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'm sorry, this just begs to be asked.

While I see a lot of hate online for Russia, I've read about Georgia joining NATO and suchlike. I know it's not a brainwave as such, but it has crossed my mind that Russia is following a horrible but on it's own necessary path of showing they will not tolerate surrounding countries to actively support, in the far end of the scope, America.

Take any country, your own country. If there was some military tension (the whole Star Wars project, which renders your weapons useless, combined with top-notch nuclear strike capabilities for a fast attack, i.e. excellent offence and defense) and your neighbouring countries started to join your main "rival", how would you react? Would diplomacy be of any use?

This being said, I don't support in any way any type of war, but maybe, isn't too much attention being given to details and not looking at the big picture? I might be badly informed, but the North American solution to this sort of problem were heavy sanctions to the cubans. Not criticizing, just pointing a fact.

Another thing, I don't know if this type of political threads are allowed, but no offence was meant to anyone. In case of doubt, I'd thank a PM about it. This thread's purpose would be the discussion of the politics behind Russia's attacks, not attacking or giving in to stereotypes in order not to derail the thread. Yeah, I know it's a bit optimistic to ask this, but I just want to calmly discuss the subject without everyone having (or not) to apologize for innuendos or stretched sarcasms :p

In any case, here's hope that we get a healthy discussion (unfortunately, not over a cup of good coffee, a Licor Beirão and a smoke) over a touchy subject.

Listen, American political leaders have said it and I will say it. This is the 21st century! You don't just invade other countries and occupy their capitols! [/sarcasm]

Going back over it with a serious mindset. I do believe that Russia has a right to be pissed. I could sit here and type out all kinds of political bull that they let slip everyday but why waste my time? I can understand Russia being put off when America wants missile defense. To be perfectly honest though, I want it to happen because I'm an American. But as soon as it happens the electoral college will put some crazy er in the whitehouse who suddenly holds all the chips and just starts slangin' missiles like they were dope and blocking everything that comes back our way.

If you can't tell, I don't trust my government very much.

Georgia is democratic. Russia is not. People defending Russia are siding with dictators who put radioactive material in dissenter's food (London). Lets get real here and quit defending dictatorships.

Russia is slowly receiving its comeuppance after grinding most, if not all of it's former Soviet Bloc countries into the ground. That is how I see it. If you watched the BBC America Interview on their Nightly news with the Anchor and Rice, she specifically explains the reasons for having a missile defense site in Poland to combat Iranian missiles, not Russian missiles.

The Russian government is competing with the mafia for control of the country, so of course they have to take a hard line about everything. And, Russia has always demanded that their leaders be strong and resolute, taking action even if it isn't the best option rather than appearing to concilliatory. Just remember, Russia has been invaded a couple of times (Not successfully, by the French and the Germans, but much destruction happened) and the US has never been invaded. (That crap with Pancho Villa doesn't count!) Even though we're a couple of bad decisions away from not being a superpower anymore, Russia is worried and that means the rest of the world should be worried.

War of 1812

British capture Ft. Mackinac August 16, 1812 U.S. lost fort as British invade American territory.

Sorry jfrazell, I can't side with you there. The basis of their regime is utopic and pratically impossible to put into action, but I wouldn't call it a dictatorship.

They poisoned former KGB members and "dissidents" because they were people who "knew too much". How many state secrets would be revealed? I can understand their fear in this case. And I would bet the US have done the same, only a bit more discreet. Then again, murdering someone with radiation isn't very subtle and would probably point to Russia in the first place, so take your guesses here

Verm, say what you want but a country that big would want to keep it's borders secure and wouldn't shy from any means necessary to do it. A shady government doesn't help, of course, and it seems that subtle political machinations elude them sometimes, but they wanted to keep themselves intact.
It stills happens all around the world, only a bit more diplomatically. Spain, for instance, turned down Galiza's (the northwestern part of it) plea for another time fuse, because they're more aligned with London GMT than with Madrid's. Accepting it would create a precedent, just like giving independence to the Vasque country would.

Secondly, I don't know everything behind the Iran-American tension, but didn't this begin with the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq on the basis that there were biological weapons, which was proven to be false? This obviously created tension, which is in most part a fault of the northern America. Lastly on that point, thought it is said to be to control Iran missiles (which I'm not sure about, given the country's tech, if they would be capable of any type of offensive), it also affects Russia. This kind of things have to be very well manoeuvred, and in this particular case that just wasn't.

Finally, Typeline, I agree with you on that last line. I think that the notion of a country sitting safely behind a "shield", while it's "sword" reaches anywhere, is intimidating to say the least. My government is on the american side (Madeira's base of Lages) but the investment in armament will be met in kind, always. I wouldn't be happy with a stick if my enemies had bows, spears, swords and full plate armour.

The Russian-Georgian mess is quite a .... mess I couldn´t care less what happens there because it´s the way certain geopolitical issues have been, are, and will be resolved but I´m really enjoying (although I feel sorry for the civilians caught in the crossfire) how the Russians are using every and each argument that the US and other European goverments used for Kosovo and other "humanitarian" interventions.

The arguments about independent nations and sovereing territories are full of crap. Those countries surrounding Russia are west sponsored off shots of the Czarist Empire, sponsored by us to weaken the former USSR, to say that it would be akin to say that, after the traumatic end of the current US Republic, the EU can extend a military alliance to California because 250+ years ago they were part of the Spanish Empire. I don´t think that Washington would be happy with the idea.

BTW certain republicans are spreading around the capitol, the idea that the polish missile shield is a good thing because a 300 km interceptor in central Europe won´t reach the iranian 1500 km missile but their are handy against all those missiles the wicked russians are pointing back to Europe. Call that a self fullfiling profecy.

M.

jfrazell wrote:Georgia is democratic. Russia is not. People defending Russia are siding with dictators who put radioactive material in dissenter's food (London). Lets get real here and quit defending dictatorships.

Your argument assumes that being a democracy means every action you take is moral, and every action taken by a dictatorship is immoral.

And it also assumes that the issue here is 'who to back?' rather than 'how do we help stop these two countries killing a bunch of people?'.

And it assumes Russia is a dictatorship. While they're certainly not the ideal of an transparent and representative government, they aren't exactly a dictatorship either.

sebster wrote:

Your argument assumes that being a democracy means every action you take is moral, and every action taken by a dictatorship is immoral.

That's pretty funny, I never trust democracy as the end all be all 'best' kind of government. But to be honest most democracies out there aren't they are Republics. Democracy, as I see it, is oppression by the many.

*yawn* i say leave a country to it, why drag other countries into something?
this is becomming like the eurovision

@Warpcrafter, the Russian government is not at war with organised crime in Russia, it IS organised crime in Russia. During the fall of the U.S.S.R much of the KGB went into cahoots with organised when they realized that organised crime was the only group that could continue to pay for the talents that the KGB posessed. Since the fall of the U.S.S.R. Putin and other former KGB have basically joined with organised crime.

Typeline wrote:That's pretty funny, I never trust democracy as the end all be all 'best' kind of government. But to be honest most democracies out there aren't they are Republics. Democracy, as I see it, is oppression by the many.

That's not what I'm saying. No form of government will stop every possible instance of bad or immoral policy.

You can't just look at two countries, figure out which is more representative and choose them to back, life is just a lot more complicated than that.

Darrian13 wrote:@Warpcrafter, the Russian government is not at war with organised crime in Russia, it IS organised crime in Russia. During the fall of the U.S.S.R much of the KGB went into cahoots with organised when they realized that organised crime was the only group that could continue to pay for the talents that the KGB posessed. Since the fall of the U.S.S.R. Putin and other former KGB have basically joined with organised crime.

You are using a pretty broad brush here, Darrian. Just because some agents could have done that it doesn´t mean they did anymore than the CIA turn narco because they helped the Afgan poppie growing warlords back on the 80s.

M.

Miguelsan wrote:You are using a pretty broad brush here, Darrian. Just because some agents could have done that it doesn´t mean they did anymore than the CIA turn narco because they helped the Afgan poppie growing warlords back on the 80s.

M.

I don't know dude, as much as I think trying to set the Russians up as villains is far too simplistic, it's not that hard to acknowledge that the modern day KGB, the FSB, is pretty damn messed up. There's little doubt that the apartment bombings that led to the occupation of Chechnya were planted by the FSB, for example.


*I think its FSB, it could SFB.

I don't see the arguments here Uncle Vlad has made it clear on more than one occasion that the goal he has in mind is the reconstitution of the old Soviet Union with it's satellite states. People are jumping all over Georgia for invading their territory to take it back from the Russians who control it via puppet regimes but fail to realize the Russians were waiting there to have a excuse to annex those two pieces of land. You are also using the wrong analogy with Iraq, the Russians are more upset about NATO's involvement in Kosovo during the Wag the Dog war.

So far as their objections for the missile shield, those patriot missiles cannot gain a bead on Russian missiles due to the trajectory but are in prime position to intercept anything coming from the middle east. Putin knows this he is just pissed because former slave states like the Ukraine want nothing to do with him anymore and he needs the populations and industry of both countries if his dreams of empire are going to come to pass. Poland itself is not very fond of Russia seeing as they invaded them in 1939 and decided what form of government they should have after the war.

Darrian13 wrote:@Warpcrafter, the Russian government is not at war with organised crime in Russia, it IS organised crime in Russia. During the fall of the U.S.S.R much of the KGB went into cahoots with organised when they realized that organised crime was the only group that could continue to pay for the talents that the KGB posessed. Since the fall of the U.S.S.R. Putin and other former KGB have basically joined with organised crime.

That's not very reassuring, I didn't realize it was that bad. Of course, our own US government is little better than the mafia, it's only the minimal morality of their evangelical christian dogma that requires them to pretend to take the high ground. If that ever collapsed, we'd be the next axis of evil all by ourselves. (Of course, a large part of the world, especially the Muslims already thinks that way, not without some measure of justification.)

Yes because sending aid to Somalia, sending troops to Bosnia, fighting a war in Kosova, and throwing out two dictatorships are the mark of the axis of evil. Oh and don't forget the billions we sent to Indonesia after the Tsunami.

Respectfully, I reject that argument on its face.

jfrazell: I do not wish to debate the generosity nor the kindness that Americans show towards others. However, with all due respect, you might want to rethink your examples of American foreign intervention, as I feel they portray a very biased view towards America's humanitarian foreign contributions:

While undertaken with the best of intentions, the misison in Somalia ultimately ended in failure and this failure directly contributed to the United State's inaction during the genocide in Rwanda.

The United States and Nato acted unilaterally in Kosovo through a bombing campaign. While the war -was- halted by this action, there was no thought given to post-war reconstruction, nor was there any thought given to issues stemming from ethnic tensions during the post war period. This has also happened in Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. In the case of the latter, the Taliban were not annihilated and see perodic resurgences in strength.

230k people were killed in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. While the $2.8B raised by the USA dwarfed any other single nation contributing to the 2004 Tsunami relief, Australians led fundraising efforts (calculated by both GDP and a per-capita basis) by contributing 1.3B - no mean feat considering that Australia has 1/15 the population of the US. Comparitively, humanitarian aid by the US after the 2008 Sichuan earthquake (70K casualties) was much more reserved at a combined $4.87M.

keezus wrote:jfrazell: I do not wish to debate the generosity nor the kindness that Americans show towards others. However, with all due respect, you might want to rethink your examples of American foreign intervention, as I feel they portray a very biased view towards America's humanitarian foreign contributions:

While undertaken with the best of intentions, the misison in Somalia ultimately ended in failure and this failure directly contributed to the United State's inaction during the genocide in Rwanda.

The United States and Nato acted unilaterally in Kosovo through a bombing campaign. While the war -was- halted by this action, there was no thought given to post-war reconstruction, nor was there any thought given to issues stemming from ethnic tensions during the post war period. This has also happened in Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. In the case of the latter, the Taliban were not annihilated and see perodic resurgences in strength.

230k people were killed in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. While the $2.8B raised by the USA dwarfed any other single nation contributing to the 2004 Tsunami relief, Australians led fundraising efforts (calculated by both GDP and a per-capita basis) by contributing 1.3B - no mean feat considering that Australia has 1/15 the population of the US. Comparitively, humanitarian aid by the US after the 2008 Sichuan earthquake (70K casualties) was much more reserved at a combined $4.87M.

Respectfully:
Somalia: Yes it ended in failure. So the US is the axis of evil because we couldn't keep them from killing each other. Ok so pretty every nation on the planet is on the axis of evil then.

Kosova: We were just trying to get them to stop killing the ethnic muslims without getting our people caught up in a slavic meatgrinder. Better to not have gotten involved at all then? How is the US an Axis of Evil participant for trying to stop that?

Tsunami: You're not including the US Navy that was sent in. It wasn't Iranian aircraft carriers sitting offshore bring in supplies and people. It was the US military. Come to think of it we provided aid to Iran twice after earthquakes. But we're evil...

We really should pull out of it all and let the world tend to itself. Energy independence can't get here fast enough.

Jfrazzell, you should simply ask what was the total given by citizens themselves to relief aid vs the government. It is very easy to be generous with something that does not belong to you.

This is true, but that would have required thinking on my part. Nine out of ten experts agree, thinking isn't one of my strong suits.

Jfrazell: I think you are twisting my words here. I am not trying to imply that the US is an axis of evil or otherwise... on the contrary, I have no doubt to the integrity of her citizens - however, one can't tackle situations fuelled by generations of ethnic / religious hatred and intollerance with only good intentions. Even after you beat the belligerents senseless, the combatants have been fighting so long that its all going to start again as soon as you leave.

Point taken Keezus.

Assuming the US doesn't pull away from "foreign entanglements" whats a better path for the US to tread?

There is no easy option anymore. It is too late to just pull out, because then everyone who hates the US will send their craziest here to attack us, but we won't be able to afford to keep funding our false flag agenda forever.

jfrazell wrote:Point taken Keezus.

Assuming the US doesn't pull away from "foreign entanglements" whats a better path for the US to tread?

Not get in to those entanglements in the first place. Yes 9/11 very tragic changed our country, terrorists win, blah, blah. If we're a christian nation like many of the people claiming we should be over there killing people (theirs and ours) why don't we do the lamb thing and turn the other fluffy cheek?

warpcrafter wrote:There is no easy option anymore. It is too late to just pull out, because then everyone who hates the US will send their craziest here to attack us, but we won't be able to afford to keep funding our false flag agenda forever.

I'd much rather have them here out in the open than hiding in their territory that they know well. At least then they would be openly killing American's every day. Support for a counter strike in our own country would boost American Military sign ups and patriotism. We could be a strong moral (seemingly) land again. But instead everyone has an opinion because there aren't dead bodies laying in their back yards. When you really confront someone with the atrocities of murder, war and an enemy at your doorstep they seem to buck up and pick the side their country stands for and start shooting back rather than hiding behind their internet blogs and 5 dollar cups of coffee at starbucks. Along with that we could have another war we can look back on as 'the good 'ole days of the U.S.A.s'.

jfrazell wrote:We really should pull out of it all and let the world tend to itself. Energy independence can't get here fast enough.

I agree that the US isn't as evil as some would claim. They've had a really gak government for eight years, but outside of that they're no worse than the rest of us.

But your claim above belies a pretty severe misunderstanding of the modern economy. Energy is a very small fraction of total global interdependence. Without global trade the US wouldn't have a fraction of it's material wealth. If we were to return to independent nations with little trade, you'd be looking at a reduction to each countries GDP to around a half or a third of current levels.

Independence is not an option for anyone.

Typeline, if suicide bombers and roadside IED's became a common situation on American soil, we would have martial law, irate rednecks shooting everyone they didn't like the looks of and an economy in the toilet. Our choices are either reach out and have the world hate us or wallow in our own and be forgotten.

Typeline wrote:Not get in to those entanglements in the first place. Yes 9/11 very tragic changed our country, terrorists win, blah, blah. If we're a christian nation like many of the people claiming we should be over there killing people (theirs and ours) why don't we do the lamb thing and turn the other fluffy cheek?

I don't know man, it's nice and morally righteous and all to simply accept 9/11, but it really isn't very practical. Ultimately breaking down the terrorist camps in Afghanistan was for the best. The mistake there was in failing to maintain troop levels, backing some of the wrong domestic and regional players, and failing to offer enough money for infrastructure redevelopment.

Or failing to properly fund redevelopment after providing military aid to help defeat the Soviets all those years ago.

warpcrafter wrote:Our choices are either reach out and have the world hate us or wallow in our own and be forgotten.

I'm not sure where people get the idea that "success" = "hated by others". People in developing countries don't hate the US because they are successful. For many, moving to the US living the "American dream" was the goal of those in less developed nations.

I'm going to qualify this next part of the post by saying that the following is meant to be a dispassionate observation of what seems to have happened, and not an attack on American foreign policy, culture, or morals. I think that anti-American sentiment is caused not by American success, but mostly by:

1. Export and pervasiveness of American culture.

The world is becoming a global community. Communications technologies have reduced distances and in reality, obliterated borders for exchange of information and culture. There are countries where the established culture (and societal norm) is at odds with the societal norm in the US. In this case, anti-American sentiment is merely a knee-jerk reaction to what is seen as an erosion of thier own culture (and/or an attack on their established values). This is unavoidable, and there are only two options. Suck it up, or do as China/Russia/Saudi Arabia/"insert oppressive regieme here" does and put up a "great firewall" and keep a tight leash on the population. While the latter seems abhorent to us in the West, in many cases, it is the only way for their governments to avoid chaos and anarchy in their respective countries. As such, any attempt by the West to "remould" these systems into an image of the West is met with much resistance as it is unwanted (and in many cases, would not necessarily work in their specific situation).

2. US foreign policy messing with a foreign government.

There was tons of this going on in the cold war where the USSR and the US were installing and removing governments "friendly to their cause" all over the world, essentially fighting a war by proxy. There has been less of this going on as of late (but still occurs, in the global fight to control resources), but the people living in the countries where this happened don't forget that kind of thing easily - especially when it happened less than a generation ago. Other countries do this as well, but the US status as the sole super-power makes them the most visible. I think that W's unilateral actions during his 2 terms have done much to rub salt in the wounds of many nations in the Middle East as the US has a long history of involvement in the region, mostly during the Iran/Iraq conflict and its unconditional support for Israel. Note: I do not want to discuss the "whys" or "morality" of US involvement, as some of this was arguably necessary, but even necessary actions can bring about unwanted concequences. I think the former USSR has "appeared" to have suffered less consequences from their actions during this time because conflicts between Russia and their former East Bloc "alies" isn't publicized so much in the West unless there are horrible casualties (Chechnya, and now in South Ossetia), and Russia's economy was in shambles after the cold war.