Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/04 16:41:32
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/04 16:53:55
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
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/07/04 17:04:12
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/07/04 17:18:25
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/04 17:46:21
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/04 17:41:33
motyak wrote:[...] Yes, the mods are illuminati, and yakface, lego and dakka dakka itself are the 3 points of the triangle.
