War with Russia
Discussion
toppstuff said:
Phud said:
NATO has by proxy seized land by expanding into the buffer zone next to Russia, this is seen in Russia as aggressive.
Nonsense. You have to put yourself in the position of the countries next to Russia. Generations of being oppressed and bullied by their neighbour.The EU 'buffer zone" is really a bunch of countries who clamoured to escape the clutches of their neighbour and have self determination.
In terms of NATO - well NATO did not "seize" anything. All the countries WANT to be in NATO. Russia could have developed Alliances, but instead they always expect to dominate their neighbours. Their neighbours, given the chance, naturally told them to feck off and joined the EU and NATO.
The simple truth is that if Russia did not bully its neighbours for generations and actually tried to build alliances rather than try to dominate them, they would not be so isolated, chippy, paranoid and generally grumpy. But they don't know what they don't know.
Phud said:
toppstuff said:
Phud said:
NATO has by proxy seized land by expanding into the buffer zone next to Russia, this is seen in Russia as aggressive.
Nonsense. You have to put yourself in the position of the countries next to Russia. Generations of being oppressed and bullied by their neighbour.The EU 'buffer zone" is really a bunch of countries who clamoured to escape the clutches of their neighbour and have self determination.
In terms of NATO - well NATO did not "seize" anything. All the countries WANT to be in NATO. Russia could have developed Alliances, but instead they always expect to dominate their neighbours. Their neighbours, given the chance, naturally told them to feck off and joined the EU and NATO.
The simple truth is that if Russia did not bully its neighbours for generations and actually tried to build alliances rather than try to dominate them, they would not be so isolated, chippy, paranoid and generally grumpy. But they don't know what they don't know.
When people can finally look past the clothing, the politico speak, the flags, the religions, and just look at the motivations of their supposed leaders (rulers), will they finally have peace and prosperity.
The EU and USA are just as bad as Russia and China. They've all done a grand job in making their respective populations think other countries are the enemy when actually the enemies are not the countries but the countries rulers only!
Phud said:
Sorry topstuff but I do not agree with your viewpoint, NATO and the EU actively enticed these countries, why? want to be in NATO I can accept, however they have not aligned to NATO standard equipment which is an underlying premise for membership. If your clamour was correct why has it taken so long for them all to join? Nothing political at all?
Have you been to Eastern European, ex Soviet countries? You do know that they don't like Russians very much.... don't you??And I assume you are aware of the cold war and what it was like for those countries locked inside the Soviet Empire? And yet you can't imagine why those countries would be delighted to be relieved of it? All those old pictures of people knocking down the Berlin wall and crying with joy were not doing so because they were over sentimental. They were crying with joy because they hate the xxxing Russians...
skyrover said:
Phud said:
Yes because Russia has never seen the Crimea as part of Ukraine, even when it agreed to pay to keep the black sea fleet there the terms were such that Sevastopol and surrounding area were not Ukraine.
But ignoring the agreement about no east movement for Glasnost, which to some western politicians was ok because it was verbal. NATO wants/need an enemy, best not shout about China as it own the debt, and is not stealing land but making large islands to claim territorial water. Lets pick on the old enemy.
Yes we have probed Russia, still do, we being NATO, we don't get to hear about most of it. Yes we are scared because Russia controls gas. However looking at what NATO and the west has done around the world, I suggest people should worry more what is being done in their name than Russia is meant to be doing.
Your argument would hold more water if it was NATO seizing land and Russia was simply reacting. But ignoring the agreement about no east movement for Glasnost, which to some western politicians was ok because it was verbal. NATO wants/need an enemy, best not shout about China as it own the debt, and is not stealing land but making large islands to claim territorial water. Lets pick on the old enemy.
Yes we have probed Russia, still do, we being NATO, we don't get to hear about most of it. Yes we are scared because Russia controls gas. However looking at what NATO and the west has done around the world, I suggest people should worry more what is being done in their name than Russia is meant to be doing.
NATO is a defensive alliance, only existing because of the actions of the Soviet Union/Russia. You are quite correct, without an antagonist it would have little purpose, hence the winding down of operations in Europe, the removal of bases in Germany and troops going home to the USA and UK.
Sadly, as recent events have proved it seems we still need it.
For example, NATO is a DEFENSIVE alliance, can anyone give an example of when NATO has acted in a defensive manner to protect its members?
OR.....is it the case that NATO have been nothing more than an offensive tool for American foreign interests?
It has been pointed out before that NATO's survival is paramount on the fact that it needs an enemy, in the form of Russia rather than any other nation to date. NATO, in order to justify a 2% demand of member's GDP NEEDS ENEMIES to secure its future.
In many respects the public of western nations is having the wool pulled over its eyes regarding who is the 'aggressor'.
Mr Whippy said:
It's ironic that the buffer countries want to protect them from bullying from a post-socialist USSR, by openly joining a union that has aspirations to become the very thing they have nightmares from having being a part of and having escaped from in the past.
Piffle. If you are seriously trying to compare membership of the EU to forced membership of the USSR then you have a lot to learn. Respectfully. 
Mr Whippy said:
It's ironic that the buffer countries want to protect them from bullying from a post-socialist USSR, by openly joining a union that has aspirations to become the very thing they have nightmares from having being a part of and having escaped from in the past.
When people can finally look past the clothing, the politico speak, the flags, the religions, and just look at the motivations of their supposed leaders (rulers), will they finally have peace and prosperity.
The EU and USA are just as bad as Russia and China. They've all done a grand job in making their respective populations think other countries are the enemy when actually the enemies are not the countries but the countries rulers only!
Most people do not have the time or inclination to seek out information. And even when they do, they don't have the background or critical thinking skills to sort fact from fiction. When people can finally look past the clothing, the politico speak, the flags, the religions, and just look at the motivations of their supposed leaders (rulers), will they finally have peace and prosperity.
The EU and USA are just as bad as Russia and China. They've all done a grand job in making their respective populations think other countries are the enemy when actually the enemies are not the countries but the countries rulers only!
If you will notice, our resident trolls cannot even distinguish the difference between pointing out what is happening vs. supporting one side or the other. And these are people with a supposed interest in the subject.
The fact is, the US's time as a hegemon is coming to an end. The fact that they are stirring up trouble with old rivals and newcomers is to be expected. My only hope is that things don't go too far, and that their vassal states here in the EU work to keep peace rather than bending to the will and ambitions of those clinging to the fantasy of the so-called American Century.
toppstuff said:
Phud said:
Sorry topstuff but I do not agree with your viewpoint, NATO and the EU actively enticed these countries, why? want to be in NATO I can accept, however they have not aligned to NATO standard equipment which is an underlying premise for membership. If your clamour was correct why has it taken so long for them all to join? Nothing political at all?
Have you been to Eastern European, ex Soviet countries? You do know that they don't like Russians very much.... don't you??And I assume you are aware of the cold war and what it was like for those countries locked inside the Soviet Empire? And yet you can't imagine why those countries would be delighted to be relieved of it? All those old pictures of people knocking down the Berlin wall and crying with joy were not doing so because they were over sentimental. They were crying with joy because they hate the xxxing Russians...
I am very aware of the cold war, more so than most, but what would you like to know?
ALT F4 said:
In many respects the public of western nations is having the wool pulled over its eyes regarding who is the 'aggressor'.
Only an apologist for Putin would take such a view. Are you a Putinbot?Lets be quite clear - Russia is pretty much back to where it was before the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. After 100 years, Russia is once again owned by a ruling bourgeoisie who control everything and manipulate everything. There are just a few dozen of them.
Russia a non-democratic autocracy with a long history of oppressing and bullying its neighbours. Russia's total failure to build any alliances of meaning tells us everything.
Russia is friendless for a reason. Russia's neighbours don't like them for a reason. Understand that, and you understand why all the ex soviet states ran to the EU and NATO given the chance.
And as for Russia, well will remain weak and friendless.
Russia 's jingoism and nationalist fervour increases in direct proportion to how economically screwed they are. When Putin beats his chest it is telling us that they don't know what else to do.
Phud said:
Yes I work there now and for other personal reason was there a few times a year for a few years. I also know they liked the fact they all had jobs, they all has services, but hey. There are also a lot who do like Russia, but lets ignore them
I am very aware of the cold war, more so than most, but what would you like to know?
The only people sentimental about the Soviet Union are old. Young Poles / Czechs/ Slovaks etc etc take a very different view. But if you go there a lot you'd know that. I am very aware of the cold war, more so than most, but what would you like to know?
The only ones who like Russia are ethnic Russians. The rest want to be European.
toppstuff said:
ALT F4 said:
In many respects the public of western nations is having the wool pulled over its eyes regarding who is the 'aggressor'.
Only an apologist for Putin would take such a view. Are you a Putinbot?scherzkeks said:
toppstuff said:
ALT F4 said:
In many respects the public of western nations is having the wool pulled over its eyes regarding who is the 'aggressor'.
Only an apologist for Putin would take such a view. Are you a Putinbot?There are two sides here:
The West / US:
> Democracies - Flawed democracies for sure, but they still get to elect their leaders, have a two-house system of politics to provide checks and balances, and prohibit leaders from staying on more than a couple of terms.
> Have forged alliances all over the world.
> Allow dissent / flag burning / negative press / different opinions, even those that would tear them down.
> Generally have human rights, environmental and animal protection enshrined in their constitutions..
Russia
> None of the above.
So I think it is pretty easy to see who is on the wrong side of the debate here.
For me the fundamental issue with Russia ( aside from it being an autocratic corrupt state ) is the simple fact that they don't know how to play nicely with others. Like the big bully in the school playground, they don't know how to make friends and simply expect everyone to simply tuck in beneath them and do what they are told. There is a sense of entitlement; an assumption that there way is the only way, that means they are alone and friendless.
The US in contrast, tries to be free and democratic, frequently fails and screws things up, often lets itself and its people down, but somehow keeps going. And I take simple comfort from the fact that, however bad a US president may be, within a few years they will be removed and someone else has a go at it. If only Russia could manage the same thing, but sadly the new bourgeoisie are in charge and they aren't going to give it up.
toppstuff said:
Mr Whippy said:
It's ironic that the buffer countries want to protect them from bullying from a post-socialist USSR, by openly joining a union that has aspirations to become the very thing they have nightmares from having being a part of and having escaped from in the past.
Piffle. If you are seriously trying to compare membership of the EU to forced membership of the USSR then you have a lot to learn. Respectfully. They're free to join the EU to escape 'Russians'
But they're not escaping socialism and the inherent 'Russianess' that that will eventually bring.
The only way to escape that is not to involve themselves with socialist unions.
Unless somehow, THIS incarnation of socialism will work, where all the others have failed.
I'm assuming at this point the Greeks are loving the fact they're living under the EU super-state. Win win!
scherzkeks said:
toppstuff said:
ALT F4 said:
In many respects the public of western nations is having the wool pulled over its eyes regarding who is the 'aggressor'.
Only an apologist for Putin would take such a view. Are you a Putinbot?toppstuff said:
The only people sentimental about the Soviet Union are old. Young Poles / Czechs/ Slovaks etc etc take a very different view. But if you go there a lot you'd know that.
The only ones who like Russia are ethnic Russians. The rest want to be European.
Interesting that you think you can tell me what I know because it seems to be your view. I disagree with your view here, but thats only based on conversation with old and young alike.The only ones who like Russia are ethnic Russians. The rest want to be European.
Western Russia is Europe, do they want to be EU, no, they feel they have left that experiment behind.
Phud said:
toppstuff said:
The only people sentimental about the Soviet Union are old. Young Poles / Czechs/ Slovaks etc etc take a very different view. But if you go there a lot you'd know that.
The only ones who like Russia are ethnic Russians. The rest want to be European.
Interesting that you think you can tell me what I know because it seems to be your view. I disagree with your view here, but thats only based on conversation with old and young alike.The only ones who like Russia are ethnic Russians. The rest want to be European.
Western Russia is Europe, do they want to be EU, no, they feel they have left that experiment behind.
What I do find shocking is the number of younger guys who watch RT as their main news source and totally buy into the spiel.
toppstuff said:
ALT F4 said:
In many respects the public of western nations is having the wool pulled over its eyes regarding who is the 'aggressor'.
Only an apologist for Putin would take such a view. Are you a Putinbot?Lets be quite clear - Russia is pretty much back to where it was before the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. After 100 years, Russia is once again owned by a ruling bourgeoisie who control everything and manipulate everything. There are just a few dozen of them.
Russia a non-democratic autocracy with a long history of oppressing and bullying its neighbours. Russia's total failure to build any alliances of meaning tells us everything.
Russia is friendless for a reason. Russia's neighbours don't like them for a reason. Understand that, and you understand why all the ex soviet states ran to the EU and NATO given the chance.
And as for Russia, well will remain weak and friendless.
Russia 's jingoism and nationalist fervour increases in direct proportion to how economically screwed they are. When Putin beats his chest it is telling us that they don't know what else to do.
Yes I must be an apologist for Putin to hold a balanced view of the situation.
Anyways, what has Russia's amount of friends have to do with, well, anything?
How would you define "state friendship" by the way?
Is it a case whereby trade deals exist between two states/regimes?... or is it a case whereby, lets say for example, one regime will monitor personal/state/business phone conversations of other regimes - you know, because they are all trusty and friendly towards each other?
Too many of you failing to understand the difference between democracy, Western Style vs Russian style.
Go back to first principles. The West ( EU and USA ) has a functioning parliamentary system with a upper and lower house, whereby one can stymie the ambitions of politicians by preventing laws from being passed.
Western systems have effective oppositions.
Western systems can even prosecute their leaders.
Now tell me this - who is the leader of the official opposition in Russia? Does he / she have the same access to the media narrative as Putin does?
How frequently are anti-government political positions given prominence in Russia?
Now compare this to the EU, where people row and bicker all of the time. This tells us that the EU ( yes - even the "socialist" EU ) remains a functioning democracy to a much greater extent than Russia ever will be.
The only way to disprove this notion is to show me a meaningful, effective Russian opposition party and give examples where they have succeeded in stopping Putin from doing what he wants. These things happen all the time in the West. They never happen in Russia.
Ergo, Russia is a autocratic state with no transparency, accountability or even the means to remove its leader - they are the bad guys.
Go back to first principles. The West ( EU and USA ) has a functioning parliamentary system with a upper and lower house, whereby one can stymie the ambitions of politicians by preventing laws from being passed.
Western systems have effective oppositions.
Western systems can even prosecute their leaders.
Now tell me this - who is the leader of the official opposition in Russia? Does he / she have the same access to the media narrative as Putin does?
How frequently are anti-government political positions given prominence in Russia?
Now compare this to the EU, where people row and bicker all of the time. This tells us that the EU ( yes - even the "socialist" EU ) remains a functioning democracy to a much greater extent than Russia ever will be.
The only way to disprove this notion is to show me a meaningful, effective Russian opposition party and give examples where they have succeeded in stopping Putin from doing what he wants. These things happen all the time in the West. They never happen in Russia.
Ergo, Russia is a autocratic state with no transparency, accountability or even the means to remove its leader - they are the bad guys.
toppstuff said:
Too many of you failing to understand the difference between democracy, Western Style vs Russian style.
Go back to first principles. The West ( EU and USA ) has a functioning parliamentary system with a upper and lower house, whereby one can stymie the ambitions of politicians by preventing laws from being passed.
Western systems have effective oppositions.
Western systems can even prosecute their leaders.
Now tell me this - who is the leader of the official opposition in Russia? Does he / she have the same access to the media narrative as Putin does?
How frequently are anti-government political positions given prominence in Russia?
Now compare this to the EU, where people row and bicker all of the time. This tells us that the EU ( yes - even the "socialist" EU ) remains a functioning democracy to a much greater extent than Russia ever will be.
The only way to disprove this notion is to show me a meaningful, effective Russian opposition party and give examples where they have succeeded in stopping Putin from doing what he wants. These things happen all the time in the West. They never happen in Russia.
Ergo, Russia is a autocratic state with no transparency, accountability or even the means to remove its leader - they are the bad guys.
It's all shades of grey though.Go back to first principles. The West ( EU and USA ) has a functioning parliamentary system with a upper and lower house, whereby one can stymie the ambitions of politicians by preventing laws from being passed.
Western systems have effective oppositions.
Western systems can even prosecute their leaders.
Now tell me this - who is the leader of the official opposition in Russia? Does he / she have the same access to the media narrative as Putin does?
How frequently are anti-government political positions given prominence in Russia?
Now compare this to the EU, where people row and bicker all of the time. This tells us that the EU ( yes - even the "socialist" EU ) remains a functioning democracy to a much greater extent than Russia ever will be.
The only way to disprove this notion is to show me a meaningful, effective Russian opposition party and give examples where they have succeeded in stopping Putin from doing what he wants. These things happen all the time in the West. They never happen in Russia.
Ergo, Russia is a autocratic state with no transparency, accountability or even the means to remove its leader - they are the bad guys.
I recall our government wanting to reduce the FOI act so we can find out less, leaving our government less accountable.
Surely as the 'good' guys they'd want MORE accountability not less?
I'm really confused here. Surely goodies shouldn't do things that baddies are accused of?
Mr Whippy said:
It's all shades of grey though.
I recall our government wanting to reduce the FOI act so we can find out less, leaving our government less accountable.
Surely as the 'good' guys they'd want MORE accountability not less?
I'm really confused here. Surely goodies shouldn't do things that baddies are accused of?
Politicians are just that, hence the reason we need checks and balances.I recall our government wanting to reduce the FOI act so we can find out less, leaving our government less accountable.
Surely as the 'good' guys they'd want MORE accountability not less?
I'm really confused here. Surely goodies shouldn't do things that baddies are accused of?
I am grateful we live in a country with a strong democratic background with the political and public will/ability to hold our leaders to account.
Edited by skyrover on Wednesday 18th May 15:05
toppstuff said:
Too many of you failing to understand the difference between democracy, Western Style vs Russian style.
I don't think anybody is going to argue against the difference in rule.Russia is different from England and is different from the USA and is different from France etc. etc.
That is a given and well accepted. So there is no point of contention or argument here.
toppstuff said:
Ergo, Russia is a autocratic state with no transparency, accountability or even the means to remove its leader - they are the bad guys.
Just because a state/regime/nation is different to others does not make them the 'bad guys'.You may disagree with how a nation/regime/state operates, but I can guarantee that somebody within their regime will disagree with how the west operates - so its one-all in that respect. (If you wish to take a consensus approach - but beware if you are to take a consensus approach to east versus west, then numbers in China will outnumber you).
There are also parallels to be made about Russia and the EU. Whereby the EU has no transparency or individual accountability in aspects of what it does. So the EU and Russia are now the 'bad guys'.
What I'm saying is that giving something a label of 'bad guys' is an objective thing, but doesn't make them wrong and us right all the time.
Going back to the issue of NATO since its formation - the evidence stacks up that they are more aggressive than Russia on the world stage.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff