War with Russia

[toppstuff]

Mr Whippy said:

It's all shades of grey though.

It is not though, really. When we have rotten politicians in the West all we have to do is wait a few years and they are gone.

In Russia, this does not happen. This is why comparisons mean nothing and even the shenanigans of the western secret services pale into insignificance, compared to a state where the same man has absolute power for as long as he wants..

[toppstuff]

ALT F4 said:

Yes I must be a Putin Bot

Bang on there fella.

I have my eyes wide open to the flaws in both sides.

The West is flawed and stupid and clumsy, corrupt and ignorant.

Russia is flawed, stupid, clumsy, corrupt and ignorant as well.

The difference is that in the West, the flawed and corrupt politicians don't last long because we have functioning democracies. Granted, the next ones we vote in may well be no better, but the process of sweeping clean the corridors of power every 5 years or so, makes sure we don't get to be a autocratic dictatorship.

Unlike Russia.

[ALT F4]

toppstuff said:

Bang on there fella.

I have my eyes wide open to the flaws in both sides.

The West is flawed and stupid and clumsy, corrupt and ignorant.

Russia is flawed, stupid, clumsy, corrupt and ignorant as well.

The difference is that in the West, the flawed and corrupt politicians don't last long because we have functioning democracies. Granted, the next ones we vote in may well be no better, but the process of sweeping clean the corridors of power every 5 years or so, makes sure we don't get to be a autocratic dictatorship.

Unlike Russia.

--- putin bot reply ---

what exactly is your point ?

Russia is different to the west therefore = 'bad guys' ?

The west has a flawed form of democracy whereby one set of idiots are voted in for another set every 4 to 5 years = makes us the 'good guys' ?

--- end of putin bot reply ----

[toppstuff]

ALT F4 said:

--- putin bot reply ---

Russia is different to the west therefore = 'bad guys' ?

The west has a flawed form of democracy whereby one set of idiots are voted in for another set every 4 to 5 years = makes us the 'good guys' ?

--- end of putin bot reply ----

The "bad guys" things was tongue in cheek and you know that. You saw the after all...

But given that you are clearly taking sides, my point is simple - we ( the west ) have the moral upper hand simply because our leaders have a mandate from the people to be there. And we can ( and we will ) take that mandate away from them.

If you don't think that is important then fair enough. Go live in Russia. You'll be right at home.

[ALT F4]

toppstuff said:

The "bad guys" things was tongue in cheek and you know that. You saw the after all...

But given that you are clearly taking sides, my point is simple - we ( the west ) have the moral upper hand simply because our leaders have a mandate from the people to be there. And we can ( and we will ) take that mandate away from them.

So as you are posting this on the "War with Russia" thread, this moral upper hand you speak of, is it good enough reason to go to war with them purely on that basis?
Or more to the point, allow the likes of NATO to keep prodding them in order to keep the old enemy alive and force them to take reacting measures - in order to justify NATO's own existence/purpose?

Just trying to find a point in your posts - or could I ask, what you are expecting my replies to come back with?
If you are wanting me to agree that Russia and the west have fundamentally different forms of rule, then like I mentioned earlier, it is a given - I don't think you'll find anyone who will disagree with that.

[toppstuff]

ALT F4 said:

So as you are posting this on the "War with Russia" thread, this moral upper hand you speak of, is it good enough reason to go to war with them purely on that basis?
Or more to the point, allow the likes of NATO to keep prodding them in order to keep the old enemy alive and force them to take reacting measures - in order to justify NATO's own existence/purpose?

Just trying to find a point in your posts - or could I ask, what you are expecting my replies to come back with?
If you are wanting me to agree that Russia and the west have fundamentally different forms of rule, then like I mentioned earlier, it is a given - I don't think you'll find anyone who will disagree with that.

The point is that the countries of the old USSR have ( completely understandably) rejected authoritarian rule under Moscow and have their own functioning democracies.

This is why they have the shelter of the EU and NATO.

We should just stop apologising for Russia and see it for what it is : A non-democratic, totalitarian state ruled by a corrupt dictator and his cronies.

The pro-Putin position of some is rather bizarre. He is a modern day Tsar.

We should not therefore be surprised that the eastern EU countries want protection.

Talk of EU / NATO " aggression" is to my way of thinking, just a lazy way of trying to defend an undemocratic dictator. Of course the ex-USSR countries want to be protected - they don't want to be under the influence of a dictator any more. Who can blame them?

Besides, Russia can't afford a war. The amount of noise they make is louder when they can't think of anything else to do.

[matsoc]

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.

Absolutely well put.

I don't deny that for the Russian people some improvements have been made in terms of quality of living, at least in the areas I have been visiting for work during the last 10 years and so I understand some of the consensus that Puting gets, also speaking with Russians. Many people that declare to be against Putin admit that he did better than Yeltsin.

But Russia is still a country very far from democracy.

[ALT F4]

toppstuff said:

The point is that the countries of the old USSR have ( completely understandably) rejected authoritarian rule under Moscow and have their own functioning democracies.

This is why they have the shelter of the EU and NATO.

I don't think they need 'shelter' and it certainly not the job of the EU or NATO to provide this. NATO's concerns should be a defensive approach to its members, not a "world peace force" that intervenes in non-member affairs. When it performs this role then it becomes a tool for American foreign policy (in the main).

toppstuff said:

We should just stop apologising for Russia and see it for what it is : A non-democratic, totalitarian state ruled by a corrupt dictator and his cronies.

Having a balanced view of both sides is not a position of being "Russian apologist".
To start creating labels like that is the same as those who call people "deniers", such as having a scientific approach to climate change rather than a political approach. ergo - Must be a "climate denier" then.

toppstuff said:

We should not therefore be surprised that the eastern EU countries want protection.

There is no evidence that Russia has the desire to go on a "conquer the world quest", or even as little as attempting to re-form any formation of a new USSR.
This is the fear machine generating a required enemy in order to justify the existence of NATO.

But like your final point mentions - "Russia can't afford a war"
And so what of a threat is it if all they do is create noise?

[scherzkeks]

Mr Whippy said:

It's all shades of grey though.

This is the correct answer. Britain aside (as you are our lapdog), in the United States, one has the illusion of choice and the illusion that one can fight the system. The system is refined to the point that if you go along with everything, you would never know just how much your superiors benefit from you, as well as those they wage war on and exploit to the greatest degree possible (those at the outer reaches of empire). Domestically, those at the lower rungs of the economic ladder also get a taste of the latter.

But again, this sort of A to B comparison is pointless, unless you beleive that the United States and its vassals should dominate the globe and exploit those at the outer reaches. If you are a proponent of multipolar theory, you know better.

[toppstuff]

scherzkeks said:

Mr Whippy said:

It's all shades of grey though.

This is the correct answer.

No it is not the right answer. Not unless you believe that we in the west are stooges to a system we can't change. This is a dumb position to take - it is clear that time and time again, even the most powerful of politicians can be toppled. We have seen US presidents impeached, premiers get deposed. We have seen anti-establishment politicians get significant power.

If we are indeed powerless in the face of a pretend democracy ruled by people who are making us think we have choices, then we are not very good at it. Take Hilary Clinton for example, once a shoe-in for POTUS and yet not finding it easy against Sanders and, even then, facing the chance of losing to a reality TV star.

Thinking that our democracies aren't real is the stuff of jaded conspiracy theorists.

Besides, even our flawed democracies are supreme and wonderful institutions compared to Putins authoritarianism.

Back to the central thread - of course we should protect the democracies of Eastern Europe. Of course they should be in the EU and NATO if they want to be.

None of us should want a dictatorship just across our borders. Having a buffer zone of countries between us is a good thing. And arm them to the teeth.

The alternative is that they are annexed to Russia and those hundreds of millions of people are once again thrown under the burden of dictatorship. Somehow, I don't think they will go down without a fight. Such a scenario is hardly likely to bring a peaceful outcome, so if they want to be in NATO then they damn well should be. If we don't, then war becomes more likely , not less.

As for Putin. Well, one day he will be dead. Its probably the only way he'll go.

[Mr Whippy]

toppstuff said:

Mr Whippy said:

It's all shades of grey though.

It is not though, really. When we have rotten politicians in the West all we have to do is wait a few years and they are gone.

In Russia, this does not happen. This is why comparisons mean nothing and even the shenanigans of the western secret services pale into insignificance, compared to a state where the same man has absolute power for as long as he wants..

You have a state where diffused interests influence a string of rotten politicians, or you have a state where diffused interests influence a single rotten politician.
Getting rid of the figure head of any given country doesn't solve anything if the interests that they reflected still exist.

You think replacing Obama with Hillary will stop crony capitalism, random pointless wars, scandals, lies and the general shafting of the population?

Do you think if Putin were replaced with another president that that president wouldn't succumb to the background influence of the power people in Russia?

[toppstuff]

Mr Whippy said:

You have a state where diffused interests influence a string of rotten politicians, or you have a state where diffused interests influence a single rotten politician.
Getting rid of the figure head of any given country doesn't solve anything if the interests that they reflected still exist.

You think replacing Obama with Hillary will stop crony capitalism, random pointless wars, scandals, lies and the general shafting of the population?

Do you think if Putin were replaced with another president that that president wouldn't succumb to the background influence of the power people in Russia?

Western Poltical Democracy - where you get to choose who shafts you. Get to remove them when they have shafted you. And hope that the next one will be better. Hell, maybe even some times you get to win a few points.

Russian Political Democracy - where you absolutely will be shafted and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. So don't even bother trying.



And of course your position is predicated on the assumption that we in the west ARE being shafted. Personally I don't think we are. I think most of us are OK. We just like complaining a lot. Believe me, you would complain a LOT more if you were Russian. There is a lot more to complain about.


And you think there is no difference. Really?!

[Escapegoat]

toppstuff said:

No it is not the right answer. Not unless you believe that we in the west are stooges to a system we can't change.

We are stooges because the system gives us Hollywood, LOLcats and all sorts of sparkly distractions when we perhaps ought to be asking why we pay taxes to allow a guy at Ramstein to carry out a drone strike that kills Bad Ahmed as well as half a dozen children. Or what exactly happened to John Wheeler.

These are inconvenient questions and it's not on to raise them in the middle of EastEnders/etc.

[toppstuff]

Escapegoat said:

We are stooges because the system gives us Hollywood, LOLcats and all sorts of sparkly distractions when we perhaps ought to be asking why we pay taxes to allow a guy at Ramstein to carry out a drone strike that kills Bad Ahmed as well as half a dozen children. Or what exactly happened to John Wheeler.

These are inconvenient questions and it's not on to raise them in the middle of EastEnders/etc.

Is it not important that you not only know about these things, but are also free to write about them?

The people of Russia have no such privileges. I think that counts for a lot. It is also why we are NOT stooges. If we were stooges we wouldnt be allowed to talk about being stooges...

[Escapegoat]

toppstuff said:

Is it not important that you not only know about these things, but are also free to write about them?

The people of Russia have no such privileges. I think that counts for a lot. It is also why we are NOT stooges. If we were stooges we wouldnt be allowed to talk about being stooges...

I wasn't saying anything about Russia, just pointing out that you and I have zero clout in stopping the significant wrongdoing by our governments, supposedly done in our name.

We are allowed to talk about them, it's true, but in a world of "You Won't Believe What this Cute Panda Did Next!" clicks, likes and shares, it's like pi55ing in the wind.

[Halb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_U...

I was interested in the impeachment, seems two Prezzes have been impeached, one was Clinton, which was mostly over the Lewinsky thing. Was that the start of the GoP becoming ultra-partisan fkwits?

[Mr Whippy]

toppstuff said:

Mr Whippy said:

You have a state where diffused interests influence a string of rotten politicians, or you have a state where diffused interests influence a single rotten politician.
Getting rid of the figure head of any given country doesn't solve anything if the interests that they reflected still exist.

You think replacing Obama with Hillary will stop crony capitalism, random pointless wars, scandals, lies and the general shafting of the population?

Do you think if Putin were replaced with another president that that president wouldn't succumb to the background influence of the power people in Russia?

Western Poltical Democracy - where you get to choose who shafts you. Get to remove them when they have shafted you. And hope that the next one will be better. Hell, maybe even some times you get to win a few points.

Russian Political Democracy - where you absolutely will be shafted and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. So don't even bother trying.



And of course your position is predicated on the assumption that we in the west ARE being shafted. Personally I don't think we are. I think most of us are OK. We just like complaining a lot. Believe me, you would complain a LOT more if you were Russian. There is a lot more to complain about.


And you think there is no difference. Really?!

At least in Russia everyone knows what's going on. In the West we all think we have freedom but we're still just sheeple to the people sitting atop the capitalist pyramid and their cronies.

And yay, we can write about it in the west. Great. But that is all we do. Freedom to write stuff and vote makes us think we have power, so we are apathetic to the desire to do anything more than do our token voting and talking.

I don't believe anyone in the USA can vote for a president that isn't already vetted and subverted to make sure they will only represent the interests of the great pyramid and those sitting atop it.

Even in the UK, whomever you vote for, it's just a swing from one bunch of incompetent cronies to another. No one represents a real change from the status quo.
Each party will spend money rearranging deck chairs to look like they're doing something for you, but they both ultimately erode liberty and freedoms and increase government size, taxes, burocracy, cronyism.


If I were really free in the West, I could just say I don't want to pay taxes or have the state interfere in increasingly regularity in things that are not any of their business.

[scherzkeks]

toppstuff said:

No it is not the right answer. Not unless you believe that we in the west are stooges to a system we can't change. This is a dumb position to take - it is clear that time and time again, even the most powerful of politicians can be toppled. We have seen US presidents impeached, premiers get deposed. We have seen anti-establishment politicians get significant power.

If we are indeed powerless in the face of a pretend democracy ruled by people who are making us think we have choices, then we are not very good at it. Take Hilary Clinton for example, once a shoe-in for POTUS and yet not finding it easy against Sanders and, even then, facing the chance of losing to a reality TV star.

Thinking that our democracies aren't real is the stuff of jaded conspiracy theorists.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

I can't even be bothered with the rest. You believe the US president has the power to force the system to bend to his personal will, or that the "people" elect the president. You haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.

[toppstuff]

Mr Whippy said:

At least in Russia everyone knows what's going on. In the West we all think we have freedom but we're still just sheeple to the people sitting atop the capitalist pyramid and their cronies.

And yay, we can write about it in the west. Great. But that is all we do. Freedom to write stuff and vote makes us think we have power, so we are apathetic to the desire to do anything more than do our token voting and talking.

I don't believe anyone in the USA can vote for a president that isn't already vetted and subverted to make sure they will only represent the interests of the great pyramid and those sitting atop it.

Even in the UK, whomever you vote for, it's just a swing from one bunch of incompetent cronies to another. No one represents a real change from the status quo.
Each party will spend money rearranging deck chairs to look like they're doing something for you, but they both ultimately erode liberty and freedoms and increase government size, taxes, burocracy, cronyism.


If I were really free in the West, I could just say I don't want to pay taxes or have the state interfere in increasingly regularity in things that are not any of their business.

You seem to be an unhappy chap.

You've got food in your fridge, broadband and internet and obviously the free time to come on PH and tell the world how st the capitalist system is.

And suggesting that our system doesn't make you happy because you have to pay taxes and the state "interferes" shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the alternatives. Maybe you should think a bit more about how your life would be if you did live in Russia or, indeed, any other authoritarian pseudo-democracy. The absolute, total and grinding certainty that your life is being controlled by people without accountability, recognition, transparency or integrity in every walk of life. There is no comparison to how relatively easy life is for people here in the UK. I feel sorry for you if you don't appreciate it..

[ALT F4]

toppstuff said:

The absolute, total and grinding certainty that your life is being controlled by people without accountability, recognition, transparency or integrity in every walk of life.

If the UK votes to remain in the EU, what you describe above will become our reality here in the UK