Check the "Roll in the tanks" thread for some highlights.
Short version: because the threat of someone getting dogpiled by almost 30 countries is pretty terrifying, especially when you look at who is doing the dogpiling.
Also, organizations evolve. Just because the USSR dissolved, doesn't mean Russia isn't still threatening (seriously, how can anyone actually doubt that the potential threat still exists at this point?). Plus, NATO has expanded its roles from just "reminding Russia that we're watching." They also do humanitarian aid, peace keeping, and anti-terrorism duties. Thus far, NATO remains relevant for the security of Europe and political advantageous for many reasons, especially under the umbrella of the EU.
[Ahh... so you believe there are no Russian troops in Ukraine?
I believe they are volunteers (illegall) fighting. The only Russian troops - humanitarian aid. Its for civilians, not for assisting war.
I would have said that this thread was over with the first post, but I think that's a good place to stop as well.
Agreed. He's saying there are no Russian troops in Ukraine, but he's saying that armed Russian civilians are fighting in another sovereign nation, and it's not Russia's fault or Russia's problem. Right...
Saying that there's no Russian troops in Ukraine under Russian government control is showing willful ignorance of history and well just facts. Russia's used the same tactics for the past sixty odd years when it comes to invading a country. They send in a ton of "volunteers" then when they've taken over that land suddenly they turn around and admit that they were their soldiers all along. To believe that somehow this time they're doing something different, when by all accounts that's exactly what they did, makes trying to have a proper discussion about that matter or anything related to it a bit pointless.
I want to know why NATO exist. Is the answer "because Russia exist"?
You've already had your answers.
Nato exists because bureaucracies of that size don't just disappear over night and the Warsaw Pact only disappeared 20 odd years ago.
But now Nato will not disappear as quickly as it could / should because Russia is getting uppity again and has also started threatening some of Nato's smaller member states.
Wyrmalla wrote: Saying that there's no Russian troops in Ukraine under Russian government control is showing willful ignorance of history and well just facts. Russia's used the same tactics for the past sixty odd years when it comes to invading a country. They send in a ton of "volunteers" then when they've taken over that land suddenly they turn around and admit that they were their soldiers all along. To believe that somehow this time they're doing something different, when by all accounts that's exactly what they did, makes trying to have a proper discussion about that matter or anything related to it a bit pointless.
Don't see how this is any worse than the US funding fascist coups everywhere.
Freakazoitt wrote: So is there any solution to stop second Cold War? It's very resources and nerves wasting
Get Putin to pull out of the Ukraine, Crimea, and South Ossetia, to quit flying bombers in attack patterns against NATO countries, to quit threatening to turn off the gas pipelines, make an honest attempt to stomp out cronyism and corruption in Russia, quit sending high tech ADA systems to Iran and Syria, and then we'll start talking.
Wyrmalla wrote: Saying that there's no Russian troops in Ukraine under Russian government control is showing willful ignorance of history and well just facts. Russia's used the same tactics for the past sixty odd years when it comes to invading a country. They send in a ton of "volunteers" then when they've taken over that land suddenly they turn around and admit that they were their soldiers all along. To believe that somehow this time they're doing something different, when by all accounts that's exactly what they did, makes trying to have a proper discussion about that matter or anything related to it a bit pointless.
Don't see how this is any worse than the US funding fascist coups everywhere.
#Whataboutism?
Though I don't see how that has any bearing whatsoever on what I said. My statement was referring to the Russians doing the same thing repeatedly then claiming that you aren't. Somehow you've related your own political opinions about what another country's doing to that. Ah right, good old Whataboutism and this thread sinks further...
If NATO had voted itself out of existance with the demise of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact it would now be necessary to reform NATO.
There was a long a long period after the end of the Cold War when the idea of a peace dividend was mooted.
9/11 and the subsequent war against Al Qaeda and then the Taliban in Afghan gave NATO a new raison d'etre.
Putin's adventures in the near abroad have re-focused minds in western Europe : the best way to negate the possible aggression of the goliath in the east of our continent is by tying in the Goliath over the ocean and by working together.
In reality, NATO does not have the same abilities as it did in the 1980s, when there where more US assets in Europe, European armies were considerably larger and NATO held seriously large scale war games on a regular basis.
Having said that, the modern Russian Army is not the offensive beast it once was, but it does not need to be. Putin's actions in Georgia and Ukraine are ideal for the Russisns. Overwhelming local force against much weaker opposition coupled with judicious use of denible 'green men' and a seeminly inexhaustible supply of 'volunteers'.
NATO has a harder task than the 1980s. The Batlic Republics in particular are very exposed and almost impossible to defend. As Poland discoved in 1939, it one thing to have promises of support from western Europe, it is another thing to retain your independence.
Freakazoitt wrote: So is there any solution to stop second Cold War? It's very resources and nerves wasting
Get Putin to pull out of the Ukraine, Crimea, and South Ossetia, to quit flying bombers in attack patterns against NATO countries, to quit threatening to turn off the gas pipelines, make an honest attempt to stomp out cronyism and corruption in Russia, quit sending high tech ADA systems to Iran and Syria, and then we'll start talking.
Also to stop funding political parties in europe trying to destroy the EU
And then out of Karelia, Siberia, Kamchatka yes yes... Because there are oil, gas, gold, water and other things opressed by Putin? We already made agreements in Gorbachev and Eltsin times, but USA don't follow it, surrounding Russia with military bases.
quit sending high tech ADA systems to Iran and Syria
Syria is fighting against your enemy, ISIL. You should help them,
And what's wrong about Iran? Because NATO need new bases there?
Freakazoitt wrote: It was created to defend Europe againsy USSR.
But USSR not exist for 20+ years.
So, why?
Two big reasons. First, it's nearly impossible to take apart such organizations after they are created unless there's major internal drama, even if their original foe is not longer present. Second, it served a lot more purposes than just anti-USSR protection and was a useful political tool for almost all involved in some way.
That said, NATO was slowly moving towards non-functionality until recent events. Europe's armies are smaller and less capable in many respects than they've ever been. Nations were getting rid of their tanks, drawing down numbers, etc. Given another decade it's likely that trend may have become irreversible, but recent events have put that into a hard reverse.
Russia government always considered eastern europe is THEIRS, this includes Greece.
Why? In Crimea War, Greece supported Russia out of their religious relationships. Both countries are Eastern Orthodoxy Christian countries. and hateful towards Ottoman Empire (To the point that Russia wants to completely Annex the entire Anatolia or help Greece winning both sides of the Bosphorus and reclaime Byzantium). British however, viewed the Ottomans a neccessary vassal... to keep Russia in check.
Because the West hates Russia and wants to keep it down. That is the whole reason. Russia doesn't want to bow down to the US and is therefore a threat to the Western world order which has to be contained. That is what NATO is for. Also, it is not just aimed at Russia, but also at China, Iran etc.
Why? In Crimea War, Greece supported Russia out of their religious relationships. Both countries are Eastern Orthodoxy Christian countries. and hateful towards Ottoman Empire (To the point that Russia wants to completely Annex the entire Anatolia or help Greece winning both sides of the Bosphorus and reclaime Byzantium). British however, viewed the Ottomans a neccessary vassal... to keep Russia in check.
Yes, the West trying to contain Russia to protect its own interests goes back many centuries.
Iron_Captain wrote: Because the West hates Russia and wants to keep it down.
That's just a teensy bit paranoid.
What the West wants, is to be able to go about it's business without fear of invasion or people interfering with their trade. If by 'keep Russia down', you mean, 'Have Russia respect current international borders and freedom of trade', then yes. We don't want the rise of a new militaristic Russian Empire. We'd much rather have the rise of a Russia that keeps the peace with the rest of us, and joins us in trying to gouge each other (and the rest of the world) in mercantile fields.
Iron_Captain wrote: Because the West hates Russia and wants to keep it down.
That's just a teensy bit paranoid.
What the West wants, is to be able to go about it's business without fear of invasion or people interfering with their trade. If by 'keep Russia down', you mean, 'Have Russia respect current international borders and freedom of trade', then yes. We don't want the rise of a new militaristic Russian Empire. We'd much rather have the rise of a Russia that keeps the peace with the rest of us, and joins us in trying to gouge each other (and the rest of the world) in mercantile fields.
Yes, I am sure the West would love a submissive Russia that would bow down to the US. The hypocrisy of the West is that they are far more militaristic and agressive than Russia is. The West wants Russia to respect international borders, but fails to do so itself. Look at how often in this century NATO countries have invaded other countries and how often Russia has. In addition, Russia also does not attempt to surround NATO with military bases, whereas NATO does and occupies traditional Russian territory. Who exactly is the agressor?
Yes, I am sure the West would love a submissive Russia that would bow down to the US.
Errr, what? Nobody wants anybody to be 'submissive' to the US. You might want to can the hyperbole, the Americans aren't sitting on thrones and demanding that the rest of us kneel at their feet.
The hypocrisy of the West is that they are far more militaristic and agressive than Russia is.
The West or America? Because I can't remember the last time Belgium invaded anybody, Switzerland doesn't tend to be aggressive, and Denmark isn't exactly what I'd call militaristic. I could go on, but I think the point is made.
The West wants Russia to respect international borders, but fails to do so itself.
You mean all those countless invasion Sweden and Spain have launched over the years? You really need to be more precise in who you're talking about here, just saying 'The West' and handwaving makes it difficult to have a serious discussion.
Look at how often in this century NATO countries have invaded other countries and how often Russia has.
If you exclude America, I think you'll find most of them are pretty peaceful. Britain and France have a habit of interfering, I won't deny that, but NATO generally doesn't. Things like the Kosovo involvement are quite rare.
In addition, Russia also does not attempt to surround NATO with military bases, whereas NATO does and occupies traditional Russian territory. Who exactly is the agressor?
That's primarily because NATO is made up of allies. And naturally, when a new country joins NATO, it gets NATO forces based there and assessments for NATO defence of it's borders. It's a defensive alliance.
I think it says plenty about a certain mindset that a defensive alliance is perceived as being a threat, because it prevents you from invading its members. The fact is, if you are no threat to NATO, NATO is no threat to you. If you're not planning on invading a NATO country, NATO shouldn't concern you in the slightest.
Look at how often in this century NATO countries have invaded other countries and how often Russia has.
List of wars involving the Russian Federation. Thirteen in twenty four years. All involving its neighbors and many to do with x region or country wanting to get out of under the thumb of the Russians. Talk about how the Soviet Union is dead and the threats of the West, but tell that to the people who the Russians are shooting at every time they want to pry themselves away from Moscow. =P
Oh and as a bit of fun, List of wars involving the United States of America . Twelve in that same period. "Oh but the Americans supported x country in x war". Yeah, because the Russians totally aren't doing the same thing for the other side half the time.
Iron_Captain wrote: whereas NATO does and occupies traditional Russian territory
Those countries don't belong to Russia. You don't get to tell them who they are allowed to ally with because they were once part of your empire. They're independent nations and their sovereignty should be respected instead of being told their opinion doesn't matter because they are apparently Russia's 'traditional territory'. Maybe the way Russia continually bullies and invades its neighbours is the very reason they want to ally with the west. That and the fact that countries tend to be more affluent with a higher standard of living in the west. I'm not a huge fan of capitalism but anyone can see the Soviet Union was a poor place to live and those nations' citizens that have been allowed to travel beyond the iron curtain don't want to go back. And Russia despises that loss of control.
I think Russia is going to become a growing threat to the world because they are going through similar moves to Germany after WW1. After the Soviet Union collapsed there was a lot of poverty and various agreements were made that in retrospect are unfavourable to Russia, this is true, and they feel they've been held down and taken advantage of. They've lost a huge amount of world influence and what they claim as 'their territory'. Russia has a colossal amount of national pride like communist countries like China and believe in making huge display of their national prowess (which is why they cheat so often at the olympics and the like) so simply can't handle it and need to lash out. Now 25 years on from the collapse of the Soviet Union the country has a lot of embarrassment and feels it deserves to get its territories back, and wants to either bully them into their control with threats and coercion, or even invasion. They constantly rattle their sabre by buzzing our airspace with nuclear bombers. Putin has done a good job of removing political opposition and rewriting the history books on the Soviet era so that an entire generation has grown up filled with propaganda. You can see greater restrictions to political opponents, greater persecution of minorities like homosexuals. And now there's the underhanded manner in which Russia tries to politically destabilise its neighbours and then reclaim 'their territory'.
Rebuilding armed forces. Making increasingly aggressive political moves towards neighbouring countries and 'lost territory'. Persecution of minorities. Silencing of political opponents. Sabre rattling at many old foes by buzzing us with submarines and nuclear bombers. Invading land they believe is theirs and displacing non-russians. Ten years ago people saying we don't need NATO any longer may have had a point. In today's world it's going to become ever more important. Although whether they'll actually act true to the ethos of NATO should Russia make a full invasion has yet to be tested. Seems to me they'll shy away from it and play right into Russia's hands.
If NATO was an aggressive threat to Russia we would have struck 18 years ago, once the Soviet Union was well and truly collapsed, and before we had let our own forces decline for the "peace dividend".
However let's not let military logic interfere with our prejudices.
The hypocrisy of the West is that they are far more militaristic and agressive than Russia is.
The West or America? Because I can't remember the last time Belgium invaded anybody, Switzerland doesn't tend to be aggressive, and Denmark isn't exactly what I'd call militaristic. I could go on, but I think the point is made.
The West wants Russia to respect international borders, but fails to do so itself.
You mean all those countless invasion Sweden and Spain have launched over the years? You really need to be more precise in who you're talking about here, just saying 'The West' and handwaving makes it difficult to have a serious discussion.
With the West I mean NATO. (most Western countries are NATO members, so that is why it often gets used when referring to NATO)
Look at how often in this century NATO countries have invaded other countries and how often Russia has.
If you exclude America, I think you'll find most of them are pretty peaceful. Britain and France have a habit of interfering, I won't deny that, but NATO generally doesn't. Things like the Kosovo involvement are quite rare.
Still more common than invasions by Russia. And besides, you can't just simply exclude America. America is NATO. The European countries are just sidekicks that go along because they many of the same goals and also profit from US imperialism.
In addition, Russia also does not attempt to surround NATO with military bases, whereas NATO does and occupies traditional Russian territory. Who exactly is the agressor?
That's primarily because NATO is made up of allies. And naturally, when a new country joins NATO, it gets NATO forces based there and assessments for NATO defence of it's borders. It's a defensive alliance.
How convenient than that all NATO allies somehow add to the surrounding of Russia? Why does NATO not have members in South America, Africa or South Asia, but only in regions bordering Russia?
Ketara wrote: I think it says plenty about a certain mindset that a defensive alliance is perceived as being a threat, because it prevents you from invading its members. The fact is, if you are no threat to NATO, NATO is no threat to you. If you're not planning on invading a NATO country, NATO shouldn't concern you in the slightest.
If you say NATO is a defensive alliance, you are fooling yourself. Ask any Serb how defensive NATO is! How were Serbia, Iraq Libya etc. threats to NATO?
Kilkrazy wrote: If NATO was an aggressive threat to Russia we would have struck 18 years ago, once the Soviet Union was well and truly collapsed, and before we had let our own forces decline for the "peace dividend".
However let's not let military logic interfere with our prejudices.
18 years ago there was no need for NATO to strike because there was Yeltsin. Yeltsin did more to destroy Russia than NATO could possibly have done. Besides, at that point in time Russia was absolutely no threat to NATO as Yeltsin licked their boots.
How convenient than that all NATO allies somehow add to the surrounding of Russia? Why does NATO not have members in South America, Africa or South Asia, but only in regions bordering Russia?
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Uh, its sort of in the name. Admittedly its grown to encompass many European countries, but the sentiments there. They could be called the "Please don't Invade us USSR Pact" for all the name matters though, but I guess you'll argue the semantics to the death anyway. =P
Belittle Yeltsin all you want, but also remember that he chose Putin as his successor...
Iron_Captain wrote: With the West I mean NATO. (most Western countries are NATO members, so that is why it often gets used when referring to NATO)
Still more common than invasions by Russia.
And besides, you can't just simply exclude America. America is NATO. The European countries are just sidekicks that go along because they many of the same goals and also profit from US imperialism.
See, this lumping together of everyone in Europe under the thumb of the Americans and the blanket label of 'the West' is where I honestly think you go a bit off track. NATO is full of countries like those I just listed, who want nothing more than to get on with life. Then you have another tier of European countries who are a bit bigger, and tend to chase their own interests. And then you have America, who are like those European countries but bigger and more powerful than any of them individually.
Sometimes some of us go along with America (because it fits our interests to do so, we've all been playing the Great Game for longer than these Yank upstarts!)
But quite often, we don't. There's a reason a lot of Americans complain about how all we Europeans do is sit there and criticise them. The truth is, most of Europe left WW2 exhausted and deeply psychologically scarred by two generations of conflict. NATO would have been a possibility/likelihood even without the Americans. NATO, like the EU, is a way of binding together all those advanced European nations who have tremendous economic power, and the capacity to produce corresponding tremendous military power.
How convenient than that all NATO allies somehow add to the surrounding of Russia? Why does NATO not have members in South America, Africa or South Asia, but only in regions bordering Russia?
Because none of those nations had just finished a set of destructive European wars mere years before NATO was formed.
If you say NATO is a defensive alliance, you are fooling yourself. Ask any Serb how defensive NATO is!
How were Serbia, Iraq Libya etc. threats to NATO?
Libya wasn't a NATO operation. Neither were the Iraqi wars. I think you need to distinguish between wars that had NATO members involved in them, and wars that had NATO as an organisation involved in them. Otherwise, it makes it hard to have a discussion on the matter.
Iron_Captain wrote: Because the West hates Russia and wants to keep it down.
What exactly do you define as "the West"...?
Methinks that there's some misunderstanding here. Russia isn't something people think about needing to be "subjugated". It isn't even a place most people think about a whole lot period. When MItt Romney said that Russia was the most important geopolitical threat the US faced in the 2012 election, he was responded to with laughter by almost everyone, because it was seen as him being two decades out of touch.
This is not to say that there haven't been donkey-cave moves by the US and other NATO nations towards Russia, there have been. US treatment of Russia after the fall of the USSR was very poorly handled. But to suggest that "the West" in general has some sort of shadowy long term plan to subjugate Russia is rather absurd, if for no other reason than it attributes a long term unity, force of will, and commitment that just isn't there.
Russia's real threat is China. China is essentially acting as economic loan shark, negotiating controlling shares in large numbers of new ventures, shares a very long border with Russia, has 10x the population and some relatively close ethnic relations with minorities in eastern Russia, and is probably the one nation that has proven an ability to unify and conform to a long term plan and see it through, even over numerous political lifetimes.
That is the whole reason. Russia doesn't want to bow down to the US and is therefore a threat to the Western world order which has to be contained. That is what NATO is for.
NATO continued to exist after the fall of the USSR because it was too much effort to dismantle it and they found other reasons to keep it around. Nobody was talking about NATO engaging in any sort of conflict with Russia three or four years ago.
NATO functions on the strength of the US military alone. It has effectively allowed and incentivized Europe to spend the last two decades disarming until very recently. This was a good thing, it was a stabilizing force amongst the countries within the alliance who had previously massacred each other by the millions. Europe's armies shrank, their capabilities withered, their will and need to resort to violence diminished, and they decided to stop funding and supporting massive military establishments and put that money elsewhere. The only reason NATO is able to pose a conventional threat to anyone really is because the US military takes up a huge amount of slack.
Really, the bigger problem quite honestly is the low degree of integration on consumer and industrial goods that the US/EU and Russia have. Integrated economies typically don't have military tension. In the US, about the only Russian products you'll find are booze, crab, and surplus military equipment. Russia's exports to other nations, while different in composition, have largely the same problem. It's mostly resources. As much as a fan as I am of Kalashnikov rifles and cheap ammunition, if that's the most recognized "Consumer' product of a nation, it doesn't speak well to economic integration (even before import from Izhmash was banned), particularly when half a dozen (or more) other nations export the same product (Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Serbia, etc). Russian export composition is largely commodity based. I have clothes from Bangladesh, shoes from Thailand, a TV from Japan, a phone made in Korea, a watch made in Germany, paintbrushes from Spain, gaming miniatures from the UK, a car assembled in Japan from parts made in Mexico, countless things from China (flasks, silverware, tackle boxes, cups, etc), computer components from India and Vietnam, but the only things I have from Russia are Izhevsk manufactured AK-74 magazines, and those were specially sought out specifically because they were Russian, I had to go out of my way to look for and buy them just for that special fact.
Russia's economic integration level with most other nations is effectively that of a developing nation, even if the volumes of trade are large. That means issues that arise are much more likely to be seen as with "the other" as opposed to "the neighbor".
Yes, the West trying to contain Russia to protect its own interests goes back many centuries.
You make it sound like there was some sort of organized anti-Russian secret cabal, rather than constantly shifting power paradigms that constantly tried to take down whoever was looking to start being top dog. The western and central Europeans fought amongst each other and backstabbed each other at least as much as they did anything to Russia, usually moreso. Even issues with the US are less than a hundred years old, all post-revolution issues and in fact mostly post WW2.
Daemonhammer wrote: I wonder if Russians like him actually see us Polish people (and people from the Baltic states) as the bad guys.
Balts (at least Estonians and Latvians) are generally considered pretty bad, yes. That nazi-worshipping stuff they have going on kinda does that, especially because whenever a neo-nazi is sighted in the Baltic states, all Russian media are on it. Not to mention that the large Russian populations in the Baltic states often have their rights violated and are treated as second-class people. (Lithuania is a nice exception though).
Most Russian's feelings towards Poland are more complicated. There is some hostility in there (Russia and Poland long have been enemies) but also a lot of respect.
Personally, I think Poles are awesome. Poland may be the only European country that has been invaded even more than Russia. Poland has been destroyed again and again and again, but the Polish people have never given up and always stayed true to their heritage. Whatever the odds, they just keep fighting. I really admire that aspect in the Polish people.
Also, how do Polish people generally think about a division of Ukraine? Poland gets back Lwow and other historically Polish territory and Russia gets the East. I heard somewhere (dont know where anymore, so I cant check how serious) that this had been proposed to the Polish government?
Balts (at least Estonians and Latvians) are generally considered pretty bad, yes. That nazi-worshipping stuff they have going on kinda does that, especially because whenever a neo-nazi is sighted in the Baltic states, all Russian media are on it. Not to mention that the large Russian populations in the Baltic states often have their rights violated and are treated as second-class people. (Lithuania is a nice exception though).
Tell me that doesn't smack of state approved propaganda. Btw, that is exactly how Hitler started WWII. "The Germans in *Insert name of country here* are being oppressed, Germany must rescue her countrymen.
Freakazoitt wrote: So is there any solution to stop second Cold War? It's very resources and nerves wasting
Tell your government to stop it's expansionist policies.
No, you should tell your government to stop its expansionist policies.
Ketara wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: With the West I mean NATO. (most Western countries are NATO members, so that is why it often gets used when referring to NATO)
Still more common than invasions by Russia.
And besides, you can't just simply exclude America. America is NATO. The European countries are just sidekicks that go along because they many of the same goals and also profit from US imperialism.
See, this lumping together of everyone in Europe under the thumb of the Americans and the blanket label of 'the West' is where I honestly think you go a bit off track. NATO is full of countries like those I just listed, who want nothing more than to get on with life. Then you have another tier of European countries who are a bit bigger, and tend to chase their own interests. And then you have America, who are like those European countries but bigger and more powerful than any of them individually.
Sometimes some of us go along with America (because it fits our interests to do so, we've all been playing the Great Game for longer than these Yank upstarts!)
But quite often, we don't. There's a reason a lot of Americans complain about how all we Europeans do is sit there and criticise them. The truth is, most of Europe left WW2 exhausted and deeply psychologically scarred by two generations of conflict. NATO would have been a possibility/likelihood even without the Americans. NATO, like the EU, is a way of binding together all those advanced European nations who have tremendous economic power, and the capacity to produce corresponding tremendous military power.
Yes, NATO is a way of binding together the European countries, but under American leadership. Nothing gets done in NATO without US leadership, and while not every Western European NATO member may cooperate every time on every single issue, in general, they do cooperate and coordinate their actions with each other.
Ketara wrote:
How convenient than that all NATO allies somehow add to the surrounding of Russia? Why does NATO not have members in South America, Africa or South Asia, but only in regions bordering Russia?
Because none of those nations had just finished a set of destructive European wars mere years before NATO was formed.
Modern NATO has nothing to do with WW2. NATO accepts and actively looks for new members. All those new members who joined long after NATO was formed are next to Russia or even on former Russian territory. Most partnerships etc. also are with countries next to Russia. Claiming that is all coincidence is closing your eyes on purpose.
Ketara wrote:
If you say NATO is a defensive alliance, you are fooling yourself. Ask any Serb how defensive NATO is!
How were Serbia, Iraq Libya etc. threats to NATO?
Libya wasn't a NATO operation. Neither were the Iraqi wars. I think you need to distinguish between wars that had NATO members involved in them, and wars that had NATO as an organisation involved in them. Otherwise, it makes it hard to have a discussion on the matter.
It doesn't matter whether NATO as an organisation was involved. NATO as an organisation in itself is not important because it has no power or influence or whatever of itself. What matters is the NATO states, because their cooperation also takes place outside of what is officially NATO. Therefore distinguising between conflicts that had NATO as organisation involved and conflicts that involved a coalition of NATO states is useless nitpicking, because both are functionally the same.
Vaktathi wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: Because the West hates Russia and wants to keep it down.
What exactly do you define as "the West"...?
Methinks that there's some misunderstanding here. Russia isn't something people think about needing to be "subjugated". It isn't even a place most people think about a whole lot period. When MItt Romney said that Russia was the most important geopolitical threat the US faced in the 2012 election, he was responded to with laughter by almost everyone, because it was seen as him being two decades out of touch.
This is not to say that there haven't been donkey-cave moves by the US and other NATO nations towards Russia, there have been. US treatment of Russia after the fall of the USSR was very poorly handled. But to suggest that "the West" in general has some sort of shadowy long term plan to subjugate Russia is rather absurd, if for no other reason than it attributes a long term unity, force of will, and commitment that just isn't there.
No one mentioned a shadowy long term plan. It is a simple matter of geopolitics and conflicting interests. Russia and Western nations have for centuries had conflicting interests, just like all European nations had with each other. Because Russia was and is powerful, Western nations have often tried to keep Russia down and prevent it from becoming a threat to their own interests. The real problem started when the Western European nations all started this huge anti-Russian alliance called NATO. That turned it from just a part of the Great Game into The West vs Russia.
Vaktathi wrote:
That is the whole reason. Russia doesn't want to bow down to the US and is therefore a threat to the Western world order which has to be contained. That is what NATO is for.
NATO continued to exist after the fall of the USSR because it was too much effort to dismantle it and they found other reasons to keep it around. Nobody was talking about NATO engaging in any sort of conflict with Russia three or four years ago.
NATO functions on the strength of the US military alone. It has effectively allowed and incentivized Europe to spend the last two decades disarming until very recently. This was a good thing, it was a stabilizing force amongst the countries within the alliance who had previously massacred each other by the millions. Europe's armies shrank, their capabilities withered, their will and need to resort to violence diminished, and they decided to stop funding and supporting massive military establishments and put that money elsewhere. The only reason NATO is able to pose a conventional threat to anyone really is because the US military takes up a huge amount of slack.
Really, the bigger problem quite honestly is the low degree of integration on consumer and industrial goods that the US/EU and Russia have. Integrated economies typically don't have military tension. In the US, about the only Russian products you'll find are booze, crab, and surplus military equipment. Russia's exports to other nations, while different in composition, have largely the same problem. It's mostly resources. As much as a fan as I am of Kalashnikov rifles and cheap ammunition, if that's the most recognized "Consumer' product of a nation, it doesn't speak well to economic integration (even before import from Izhmash was banned), particularly when half a dozen (or more) other nations export the same product (Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Serbia, etc). Russian export composition is largely commodity based. I have clothes from Bangladesh, shoes from Thailand, a TV from Japan, a phone made in Korea, a watch made in Germany, paintbrushes from Spain, gaming miniatures from the UK, a car assembled in Japan from parts made in Mexico, countless things from China (flasks, silverware, tackle boxes, cups, etc), computer components from India and Vietnam, but the only things I have from Russia are Izhevsk manufactured AK-74 magazines, and those were specially sought out specifically because they were Russian, I had to go out of my way to look for and buy them just for that special fact.
Russia's economic integration level with most other nations is effectively that of a developing nation, even if the volumes of trade are large. That means issues that arise are much more likely to be seen as with "the other" as opposed to "the neighbor".
Russia doesn't want economic integration or a world market, Russia wants to be self-sufficient and not rely on anyone else. Russia has always been self-sufficient. Russia may not export much, but it also imports little. Russia, in general, just wants to be left alone and have as little to do with foreigners as possible.
Vaktathi wrote:
Yes, the West trying to contain Russia to protect its own interests goes back many centuries.
You make it sound like there was some sort of organized anti-Russian secret cabal, rather than constantly shifting power paradigms that constantly tried to take down whoever was looking to start being top dog. The western and central Europeans fought amongst each other and backstabbed each other at least as much as they did anything to Russia, usually moreso. Even issues with the US are less than a hundred years old, all post-revolution issues and in fact mostly post WW2.
It used to be constantly shifting power paradigms in the past, but that changed with NATO. Nonetheless, the past contains many examples of Western nations trying to keep Russia down to protect their own interests. The difference being that while in the past, Western European nations did so on their own and while also fighting each other, now they cooperate with each other against Russia.
Balts (at least Estonians and Latvians) are generally considered pretty bad, yes. That nazi-worshipping stuff they have going on kinda does that, especially because whenever a neo-nazi is sighted in the Baltic states, all Russian media are on it. Not to mention that the large Russian populations in the Baltic states often have their rights violated and are treated as second-class people. (Lithuania is a nice exception though).
Tell me that doesn't smack of state approved propaganda. Btw, that is exactly how Hitler started WWII. "The Germans in *Insert name of country here* are being oppressed, Germany must rescue her countrymen.
Of course, it is all Kremlin propaganda. Russians are like nazis and out for world domination and therefore everything they say is invalid. Now that is a dangerous attitude to have...
Freakazoitt wrote: So is there any solution to stop second Cold War? It's very resources and nerves wasting
Tell your government to stop it's expansionist policies.
No, you should tell your government to stop its expansionist policies.
I'm sorry, how does the US have expansionist policies? We meddle (as do all great powers, Russia included), but you don't see us stealing entire sections of land from other countires, or supporting and supplying groups that want to become part of our country, now do you?
Freakazoitt wrote: So is there any solution to stop second Cold War? It's very resources and nerves wasting
Tell your government to stop it's expansionist policies.
No, you should tell your government to stop its expansionist policies.
I'm sorry, how does the US have expansionist policies? We meddle (as do all great powers, Russia included), but you don't see us stealing entire sections of land from other countires, or supporting and supplying groups that want to become part of our country, now do you?
How is the US policies to expand its influence and maintain and reinforce its status as world hegemon not expansionist? Why does the US have opened so much military bases all over the world? US military influence is everywhere, how is that not expansionist?
The US does not take territory with hard power, but with soft power. To me, that is pretty much the same.
Iron_Captain wrote:Because the West hates Russia and wants to keep it down. That is the whole reason. Russia doesn't want to bow down to the US and is therefore a threat to the Western world order which has to be contained. That is what NATO is for.
West hates Russia? ok. But what is the reason they hate Russia?
Ketara wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: Because the West hates Russia and wants to keep it down.
That's just a teensy bit paranoid.
What the West wants, is to be able to go about it's business without fear of invasion or people interfering with their trade. If by 'keep Russia down', you mean, 'Have Russia respect current international borders and freedom of trade', then yes. We don't want the rise of a new militaristic Russian Empire. We'd much rather have the rise of a Russia that keeps the peace with the rest of us, and joins us in trying to gouge each other (and the rest of the world) in mercantile fields.
Paranoid is to fear communists invasion after 24 years they disappeared. Just replased "Communists" with "Putin".
Look at how often in this century NATO countries have invaded other countries and how often Russia has.
It's caused by USSR collapsing. Like slow going civil war. In USSR some republics has borders without ethnical or historical issue. Ossetia, Abkhazia wants indenendace from Georgia. Same as Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia - from Serbia. Usually there was no chance to avoid war.
And now USA: for example, Iraq 2003. Who started it? It's USA, not Saddam.
What reason? "Iraq has chemical weapon and want to use it to kill all humans". It's not even funny.
people died, new radical-Islamic-fanatic-terrorist thigs formed and there is no end of anarchy and deaths seen.
Chemical weapons was never found.
It is the real "illegal intervention to sovereign country" western political likes to speak.
Soladrin wrote:How stop cold war 2.0. Tell Putin to feth off.
Oh you so rude. Don't you think, there will be another "Putin" and all will repeat again?
Freakazoitt wrote: So is there any solution to stop second Cold War? It's very resources and nerves wasting
Tell your government to stop it's expansionist policies.
No, you should tell your government to stop its expansionist policies.
I'm sorry, how does the US have expansionist policies? We meddle (as do all great powers, Russia included), but you don't see us stealing entire sections of land from other countires, or supporting and supplying groups that want to become part of our country, now do you?
How is the US policies to expand its influence and maintain and reinforce its status as world hegemon not expansionist? Why does the US have opened so much military bases all over the world? US military influence is everywhere, how is that not expansionist?
The US does not take territory with hard power, but with soft power. To me, that is pretty much the same.
France asked the US to leave their country in 1966 and (De Gaulle and crew) removed themselves from NATO. US of A respected that but a quip was thrown at De Gaulle about the Americans buried in France.
If the US of A removed themselves from
South Korea (2nd Infantry Division and 8th Army)
Germany (Ramstien AFB)
Italy (Vicenza)
Okinawa (USMC & USN)
Bahrain
Qatar
Kuwait
Afghanistan
Iraq (think that reinforce Marine Battalion at the Embassy and the brigade from the 82nd at the BIAP is more likely pausing ISIS from getting stupid)
Who will pick up the slack if we (US of A) brought all our units home.
There were news reports recently of an "I hate Russians" T-shirt that showed up in one community.
Seriously that's the extent of your hatred against Russian transplants? grow the heck up.
Russia invaded and violently suppressed several countries and regions and then after the Soviet Union collapsed in on itself they all gained independence. Those Russian citizens who were forced by the Soviet government to relocate to these other countries are stuck in a country that no longer holds close ties to Russia but at the same time they have 2 choices, either adapt to their new country or move back to Russia. The fact that Russia is using this as a means of invading and retaking these countries is exactly what Hitler and the Nazi's did to start WWII. You can take that offensively if you would like but its a historic fact.
Paranoid is to fear communists invasion after 24 years they disappeared. Just replased "Communists" with "Putin"
Probably because the internal politics of the Russian Federation are fundamentally the same as those of the USSR (putting on a different hat doesn't change much), and Russia keeps invading their neighbors.
You don't see the US invading Mexico because of Cartels or Canada because we want their maple (we do want their maple though).
We can whine plenty about the evils of US foreign policy, but that doesn't make Russia any less antagonistic than it is. Things were actually starting to look up until the Georgia crisis, and then everyone started worrying that Russia had changed hats but was ultimately the same state it had been before. Ukraine only furthers those fears. Russia can't bitch about NATO when NATO's existence and continuance is justified by Russian foreign policy.
Paranoid is to fear communists invasion after 24 years they disappeared. Just replased "Communists" with "Putin"
Probably because the internal politics of the Russian Federation are fundamentally the same as those of the USSR (putting on a different hat doesn't change much), and Russia keeps invading their neighbors.
You don't see the US invading Mexico because of Cartels or Canada because we want their maple (we do want their maple though).
We can whine plenty about the evils of US foreign policy, but that doesn't make Russia any less antagonistic than it is. Things were actually starting to look up until the Georgia crisis, and then everyone started worrying that Russia had changed hats but was ultimately the same state it had been before. Ukraine only furthers those fears. Russia can't bitch about NATO when NATO's existence and continuance is justified by Russian foreign policy.
Have you ever considered that it might actually be NATO policy that is driving Russia towards those actions? Constantly painting Russia as antagonistic is not really going to improve things, is it not? Also, there are huuuuuuuuuuge differences between the internal politics of Soviet Union and Russian Federation. Russian Federation is not communist, and it is very conservative where the Soviet Union was really liberal.
Ghazkuul wrote:
There were news reports recently of an "I hate Russians" T-shirt that showed up in one community.
Seriously that's the extent of your hatred against Russian transplants? grow the heck up.
Russia invaded and violently suppressed several countries and regions and then after the Soviet Union collapsed in on itself they all gained independence. Those Russian citizens who were forced by the Soviet government to relocate to these other countries are stuck in a country that no longer holds close ties to Russia but at the same time they have 2 choices, either adapt to their new country or move back to Russia.
You don't seem to know much about the situation. Many ethnic Russians in Estonia and Latvia are not citizens at all, because they were refused passports when those countries became independent, on basis that they were Russian. Earning citizenship is made very hard for them on purpose and requires them to betray their own ethnic identity. Returning to Russia is not possible, even if they wanted, because they have no passports. They are discriminated against by the Estonian or Latvian populations and lack many basic rights (russian-language media and schools are severely restricted for example).
You can pretend that it is NATO policies that "drive Russia toward those actions", but that would just showcase how into the Russian government's propaganda you've allowed yourself to slip.
Paranoid is to fear communists invasion after 24 years they disappeared. Just replased "Communists" with "Putin"
Probably because the internal politics of the Russian Federation are fundamentally the same as those of the USSR (putting on a different hat doesn't change much), and Russia keeps invading their neighbors.
You don't see the US invading Mexico because of Cartels or Canada because we want their maple (we do want their maple though).
We can whine plenty about the evils of US foreign policy, but that doesn't make Russia any less antagonistic than it is. Things were actually starting to look up until the Georgia crisis, and then everyone started worrying that Russia had changed hats but was ultimately the same state it had been before. Ukraine only furthers those fears. Russia can't bitch about NATO when NATO's existence and continuance is justified by Russian foreign policy.
Have you ever considered that it might actually be NATO policy that is driving Russia towards those actions?
Constantly painting Russia as antagonistic is not really going to improve things, is it not?
Also, there are huuuuuuuuuuge differences between the internal politics of Soviet Union and Russian Federation. Russian Federation is not communist, and it is very conservative where the Soviet Union was really liberal.
Ghazkuul wrote:
There were news reports recently of an "I hate Russians" T-shirt that showed up in one community.
Seriously that's the extent of your hatred against Russian transplants? grow the heck up.
Russia invaded and violently suppressed several countries and regions and then after the Soviet Union collapsed in on itself they all gained independence. Those Russian citizens who were forced by the Soviet government to relocate to these other countries are stuck in a country that no longer holds close ties to Russia but at the same time they have 2 choices, either adapt to their new country or move back to Russia.
You don't seem to know much about the situation. Many ethnic Russians in Estonia and Latvia are not citizens at all, because they were refused passports when those countries became independent, on basis that they were Russian. Earning citizenship is made very hard for them on purpose and requires them to betray their own ethnic identity. Returning to Russia is not possible, even if they wanted, because they have no passports. They are discriminated against by the Estonian or Latvian populations and lack many basic rights (russian-language media and schools are severely restricted for example).
I wonder why Russian is restricted...Ohh yeah thats right because Russia VIOLENTLY suppressed their cultural heritage for decades while they were occupied by the Russians. What these countries want is their national identity back. And they can return to Russia simply by visiting an embassy and saying "I want to go back to Russia". Sucks to be them and I am deeply sorry they can't get the same rights as those who they violently oppressed for decades but that is Russia/Soviet Unions fault not the little countries.
You think if putin or russia actually cared about ethnic russians besides using them as pawns to invade neighboring countries they would let them into the country and help them out. Key terms actually and cared
Paranoid is to fear communists invasion after 24 years they disappeared. Just replased "Communists" with "Putin"
Probably because the internal politics of the Russian Federation are fundamentally the same as those of the USSR (putting on a different hat doesn't change much), and Russia keeps invading their neighbors.
You don't see the US invading Mexico because of Cartels or Canada because we want their maple (we do want their maple though).
We can whine plenty about the evils of US foreign policy, but that doesn't make Russia any less antagonistic than it is. Things were actually starting to look up until the Georgia crisis, and then everyone started worrying that Russia had changed hats but was ultimately the same state it had been before. Ukraine only furthers those fears. Russia can't bitch about NATO when NATO's existence and continuance is justified by Russian foreign policy.
Have you ever considered that it might actually be NATO policy that is driving Russia towards those actions? Constantly painting Russia as antagonistic is not really going to improve things, is it not? Also, there are huuuuuuuuuuge differences between the internal politics of Soviet Union and Russian Federation. Russian Federation is not communist, and it is very conservative where the Soviet Union was really liberal.
Ghazkuul wrote:
There were news reports recently of an "I hate Russians" T-shirt that showed up in one community.
Seriously that's the extent of your hatred against Russian transplants? grow the heck up.
Russia invaded and violently suppressed several countries and regions and then after the Soviet Union collapsed in on itself they all gained independence. Those Russian citizens who were forced by the Soviet government to relocate to these other countries are stuck in a country that no longer holds close ties to Russia but at the same time they have 2 choices, either adapt to their new country or move back to Russia.
You don't seem to know much about the situation. Many ethnic Russians in Estonia and Latvia are not citizens at all, because they were refused passports when those countries became independent, on basis that they were Russian. Earning citizenship is made very hard for them on purpose and requires them to betray their own ethnic identity. Returning to Russia is not possible, even if they wanted, because they have no passports. They are discriminated against by the Estonian or Latvian populations and lack many basic rights (russian-language media and schools are severely restricted for example).
I wonder why Russian is restricted...Ohh yeah thats right because Russia VIOLENTLY suppressed their cultural heritage for decades while they were occupied by the Russians. What these countries want is their national identity back. And they can return to Russia simply by visiting an embassy and saying "I want to go back to Russia". Sucks to be them and I am deeply sorry they can't get the same rights as those who they violently oppressed for decades but that is Russia/Soviet Unions fault not the little countries.
So them getting their national identity back requires them to supress the Russians they lived alongside for centuries? At that point, we should ask the question: Do we even want those countries to have their national identity back if discrimination of other ethnicities and honouring their Nazi past seems to be such an integral part of it? Is it actually a good thing to allow these crimes for the sake of 'national identity'? That would be similar to stripping US citizenship and basic rights of all white citizens of former Confederate states based on the fact that white people historically opressed black people in those areas and that now supression of white people is needed for black identity.
Do you think that the fact that Russians opressed Latvian and Estonians in the past is a good reason for Latvians and Estonians to opress Russians now? Don't forget that those Russians being opressed had no part in the opression of Latvians and Estonians, which was done by the Soviet government (which was made up of people from all over the USSR, not just Russians), not the Russian people. The Russians simply lived there alongside the Estonians and Latvians in peace. It is their home as much as it is that of Estonians and Latvians. They have become the victims of the past policies of a state that does not even exist anymore, and you think this is justified?
And now, you can't immigrate to Russia by just going to a Russian embassy and saying: I want to go to Russia. Not even if you are ethnic Russian, and especially not when you have no documents.
Paranoid is to fear communists invasion after 24 years they disappeared. Just replased "Communists" with "Putin"
Probably because the internal politics of the Russian Federation are fundamentally the same as those of the USSR (putting on a different hat doesn't change much), and Russia keeps invading their neighbors.
You don't see the US invading Mexico because of Cartels or Canada because we want their maple (we do want their maple though).
We can whine plenty about the evils of US foreign policy, but that doesn't make Russia any less antagonistic than it is. Things were actually starting to look up until the Georgia crisis, and then everyone started worrying that Russia had changed hats but was ultimately the same state it had been before. Ukraine only furthers those fears. Russia can't bitch about NATO when NATO's existence and continuance is justified by Russian foreign policy.
Have you ever considered that it might actually be NATO policy that is driving Russia towards those actions?
Constantly painting Russia as antagonistic is not really going to improve things, is it not?
Also, there are huuuuuuuuuuge differences between the internal politics of Soviet Union and Russian Federation. Russian Federation is not communist, and it is very conservative where the Soviet Union was really liberal.
Ghazkuul wrote:
There were news reports recently of an "I hate Russians" T-shirt that showed up in one community.
Seriously that's the extent of your hatred against Russian transplants? grow the heck up.
Russia invaded and violently suppressed several countries and regions and then after the Soviet Union collapsed in on itself they all gained independence. Those Russian citizens who were forced by the Soviet government to relocate to these other countries are stuck in a country that no longer holds close ties to Russia but at the same time they have 2 choices, either adapt to their new country or move back to Russia.
You don't seem to know much about the situation. Many ethnic Russians in Estonia and Latvia are not citizens at all, because they were refused passports when those countries became independent, on basis that they were Russian. Earning citizenship is made very hard for them on purpose and requires them to betray their own ethnic identity. Returning to Russia is not possible, even if they wanted, because they have no passports. They are discriminated against by the Estonian or Latvian populations and lack many basic rights (russian-language media and schools are severely restricted for example).
I wonder why Russian is restricted...Ohh yeah thats right because Russia VIOLENTLY suppressed their cultural heritage for decades while they were occupied by the Russians. What these countries want is their national identity back. And they can return to Russia simply by visiting an embassy and saying "I want to go back to Russia". Sucks to be them and I am deeply sorry they can't get the same rights as those who they violently oppressed for decades but that is Russia/Soviet Unions fault not the little countries.
So them getting their national identity back requires them to supress the Russians they lived alongside for centuries? At that point, we should ask the question: Do we even want those countries to have their national identity back if discrimination of other ethnicities and honouring their Nazi past seems to be such an integral part of it? Is it actually a good thing to allow these crimes for the sake of 'national identity'? That would be similar to stripping US citizenship and basic rights of all white citizens of former Confederate states based on the fact that white people historically opressed black people in those areas and that now supression of white people is needed for black identity.
Do you think that the fact that Russians opressed Latvian and Estonians in the past is a good reason for Latvians and Estonians to opress Russians now? Don't forget that those Russians being opressed had no part in the opression of Latvians and Estonians, which was done by the Soviet government (which was made up of people from all over the USSR, not just Russians), not the Russian people. The Russians simply lived there alongside the Estonians and Latvians in peace. It is their home as much as it is that of Estonians and Latvians. They have become the victims of the past policies of a state that does not even exist anymore, and you think this is justified?
And now, you can't immigrate to Russia by just going to a Russian embassy and saying: I want to go to Russia. Not even if you are ethnic Russian, and especially not when you have no documents.
You might need to go read another history book, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't Nazi's. And if they lived in those 3 countries for hundreds of years they would be Locals not Russian transplants and would have no problem obtaining citizenship. seriously dude stop buying into the Propaganda of the Russians so hardcore.
"The CIA faked the moon landings so they could store secret nazi crystals in kiev to prepare for use during euromadien"- Iron captain or Freakazoitt probably
Ignoring that neo-nazism is rampant in Eastern Europe in general, not just Ukraine and that the Separatists have their fair share of fascist groups as well. Hell one of the images that Russian news was using for a supposed Ukrainian Nazi had the guy covered in Russian flags...
Meh, Russia wants to portray their enemies as Nazis so they can go back to the "Great Patriotic War" stick that Putin's been promoting. Shame then that they don't look at their own doorstep to organisations like the Nashi which are stand ins for the Hitler Youth or the tons of state advocated gangs who hunt down minorities...
Damn, off-topic's not always the best place to look for a constructive discussion, but I keep forgetting what pits these Russia threads are.
Wyrmalla wrote: Ignoring that neo-nazism is rampant in Eastern Europe in general, not just Ukraine and that the Separatists have their fair share of fascist groups as well. Hell one of the images that Russian news was using for a supposed Ukrainian Nazi had the guy covered in Russian flags...
Show me that photo source. maybe it was some unofficial news site.
Meh, Russia wants to portray their enemies as Nazis so they can go back to the "Great Patriotic War" stick that Putin's been promoting. Shame then that they don't look at their own doorstep to organisations like the Nashi which are stand ins for the Hitler Youth or the tons of state advocated gangs who hunt down minorities...
But it's not fantasy. Ukraine politics really says nazi are heroes. And I against Nashi and I have a lot of critics to Putin (I didn't voted for him and his party). But he's a president of Russia and he is not so bad, as described by "liberals".
Damn, off-topic's not always the best place to look for a constructive discussion, but I keep forgetting what pits these Russia threads are.
Haha. You should be happy you can make discussions with real russia. Different points of view are always good for objective picture of the events.
Freakazoitt wrote: Different points of view are always good for objective picture of the events.
Although that does somewhat depend on listening to what other people are saying... unfortunately you seem to have a pretty distorted view of reality and no intention of listening to what anyone else has to say on the matter.
I have zero interest in battering my head against a brick wall thanks. It is a lovely day and I am going to paint some models.
So, what we have:
1) You saying that my vision is false as default. But it's not "different points of view". It's disabling my point of view.
2) You have nothing to disapprove me.
Bye, have a nice day.
ALL viewpoints will be tainted by bias. The 'truth' is a three edged sword, after all (your side, their side, the actual truth). Iron Captain & freakazoitt you aren't making any friends and you are unlikely to change any minds - especially on a mostly US populated board on the weekend they celebrate the day they kicked Alien arse.
Its almost like people believe that Russia didnt and dosent do anything wrong.
Everything wrong thats happening in Eastern Europe is in some way related to what the Russians did to us.
After all, why do you think we hate you so much?
You Russians preformed genocides in our countries, enslaved our people and ruined our economies all that throughout the 20th century.
chromedog
Why not to try? But all I yet got there is neglecting and laugh.
I'm not a deaf patriot like some others.
You Russians preformed genocides in our countries, enslaved our people and ruined our economies all that throughout the 20th century.
Everyone did mistakes in past. Stalin did Katyn in 1940. But in 1920-1921 in Poland 80000 bolshevik prisoners were died. All we can do now is to forgive each other.
And you forgot how USSR helped to rebuild Poland from ruins caused by nazis.
Its one thing to forgive eachother. Im all for it. But its really damn hard if one of the parties is actively trying to return things to how they were back then.
And you forgot how Russia rebuilded Poland from ruins caused by nazis.
You point out Katyn, and you wonder why they aren't grateful...
Contrary to feel good stories, people don't forgive easily, and in fact the easiest way to get them to forgive you is to just leave them alone for awhile (occupying their country with a brutal dictatorship for 50 years doesn't count). Spending the next 30 whining about how no one respects you anymore and making regular aggressive gestures towards your neighbors doesn't help.
Everyone did mistakes in past. Stalin did Katyn in 1940. But in 1920-1921 in Poland 80000 bolshevik prisoners were died. All we can do now is to forgive each other.
And you forgot how Russia rebuilded Poland from ruins caused by nazis.
Youre saying we killed 80 000 prisoners of war? Thats ridiculous. We are not like you, we dont kill PoWs en masse.
You also killed thousands of our people after the war, not just during it.
How many men returned to their country after the war only to be executed by the NKVD?
Rebuilt from the damages done by the Nazis? Please. Arguably you Russians did more damage to Poland during the war than the Germans (For example during the Warsaw uprising).
We would have been far better off if you just stopped vandalizing Eastern Europe constantly.
Lordofhats sums it up pretty nicely too.
Also I love what you are implying by saying "we should all forgive eachother"
Let's also ignore that the Nazi's invaded Poland because they had a deal with Stalin, Stalin would get Poland and they would keep out of each other's hair. (for a while) I like how this counts as rebuilding instead of invading.
Everyone did mistakes in past. Stalin did Katyn in 1940. But in 1920-1921 in Poland 80000 bolshevik prisoners were died. All we can do now is to forgive each other.
And you forgot how Russia rebuilded Poland from ruins caused by nazis.
Youre saying we killed 80 000 prisoners of war?
I think he's referring to the detention of Russians (not Bolsheviks, Imperial Russian soldiers) and Soviet soldiers captured during the Polish Soviet War, 80,000 of whom did die for a multitude of reasons, but acting like Poland killed them is rather inaccurate way of looking at it. A fair number of the prisoners were left by the Germans when WWI ended in Poland, who had no idea what to do with Imperial Army soldiers with Imperial Russia not existing anymore, especially when the fledgling Soviet Russia started a war with them. Poland was dealing with famine, poor infrastructure, a barely functioning government. A lot more than 80,000 people died in Poland in the early 1920's.
Its also ironic the the Polish-Soviet War is mentions since the war was precipitated on the notion of conquering Poland.
No one mentioned a shadowy long term plan. It is a simple matter of geopolitics and conflicting interests. Russia and Western nations have for centuries had conflicting interests, just like all European nations had with each other. Because Russia was and is powerful, Western nations have often tried to keep Russia down and prevent it from becoming a threat to their own interests. The real problem started when the Western European nations all started this huge anti-Russian alliance called NATO. That turned it from just a part of the Great Game into The West vs Russia.
For the time when Russia was the USSR, had the most powerful land military in history, and had shown the willingness to use it against non-aggressive powers (Finland, Poland, etc) and used worldwide socialist revolution as a tool of state, yeah.
Now, that's not to say that the USSR wasn't also justified in some of its own fears, but the two sides squaring off like that, with such vast political and economics differences, was inevitable for that time.
In the last few decades however, NATO had been progressively becoming less and less of a militarily functional organization and Europe was disarming and focusing its gaze elsewhere, largely outside of Europe and away from Russia. NATO, as a threat to Russia, was becoming increasingly less significant. The Dutch were looking at dumping their tank arsenal entirely, and there are fewer Germans, French, and British in uniform now than at any point since the mid 1800's. The armies of Europe were withering away until the brakes got put on over the last year.
Russia doesn't want economic integration or a world market, Russia wants to be self-sufficient and not rely on anyone else. Russia has always been self-sufficient. Russia may not export much, but it also imports little. Russia, in general, just wants to be left alone and have as little to do with foreigners as possible.
As Bastiat said, "When goods don't cross borders, armies will".
Autarky hasn't worked spectacularly well for any nation...ever. Ask the North Koreans how that's going for them. It didn't work for the USSR. Germany tried to use the exact same line of thinking (self sufficiency and reliance with as little to do with foreigners as possible) in the 1930's and 1940's and as the justification for the invasion of their neighbors to obtain Lebensraum, and that didn't work out for them. Japan too had much the same idea, and got the same results Germany did.
As for Exports, Russia does export a lot, it's just in resources. In fact, it's largely exports that have driven the Russian economy and recover since the late 90's, particularly energy exports. The Russian economy is critically dependent on the success of these exports. The problem is that these are products that lots of other nations can produce and that often have alternatives and the prices can collapse relatively easily.
Meanwhile, Russia has no economically viable producers of many consumer and industrial items, particularly technology items. Russia only just last month made its first commercially available computer with a domestically produced PC CPU, and it's a 200,000 Ruble ($4,000) machine, with significantly less processing power than Intel equivalents costing a small fraction of that, and still has to use foreign designed and produced components like video cards.
Autarky isn't any more realistic for Russia than it is anyone else, particularly if they want to stay on even par in terms of technology and standard of living. The USSR tried that, and it failed. North Korea has become the joke state of the world as a result of such a policy. The real effect of this policy is that China is gaining an increasing stake in the Russian economy to fuel her own boom and getting to play Loan Shark to the Russian state. This avoids have to deal with EU/NATO countries to the same extent, particularly in areas like finance, but China has been able to get terms out of agreements with Russia that France could only ever dream of.
Great powers and empires are not built on autarky, trade makes them powerful and rich.
It used to be constantly shifting power paradigms in the past, but that changed with NATO. Nonetheless, the past contains many examples of Western nations trying to keep Russia down to protect their own interests. The difference being that while in the past, Western European nations did so on their own and while also fighting each other, now they cooperate with each other against Russia.
Because, quite frankly, Russia has chosen not to remove the fears that created NATO in the first place. There had been suggestions of inviting Russia to join NATO by various different parties through the late 90's even as recently as 2010, even in places like Poland and Germany. The Russian government's envoy, Dmitry Rogozin, declined such an idea stating "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power.". That's sort of the core of the issue. Russia wanted to be the top dog or not play, and Russia simply doesn't have the capability to be top dog with the other big kids, and it's not hard to see where problems are going to occur in that situation and why others may feel threatened.
That's not to say that Russia doesn't have it's own fears or some good reasons for those, but Russia actively, officially, and openly turned down the opportunity to change the fundamental nature of NATO because it couldn't be top dog. It effectively said "I don't need you, I'll create my own security partnership, with Blackjack and Hookers" when the subject of being included was brought up.
Now, for the present, Russia's takeover of Crimea was truly masterfully executed on an operational level, but the changing of national borders by military force (bloodless and marvelously coordinated though it was) in Europe by a major power is not something that had been done since the second world war and everyone had thought was a thing of the past, and has resulted in reinvigorating an otherwise withering NATO.
Freakazoitt wrote: chromedog
Why not to try? But all I yet got there is neglecting and laugh.
I'm not a deaf patriot like some others.
You Russians preformed genocides in our countries, enslaved our people and ruined our economies all that throughout the 20th century.
Everyone did mistakes in past. Stalin did Katyn in 1940. But in 1920-1921 in Poland 80000 bolshevik prisoners were died. All we can do now is to forgive each other.
And you forgot how USSR helped to rebuild Poland from ruins caused by nazis.
Everyone did mistakes in past. Stalin did Katyn in 1940. But in 1920-1921 in Poland 80000 bolshevik prisoners were died. All we can do now is to forgive each other.
And you forgot how Russia rebuilded Poland from ruins caused by nazis.
Youre saying we killed 80 000 prisoners of war? Thats ridiculous. We are not like you, we dont kill PoWs en masse.
To address this issue, there was some awkwardness after the 1920-21 war on both sides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_prisoners_and_internees_in_the_Soviet_Union_and_Lithuania_%281919%E2%80%9321%29 From most accounts it looks like tens of thousands of prisoners were simply retained by the USSR and never release and many executed, while a lot of those in Polish custody died of disease and starvation. About ~20,000 on both sides died while in the custody of the other.
As for rebuilding Poland after the Nazi's, let's be fair here, the USSR invaded half of Poland when the Nazi's did in full cooperation and pre-planned intent with the Nazi's (while Britain and France ostensibly went to war to defend Poland...but only declared war on Germany and not the USSR, and did basically nothing all to actually help Poland either way), and the USSR kept that half after the war (giving German territory to Poland instead), and actively prevented the pre-war government form returning and a host of other things.
Youre saying we killed 80 000 prisoners of war? Thats ridiculous. We are not like you, we dont kill PoWs en masse.
...and 60000 more were disapeeared.
But I'm not blame Poland. Civil Wars always brutal.
How many men returned to their country after the war only to be executed by the NKVD?
That was happened, because of communists, Stalin, revenge for Civil War, Britain's gak and many other thing not exist now. Not because russians want to kill polish because they are evil devil.
Arguably you Russians did more damage to Poland during the war than the Germans (For example during the Warsaw uprising).
Please explain what Russian damaged during Wasraw uprising (are you taling about 1944?),
Soladrin wrote: Let's also ignore that the Nazi's invaded Poland because they had a deal with Stalin, Stalin would get Poland and they would keep out of each other's hair. (for a while) I like how this counts as rebuilding instead of invading.
It happen, because Britain and France allowed nazis to do that.
Yes, NATO is a way of binding together the European countries, but under American leadership. Nothing gets done in NATO without US leadership, and while not every Western European NATO member may cooperate every time on every single issue, in general, they do cooperate and coordinate their actions with each other.
That depends. NATO Military action does tend to occur with American involvement, it is true. That is primarily the result of America providing the majority of the remote strike capabilities/support in NATO though, I would say. Primarily because barring defence of a NATO country (and none has ever been attacked) if America isn't on board with a military strike, it's quite difficult to make it happen.
But I'd separate that from 'American leadership'. God only knows, we all bicker like cats in a sack. We might occasionally do something to US interests (if it follows our own as well), but even then we don't quite 'follow' the US line. Differing nationalities and cultures tend to be an obstacle to that sort of thing.
Modern NATO has nothing to do with WW2. NATO accepts and actively looks for new members. All those new members who joined long after NATO was formed are next to Russia or even on former Russian territory. Most partnerships etc. also are with countries next to Russia. Claiming that is all coincidence is closing your eyes on purpose.
NATO itself was formed for two reasons. To bind European countries together to stop them warring against each other, and in fear of the Soviet threat (more commonly known as 'Stalin with 'da bomb )
As others have pointed out though, the reason that many nations next to Russia or made up from the remnants of the Union are keen on NATO, is because they see it as a way out from Russian influence. Please allow me to extrapolate.
If you were the leader of a country bordering Russia right now, you'd see the Russian Premier tightening his grip on power. You'd see him ramping up military spending, and you'd see him beginning to interfere militarily along the borders. To any country, this constitutes a potential threat, and as it's leader, you are responsible for lessening it. So what do you do? Your country is no match for Russia, economically or militarily. Your economy likely has heavy trade links with Russia.
You essentially have three options:-
-You stay as quiet as possible, and hope no-one notices you.
-You throw in your lot with Russia wholeheartedly.
-You try and join the EU/NATO, because the EU gives economic links to supplement or replace those of Russia, and NATO wards off any potential Russian military meddling/invasion.
Looking at it logically, you can try option 1. If things are generally quiet, there's no harm in maintaining the status quo, but it's a short termist policy at best. You can throw in your lot with Russia, and do whatever they say, but this likely means being expected to jump when the Russian Premier says so. You might be fine, but then again, you might end up with the Russians effectively making your foreign and economic policy for you. It's a heavy gamble for an independent nation. The third option meanwhile, does not require much in the way of input (most NATO members haven't met their 2% target in years), but allows you to draw upon the military might of a bloc of countries. That allows your run your own military spending down. The economic options opened up by the European Common Market are phenomenal, and far exceed what Russia can offer.
The cost meanwhile, is that you integrate a chunk of your armed forces along NATO lines, and meet EU directions on freedom of speech and suchlike. If you're of a naturally dictatorial type, that might be too high a price for you. But even if you are, you wouldn't be looking to throw in with Russia completely anyway, but rather just take the first option. But that's just you. Assuming that one of your successors is less inclined that way, the odds are that logically, the EU/NATO offer the best prospects.NATO countries also don't war against each other, so you have security of borders that an alliance with Russia might not give you.
The result has been that nation after nation has thrown their hat into the NATO/EU rings. Realpolitik usually dictates the action of nations, and those two organisations tend to offer the maximum possible positive outcomes, with the fewest negatives. It's not necessarily a case, I don't think, of NATO or the EU going, 'Let's encircle Russia', so much as it is countries asking to join, and then being granted access. NATO doesn't actively encourage people to come and join it, by pure virtue of the fact that it doesn't have to. It is not unreasonable to suggest that joining it is the most logical option for most countries who could, and so they have done so.
It doesn't matter whether NATO as an organisation was involved. NATO as an organisation in itself is not important because it has no power or influence or whatever of itself. What matters is the NATO states, because their cooperation also takes place outside of what is officially NATO. Therefore distinguising between conflicts that had NATO as organisation involved and conflicts that involved a coalition of NATO states is useless nitpicking, because both are functionally the same.
Okay. But if that is the case, then you must judge the co-operation between foreign nations individually. You cannot say that NATO is encircling Russia, and then say that the actions of NATO are irrelevant in and of itself, but it is rather the member states that should be paid attention to. The two are mutually exclusive, I think, to the point you are trying to make.
I have zero interest in battering my head against a brick wall thanks. It is a lovely day and I am going to paint some models.
So, what we have:
1) You saying that my vision is false as default. But it's not "different points of view". It's disabling my point of view.
2) You have nothing to disapprove me.
Bye, have a nice day.
Anyone else?
I'll be honest, I have no desire to engage with you. I know that if you listen carefully to what he's saying, and discuss things reasonably with Iron_Captain, both can come away with a certain degree of additional knowledge from time to time (even if we just agree to disagree). With you, I get the impression I'd be wasting my time. I'm not sure if that's the impression you want to be giving, but it's honestly the one I'm getting.
Youre saying we killed 80 000 prisoners of war? Thats ridiculous. We are not like you, we dont kill PoWs en masse.
...and 60000 more were disapeeared.
But I'm not blame Poland. Civil Wars always brutal.
So youre implying we killed over 140 000 people? Im speechless to be honest.
And it was YOU invading us (again) not us attacking you.
How many men returned to their country after the war only to be executed by the NKVD?
That was happened, because of communists, Stalin, revenge for Civil War, Britain's gak and many other thing not exist now. Not because russians want to kill polish because they are evil devil.
Oh so they werent Russians? Just because it happened 70~ years ago does not make it any less relevant.
Arguably you Russians did more damage to Poland during the war than the Germans (For example during the Warsaw uprising).
Please explain what Russian damaged during Wasraw uprising (are you taling about 1944?),
Oh just that small thing with multiple divisions sitting a few km from Warsaw during the uprising not doing anything.
But I'm not blame Poland. Civil Wars always brutal.
Soviet Ukraine and the Soviet Union (because they were two states at one point) and the Second Polish Republic went to war in 1919, nominally, over disputed territories that both wanted to lay claim to.. That is not a Civil War. It's just a war. I'm actually surprised to learn Russia is still spinning the Civil War angle, because it was always ridiculous. i just thought they'd stop repeating it ages ago.
It happen, because Britain and France allowed nazis to do that.
That doesn't even remotely absolve Russia of it's own role in those events. Germany likely wouldn't have invaded without a nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union.
Honestly. You wonder why no one is trying to 'prove' anything to you, when your comments are basically regurgitated nonsense so distinct from reality it boggles the mind anyone actually believes it.
And it was YOU invading us (again) not us attacking you.
To be fair, Poland shares a degree of blame for starting the war (Poland really wanted Belarus), but Polands war goals were far more tame and less "conquer it all and worry about it later' than Russia's, which both wanted to war and to use it as a valid excuse to retaliate and conquer Poland.
It's all really a giant mess because the formation of the 'Ukraine' as a singular region rather than a disparate one was happening at the same time, and both the Poles, 'Ukrainians' and Russians had valid territorial claims to the lands they were fighting over initially. Russian however intended to go much further than pushing legitimate territorial claims, and unsurprisingly, Poland only wanted the lands in the first place to form a bulwark against Russian hegemony, because it's not like this whole Russia v Poland thing started at the end of WWII. It's a fair bit older than that.
Daemonhammer wrote: So youre implying we killed over 140 000 people? Im speechless to be honest.
And it was YOU invading us (again) not us attacking you.
200000 prisoned, 80000 pows died for many reasons (but many of them tortured to death) and 60000 disappeared.
Oh so they werent Russians? Just because it happened 70~ years ago does not make it any less relevant.
weren't totalitarians who think that Poland is just illegal rebelled state
Oh just that small thing with multiple divisions sitting a few km from Warsaw during the uprising not doing anything.
These divisions were VERY exhausted by hard fighting and do you know why uprising happen? Because Britain ordered them to do uprising and take control over Warsaw quickly BEFORE SOVIET WILL ADVANCE. There were no coordination between them, How they can coordinate if uprising was controlled from London?
We also had people living all over the place back then, for example the western Ukraine region (around Lwów) was practically Polish with a Polish majority, which is where half of my family comes from.
Daemonhammer wrote: So youre implying we killed over 140 000 people? Im speechless to be honest.
And it was YOU invading us (again) not us attacking you.
200000 prisoned, 80000 pows died for many reasons (but many of them tortured to death) and 60000 disappeared.
Wow. Just wow. Maybe we started the holocaust too?
Oh so they werent Russians? Just because it happened 70~ years ago does not make it any less relevant.
weren't totalitarians who think that Poland is just illegal rebelled state
What?
Oh just that small thing with multiple divisions sitting a few km from Warsaw during the uprising not doing anything.
These divisions were VERY exhausted by hard fighting and do you know why uprising happen? Because Britain ordered them to do uprising and take control over Warsaw quickly BEFORE SOVIET WILL ADVANCE. There were no coordination between them, How they can coordinate if uprising was controlled from London?
Yeah right, they were exhausted. It had nothing to do with the orders of the upper Soviet leadership.
Convenient how your forces "got tired" around the same time thousands of partisans were being killed.
The same people who might later demand a small thing like having their country back.
And since when did the Red army care about the tiredness of its soldiers?
200000 prisoned, 80000 pows died for many reasons (but many of them tortured to death) and 60000 disappeared.
Russia's claims that POWs were tortured have no basis in fact. In fact, many of the POWs weren't even guarded. They were too weak to escape, and the Imperial ones by and large didn't even want to cause they didn't want to return to a Russia that had made a habit of executing Imperial soldiers.
These divisions were VERY exhausted by hard fighting and do you know why uprising happen? Because Britain ordered them to do uprising and take control over Warsaw quickly BEFORE SOVIET WILL ADVANCE. There were no coordination between them, How they can coordinate if uprising was controlled from London?
That's a rather distorted view of what happened. The British were afraid that if the Soviets 'liberated' Poland, they'd never leave (huh, turns out that's exactly what happened.... Guess they were right?) but that if the Poles liberated themselves with Russian help, that Russia could be persuaded not to occupy Poland after the war. Britain hoped that timing the Warsaw Uprising the advancing Russian troops would result in both sides working together, and was frankly, was a pretty standard British concept that was also used in France, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Germany actually did Poland and Russia a favor by pulling out of Warsaw because they knew they couldn't hold the city (and some hoped the Polish rebels and Russian troops would start fighting each other). Russia stopping it's advance really did screw the Polish Resistance. They could have just marched in and gotten the city virtually free of charge and moved on, except Russia knew exactly what Britain was doing, wanted to conquer Poland anyway, and saw a really easy way to let the future Anti-Soviet Polish Resistance get itself killed, so they sat back and waited for the Germans to lose patience and go into the city and crush the Polish Resistance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daemonhammer wrote: And since when did the Red army care about the tiredness of its soldiers?
Well, they were tired, and the Red Army in 1944 wasn't as brutal as it had been in 1942 towards its own men (still not a great place though) but that was just kind of a fringe benefit of sitting back and letting Germany deal with a future problem for them.
Russia's claims that POWs were tortured have no basis in fact. In fact, many of the POWs weren't even guarded. They were too weak to escape, and the Imperial ones by and large didn't even want to cause they didn't want to return to a Russia that had made a habit of executing Imperial soldiers.
What? Almost all bolsheviks army that time was ex Imperial Army.
1) Today Russia is not communist totalitarian with NKVD and GULAG.
2) Today Russia don't think that Poland is illegal rebelled state
Yeah right, they were exhausted. It had nothing to do with the orders of the upper Soviet leadership.
Convenient how your forces "got tired" around the same time thousands of partisans were being killed.
The same people who might later demand a small thing like having their country back.
They can't just scream "O look, there something happening let's go there". Warmachine is very bulky to make desicions.
And since when did the Red army care about the tiredness of its soldiers?
Wow. Just wow. Maybe we started the holocaust too?
I repeat, I don't blame Poland.
Yet again, i dont know if i should laugh or cry at what you are saying.
1) Today Russia is not communist totalitarian with NKVD and GULAG.
Its still a totalitarian state.
No NKVD but FSB and FSO instead nowadays.
I wonder though what happens to all these people that dont like Putin and that Putin dosent like.
2) Today Russia don't think that Poland is illegal rebelled state
Not yet.
Yeah right, they were exhausted. It had nothing to do with the orders of the upper Soviet leadership.
Convenient how your forces "got tired" around the same time thousands of partisans were being killed.
The same people who might later demand a small thing like having their country back.
They can't just scream "O look, there something happening let's go there". Warmachine is very bulky to make desicions.
What? Almost all bolsheviks army that time was ex Imperial Army.
Perhaps because I was vague;
The Soviets made a very quick habit of executing soldiers who didn't get on the 'party platform' and even those who did but weren't doing a good enough job. Tens of thousands of soldiers were executed over the course of the Russian Civil War (and Russian media popularly celebrated it at that), and naturally most of those executed were former Imperial Army, many of them 'political' officers in the sense that Russia was spending a lot of time wiping out the old nobility one family member at a time.
Because Karma, a lot of those who did the executing eventually got executed, and those who did the executing of the executing eventually got executed too... There's a Monty Python reference here somewhere. Something about sacking
Because Karma, a lot of those who did the executing eventually got executed, and those who did the executing of the executing eventually got executed too... There's a Monty Python reference here somewhere. Something about sacking
USSR not invaded Poland 1939. They just took back, what Poland captured in 1918-1920 war. Russia not resposible for Germany invaded Poland, it's Britain and allies resposibility. They have to fight against German, as stated in agreement but did nothing. Like they did nothing during invasion to Czechoslovakia,
Its still a totalitarian state.
No NKVD but FSB and FSO instead nowadays.
I wonder though what happens to all these people that dont like Putin and that Putin dosent like.
If compared to Stalin times, it's totally different,
Not yet.
How do you know?
Yeah, make more excuses.
Emmm... probably didn't recieve an order to advance, because uprising was politically against soviets (while miliarily it was against germans), because
USSR not invaded Poland 1939. They just took back, what Poland captured in 1918-1920 war.
What Poland recaptured in the 1919-21 war was Polish lands anyway, with Polish majority population.
Also what this implies is that atleast half of Poland was somehow Russian.
Russia was responsible too because Poland would be able to fight atleast twice as long have the Russians not stabbed us in the back and forced us to fight on two fronts.
Its still a totalitarian state.
No NKVD but FSB and FSO instead nowadays.
I wonder though what happens to all these people that dont like Putin and that Putin dosent like.
If compared to Stalin times, it's totally different,
Yet political enemies have a tendency to disappear or commit suicide.
Not yet.
How do you know?
Because thats how Russia works nowadays? You claim something is illegal and actually belongs to you and suddenly there are Russian soldiers everywhere.
Yeah, make more excuses.
Emmm... probably didn't recieve an order to advance, because uprising was politically against soviets (while miliarily it was against germans), because
Paranoid is to fear communists invasion after 24 years they disappeared. Just replased "Communists" with "Putin"
Probably because the internal politics of the Russian Federation are fundamentally the same as those of the USSR (putting on a different hat doesn't change much), and Russia keeps invading their neighbors.
You don't see the US invading Mexico because of Cartels or Canada because we want their maple (we do want their maple though).
We can whine plenty about the evils of US foreign policy, but that doesn't make Russia any less antagonistic than it is. Things were actually starting to look up until the Georgia crisis, and then everyone started worrying that Russia had changed hats but was ultimately the same state it had been before. Ukraine only furthers those fears. Russia can't bitch about NATO when NATO's existence and continuance is justified by Russian foreign policy.
Have you ever considered that it might actually be NATO policy that is driving Russia towards those actions? Constantly painting Russia as antagonistic is not really going to improve things, is it not? Also, there are huuuuuuuuuuge differences between the internal politics of Soviet Union and Russian Federation. Russian Federation is not communist, and it is very conservative where the Soviet Union was really liberal.
Ghazkuul wrote:
There were news reports recently of an "I hate Russians" T-shirt that showed up in one community.
Seriously that's the extent of your hatred against Russian transplants? grow the heck up.
Russia invaded and violently suppressed several countries and regions and then after the Soviet Union collapsed in on itself they all gained independence. Those Russian citizens who were forced by the Soviet government to relocate to these other countries are stuck in a country that no longer holds close ties to Russia but at the same time they have 2 choices, either adapt to their new country or move back to Russia.
You don't seem to know much about the situation. Many ethnic Russians in Estonia and Latvia are not citizens at all, because they were refused passports when those countries became independent, on basis that they were Russian. Earning citizenship is made very hard for them on purpose and requires them to betray their own ethnic identity. Returning to Russia is not possible, even if they wanted, because they have no passports. They are discriminated against by the Estonian or Latvian populations and lack many basic rights (russian-language media and schools are severely restricted for example).
I wonder why Russian is restricted...Ohh yeah thats right because Russia VIOLENTLY suppressed their cultural heritage for decades while they were occupied by the Russians. What these countries want is their national identity back. And they can return to Russia simply by visiting an embassy and saying "I want to go back to Russia". Sucks to be them and I am deeply sorry they can't get the same rights as those who they violently oppressed for decades but that is Russia/Soviet Unions fault not the little countries.
So them getting their national identity back requires them to supress the Russians they lived alongside for centuries? At that point, we should ask the question: Do we even want those countries to have their national identity back if discrimination of other ethnicities and honouring their Nazi past seems to be such an integral part of it? Is it actually a good thing to allow these crimes for the sake of 'national identity'? That would be similar to stripping US citizenship and basic rights of all white citizens of former Confederate states based on the fact that white people historically opressed black people in those areas and that now supression of white people is needed for black identity.
Do you think that the fact that Russians opressed Latvian and Estonians in the past is a good reason for Latvians and Estonians to opress Russians now? Don't forget that those Russians being opressed had no part in the opression of Latvians and Estonians, which was done by the Soviet government (which was made up of people from all over the USSR, not just Russians), not the Russian people. The Russians simply lived there alongside the Estonians and Latvians in peace. It is their home as much as it is that of Estonians and Latvians. They have become the victims of the past policies of a state that does not even exist anymore, and you think this is justified?
And now, you can't immigrate to Russia by just going to a Russian embassy and saying: I want to go to Russia. Not even if you are ethnic Russian, and especially not when you have no documents.
You might need to go read another history book, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't Nazi's. And if they lived in those 3 countries for hundreds of years they would be Locals not Russian transplants and would have no problem obtaining citizenship. seriously dude stop buying into the Propaganda of the Russians so hardcore.
Also, ethnic Russians have lived and settled in the what is now the Baltic states alongside the Baltic peoples for a thousand years, as far as recorded history goes back. Most of the current generation of ethnic Russians has been actually born in the Baltic States, their parents having immigrated or forcedly relocated there in Soviet times. At what point does a land become one's native land? By your logic, should all Americans get out of the USA too and return to Europe and Africa because they are all recent immigrants compared to native Americans? Or should Hispanics be forced out because they are recent immigrants compared to other Americans? Why do you hate immigrants so much?
Daemonhammer wrote: I honestly dont know if i should laugh or cry at the concept of "Baltic states are nazi!".
Baltic states are not Nazi, that was only in the past. Most modern Balts are not Nazis, even if Russian propaganda says so. The treatment of ethnic Russians in the Baltic States and the historic revisionism of Estonia's and Latvia's Nazi past is pretty scary though.
Yes. I find it greatly disturbing how being conquered by the Nazi's and forced into their regime has been historically revised as some kind of black mark of of guilt
Russia was responsible too because Poland would be able to fight atleast twice as long have the Russians not stabbed us in the back and forced us to fight on two fronts.
One day or so more - will not change anything. Poland "stabbed back" Czechs during they were fighting against Germany. But people remember only things, that required by politics for their games.
Because thats how Russia works nowadays? You claim something is illegal and actually belongs to you and suddenly there are Russian soldiers everywhere.
If you taking about Crimea. 95% people choosed to join Russia. I was there years before. They don't even speak ukrainian, It happen during maidan's anarchic "govermnent" ruled. In fact, there was no legal government, And who responsibe for euromaidan? Maybe NATO again?
You just confirmed what I said before.
So why unpreapeared soviets should die to save their political enemies - Armiya Kraiowa?
Yup, it's our fault that Russia helped Germany invade Poland. As our allies and allowed to take Berlin, it's also our fault that the red army went berserk through Eastern Europe and Germany mass raping every woman and girl they could get their hands on. Or do they deny that even happened now? I can't keep up with all this doublethink.
Yup, it's our fault that Russia helped Germany invade Poland.
Why Britain didn't actually participated that war? It promised to help Poland against German.
As our allies and allowed to take Berlin, it's also our fault that the red army went berserk through Eastern Europe and Germany mass raping every woman and girl they could get their hands on.
In 1939 Britain had enough power to crush Germany and save Europe from everything,
Mass raping? How it whould happen, when such things was considered crime in red army.
Just in case youre going to say that russioans didnt rape anyone: Both my grandmother and great aunt were raped in WW2. They told me. And trust me, they didnt lie. That was pretty obvious. No one can lie that well.
No one mentioned a shadowy long term plan. It is a simple matter of geopolitics and conflicting interests. Russia and Western nations have for centuries had conflicting interests, just like all European nations had with each other. Because Russia was and is powerful, Western nations have often tried to keep Russia down and prevent it from becoming a threat to their own interests. The real problem started when the Western European nations all started this huge anti-Russian alliance called NATO. That turned it from just a part of the Great Game into The West vs Russia.
For the time when Russia was the USSR, had the most powerful land military in history, and had shown the willingness to use it against non-aggressive powers (Finland, Poland, etc) and used worldwide socialist revolution as a tool of state, yeah.
Now, that's not to say that the USSR wasn't also justified in some of its own fears, but the two sides squaring off like that, with such vast political and economics differences, was inevitable for that time.
In the last few decades however, NATO had been progressively becoming less and less of a militarily functional organization and Europe was disarming and focusing its gaze elsewhere, largely outside of Europe and away from Russia. NATO, as a threat to Russia, was becoming increasingly less significant. The Dutch were looking at dumping their tank arsenal entirely, and there are fewer Germans, French, and British in uniform now than at any point since the mid 1800's. The armies of Europe were withering away until the brakes got put on over the last year.
Russia, after 1991 did no longer see NATO as a threat. But this changed very radically with the illegal NATO attacks on Russia's ally Serbia, which proved that NATO was in fact very much a real threat to Russia and any other sovereign non-NATO nation in the world. Especially when also combined with all the other American invasions (for the record US=NATO in the eyes of most Russians) Invading and bombing sovereign states without legal basis tends to make others see you as a threat. Fact is that it is not only Russia who sees itself as a threat, China, Iran and many others do too. NATO and US conduct in the past decades has earned it a lot of enemies and dispelled any myths about NATO 'not being a threat'.
Vaktathi wrote:
Russia doesn't want economic integration or a world market, Russia wants to be self-sufficient and not rely on anyone else. Russia has always been self-sufficient. Russia may not export much, but it also imports little. Russia, in general, just wants to be left alone and have as little to do with foreigners as possible.
As Bastiat said, "When goods don't cross borders, armies will".
Autarky hasn't worked spectacularly well for any nation...ever. Ask the North Koreans how that's going for them. It didn't work for the USSR. Germany tried to use the exact same line of thinking (self sufficiency and reliance with as little to do with foreigners as possible) in the 1930's and 1940's and as the justification for the invasion of their neighbors to obtain Lebensraum, and that didn't work out for them. Japan too had much the same idea, and got the same results Germany did.
As for Exports, Russia does export a lot, it's just in resources. In fact, it's largely exports that have driven the Russian economy and recover since the late 90's, particularly energy exports. The Russian economy is critically dependent on the success of these exports. The problem is that these are products that lots of other nations can produce and that often have alternatives and the prices can collapse relatively easily.
Meanwhile, Russia has no economically viable producers of many consumer and industrial items, particularly technology items. Russia only just last month made its first commercially available computer with a domestically produced PC CPU, and it's a 200,000 Ruble ($4,000) machine, with significantly less processing power than Intel equivalents costing a small fraction of that, and still has to use foreign designed and produced components like video cards.
Autarky isn't any more realistic for Russia than it is anyone else, particularly if they want to stay on even par in terms of technology and standard of living. The USSR tried that, and it failed. North Korea has become the joke state of the world as a result of such a policy. The real effect of this policy is that China is gaining an increasing stake in the Russian economy to fuel her own boom and getting to play Loan Shark to the Russian state. This avoids have to deal with EU/NATO countries to the same extent, particularly in areas like finance, but China has been able to get terms out of agreements with Russia that France could only ever dream of.
Great powers and empires are not built on autarky, trade makes them powerful and rich.
It used to be constantly shifting power paradigms in the past, but that changed with NATO. Nonetheless, the past contains many examples of Western nations trying to keep Russia down to protect their own interests. The difference being that while in the past, Western European nations did so on their own and while also fighting each other, now they cooperate with each other against Russia.
Because, quite frankly, Russia has chosen not to remove the fears that created NATO in the first place. There had been suggestions of inviting Russia to join NATO by various different parties through the late 90's even as recently as 2010, even in places like Poland and Germany. The Russian government's envoy, Dmitry Rogozin, declined such an idea stating "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power.". That's sort of the core of the issue. Russia wanted to be the top dog or not play, and Russia simply doesn't have the capability to be top dog with the other big kids, and it's not hard to see where problems are going to occur in that situation and why others may feel threatened.
That's not to say that Russia doesn't have it's own fears or some good reasons for those, but Russia actively, officially, and openly turned down the opportunity to change the fundamental nature of NATO because it couldn't be top dog. It effectively said "I don't need you, I'll create my own security partnership, with Blackjack and Hookers" when the subject of being included was brought up.
Now, for the present, Russia's takeover of Crimea was truly masterfully executed on an operational level, but the changing of national borders by military force (bloodless and marvelously coordinated though it was) in Europe by a major power is not something that had been done since the second world war and everyone had thought was a thing of the past, and has resulted in reinvigorating an otherwise withering NATO.
Maybe that is true. But Russia has always been a great empire since the Middle Ages, even without trade, and even though it has been invaded again and again and again and again, all of those invasions have been broken. Russians have always been warriors rather than traders. You can't just change such an element of culture that has become part of it for so many centuries. Russians are a proud and stubborn people too. They won't accept bowing down to the US (NATO) or China or anyone else. I think most Russians would rather stand alone and fight than to give up its independence and great power status (which is important for national pride). If that leads to confrontation, so be it, but Russia prefers to be left alone in peace.
Arguably you Russians did more damage to Poland during the war than the Germans (For example during the Warsaw uprising).
Don't you ever forget that it was the Soviets who saved you and your people from complete extermination in the German death camps. If the Red Army had not liberated you, Poland would today not exist. Of course, this does not excuse Soviet crimes, but never forget that many Russians also gave their lifes for your freedom.
Yes, NATO is a way of binding together the European countries, but under American leadership. Nothing gets done in NATO without US leadership, and while not every Western European NATO member may cooperate every time on every single issue, in general, they do cooperate and coordinate their actions with each other.
That depends. NATO Military action does tend to occur with American involvement, it is true. That is primarily the result of America providing the majority of the remote strike capabilities/support in NATO though, I would say. Primarily because barring defence of a NATO country (and none has ever been attacked) if America isn't on board with a military strike, it's quite difficult to make it happen.
But I'd separate that from 'American leadership'. God only knows, we all bicker like cats in a sack. We might occasionally do something to US interests (if it follows our own as well), but even then we don't quite 'follow' the US line. Differing nationalities and cultures tend to be an obstacle to that sort of thing.
I think British and Western European interests align with American interests more than ocasionally.
Modern NATO has nothing to do with WW2. NATO accepts and actively looks for new members. All those new members who joined long after NATO was formed are next to Russia or even on former Russian territory. Most partnerships etc. also are with countries next to Russia. Claiming that is all coincidence is closing your eyes on purpose.
NATO itself was formed for two reasons. To bind European countries together to stop them warring against each other, and in fear of the Soviet threat (more commonly known as 'Stalin with 'da bomb )
As others have pointed out though, the reason that many nations next to Russia or made up from the remnants of the Union are keen on NATO, is because they see it as a way out from Russian influence. Please allow me to extrapolate.
If you were the leader of a country bordering Russia right now, you'd see the Russian Premier tightening his grip on power. You'd see him ramping up military spending, and you'd see him beginning to interfere militarily along the borders. To any country, this constitutes a potential threat, and as it's leader, you are responsible for lessening it. So what do you do? Your country is no match for Russia, economically or militarily. Your economy likely has heavy trade links with Russia.
You essentially have three options:-
-You stay as quiet as possible, and hope no-one notices you. -You throw in your lot with Russia wholeheartedly. -You try and join the EU/NATO, because the EU gives economic links to supplement or replace those of Russia, and NATO wards off any potential Russian military meddling/invasion.
Looking at it logically, you can try option 1. If things are generally quiet, there's no harm in maintaining the status quo, but it's a short termist policy at best. You can throw in your lot with Russia, and do whatever they say, but this likely means being expected to jump when the Russian Premier says so. You might be fine, but then again, you might end up with the Russians effectively making your foreign and economic policy for you. It's a heavy gamble for an independent nation. The third option meanwhile, does not require much in the way of input (most NATO members haven't met their 2% target in years), but allows you to draw upon the military might of a bloc of countries. That allows your run your own military spending down. The economic options opened up by the European Common Market are phenomenal, and far exceed what Russia can offer.
The cost meanwhile, is that you integrate a chunk of your armed forces along NATO lines, and meet EU directions on freedom of speech and suchlike. If you're of a naturally dictatorial type, that might be too high a price for you. But even if you are, you wouldn't be looking to throw in with Russia completely anyway, but rather just take the first option. But that's just you. Assuming that one of your successors is less inclined that way, the odds are that logically, the EU/NATO offer the best prospects.NATO countries also don't war against each other, so you have security of borders that an alliance with Russia might not give you.
The result has been that nation after nation has thrown their hat into the NATO/EU rings. Realpolitik usually dictates the action of nations, and those two organisations tend to offer the maximum possible positive outcomes, with the fewest negatives. It's not necessarily a case, I don't think, of NATO or the EU going, 'Let's encircle Russia', so much as it is countries asking to join, and then being granted access. NATO doesn't actively encourage people to come and join it, by pure virtue of the fact that it doesn't have to. It is not unreasonable to suggest that joining it is the most logical option for most countries who could, and so they have done so.
True, and I understand the position of countries like the Baltic states, but NATO did not have to accept their demands for joining. NATO should have been more sensible towards Russian national interests. I think it is a vicious circle. Past events have caused the Baltic states to be hostile towards Russia, which causes them to join NATO, which causes modern Russia to be hostile to the Baltic States, which reinforces the image that the Baltic States need NATO to protect against Russia. I think joining NATO was a bad idea for those countries, because it did not break the vicious circle. If you compare them to Belarus and Kazakhstan for example, you see that those countries have had no major troubles with Russia but manage to maintain a balance between the West and Russia. If the Baltic states had done the same and had not made an enemy out of the Russian Federation, they would not have to feel as threatened as they do now. Basically, there is a 4th option to the three you have listed, which I think is the best for the former Soviet states.
It doesn't matter whether NATO as an organisation was involved. NATO as an organisation in itself is not important because it has no power or influence or whatever of itself. What matters is the NATO states, because their cooperation also takes place outside of what is officially NATO. Therefore distinguising between conflicts that had NATO as organisation involved and conflicts that involved a coalition of NATO states is useless nitpicking, because both are functionally the same.
Okay. But if that is the case, then you must judge the co-operation between foreign nations individually. You cannot say that NATO is encircling Russia, and then say that the actions of NATO are irrelevant in and of itself, but it is rather the member states that should be paid attention to. The two are mutually exclusive, I think, to the point you are trying to make.
I think not, because NATO is made up of its member states, it has no life outside of its member states. When I say NATO is encircling Russia, I am effectively saying NATO member states are encircling Russia. It is the same thing.
I think it is a vicious circle. Past events have caused the Baltic states to be hostile towards Russia, which causes them to join NATO, which causes modern Russia to be hostile to the Baltic States, which reinforces the image that the Baltic States need NATO to protect against Russia.
This only works if we assume Russia hasn't had hostile relations with the Baltic since before NATO.
I get the sense Russia teaches very poor history in this thread so hint; Russia has been bullying it's neighbors for forever. The Baltic states, have been weary of and fearful of Russian aggression and hegemony for centuries because Russia was always trying to invade them. It is not a new fear. It is a very old one, NATO simply being the latest iteration of the means by which Russia's neighbors desperately seek to protect themselves from a power that has historically, done little but try to ravage them.
Forgive if I find Russia's faint cries of victimhood hyperbolic when the whole reason Eastern Europe is always lining up against them is because they keep trying to invade Eastern Europe
Iron_Captain wrote:since the Middle Ages, even without trade, and even though it has been invaded again and again and again and again, all of those invasions have been broken.
After mongols the only who not failed invasion is rzeczpospolita in 1610. POLAND STRONG, haha.
SilverMK2 wrote:Wow, glad I did some painting rather than waste my time in this thread...
LOL you said that before but still there.
Ketara wrote: Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'? The obvious thing for Russia to do would be to join NATO itself, but as has been said elsewhere, it didn't want to do that.
It is impossible by both NATO and Russia.
The existence of nuclear weaponry has more or less put paid to the idea of anyone ever invading Russia again. So that forces me to the logical conclusion that the reason Russia gets upset at countries joining NATO, is because it would like to meddle in or subsume those countries militarily in pursuit of its own agenda, but now feels it cannot do so. If you have a third option I'm not seeing here though, please feel free to voice it.
There are two type of countries: NATO and others. And NATO making a lot of wars on "others", turning those countries into anarchic terrorists (Iraq for example). I don't get how it helps anyone but NATO itself, So, that's why every next country joining NATO considered by "others" as a new threat.
I think not, because NATO is made up of its member states, it has no life outside of its member states. When I say NATO is encircling Russia, I am effectively saying NATO member states are encircling Russia. It is the same thing.
And if Russia will finally encircelled, there will be only one superpower - USA and it's satellites (NATO).
(do not tell them, there is China too let's surprise them )
Iron_Captain wrote: True, and I understand the position of countries like the Baltic states, but NATO did not have to accept their demands for joining. NATO should have been more sensible towards Russian national interests.
I fear I might be restating myself here, but NATO is a defensive alliance. Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'? The obvious thing for Russia to do would be to join NATO itself, but as has been said elsewhere, it didn't want to do that. Which is fine. You say yourself Russia just wants to be left alone. Which is fine also.
But why is it exactly, that the foreign relations of powers completely separate to Russia, need to take Russia into account? Surely if Russia is a peaceful nation with no plans to invade anyone, NATO is absolutely no threat. I mean, just to pull into your next statement,
I think it is a vicious circle. Past events have caused the Baltic states to be hostile towards Russia, which causes them to join NATO, which causes modern Russia to be hostile to the Baltic States,
Why does a number of Baltic states joining NATO make modern Russia hostile to them? If Russia has no plans to meddle in those countries affairs, surely NATO is irrelevant? What organisations another country chooses to be part of is not a reason to be hostile or peaceful. Nobody in the West gets hostile towards other countries because they're joining this trade block Russia is trying to set up, the same way we wouldn't be hostile to the Phillipines if they concluded a defensive treaty with Malaysia.
There are only two possible logical reasons a country could fear/have issues with two foreign powers concluding a defensive alliance, primarily:-
-That they fear the two new allies will combine to attack them, &
-That they planned to attack one of the powers themselves, but are unable to in the face of the new combination.
The existence of nuclear weaponry has more or less put paid to the idea of anyone ever invading Russia again. So that forces me to the logical conclusion that the reason Russia gets upset at countries joining NATO, is because it would like to meddle in or subsume those countries militarily in pursuit of its own agenda, but now feels it cannot do so. If you have a third option I'm not seeing here though, please feel free to voice it.
If the Baltic states had done the same and had not made an enemy out of the Russian Federation, they would not have to feel as threatened as they do now. Basically, there is a 4th option to the three you have listed, which I think is the best for the former Soviet states.
I remember some considerable signs of strain in Belarus over the whole Ukraine affair, with regards to Belarus feeling that if they step out of line with Russia, Russia will cause the same problems for them. So whilst they'd rather have option number 1, Putin is holding a club and gesturing menacingly towards number 2. That was simply my impression of the whole thing though, which could be wrong (I haven't read too far into it).
Iron_Captain wrote: I think not, because NATO is made up of its member states, it has no life outside of its member states. When I say NATO is encircling Russia, I am effectively saying NATO member states are encircling Russia. It is the same thing.
If you'll pardon the comparison (God only knows we've seen enough bad Nazi comparisons in here), I see some mild parallels with regards to how Germany felt pre-WW1 with regards to encirclement. With Germany, it was because they wanted their 'place in the sun' and feared that the rise of other powers would prevent them meddling militarily as they liked. That lends further weight (in my eyes) to my analysis above. If you disagree though, I would be interested to hear as to why.
Ketara wrote: Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'?
But- But Ketara! if all of Russia's neighbors join NATO they won't have any neighbors to bully anymore! And if Russia can't kick some poor developing state in the groin, how will all the other big boy countries know that Russia is super duper serial?
Ketara wrote: Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'?
But- But Ketara! if all of Russia's neighbors join NATO they won't have any neighbors to bully anymore! And if Russia can't kick some poor developing state in the groin, how will all the other big boy countries know that Russia is super duper serial?
They could wear a big hat and a cape.
That's how I let everyone else know that I'm in charge.
Ketara wrote: Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'?
But- But Ketara! if all of Russia's neighbors join NATO they won't have any neighbors to bully anymore! And if Russia can't kick some poor developing state in the groin, how will all the other big boy countries know that Russia is super duper serial?
They could wear a big hat and a cape.
That's how I let everyone else know that I'm in charge.
Now I am imagining putin wearing a macho man get up running around kicking ukraine, georgia in the groin and making threatening motions towards the baltic countries lol.
Ketara wrote: Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'?
But- But Ketara! if all of Russia's neighbors join NATO they won't have any neighbors to bully anymore! And if Russia can't kick some poor developing state in the groin, how will all the other big boy countries know that Russia is super duper serial?
If it will happen, CIA will work on closer countries, turning them against Russia. I will not name those countries to not make them angry at me.
And after that, Circle will smaller. But that's not the final.
USA will say, that some democracy opressed in Siberia and other regions.
Russia will be divided into small states.
Some liberals-dissidents told me that plan. It's not my idea .
Ustrello wrote: I thought red dawn was based on true events does this mean my shrine to the wolverines as the saviors of the united states is useless?
I'll never forget watching the end of the Red Dawn remake and listening to that inspirational speech at the end and thinking "Somewhere in the Middle East, some guy with a beard is giving this exact same speech while strapping bombs to his chest." The irony was delicious
Iron_Captain wrote: True, and I understand the position of countries like the Baltic states, but NATO did not have to accept their demands for joining. NATO should have been more sensible towards Russian national interests.
I fear I might be restating myself here, but NATO is a defensive alliance.Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'? The obvious thing for Russia to do would be to join NATO itself, but as has been said elsewhere, it didn't want to do that. Which is fine. You say yourself Russia just wants to be left alone. Which is fine also.
But why is it exactly, that the foreign relations of powers completely separate to Russia, need to take Russia into account? Surely if Russia is a peaceful nation with no plans to invade anyone, NATO is absolutely no threat. I mean, just to pull into your next statement,
Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'? The obvious thing for Russia to do would be to join NATO itself, but as has been said elsewhere, it didn't want to do that. Which is fine. You say yourself Russia just wants to be left alone. Which is fine also.
But why is it exactly, that the foreign relations of powers completely separate to Russia, need to take Russia into account? Surely if Russia is a peaceful nation with no plans to invade anyone, NATO is absolutely no threat. I mean, just to pull into your next statement,
I think it is a vicious circle. Past events have caused the Baltic states to be hostile towards Russia, which causes them to join NATO, which causes modern Russia to be hostile to the Baltic States,
Why does a number of Baltic states joining NATO make modern Russia hostile to them? If Russia has no plans to meddle in those countries affairs, surely NATO is irrelevant? What organisations another country chooses to be part of is not a reason to be hostile or peaceful. Nobody in the West gets hostile towards other countries because they're joining this trade block Russia is trying to set up, the same way we wouldn't be hostile to the Phillipines if they concluded a defensive treaty with Malaysia.
There are only two possible logical reasons a country could fear/have issues with two foreign powers concluding a defensive alliance, primarily:-
-That they fear the two new allies will combine to attack them, &
-That they planned to attack one of the powers themselves, but are unable to in the face of the new combination.
The existence of nuclear weaponry has more or less put paid to the idea of anyone ever invading Russia again. So that forces me to the logical conclusion that the reason Russia gets upset at countries joining NATO, is because it would like to meddle in or subsume those countries militarily in pursuit of its own agenda, but now feels it cannot do so. If you have a third option I'm not seeing here though, please feel free to voice it.
i fear I also need to restate myself here, because NATO is anything but a defensive alliance. NATO invaded Yugoslavia, a sovereign state and ally of Russia without any legal basis whatsoever. That is something defensive alliance don't do. Apart from that NATO member-states have invaded many more countries in the past two decades. NATO and its members are anything but peaceful and defensive, they agressively pursue their national interests without any regard for international law, then criticise Russia when it does the same.
NATO is by its very definition and by the behaviour of its members a huge threat to Russia. No great power wants an opposing alliance on its doorstep or even worse, in its former territory. Russia is no exception in this.
Tell me, how would the US respond if Russia, Iran and China and Mexico made an anti-US military alliance, and then got Texas and some to join them after the US collapsed and a number of states became independent. Now the remainder of the US has recovered somewhat, but it also looks like several former US states such as California want to join this alliance. How would the American Federation react to this? Would they just sit back and do nothing, letting themselves be encircled? Would they join this Russian alliance? Or would they protest and try to gain their states back?
Iron_Captain wrote: I think not, because NATO is made up of its member states, it has no life outside of its member states. When I say NATO is encircling Russia, I am effectively saying NATO member states are encircling Russia. It is the same thing.
If you'll pardon the comparison (God only knows we've seen enough bad Nazi comparisons in here), I see some mild parallels with regards to how Germany felt pre-WW1 with regards to encirclement. With Germany, it was because they wanted their 'place in the sun' and feared that the rise of other powers would prevent them meddling militarily as they liked. That lends further weight (in my eyes) to my analysis above. If you disagree though, I would be interested to hear as to why.
At least comparisons to the situation before WW1 have a lot of merit, because there are many similarities. It is better than the nutjob WW2 comparisons people here draw every now and then.
i fear I also need to restate myself here, because NATO is anything but a defensive alliance.
Sure. I think we're getting somewhere here.
NATO invaded Yugoslavia, a sovereign state and ally of Russia without any legal basis whatsoever. That is something defensive alliance don't do.
Okay. You're asserting that NATO isn't a purely defensive alliance, and therefore is a power to be feared under the first reason I gave above. That's fair enough, in light of Serbia I suppose (although I would argue that a power which intervenes in genocide isn't one to be feared unless one also plans to conduct genocide). Wouldn't you agree though, that even if I hypothetically accept that NATO is a power that can and is prepared to attack other nations outside of defensive situations, that Russia's nuclear arsenal renders any such threat moot to Russia itself?
Apart from that NATO member-states have invaded many more countries in the past two decades. NATO and its members are anything but peaceful and defensive, they agressively pursue their national interests without any regard for international law, then criticise Russia when it does the same.
NATO is by its very definition and by the behaviour of its members a huge threat to Russia. No great power wants an opposing alliance on its doorstep or even worse, in its former territory. Russia is no exception in this.
Hmmm. Okay. I think I might have grasped the angle you're approaching this from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue here is that NATO member states are free to pursue independent foreign policies whilst under the umbrella protection of NATO. And Russia feels that that's somewhat unfair (to put it simplistically).
For example, Estonia can choose to cut trade to Russia overnight, and Russia has no way of responding bar similar economic methods. Poland can decide to impound a Russian military ship in their waters. If Kazkhstan goes to hell, and France suddenly decides to land troops, Russia cannot intervene against those troops without worrying about NATO getting involved. If Belarus joins NATO, Russia might have trouble stopping it from joining the EU later on to Russia's economic disadvantage.
In such a way, Russia's foreign policy options are curtailed, because it cannot interfere militarily in any situation which might involve a NATO member. So whilst NATO in and of itself is not a direct threat to Russia (due to the nukes), when more and more of Russia's neighbours sign up to it, Russia's foreign policy powers are increasingly reduced. Primarily because Russia's standing in the world and its ability to influence events is based upon its military, unlike the US or GB, who have more economic and diplomatic levers to pull. Also unlike the US and GB, Russia's influence is also limited to those countries which border it, due to its lack of international trade or distance fighting capabilities.
Therefore NATO 'encirclement' as you put it, whilst it poses no direct military threat to Russia (thanks to the nukes), does indirectly diminish Russia's power and standing.
Ketara wrote: Therefore NATO 'encirclement' as you put it, whilst it poses no direct military threat to Russia (thanks to the nukes), does indirectly diminish Russia's power and standing.
Only if Russia's only conception of power is military, which kind of just circles back to the butt end of the joke.
NATO invaded Yugoslavia, a sovereign state and ally of Russia without any legal basis whatsoever.
NATO intervened in the former state of Yugoslavia, a puppet state created by the USSR that for some reason, Russia was desperate to pretend would continue existing past 1995, which it was never going to. After 1994, there was no state of Yugoslavia. Just a region of pure chaos precipitated on ethnic cleansing and Russia desperately trying to pretend there was nothing wrong. NATO's intervention was affirmed with overwhelming international support and the backing of the UN Security Council, i.e. with the backing of the international community. Using that to call NATO an 'aggressive' organization that disregards international law is rather disingenuous.
Tell me, how would the US respond if Russia, Iran and China and Mexico made an anti-US military alliance, and then got Texas and some to join them after the US collapsed and a number of states became independent. Now the remainder of the US has recovered somewhat, but it also looks like several former US states such as California want to join this alliance. How would the American Federation react to this? Would they just sit back and do nothing, letting themselves be encircled? Would they join this Russian alliance? Or would they protest and try to gain their states back?
I think Eastern Europe might cry foul over this rotten analogy as it presumes their countries are all rightfully Russian and that Russia is the real victim with everyone turning against them while completely ignoring why everyone wants to line up to oppose Russia in the first place.
i fear I also need to restate myself here, because NATO is anything but a defensive alliance.
Sure. I think we're getting somewhere here.
NATO invaded Yugoslavia, a sovereign state and ally of Russia without any legal basis whatsoever. That is something defensive alliance don't do.
Okay. You're asserting that NATO isn't a purely defensive alliance, and therefore is a power to be feared under the first reason I gave above. That's fair enough, in light of Serbia I suppose (although I would argue that a power which intervenes in genocide isn't one to be feared unless one also plans to conduct genocide). Wouldn't you agree though, that even if I hypothetically accept that NATO is a power that can and is prepared to attack other nations outside of defensive situations, that Russia's nuclear arsenal renders any such threat moot to Russia itself?
Apart from that NATO member-states have invaded many more countries in the past two decades. NATO and its members are anything but peaceful and defensive, they agressively pursue their national interests without any regard for international law, then criticise Russia when it does the same.
NATO is by its very definition and by the behaviour of its members a huge threat to Russia. No great power wants an opposing alliance on its doorstep or even worse, in its former territory. Russia is no exception in this.
Hmmm. Okay. I think I might have grasped the angle you're approaching this from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue here is that NATO member states are free to pursue independent foreign policies whilst under the umbrella protection of NATO. And Russia feels that that's somewhat unfair (to put it simplistically).
For example, Estonia can choose to cut trade to Russia overnight, and Russia has no way of responding bar similar economic methods. Poland can decide to impound a Russian military ship in their waters. If Kazkhstan goes to hell, and France suddenly decides to land troops, Russia cannot intervene against those troops without worrying about NATO getting involved. If Belarus joins NATO, Russia might have trouble stopping it from joining the EU later on to Russia's economic disadvantage.
In such a way, Russia's foreign policy options are curtailed, because it cannot interfere militarily in any situation which might involve a NATO member. So whilst NATO in and of itself is not a direct threat to Russia (due to the nukes), when more and more of Russia's neighbours sign up to it, Russia's foreign policy powers are increasingly reduced. Primarily because Russia's standing in the world and its ability to influence events is based upon its military, unlike the US or GB, who have more economic and diplomatic levers to pull. Also unlike the US and GB, Russia's influence is also limited to those countries which border it, due to its lack of international trade or distance fighting capabilities.
Therefore NATO 'encirclement' as you put it, whilst it poses no direct military threat to Russia (thanks to the nukes), does indirectly diminish Russia's power and standing.
Does that sound accurate?
How can you read my mind! *starts wearing tinfoil hat* No seriously, that is almost exactly what I wanted to explain, but much more coherent and in better English. No one thinks NATO will actuall invade Russia with armies to march on Moscow, but that does not mean NATO can't still be a serious threat to Russia.
Worst case scenario would be that with its traditional tools useless, Russia comes to rely entirely on nukes for its foreign policy, basicallty turning Russia's nuclear weapons from a defensive measure into a weapon of agression.
Ketara wrote: Therefore NATO 'encirclement' as you put it, whilst it poses no direct military threat to Russia (thanks to the nukes), does indirectly diminish Russia's power and standing.
Only if Russia's only conception of power is military, which kind of just circles back to the butt end of the joke.
That is, unfortenately the truth, and the way it has been for centuries. Russia has always relied on its traditional military power. Unlike the US, which can use its soft power to influence others and fulfill its national interests, Russia needs its military to do the same thing. Unlike the US, Russia has never developed as an economic powerhouse, unlike the US, which exports its culture and products all over the world, Russia tends to isolate itself so Russian culture and products are little known outside of Russia. Russia has no power except military power.
NATO invaded Yugoslavia, a sovereign state and ally of Russia without any legal basis whatsoever.
LordofHats wrote: NATO intervened in the former state of Yugoslavia, a puppet state created by the USSR that for some reason, Russia was desperate to pretend would continue existing past 1995, which it was never going to. After 1994, there was no state of Yugoslavia. Just a region of pure chaos precipitated on ethnic cleansing and Russia desperately trying to pretend there was nothing wrong. NATO's intervention was affirmed with overwhelming international support and the backing of the UN Security Council, i.e. with the backing of the international community. Using that to call NATO an 'aggressive' organization that disregards international law is rather disingenuous.
To say Yugoslavia was a puppet state of the USSR is to display a great ignorance of history. Under Tito and Stalin, Yugoslavia and the USSR were even pretty hostile to each other.
Tell me, how would the US respond if Russia, Iran and China and Mexico made an anti-US military alliance, and then got Texas and some to join them after the US collapsed and a number of states became independent. Now the remainder of the US has recovered somewhat, but it also looks like several former US states such as California want to join this alliance. How would the American Federation react to this? Would they just sit back and do nothing, letting themselves be encircled? Would they join this Russian alliance? Or would they protest and try to gain their states back?
I think Eastern Europe might cry foul over this rotten analogy as it presumes their countries are all rightfully Russian and that Russia is the real victim with everyone turning against them while completely ignoring why everyone wants to line up to oppose Russia in the first place.
Yes, but I think that in this analogy Texas and other independent states in North America would cry foul in the same way. If Texas were to claim independence, the US would have no more or less right to it than Russia does to Estonia.
Ketara wrote: Therefore NATO 'encirclement' as you put it, whilst it poses no direct military threat to Russia (thanks to the nukes), does indirectly diminish Russia's power and standing.
Only if Russia's only conception of power is military, which kind of just circles back to the butt end of the joke.
I'll be honest, most power ultimately derives from force. I think the issue here, is that NATO defangs Russia's ability to utilise it internationally, and without other levers of power, that slowly and steadily reduces Russia to being a second tier power (albeit one with a large nuclear arsenal). And Putin and many Russians aren't willing to accept that their country is no longer as relevant or as powerful as it once was. The phrase 'Western aggression' or 'encirclement' isn't actually being used in the sense that you or I would use it (namely, direct hostile action), but rather as a response to feeling that their capability to react to/influence events abroad is being steadily eroded by the spread of Western organisations. Which it is.
How can you read my mind! *starts wearing tinfoil hat*
No seriously, that is almost exactly what I wanted to explain, but much more coherent and in better English.
No one thinks NATO will actuall invade Russia with armies to march on Moscow, but that does not mean NATO can't still be a serious threat to Russia.
Worst case scenario would be that with its traditional tools useless, Russia comes to rely entirely on nukes for its foreign policy, basicallty turning Russia's nuclear weapons from a defensive measure into a weapon of agression.
I'm glad we got there in the end.
I plucked a book on 'Western Powers' by a Soviet General out of the library once as an undergrad, and I found that whilst most of what he wrote seemed ludicrous at first reading, if you bent your perception to a slightly different frame of mind, it was all perfectly logical. The truth is, different cultures often think in slightly different ways, and that's often the greatest barrier to understanding.
I suppose the next logical query from me to you would be; why is it a bad thing for Russia to be reduced in power or international relevance? Or rather, if the cost of maintaining it is bloodshed, do you believe it is worth it? If so, why?
To say Yugoslavia was a puppet state of the USSR is to display a great ignorance of history. Under Tito and Stalin, Yugoslavia and the USSR were even pretty hostile to each other.
That's pretty typical for puppet states. Ignore that the only reason Yugoslavia even made it to 1994 at all is with Soviet backing, and that trying to prop up the failing 'Republic' was just Russia trying to assert a foreign authority it just didn't have while indirectly condoning genocide and you might see why I find this entire line of discussion rather ludicrous.
Yes, but I think that in this analogy Texas and other independent states in North America would cry foul in the same way. If Texas were to claim independence, the US would have no more or less right to it than Russia does to Estonia.
Actually, it would, given that Texas leaving the US would actually constitute an open state of rebellion unless the US agreed to allow it to leave (these things do actually play out differently you know).
Now, if the US allowed Texas to leave (and assuming the US conquered Texas by force in the first place and Texas never even wanted to be part of the US), and then 20 years later walked up to Texas and said "You're being awfully mean to all those Americans in there" and then drove a bunch of 'volunteers' across the boarder, I imagine the reactions would be pretty much the same, but why on earth we're talking fantasy instead of reality I'm not sure.
Russia's inability to develop power outside of military is its own fault, and does nothing to absolve the Russian state of its moral and ethical failings, or absolve the rest of the world from feeling threatened and concerned about its foreign policy. What? We should all just sit back and say "It's okay Russia. You can invade Lithuania next if it will make you feel better, we know that big guns is all you really have."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: ussia to being a second tier power (albeit one with a large nuclear arsenal).
I'll be honest. Russia is a second tier power
Power and force may go hand in hand, but not all force is military in nature. Given Russia's options economically are actually quite vast in the long run, the State's refusal to actually develop itself economically and simply fall back on invading its neighbors seems completely beside the point. Russia can't be a giant bully and expect everyone use to just be understanding and feel sympathy for the lack luster state their in.
Which it is.
Allow me to play a song on the world's smallest violin
Russia's inability to develop power outside of military is its own fault, and does nothing to absolve the Russian state of its moral and ethical failings, or absolve the rest of the world from feeling threatened and concerned about its foreign policy. What? We should all just sit back and say "It's okay Russia. You can invade Lithuania next if it will make you feel better, we know that big guns is all you really have."
That's an entirely Western perspective though. The Western view of this stuff would be, 'We're not doing anything to harm you directly, we're leaving you alone, now sit in your corner and leave the rest of us to get on with things'. Such a viewpoint entails massive arrogance and condescension though; albeit in such a way your average Westerner cannot see. To us, it is simply common sense, in the liberal 'I leave you to do your thing, you leave me to do mine' sort of way. When you approach things from a more ideological and culturally different perspective, the world is not so simple. What's more, when the US continually does things like Iraq, it looks like rank hypocrisy at best, and a plot to try and make Russia look worse than everyone else at worst.
Ketara wrote: When you approach things from a more ideological and culturally different perspective, the world is not so simple.
Having a different 'perspective' doesn't change that their perspective is a load of bull perpetuated by a steadfast refusal to accept that it's not 1950 anymore. I'm not saying I don't understand Russia's perspective. I'm asking why should I give a gak? People are being fething killed so Russia can childishly jump up and down in the sandbox bragging about how awesome it is. A reasonably stable and developing country has been reduced to a smoldering war zone, and everyone is rightfully afraid that they're next, which lets be honest, from Russia's perspective they are next. At a point, Russia's perspective just ceases to carry with it any legitimacy or meaning to the rest of the world, because understanding their perspective means very little when they're shipping volunteers across your border.
What's more, when the US continually does things like Iraq, it looks like rank hypocrisy at best, and a plot to try and make Russia look worse than everyone else at worst.
It is in fact possible for Russia to be wrong in its foreign policy in Eastern Europe, and the US to be wrong in its foreign policy in the Middle East at the same time. It's also entirely possible to just ignore all fact and pretend that every face of the dice equals 6 (at least then I'd make all my armor saves ), so Russia can try and pretend that what its foreign policy in one part of the world is somehow completely justified by US foreign policy elsewhere in the world.
Ketara wrote: When you approach things from a more ideological and culturally different perspective, the world is not so simple.
Having a different 'perspective' doesn't change that their perspective is a load of bull perpetuated by a steadfast refusal to accept that it's not 1950 anymore. I'm not saying I don't understand Russia's perspective. I'm asking why should I give a gak?
No-one says you do. The fact is, all cultures are almost eternally in conflict with each other, and attempting to subsume each other. Some win, some lose. Some merge. Some go off the deep end. Sometimes one triumphs totally, but then its antithesis is born. It's the nature of the historical dialectic. You are convinced yours is the best and most awesomest and morally correct point of view, but I daresay Putin is as well. In a hundred years, we'll see which of them won out, and what it turned into.
Ketara wrote: In a hundred years, we'll see which of them won out, and what it turned into.
I'm sure everyone alive today will find solace in the fact that 100 years from now, some book pushers like you and me will decide the worth of their lives for them...
EDIT: To be clear, this is great academics and all, but it just means nothing to present events in the now. Russia can't make a habit of kicking it's neighbors in the teeth, and then cry that it's being 'cut off' from the world, when it's neighbors, tired and fearful of being kicked in the teeth, start banding together against it. Responding to that by kicking another neighbor in the teeth and shaking a fist at everyone else is not endearing nor reassuring. Russia has isolated itself all on its own, NATO simply being the body all its fearful neighbors have run to. Their perspective doesn't change that they've created the problem for themselves and are either unwilling or incapable of realizing it and are simply carrying on with the saber rattling. Relativism only goes so far. Eventually, you hit a point where you're just plain wrong.
I feel like you Russians here are basically denying that you ever did anything wrong to us, and Freakazoitt seems to even believe we are the bad guys.
Iron_Captain dont tell me I should be grateful for the Russians "liberating us from the Nazis" because you did far more damage to us than the Germans did.
Frankly us Polish hate you, and we always will. And we know you hold the entire Eastern Europe in a state of contempt.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For feths sake, I thought I could have a proper debate when i came here, instead I met people who deny that Russia ever did anything wrong to anyone. All we are missing now to complete this anti Polish circle is for someone to start shouting "Polish concentration camps!".
I am really shocked at what your perception of reality is.
let's surprise them 
)
