peoples of Ukraine actually want, which means UN referendums. Then peace negotiations and new boundaries if necessary. It's not unthinkable, the boundaries have already changed, considering Crimea.

It's a rare dispute where one side is completely right and the other completely wrong.

 

[Tyrion]

The bolded part is what you're having difficulties with. If you ever manage to comprehend that discussing the other's side involvement in the conflict is crucially important, this whole conversation will flow much better.

As far as I'm concerned, the 'sides' are Russia and Ukraine. This isn't an American plot, no matter how much you wish it to be.

 

[Tyrion]

Well it seems that the ceasefire is at least partly-working, and that heavy weapons are being withdrawn, so that's a start. The media and the hawks will of course highlight the breeches, for their own reasons. Next step, find out what the peoples of Ukraine actually want, which means UN referendums. Then peace negotiations and new boundaries if necessary. It's not unthinkable, the boundaries have already changed, considering Crimea.

It's a rare dispute where one side is completely right and the other completely wrong.

By peoples of Ukraine, do you include Crimea? If the UN insists on referendums in Crimea, what would Russia do in your opinion?

 

[711]

By peoples of Ukraine, do you include Crimea? If the UN insists on referendums in Crimea, what would Russia do in your opinion?

Probably. Don't know. I don't profess to have all the answers, that's kind of the point.

 

[Tyrion]

Probably. Don't know. I don't profess to have all the answers, that's kind of the point.

My point is that what Russia wants and what Ukraine wants is incompatible. He won't allow it. You can't negotiate everything, especially with Putin. There comes a point where all you can do is stand up to him and show him there's consequences to his actions. Same as any bully that's had his way for too long.

 

[711]

I find you quite bullying, Tyrion. Is this ironic? I'm not sure, I've kind of lost track of the word.

Anyway, yes, there are times you have to make a stand, I know, however I think that should be the last resort, after alternatives are exhausted.

 

[Tyrion]

I find you quite bullying, Tyrion. Is this ironic? I'm not sure, I've kind of lost track of the word.

I don't even know how to respond to you any more.

Well since you just insulted me, care to explain why?

 

[Mihajlovic]

My point is that what Russia wants and what Ukraine wants is incompatible. He won't allow it. You can't negotiate everything, especially with Putin. There comes a point where all you can do is stand up to him and show him there's consequences to his actions. Same as any bully that's had his way for too long.

You speak with such an authority using absolute statements, how do you know all this, haha? And what do you mean by 'showing Putin there are consequences'. What, you're thinking economic sanctions? The world vs. Russia? You sound like you're playing Tekken while you're writing.

 

[Tyrion]

You speak with such an authority using absolute statements, how do you know all this, haha? And what do you mean by 'showing Putin there are consequences'. What, you're thinking economic sanctions? The world vs. Russia? You sound like you're playing Tekken while you're writing.

I don't. It's educated guesswork just like 95% of every other post in this forum.

What I mean is not allowing him to do whatever he wants because we're afraid of 'escalation'.

 

[Tyrion]

You speak with such an authority using absolute statements, how do you know all this, haha? And what do you mean by 'showing Putin there are consequences'. What, you're thinking economic sanctions? The world vs. Russia? You sound like you're playing Tekken while you're writing.

You still haven't explained why I'm a troll btw.

 

[Sultan]

There comes a point where all you can do is stand up to him and show him there's consequences to his actions. Same as any bully that's had his way for too long.

USA have been aggressors/bullies for over 60 years. Do you feel equal contempt?

Anyway, yes, there are times you have to make a stand, I know, however I think that should be the last resort, after alternatives are exhausted.

Absolutely!

 

[Tyrion]

USA have been aggressors/bullies for over 60 years. Do you feel equal contempt?

Honestly, no. I just don't see them as that big of a threat compared to Russia. Where would you rather live? Which countries leader would you rather lead your own country? Which political system would you rather your's seek to copy? I'd rather the US be 'in charge' than Russia. Also, the US is capable of some level of self criticism as opposed to Russia.

Putins supporters often ask what would the US do if Mexico or Canada sought an alliance with Russia but they rarely ask why this hasn't happened.

 

[Sultan]

Honestly, no. I just don't see them as that big of a threat compared to Russia. Where would you rather live? Which countries leader would you rather lead your own country? Which political system would you rather your's seek to copy? I'd rather the US be 'in charge' than Russia. Also, the US is capable of some level of self criticism as opposed to Russia.

Putins supporters often ask what would the US do if Mexico or Canada sought an alliance with Russia but they rarely ask why this hasn't happened.

I don't particularly agree with any conflicts. In any conflict there's almost always agendas and bias from of us.

In this particular conflict, simply question yourself if there was an inevitable expansionist policy and one side was to turn out winner who's control would we prefer to live?

Russia, or Europe/USA. The answer is obvious.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Sultan, I don't know what you mean by 'Russia or Europe/USA'. There is a world of difference between Europe and USA it should really be a separate category.

 

[Sultan]

Honestly, no. I just don't see them as that big of a threat compared to Russia.

How you ever thought how those feel being on the receiving end of USA's aggression?

 

[Sultan]

Sultan, I don't know what you mean by 'Russia or Europe/USA'. There is a world of difference between Europe and USA it should really be a separate category.

Personally, Europe and USA are equally as good. Russia is quite the opposite.

 

[Raoul]

Personally, Europe and USA are equally as good. Russia is quite the opposite.

Agreed. Russia could however be in a much stronger position with reforms in governance and new leadership.

 

[Sultan]

Agreed. Russia could however be in a much stronger position with reforms in governance and new leadership.

Putin and his stooges have too much to lose financially. The general public are too fearful of speaking out. It's worse than some of the dictatorships around the world.

 

[Tyrion]

How you ever thought how those feel being on the receiving end of USA's aggression?

I know the US isn't perfect and I'd much rather we all lived in this utopian dreamland where diplomacy wins out and small states aren't influenced by larger ones but that's impossible. I see the US as like a political party I vote for. I know they aren't perfect and I certainly don't have to like them but I'd rather they be in charge than the other lot.

I can understand why some hate the US which is why I try to separate that from the Ukraine issue (though I've realised today that I may as well give up on that) but I honestly believe that overall it's better that they are the most powerful country in the world rather than Russia.

 

[Tyrion]

I'd probably agree with what you posted.
My issue is that some see people's preference for EU/US as proof of CIA meddling rather than proof of Russias failings. Why is this happening in Ukraine not Mexico? The answer is that it's alot better to be in Americas 'orbit' than Russias.
(That questions rhetorical. I'm asking it to you as 711 is offended by my use of smilies and Mihajlovic seems to have interpreted my use of logic as trolling)

 

[Sultan]

I know the US isn't perfect and I'd much rather we all lived in this utopian dreamland where diplomacy wins out and small states aren't influenced by larger ones but that's impossible. I see the US as like a political party I vote for. I know they aren't perfect and I certainly don't have to like them but I'd rather they be in charge than the other lot.

I can understand why some hate the US which is why I try to separate that from the Ukraine issue (though I've realised today that I may as well give up on that) but I honestly believe that overall it's better that they are the most powerful country in the world rather than Russia.

That's hardly the point. The topic is should Europe and USA get involved in an armed conflict. Some of us believe that should absolutely be the very last resort.