I can’t believe someone here is actually making an argument in support of Putin.
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.
A 'related story' under an article I read today was titled something like 'Russia's dark history of assassinations'...accompanied by a photo of Rasputin, FGS.
So?
He’s Russian I think.
Considering our resident Russian doesn't think the blatant attack was from Russia and admires Trump for being a bully, then it's no surprise.
Their problems do go back further than Putin though - the transition from a state-run economy to a market economy was poorly mismanaged and left a lot of industries in the hands of whatever gangster was able to acquire it. Over a longer period of time Russia could've evolved into a more modern and prosperous nation had it not been for Putin and his buddies hoarding most of the wealth for themselves, but I'd imagine a lot of the distrust in democratic government comes from Yeltsin's fairly disastrous reign in the 90s.
Notably none of the defences ever mustered for him are ever really defences - just pointing out contrary Western crimes. Which is the go-to distraction because there's not really any justification for Putin's actions.
No doubt about it. The problems of today are merely an extension of the simmering sub-state corruption that took place during the latter part of the Soviet era. Putin is merely a continuation of this, albeit in a kleptocratic, authoritarian guise; masquerading as a proto-western statesman.
Last edited:
Not really sure what you mean but you think Russia (let alone the former USSR) expanded to its current size without colonialism?
It was not meant as a defence, it was meant as a balance.
The whole concept of 'whataboutism' is silly. You can't go around wreaking havoc yourself, then climb the moral high horse when someone else does it, and then not accept others pointing out your own recent history because of the compelling argument of 'whataboutism'.
As I've said I'm more than willing to criticise Western interventionism and I think it's wrecked havoc in the Middle East. I don't think it excuses Putin's rampant corruption though, nor his annexation of Ukrainian territory. But when this is mentioned 'But the West' tends to be the most common response...even though this is a thread specifically discussing Russia, and the actions of Russia. And I certainly wouldn't say Western actions have provided Putin with justification for his invasion of Ukraine, nor the hard foreign policy stances he often takes. Yet (again) for some reason this is continually brought up when the topics are mentioned.
Its an old school Kremlin tactic that is routinely brought up to obfuscate from the central topic. Its not wrong to compare and contrast as long as its legitimate and not just a way for someone who doesn't have a valid explanation to simply slither out of answering the question by throwing up diversionary smoke bombs.
https://www.economist.com/node/10598774
People are seeking some balance. Do you often see the western media chastise the West for the screwup in Libya? Or do you see the Western media making a whole lot of noise about the UK and the US supplying Saudi-Arabia with weapons which in turn is used to bomb Yemen into shreds? Or do you often read about the West clearly backing the wrong horse in Syria and prolonging the war?
No, perhaps once or twice but it isn't a narrative that is even attempted being covered. Everyone that dares to mention it quickly get labeled as Putin supporters and Assad supporters. I see it weekly in the Norwegian media, and you are quickly discharged if you stray from the script that has been given, especially when it comes to Syria.
Even Saudi-Arabia directly sponsoring the jihadis is rarely mentioned, meanwhile the support from Iran to Assad is mentioned at every possible turn.
Again - all this is relevant and has been covered in the media (although could be covered to a greater extent) although it has nothing to do with the current Russian actions we're discussing here. It still doesn't distract from the rampant corruption in Putin's government, the strong chance he murdered an ex-spy on British soil with no regard for the British citizens he might hurt in the process, and the fact that he's illegally annexed the territory of another sovereign nation.
Now imagine if it was Russia bombing Libya into the current mayhem, or sponsoring Iran with weapons to reduce Yemen to rubble - you wouldn't hear the end of it.
As mentioned previously, it isn't excusing Putin, it is just asking for some balance - a balance you have to find yourself, since the media sure as feck won't help you.
That's likely because media outlets have a core audience that they cater to. So called western outlets obviously cater to western viewers who are interested in news that pertains to their own interests. That's why you see more coverage about natural disasters or terrorist events in Europe or the US than you do in Indonesia or Pakistan. Everything is contextualized based on viewer preferences.
We've constantly heard discussion of the US fecking up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the topic of Saud Arabia came up increasingly in last year's UK election with Corbyn and Labour rightfully pointing out the Tories' hypocrisy in calling them terrorist sympathisers when the Tories work hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia on a regular basis.
Again - it's still not relevant to the current topic at hand, and only really would be if Putin's actions could be interpreted as necessary in facing a direct threat from the West instead of being those of an expansionist who wants to keep Eastern territories under his influence and who wants to promote heavily conservative values in his own country that result in an extreme curbing of human rights all while he makes himself richer and richer in the process.
Russian Empire wasn't a colonial power?
This is what is missing from the other side of this debate, and that is the implications of establishing sovereign national boundaries in order to create a semi-rational world order that was started in the 19th century and reinforced after the world wars in order to prevent further WWI’s, WWII’s, 30 Years Wars, etc. from happening.
Russia violated that cardinal rule. The rule that has been the only thing preventing another global war, aside from mutually assured destruction.
Moscow argues that the West started it with Kosovo. Although that doesn't explain its support for Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Katabakh and Transnistria.
Still, of the world's newest states, South Sudan, East Timor and Kosovo are all secessionist states created with Western support. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of respect for the principle when the powers decide their vital interests are at stake or simply when they spot an opportunity to intervene.
Yeah but that happened just over a decade before the end. They had reached the Pacific and the Caucasus centuries before, and the Pamirs by the late nineteenth century. I actually think that's an awesome* piece of empire-building right there.
*(edit: I mean awesome in the neutral sense obviously, the actual process involved episodes of violence as bad as any empire)
Last edited:
Supporting a new state in the face of genocide and massacres =/= Restarting the colonial era and acquiring new territory for yourself
Am I implying that? I was only talking about Western countries.
The borders in Europe, let alone the rest of the world, changed a bunch of times over the last thirty years or so. There was a country called Soviet Union, now it's fifteen independent states. In place of former Yugoslavia there are six different countries now.
A for violating cardinal rules, google 'Kosovo 2008'.
That's not what he's talking about and you know it. There's a strong bias in the way the information is presented in the western media when it comes to foreign affairs. Forty or fifty years ago you could actually find different views and opinions on what's going on and true journalists were investigating material before it went to print and actually made an honest effort to to get to the bottom of things and be as objective as they possibly could. Nowadays unless you toe the party line, you won't be able to work for any of the big players. I think it has something to with this.
By the way, Russian daily Kommersant, which normally is a pretty solid source, published yesterday what they claimed a presentation from the briefing for the foreign diplomats at the British embassy in Moscow, on the basis of which was made a decision to expel a number of Russian diplomats from various countries. Don't know, if true or not, just wanted to share.
https://www.kommersant.ru/docs/2018/UK_Briefing.pdf
https://www.kommersant.ru/docs/2018/UK_Briefing.pdf
It’s obviously fabricated, but since you already brought it up, how do you think this presentation ended up in Kommersant hands? Intriguing to hear your rationale.By the way, Russian daily Kommersant, which normally is a pretty solid source, published yesterday what they claimed a presentation from the briefing for the foreign diplomats at the British embassy in Moscow, on the basis of which was made a decision to expel a number of Russian diplomats from various countries. Don't know, if true or not, just wanted to share.
https://www.kommersant.ru/docs/2018/UK_Briefing.pdf
How do you know it's fabricated? Based on what? I'm not saying it's the real deal, but I don't see why it can't be.
There was a bunch of foreign diplomats at the briefing. I don't think there was anything particularly sensitive in this report, so they could have easily got it from some of their sources in one of the foreign embassies in Moscow. It's not like it's an intelligence report or highly classified info.
Maybe you're right, it's just that you're naturally cautious around anything that comes from Russia, even if that's legit presentation you just can't put past them to modify certain details as we're unlikely to see the original anyway.
That's not what he's talking about and you know it. There's a strong bias in the way the information is presented in the western media when it comes to foreign affairs. Forty or fifty years ago you could actually find different views and opinions on what's going on and true journalists were investigating material before it went to print and actually made an honest effort to to get to the bottom of things and be as objective as they possibly could. Nowadays unless you toe the party line, you won't be able to work for any of the big players. I think it has something to with this.
There are more players in the media space than there were 50 years ago when you had the three networks plus radio, so obviously the amount of view points represented are going to vary accordingly due to the various new platforms available. Very different to an authoritarian dictatorship like Russia where the state controls everything on behalf of the dictator’s agenda.
That's called whatabouttism, Raoul.
That’s not whataboutism (which you as a Russian should know). The graphic you posted was simply misleading because it includes the likes of Pixar, MTV, Showtime, and the Smithsonian Channel as traditional news sources, which they are clearly not in the same veign as ABC, NBC, and CBS. Therefore it’s completely fair play to create some constrast between the two countries to illustrate the difference between free market vs state controlled news sources.
That's basically your whole schtick in CE. Trying to wash the blood off Russia's hands with the blood from Western nations hand's.
No, it's not. I never said Russia is right or Putin is right in their actions. What I've been trying to do is get people to see the whole picture. Russia, as a country, does not exist in a vacuum, it does things to advance its interests and reacts when those interests are threatened. Every country does it, the only difference is, bigger and richer countries can do more damage to others and protect themselves better than smaller or weaker ones can. In that respect America and its allies can, and do far more damage than anybody else simply because they can get away with it.
What you're saying is not wrong - states do behave according to their interests, but there is also an international pecking order among states where the US is at the top due to its military, economic, and technological advantage. So while states behave according to their substate interests, they also recognize that their behavior isn't without costs within the global system. The US gets away with more because its at the top of the food chain of an anarchic international system. Russia, which has an economy smaller than California or Italy, doesn't have the luxury of behaving like a superpower because it is economically weak.
In short...no. They were too divided themselves as the USSR to actually colonize anyone. Livonian War, Time of Troubles, etc. Way too much internal conflict
How does one found an empire without being colonial?
I really don't think anyone thought of Russia as an empire.
Rome was an empire. The United Kingdom was an empire. That's a classic case of not believing everything you see and read in books.