War with Russia
Discussion
Transmitter Man said:
NRS said:
I think some people are confusing criticism of the US and the west as validation of Russia and it's policies. It's not, it's just saying that we are not as good as people seem to be suggesting.
So your statement is pretty silly.
And that's me done for this thread - far too many Dave Sparts, fantasists and totalitarian apologists on here for me.IF they are doing it for these reasons why do they support other governments who are doing the same things? They support Saudi who effectively use other nationalities as slave labour (plus mistreat their own people). They supply Israel with weapons, including getting them to the point of nukes (answering the WMD point). What is the difference between Russia trying to get a Russian puppet government put in to help with trade and potentially some of the regime changes we have done? You don't have to hold the territory afterwards to be playing games of control. Those (or at least some of us) who are making points about the West are not suggesting Russia is better - I am happy to live here in Norway. It's just blaming it all on them is not really helpful either. And it's hypocritical that we say they can't do anything in other countries but we can.
Hi NRS,Bluebarge said:
NRS said:
The US and quite a lot of Europe don't follow your views. Many conflicts recently have involved us in other countries. So that statement is pretty silly.
And those conflicts were invariably to prevent genocide being continued or WMD being used or developed. Many of them were UN-sanctioned. Some of them were bad mistakes. But none of them were an attempt to increase national territory or impose the rights of one ethnic minority over another.So your statement is pretty silly.
And that's me done for this thread - far too many Dave Sparts, fantasists and totalitarian apologists on here for me.
I feel you've made some generalizations re the Saudi's. Despite what the UK's Daily Mail Or Mirror may have you believe not all servants are treated like slaves and have fully paid for vacations back home to see family once a year or every two years.
In Kuwait, the situation is even better as they fairly recently increase the days off from one to two per week. I met one Indian in Kuwait City who went home for two months, all expenses paid once every two years and had lived, with his wife & kids in the same family home for the past 37 years. His curry was the best!
Saudi does still chop hands off, but this is rarely if ever for the first offence of theft. However, when it does happen the thieving normally ceases.
Saudi parents who send their sons & daughters abroad for education including uni have all expenses paid by the state, this includes accommodation, private medical & dental care (I've been at London's Cromwell Hospital with them). On top of this they each receive a monthly allowance. The Qatari's being the best served in this department with up to $10K USD per month per person (gas money).
So, we may not agree with how their kingdoms came into being or how they run the country - but it ain't all bad. Iran does of course try and stir things up in Saudi's eastern region and also in Kuwait but hey ho, we have the BNP.
Phil
ds had their passports taken on entry and hadn't been home for 5 years. A godless country as described by a local doctor and chop square was fairly busy. The Mtawa were aggressive and women had a partcularly rough time. Kuwait might have been different thoughV8 Fettler said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Another (different) Sachs http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04v4sxb "The Shadow of the Cold War", 15 minutes long, the reach of politicians is long. Congress of Vienna has a lot to answer for.I have a deep mistrust of economists, they are the arch-dabblers.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
My issue is the imposition of our values on other countries, Russia is not Europe, the mentality and society does not want to be European they want to be Russian.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Saturday 20th December 19:15
If Russia wants to be respected as Russian, it is a two-way thing. Respect must be mutual.
Russia could have spent the last 20 years since communism ended building alliances. It has singularly failed to do so. This is their biggest problem IMO.
toppstuff said:
If this is true, then Russia needs to accept that it has lost its relationship with its neighbour states. Other than the ethnic Russians in countries such as Ukraine, the rest of Eastern Europe positively and absolutely is NOT Russian. Countries like Poland are European. A portion of Ukrainians see themselves NOT as Russian.
If Russia wants to be respected as Russian, it is a two-way thing. Respect must be mutual.
Russia could have spent the last 20 years since communism ended building alliances. It has singularly failed to do so. This is their biggest problem IMO.
The converse of that argument is that there are a good number of Ukrainians who do see themselves as Russians and want to be closer to Russia than Europe. They should be allowed the autonomy to chose, without being shelled, bombed. and killed.If Russia wants to be respected as Russian, it is a two-way thing. Respect must be mutual.
Russia could have spent the last 20 years since communism ended building alliances. It has singularly failed to do so. This is their biggest problem IMO.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
toppstuff said:
If this is true, then Russia needs to accept that it has lost its relationship with its neighbour states. Other than the ethnic Russians in countries such as Ukraine, the rest of Eastern Europe positively and absolutely is NOT Russian. Countries like Poland are European. A portion of Ukrainians see themselves NOT as Russian.
If Russia wants to be respected as Russian, it is a two-way thing. Respect must be mutual.
Russia could have spent the last 20 years since communism ended building alliances. It has singularly failed to do so. This is their biggest problem IMO.
The converse of that argument is that there are a good number of Ukrainians who do see themselves as Russians and want to be closer to Russia than Europe. They should be allowed the autonomy to chose, without being shelled, bombed. and killed.If Russia wants to be respected as Russian, it is a two-way thing. Respect must be mutual.
Russia could have spent the last 20 years since communism ended building alliances. It has singularly failed to do so. This is their biggest problem IMO.
This still does not IMO take away the obvious truth that the rest of the old eastern bloc is lost to Moscow now. They failed to build alliances or goodwill with their neighbours. It is their fault not many people want to deal with them - they offered nothing of any merit or attractiveness to the ex Soviet states. Only ethnic Russian people want to be associated with them.
Esseesse said:
I must agree with some of that article, people in Western Europe have forgotten what a real war is. The experience of war for two generations, has been TV, The IRA waged a low level insurgency campaign with some notable exceptions of the Manchester and Canary Wharf bombs, is not in the same scale as what Russia could do if forced. The bravado about how poor his military is, badly trained soldiers etc. Does not change the fact Russia is a still a substantial military force and can bring pain to Europe in a big way, both conventionally and unconventionally. Let us not even consider a nuclear confrontation. How would the UK react if some Russian speaking "Real IRA" decided to take out some key electricity generation or transmission for example ? The damage to economy would be huge. You do not need artillery to get your message across. I am sure the Catalans would appreciate some Russia monetary assistance with independence, maybe Syriza could do with a democratic assistance to free Greece from the imposed tyranny of the EU ?
To push Putin into a cornered position, where the only option is a hot one, is reckless in the extreme. Negotiate with an aim to resolve.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Esseesse said:
I must agree with some of that article, people in Western Europe have forgotten what a real war is. The experience of war for two generations, has been TV, The IRA waged a low level insurgency campaign with some notable exceptions of the Manchester and Canary Wharf bombs, is not in the same scale as what Russia could do if forced. The bravado about how poor his military is, badly trained soldiers etc. Does not change the fact Russia is a still a substantial military force and can bring pain to Europe in a big way, both conventionally and unconventionally. Let us not even consider a nuclear confrontation. How would the UK react if some Russian speaking "Real IRA" decided to take out some key electricity generation or transmission for example ? The damage to economy would be huge. You do not need artillery to get your message across. I am sure the Catalans would appreciate some Russia monetary assistance with independence, maybe Syriza could do with a democratic assistance to free Greece from the imposed tyranny of the EU ?
To push Putin into a cornered position, where the only option is a hot one, is reckless in the extreme. Negotiate with an aim to resolve.
I do find it ironic now that the outcome of Putins adventure in Ukraine is massive damage to Russia, the people who were proclaiming what a strategist Putin was and how well he played his hand right after the invasion ( for that is what is was) are talking about "us" backing putting into a hot war.
Good to see the propaganda machine still churning out utter bks about MH17, and the conspiracy nuts and paid shills are busy filling up the comments box with nonsense. You'd think if they were going to make stuff up it would be plausible stuff, like it was a MIG 29, an aircraft actually capable of shooting it down, as opposed to a mud mover which can't.
ks about MH17, and the conspiracy nuts and paid shills are busy filling up the comments box with nonsense. You'd think if they were going to make stuff up it would be plausible stuff, like it was a MIG 29, an aircraft actually capable of shooting it down, as opposed to a mud mover which can't.Liokault said:
But "were" not backing him into a position where his only option is a hot one. He could, you know, try diplomacy.
Except Moscow wanted a diplomatic solution back in February/March (albeit one recognising their sovereignty over Crimea - but, practically, that's immutable to the end of the world). That's a pretty established fact. It was the US and EU that encouraged Kiev to seek a military solution in the East, to keep Putin on the rack, make him pay a price for Crimea.Liokault said:
I do find it ironic now that the outcome of Putins adventure in Ukraine is massive damage to Russia, the people who were proclaiming what a strategist Putin was and how well he played his hand right after the invasion ( for that is what is was) are talking about "us" backing putting into a hot war.
Except (again) Russian pushback against the billions spent by Washington formenting regime change in Kiev was inevitable. Not reacting would have been the begining of the end for Putin domestically. Regime chnage in Moscow seems to be the US long game - a dangerous one, and pd misguided given that any potential sucessor will be more hardline, not less . . . hidetheelephants said:
Good to see the propaganda machine still churning out utter bks about MH17, and the conspiracy nuts and paid shills are busy filling up the comments box with nonsense. You'd think if they were going to make stuff up it would be plausible stuff, like it was a MIG 29, an aircraft actually capable of shooting it down, as opposed to a mud mover which can't.
a thousand times repeated lie becomes the truthks about MH17, and the conspiracy nuts and paid shills are busy filling up the comments box with nonsense. You'd think if they were going to make stuff up it would be plausible stuff, like it was a MIG 29, an aircraft actually capable of shooting it down, as opposed to a mud mover which can't.Octoposse]b]Except[/b said:
(again) Russian pushback against the billions spent by Washington formenting regime change in Kiev was inevitable. .
Are you suggesting that the US actively tries to overthrow democratically elected governments? Surely not.....Next you'll be suggesting that they support dictatorships and ignore human rights abuses when it suits them.
An interesting piece
Conquest Is for Losers
Conquest Is for Losers
Paul Krugman said:
More than a century has passed since Norman Angell, a British journalist and politician, published “The Great Illusion,” a treatise arguing that the age of conquest was or at least should be over. He didn’t predict an end to warfare, but he did argue that aggressive wars no longer made sense — that modern warfare impoverishes the victors as well as the vanquished.
He was right, but it’s apparently a hard lesson to absorb. Certainly Vladimir Putin never got the memo. And neither did our own neocons, whose acute case of Putin envy shows that they learned nothing from the Iraq debacle.
Angell’s case was simple: Plunder isn’t what it used to be. You can’t treat a modern society the way ancient Rome treated a conquered province without destroying the very wealth you’re trying to seize. And meanwhile, war or the threat of war, by disrupting trade and financial connections, inflicts large costs over and above the direct expense of maintaining and deploying armies. War makes you poorer and weaker, even if you win.
The exceptions to this dictum actually prove the rule. There are still thugs who wage war for fun and profit, but they invariably do so in places where exploitable raw materials are the only real source of wealth. The gangs tearing the Central African Republic apart are in pursuit of diamonds and poached ivory; the Islamic State may claim that it’s bringing the new caliphate, but so far it has mostly been grabbing oil fields.
The point is that what works for a fourth-world warlord is just self-destructive for a nation at America’s level — or even Russia’s. Look at what passes for a Putin success, the seizure of Crimea: Russia may have annexed the peninsula with almost no opposition, but what it got from its triumph was an imploding economy that is in no position to pay tribute, and in fact requires costly aid. Meanwhile, foreign investment in and lending to Russia proper more or less collapsed even before the oil price plunge turned the situation into a full-blown financial crisis.
Which brings us to two big questions. First, why did Mr. Putin do something so stupid? Second, why were so many influential people in the United States impressed by and envious of his stupidity?
The answer to the first question is obvious if you think about Mr. Putin’s background. Remember, he’s an ex-K.G.B. man — which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug. Violence and threats of violence, supplemented with bribery and corruption, are what he knows. And for years he had no incentive to learn anything else: High oil prices made Russia rich, and like everyone who presides over a bubble, he surely convinced himself that he was responsible for his own success. At a guess, he didn’t realize until a few days ago that he has no idea how to function in the 21st century.
The answer to the second question is a bit more complicated, but let’s not forget how we ended up invading Iraq. It wasn’t a response to 9/11, or to evidence of a heightened threat. It was, instead, a war of choice to demonstrate U.S. power and serve as a proof of concept for a whole series of wars neocons were eager to fight. Remember “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran”?
The point is that there is a still-powerful political faction in America committed to the view that conquest pays, and that in general the way to be strong is to act tough and make other people afraid. One suspects, by the way, that this false notion of power was why the architects of war made torture routine — it wasn’t so much about results as about demonstrating a willingness to do whatever it takes.
Neocon dreams took a beating when the occupation of Iraq turned into a bloody fiasco, but they didn’t learn from experience. (Who does, these days?) And so they viewed Russian adventurism with admiration and envy. They may have claimed to be alarmed by Russian advances, to believe that Mr. Putin, “what you call a leader,” was playing chess to President Obama’s marbles. But what really bothered them was that Mr. Putin was living the life they’d always imagined for themselves.
The truth, however, is that war really, really doesn’t pay. The Iraq venture clearly ended up weakening the U.S. position in the world, while costing more than $800 billion in direct spending and much more in indirect ways. America is a true superpower, so we can handle such losses — although one shudders to think of what might have happened if the “real men” had been given a chance to move on to other targets. But a financially fragile petroeconomy like Russia doesn’t have the same ability to roll with its mistakes.
I have no idea what will become of the Putin regime. But Mr. Putin has offered all of us a valuable lesson. Never mind shock and awe: In the modern world, conquest is for losers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-kru...He was right, but it’s apparently a hard lesson to absorb. Certainly Vladimir Putin never got the memo. And neither did our own neocons, whose acute case of Putin envy shows that they learned nothing from the Iraq debacle.
Angell’s case was simple: Plunder isn’t what it used to be. You can’t treat a modern society the way ancient Rome treated a conquered province without destroying the very wealth you’re trying to seize. And meanwhile, war or the threat of war, by disrupting trade and financial connections, inflicts large costs over and above the direct expense of maintaining and deploying armies. War makes you poorer and weaker, even if you win.
The exceptions to this dictum actually prove the rule. There are still thugs who wage war for fun and profit, but they invariably do so in places where exploitable raw materials are the only real source of wealth. The gangs tearing the Central African Republic apart are in pursuit of diamonds and poached ivory; the Islamic State may claim that it’s bringing the new caliphate, but so far it has mostly been grabbing oil fields.
The point is that what works for a fourth-world warlord is just self-destructive for a nation at America’s level — or even Russia’s. Look at what passes for a Putin success, the seizure of Crimea: Russia may have annexed the peninsula with almost no opposition, but what it got from its triumph was an imploding economy that is in no position to pay tribute, and in fact requires costly aid. Meanwhile, foreign investment in and lending to Russia proper more or less collapsed even before the oil price plunge turned the situation into a full-blown financial crisis.
Which brings us to two big questions. First, why did Mr. Putin do something so stupid? Second, why were so many influential people in the United States impressed by and envious of his stupidity?
The answer to the first question is obvious if you think about Mr. Putin’s background. Remember, he’s an ex-K.G.B. man — which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug. Violence and threats of violence, supplemented with bribery and corruption, are what he knows. And for years he had no incentive to learn anything else: High oil prices made Russia rich, and like everyone who presides over a bubble, he surely convinced himself that he was responsible for his own success. At a guess, he didn’t realize until a few days ago that he has no idea how to function in the 21st century.
The answer to the second question is a bit more complicated, but let’s not forget how we ended up invading Iraq. It wasn’t a response to 9/11, or to evidence of a heightened threat. It was, instead, a war of choice to demonstrate U.S. power and serve as a proof of concept for a whole series of wars neocons were eager to fight. Remember “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran”?
The point is that there is a still-powerful political faction in America committed to the view that conquest pays, and that in general the way to be strong is to act tough and make other people afraid. One suspects, by the way, that this false notion of power was why the architects of war made torture routine — it wasn’t so much about results as about demonstrating a willingness to do whatever it takes.
Neocon dreams took a beating when the occupation of Iraq turned into a bloody fiasco, but they didn’t learn from experience. (Who does, these days?) And so they viewed Russian adventurism with admiration and envy. They may have claimed to be alarmed by Russian advances, to believe that Mr. Putin, “what you call a leader,” was playing chess to President Obama’s marbles. But what really bothered them was that Mr. Putin was living the life they’d always imagined for themselves.
The truth, however, is that war really, really doesn’t pay. The Iraq venture clearly ended up weakening the U.S. position in the world, while costing more than $800 billion in direct spending and much more in indirect ways. America is a true superpower, so we can handle such losses — although one shudders to think of what might have happened if the “real men” had been given a chance to move on to other targets. But a financially fragile petroeconomy like Russia doesn’t have the same ability to roll with its mistakes.
I have no idea what will become of the Putin regime. But Mr. Putin has offered all of us a valuable lesson. Never mind shock and awe: In the modern world, conquest is for losers.
Snoggledog said:
Just idle curiosity but how long before Russia tries to annex Alaska? Like Crimea it was theirs at some point in the past.
Didn't they buy it? I don't suppose there's a large ethnic Russian population in Alaska just longing to be a part of the motherland again.The North Pole is the latest flashpoint though between those two and a few others.
Has been said before Russians are a proud people do not tell them what to do.
Do business but respect their way most of us don't understand a word of their language.I don't think Putin gave the order to shoot that civilian plane down.None of them survived unnessary casualties.Their outlook on live isn't ours.
Do business but respect their way most of us don't understand a word of their language.I don't think Putin gave the order to shoot that civilian plane down.None of them survived unnessary casualties.Their outlook on live isn't ours.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff