Jump to content

Russia


Sentience
 Share

Recommended Posts

Putin sits on a golden throne dishing out cash to stooges and quislings at home and abroad. He runs a country that covers 10% of the earth and is massively rich in resources - yet thanks to autocratic kleptomaniac governance has an economy the size of Italy and horrific poverty outside St. Petersburg & Moscow.  Putin is a paranoid lunatic running a failed state by fear. Look what he has done to his critics and political opponents. He doesn't check on your EU or NATO credentials before he slips you a polonium sandwich - anymore than he checks for collateral damage. He is a narcissistic psychopath. He couldn't stand to have a free, slavic democracy on his doorstep that he couldn't intimidate and control - so he started a war there in 2014, kicking off with shooting down civilian aircraft MH17. Of course Ukraine has been wanting closer ties to Europe and NATO. I have friends in both Russia and Ukraine by the way - they all agree with this assessment, it is almost unbelievable to them that this Kissenger style realpolitik / balance-of-power / great game view that La Dolce Vita has is being put forth and digested by intelligent people in the West. Sorry to say it, but Putin is a bad man, with no shades of grey, he despises us and everything decent we stand for and we are not to blame for doing everything we can to protect ourselves and others from him. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

Occupation...

Wonder why they seem similar?

The circumstances are very different though.

The Crimea has a long history of being under Russian rule or even being seen as just another region of Russia. Sebastopol has been the main port for the Black Seas Fleet for over a century. And shared Ukrainian control of the Crimea and Sebastopol has been a problem. 

The Falklands had never been Argentinian.  There was no Argentina military presence or civilian presence on the islands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

The Falklands had never been Argentinian.  There was no Argentina military presence or civilian presence on the islands.

Sure about that?

In 1820 the Buenos Aires government, which had declared its independence from Spain in 1816, proclaimed its sovereignty over the Falklands. In 1831 the U.S. warship Lexington destroyed the Argentine settlement on East Falkland in reprisal for the arrest of three U.S. ships that had been hunting seals in the area. In early 1833 a British force expelled the few remaining Argentine officials from the island without firing a shot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

 

Nothing philosophical about what I am saying.  I am only talking about the hypocrisy.

I can see why you think western countries should have done more if you truly think that Russia has designs on conquering all of Europe. But I don't know why you have that idea.  This conflict is not about conquering Europe and extending influence. What provocations are you referring to?

I don't know why you think Putin is a maniac.

I don't think any of this would have happened if Minsk II went ahead and if the Ukraine remained neutral.

This propaganda from the American government and western media where this conflict is seen only through the lens of the self determination of the Ukrainian people is just double standards.

LDV - I find it a bit odd that you seem stuck in the past.

We do not live in a 18th-19th century world of competing empires carving out spheres of influence around the world.  That geopolitical system has been shown to be an extremely bad idea: unstable, liable to result in violent territory swaps as different dominant powers wax and wane in power.

The whole idea of an open, trade and rules based international order where states signal their self-constraint from acting with impunity within the otherwise anarchy of the the international sphere is that this massively reduces the risk of the sort of violence we are witnessing in Ukraine today and the jeopardy it is creating not only to the rule of Putin, but also for peace across multiple states.

If nations behave within this constraint, they are not under-threat - they can develop their competitive advantages and profitably trade and through maintaining security alliances and deterrence ensure they aren't at risk from attack.

The US has different interests to those of Europe, but understands resorting to violence to get its way would be to kill the golden goose.

There is no need for a Monroe doctrine in South America - stable sovereign states trade are not going to suddenly come into the Sphere of influence of any empire and shut off trade from  the US, enforcing unfair terms of trade or seizing assets developed via US investments.

Look around the world - Southern Africa, South East Asia, Europe, NAFTA etc.  Countries allowing peaceful trade and respecting the international borders around them.

The video of the Kenyan delegate from the UN is a real exemplar of this ideal - Sphere of Influence empires draw straight lines on maps in smoke filled rooms - but African nations have the ideal of multi-linquistic, multi-cultural countries with laws created with the consent of the governed and trading peacefully with each other.

Putin is imagining a very different community. One of ethnic national essentialism and violently enforced spheres of influence.  NATO is not a threat to Russia - if Russia respects an open trading international order.  When the Soviet Union, or the current ethno-nationalist ethos Putin is beholden to threatens others, yes NATO is a threat, but that is in reaction to unreasonable behaviour which threatens the common-wealth created by the open system.

You seem to think Putin's behaviour is "understandable".  I totally disagree.  I repudiate his "imagined commmunity", it seems clear to me such an imagined community is unstable.  Ignores the aspirations of individuals.  Just because a Ukrainian is a slav doesn't mean they cannot desire to open relations with Europe and bring in institutional reforms that have been far more successful at creating wealth than Putin's imperial delusions.

Putin is the aggressor here, and is being unreasonable by trying to squash the reasonable agency being requested by the Ukrainian people to follow policy choices proven to create wealth rather than cronyism and corruption.

Anyway, a typical Chinahand TLDR post, but I find it very odd that you seem to be arguing you can "understand" Putin's point of view. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

The circumstances are very different though.

The Crimea has a long history of being under Russian rule or even being seen as just another region of Russia. Sebastopol has been the main port for the Black Seas Fleet for over a century. And shared Ukrainian control of the Crimea and Sebastopol has been a problem. 

The Falklands had never been Argentinian.  There was no Argentina military presence or civilian presence on the islands.

There is nothing wrong with peoples via an open and constitutionally agreed process changing their sovereignty. The border between Denmark and Germany, the failed Scottish Independence vote etc are good examples of this.

But such changes should in my view be a last resort, after democratic and consensual attempts to bring reconciliation.  I've already posted the YouTube video of the Kenyan UN delegate and I think this is a fantastic statement of the principles.

But Russia ignored this - I don't think it would have been so misunderstand-able for Crimea to have returned to Russia after such a process, but it didn't need to be violently seized with the fomenting of insurrections.

The issue isn't the change in sovereignty - something in the hands of individual communities.  Rather the violent and unconstitutional way Putin brought it about.  

Please see the wood for the trees.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

Sure about that?

In 1820 the Buenos Aires government, which had declared its independence from Spain in 1816, proclaimed its sovereignty over the Falklands. In 1831 the U.S. warship Lexington destroyed the Argentine settlement on East Falkland in reprisal for the arrest of three U.S. ships that had been hunting seals in the area. In early 1833 a British force expelled the few remaining Argentine officials from the island without firing a shot.

Spain's and then Argentina made claims on the island. It had s small settlement on it but that's the early 1800s.

There was no Argentinian settlement at the time of the Falklands War confiict.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodness it is sad.

A society with such opportunity to prosper will likely suffer a fate not that different than Syria's.

All for the violent insistence of a few men that they are right and all must bow to their will.

Could this young girl, playing in a bright summer have imagined what a winter her country faces.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chinahand said:

There is nothing wrong with peoples via an open and constitutionally agreed process changing their sovereignty. The border between Denmark and Germany, the failed Scottish Independence vote etc are good examples of this.

But such changes should in my view be a last resort, after democratic and consensual attempts to bring reconciliation.  I've already posted the YouTube video of the Kenyan UN delegate and I think this is a fantastic statement of the principles.

But Russia ignored this - I don't think it would have been so misunderstand-able for Crimea to have returned to Russia after such a process, but it didn't need to be violently seized with the fomenting of insurrections.

The issue isn't the change in sovereignty - something in the hands of individual communities.  Rather the violent and unconstitutional way Putin brought it about.  

Please see the wood for the trees.

But if Scottish kept killing and persecuting pro English living in scotland like Ukrainians do to pronRussians in Ukrainians I am sure the English wouldn’t sit back 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

But if Scottish kept killing and persecuting pro English living in scotland like Ukrainians do to pronRussians in Ukrainians I am sure the English wouldn’t sit back 

See Northern Ireland...

Amazing how many examples can be drawn from British history. 

8 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

Spain's and then Argentina made claims on the island. It had s small settlement on it but that's the early 1800s.

There was no Argentinian settlement at the time of the Falklands War confiict.

 

Maybe not at the time of the Falklands War but you had stated that there never was an Argentinian settlement or presence.  That is clearly untrue.

Chinahand has given you a great explanation which I entirely agree with.  

I feel so sorry for the people of the Ukraine and I hope that the people of Russia can see the truth and find the strength to do something about Putin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Unfortunately Putin might have other ideas re the nuclear issue.

Apologies for re-quoting the above but the man is unhinged. We should all be hoping & praying that the Russian people thenselves remove this man sooner rather than later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...