For the second paragraph that much is obvious, however, what you’re missing is that by showing unity and solidarity to counter any of their aggressiveness we discourage (even if that just puts some doubts into their minds is a win imo) them from those “interventions” in the first place. Bully loves to go unchallenged with divide and conquer tactics, worst we can do is look weak as a continent. Otherwise he’s just going to continue to test the limits.
Russia's at it again
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- 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.
Just cross your fingers and hope you are not next on the list after Georgia and Crimea.
Difference between the times of the cold war and now is that even back then the biggest European countries, like France or Germany, retained a bit of political independence in their actions. Leaders like Helmut Kohl, Francois Mitterand, let alone people like De Gaulle, wouldn't dance to the tune of the US neocons like the current lot does.
Plus, the ideological element is gone, and that was the cornerstone of the whole East vs West confrontation. Russia isn't a communist country anymore, hasn't been in 27 years or so. It's much more democratic than the likes of China or Saudi Arabia, that the West seemingly has no problem with, so the argument about confronting Russia due to it not being democratic enough is BS. So the real problem is Putin, not even the man himself, but rather what he represents, a threat to US hegemony in the world, someone who refuses to bend over to the post Cold War world order. At this point it doesn't even matter whether Russia is really guilty of all the things they're being accused of because if the threat wasn't real, there are too many powerful factions that would stop at no cost to make it look convincing enough.
Also, what happened to the fourth estate? During the worst time of Soviet vs American confrontation western media was full of people who weren't afraid to ask powers that be some very uncomfortable questions. In fact, that's what made them so appealing to the people on the other side, that's the reason millions of Russians would secretly tune in to listen to Voice of America or Radio Freedom back in 1970-80s, because they were hungry for some dosage of truth about what's going on in their own country as well as the rest of the world. But once the Cold War was over, the West has started slowly but surely turning into the very same monster it was fighting against and now somehow there are no more real journalists, at least in major media outlets, that are willing to question why their political leadership is so eager to follow the collision course with Russia. The level of bias and the sheer volume of plain propaganda from once well respected sources over the last several years has been astonishing, but no one seems to care.
It'll all end badly, I'm afraid.
Plus, the ideological element is gone, and that was the cornerstone of the whole East vs West confrontation. Russia isn't a communist country anymore, hasn't been in 27 years or so. It's much more democratic than the likes of China or Saudi Arabia, that the West seemingly has no problem with, so the argument about confronting Russia due to it not being democratic enough is BS. So the real problem is Putin, not even the man himself, but rather what he represents, a threat to US hegemony in the world, someone who refuses to bend over to the post Cold War world order. At this point it doesn't even matter whether Russia is really guilty of all the things they're being accused of because if the threat wasn't real, there are too many powerful factions that would stop at no cost to make it look convincing enough.
Also, what happened to the fourth estate? During the worst time of Soviet vs American confrontation western media was full of people who weren't afraid to ask powers that be some very uncomfortable questions. In fact, that's what made them so appealing to the people on the other side, that's the reason millions of Russians would secretly tune in to listen to Voice of America or Radio Freedom back in 1970-80s, because they were hungry for some dosage of truth about what's going on in their own country as well as the rest of the world. But once the Cold War was over, the West has started slowly but surely turning into the very same monster it was fighting against and now somehow there are no more real journalists, at least in major media outlets, that are willing to question why their political leadership is so eager to follow the collision course with Russia. The level of bias and the sheer volume of plain propaganda from once well respected sources over the last several years has been astonishing, but no one seems to care.
It'll all end badly, I'm afraid.
Yeah, this is why I see no point in the passive-aggressive behaviour by both sides. It is at a standstill anyway, it is the country equivalent at the two drunk teens outside the disco doing their "come at me bro'" act.
Sadly on behalf of the West I think a lot of the passive-aggressive behaviour comes because, like it or not, Russia was right in Syria, while the West was wrong.
The coverage of the whole Syria conflict is quite frankly ridiculous. I remember when our national broadcaster had a representative from the (in)famous White Helmets in the studio, it was like a religious awakening, not one critical question, even though plenty can be asked about that organization.
Not sure why people in this thread seem to be scared of Russia and advocate letting them do as they please without repercussion. The situation is Russia's doing, no one elses.
Even more so when the Kremlin’s hybrid war revolves around pushing and prodding to see how far you can go without provoking a firm response.
I don't think the situation is anywhere near as grave as some people seem to think.
Putin doesn't want war, he only wants to create a divide between Russia and the West. So long as the Russian people believe democracy to be a sham his position isn't under threat.
It just bully boy posturing that also helps to detract from the abysmal job he's doing of actually improving the lives of everyday people in Russia.
Putin doesn't want war, he only wants to create a divide between Russia and the West. So long as the Russian people believe democracy to be a sham his position isn't under threat.
It just bully boy posturing that also helps to detract from the abysmal job he's doing of actually improving the lives of everyday people in Russia.
Last edited:
I don't think Putin expected this reaction after that agent was killed. He's used to doing what he wants, a UN security council meeting that amounts to nothing and back to doing what he wants.
Exactly. There has to be a reaction so Putin learns there are consequences. It's like a bully at high school. Simply ignoring what's happening is never the best way to tackle the issue and will always make it worse.
I think this is correct. The liberal part of the media has become as myopic and hard line on Russia as any conservative publication since the election in 2016. You can't even ask questions about the coverage without being shouted down as a bot or an agent of Putin.
I'd largely agree with that. Russia obviously have a lot of military strength and have enough to exert some influence on the world stage (as they're doing now) but despite that strength they're nowhere near the size they were during the Cold War era and wouldn't really have the ability to take on the US and Europe in any hypothetical war. Even if they were able to pose an initial threat of some kind Europe would soon cut them off resource wise and attention would return to the domestic situation for Putin with the economy crumbling etc.
The situation in Crimea best exemplifies this - Putin was able to exert some strength in taking Crimea and waging war on parts of Ukraine, but Russia haven't been able to anywhere near subjugate the whole country and if anything have destroyed any lasting influence they may have there, if anything strengthening the pro-Western wing of the country who view Russia as a threat as opposed to an ally.
Plenty of European countries can still exert their own independence to some extent. Macron's been very critical of Putin since coming to power, in spite of Trump's softer power, while Merkel - who used to be regarded as more favourable toward him than other EU leaders - has gotten a lot more hardline since Crimea/Ukraine. May is mostly a lame duck, but has also notably been stronger than I'd have expected her to be since the recent attack.
The problem isn't that Russia refuse to bend to the post-Cold War order - it's that they've annexed the territory of another sovereign country and refuse to give it back in spite of their actions quite clearly being illegal. There's a wider discussion to be had no doubt about how the US have often done similar and about how they exert their influence on the world stage in an incredibly shoddy manner, but that shouldn't be used to distract from Russia's own issues, as well as the rampant political corruption which runs riot in the country - something that's been highlighted by plenty of good journalists who presumably escape your notice because they're not peddling the narrative you want to see.
There is also the case of Libya, where most Western nations are guilty for bombing a country into mayhem. I would argue that what Norway, UK, France, the US etc. did in Libya was worse than Crimea.
I'd agree Libya was a catastrophe; another case of Western interventionism intended to be effective in the short-term but with no real planning for how the long-term consequences of our actions would play out over the longer-term.
But no one really denies this. There isn't some big, wide media agenda intended to argue that Libya was a success, and there's been threads of the Caf here where we've discussed some of the cock-ups that happened in Libya. The same can be said to a greater extent for our involvement in Iraq and Afghanisation - again cases where a short-term plan created certain power vacuums and resulted in thousands of people dying with nothing really improving at all.
But poorly handled military interventionism is a different discussion to a country literally annexing the sovereign territory of another country; that's what Russia have done, and I don't see why it's somehow neglecting discussion of Western events to say that's the case. And that's before we begin to discuss Putin's terrible record on gay rights, the rampant corruption seen within his government in Russia, the excessive curbing of human rights and political freedoms, and a whole host of other issues. Most deflections about what the West are doing don't really seem to be concerned with that at all - it's just a deflection from actual pertinent discussion as to some of the main problems affecting Russia right now, and any portrayal of Putin as this fairly harmless, benevolent guy being forced into a corner by the West strikes me as incredibly inaccurate.
There is a lot of divide between the West and Russia. Politically, socially, culturally.
Only problem is that diplomatic expulsions are generally symbolic and lack real bite. In order to make it sting you have to hit Putin and his Oligarch's where it hurts - financially. Remove them from SWFT banking and divest Europe off of Russian gas. These are options that are still on the table if things continue to ramp up.
I do agree with the poster above that mentioned how we arm, support and collude with Saudi-Arabia, which is worse for every thing you mentioned than Russia. China is no saint either, not sure how they are on gay rights, but they are right up there on the rest.
Saudi-Arabia got the whole Jemen thing going on, besides they've done worse in Syria than Russia ever did, with their hidden support of the jihadis.
Just a few examples of our double standards. I can envision there actually being legit discussions amongst the hawks in the US about invading Iran, meanwhile Saudi-Arabia is fed with weapons and guaranteed protection.
And one case where the media has not been objective is Syria. Some of the coverage is straight up shocking. How long did it take for the media to classify the jihadis as exactly that, and not "freedom fighters?" Also the narrative on Ghouta is that some rebels are hiding there, and Assad are bombing them and the civilians - but the truth is that Ghouta is infested with jihadis who has taken the population hostage and in effect use them as human shields.
I used to be very pro West everything, I am a Westerner so that would only be logical, but Libya and then finally Syria made me reconsider my "the West knows best" default standpoint.
That may be so but the only thing Putin cares about is that the Russian folks don't get a hankering for some good old fashioned democracy.
Libya, Syria, Iraq etc are not really the point. The current crisis results from Russian acts directed against the UK and other western countries. Equivalence would be British intelligence gassing someone in some sleepy Golden Ring town, not misguided western policy in the Middle East.
I'd argue there's a big difference between attempting to kill one man in another country (assuming it was Russians, of which I'm not sure at all) and invading a sovereign country, like Iraq or Libya with a military force, toppling the ruling regime and starting a war that results in hudreds of thousands of dead and millions of refugees, destabilizes the whole Middle East and creates global terrorism problems all across the world. Both are terrible things but second is infinitely worse than the other, it's simply incomparable. So why such an outrage over one and no repercussions over the other? Crimea was taken over without a single casualty, but to listen to some here, it's crime of the century. That doesn't make it right or legal, but it would be nice for people to at least try to look at things objectively instead of repeating the same tired propaganda cliches. If Putin is a criminal for doing things he did or you assume he did, then what does it make your political leaders? Because if we start counting overall damage, it's not even close.
I'm fine with hypocrisy and double standards as long as people admit that they're full of shit. That's the only thing I like about Trump, he doesn't hide the fact that he's a douche and a bully, he flaunts it. The rest of the western political elite are still posturing as if they're being led in their decision making by some sort of morality, although I think the number of idiots believing it rapidly decreases with every coming year.
If Putin is a criminal or wrong, neither his courts or his voters can do anything about it. I’d say that’s pretty big difference.
Russia is a third world country with a nuclear arsenal. Honestly, a lot of the people live in squalor conditions. It’s unbelievable to me how the people haven’t effected the wind of change yet. One word “corruption”
I’m glad every nation in EU is now saying to Putin, enough is enough. He’s a bully, inside and outside the country.
Also folks, stop trying to justify for him. 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
I’m glad every nation in EU is now saying to Putin, enough is enough. He’s a bully, inside and outside the country.
Also folks, stop trying to justify for him. 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Come back with that when Tony Blair and George W. Bush share a prison cell.
Even if you believe this, surely two wrongs don't make a right ?
I get the argument. But there’s a false equivalence. At the end of the day, Show me the occupying western forces that have annexed Iraq or Libya like Russia annexed Crimea or Ukraine.
Of course, they don't. So I'll wait for the "civilized world" to lead by example. So far it's been 'do as I say, don't do as I do' bollocks.
Well you're clearly arguing that two wrongs do make a right by your comments.
The sad bit is that they could've evolved into a proper democracy rather than an authoritarian dictatorship, and in the process used their oil and gas money to improve the quality of life of their citizens to western European standards. Unfortunately, most of the wealth today is coagulated at the top among Putin and his crony Oligarchs.
You don't need to literally occupy them. All you need is a western puppet in charge and that's it. That's what you've got in Ukraine now, they can't make any key decisions without getting a yes from Washington. Here's a comment from Biden on how he bossed around Ukrainian president and PM, it's embarrassing to watch. It has a distinct feel of a white master visiting the natives, just pure arrogance (from around 01:29)
Again, you are turning it into a morality contest and missing the point. Both sides have done bad things (Iraq, Libya vs Chechnya, Syria) and I would not want to stake a bet on the which side is right in Syria - I honestly don’t know. Being very cynical, no one in the West (or Russia) cares much about those places. The difference is that Salisbury was not an attack on some third world third party - it was an attack on some quiet British cathedral city. The British Government, dysfunctional as it may be, was left with no choice but to respond. As would Putin had some former British double agent been killed in Kostroma with some nerve gas developed in Britain.
Tell me whether you would prefer to live as part of a western client state, or a Russian annexed state, and why.
Pays shit, but here’s an article about it, see if you still fancy the job https://www.rferl.org/a/how-to-guide-russian-trolling-trolls/26919999.html
Nothing wrong with anything he is saying. U.S. financial aid and EU support for Russian sanctions is tied to the Ukrainians making progress on the anti-corruption front. Perfectly legit.
I'm sure you wouldn't see anything wrong with it. In all the history of independent Ukraine I could never imagine a Russian politician coming to Kiev and demanding from their president to fire their general prosecutor or else. It was unthinkable.
By the way, corruption is more rampant nowadays in Ukraine than ever before. Kind of like opium production in Afghanistan since US troops have occupied it.
Neither. Americans don't give two shits about Ukraine or Ukrainians, just like they don't care about Iraqis or Syrians. I'd prefer to be independent and neutral. Which is what Ukraine was until the US and EU inspired coup in 2014 turned then into a battleground between East and West.
Neither could get back into power if they wanted. Democracy at work. Putin on the other hand......
That's not what Biden was suggesting in the video. He was specifically referencing US aid to Ukraine and EU sanctions on Russia being tied to the Ukrainians reforming the corruption in their system. That is a standard carrot and stick approach to contributing foreign aid to make sure it actually benefits Ukraine and doesn't get lost in corruption.
Well done. Tell that to half a million dead Iraqis.
Western countries don't need to be as shady as Russia anymore. They already did most of the work during the peak years of colonialism.