• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Opinion Russian aggression: a "panic" or a real threat

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
7,016
4,388
775
UPDATE: asked mod to fix spelling in the title.

What do you think culture is? You don’t think that shit is heritable?
Russia was under Mongols/Tatars for 5 centuries. In Russia's most hated countries, the top 5 look like:

US
Ukraine/Georgia
UK/Poland

Bar US, remind me, when did any of those invade Russia?

And you are totally missing the point: having people who are buthurt about losing war alive AND IN COMMAND makes a huge difference.



USSR isn't Russia, even if current Russia is the aftermath of the USSR, combined with capitalist mobster oligarchs. It seems you're trying too hard on the Russia issue, especially due to your own history.
Russia is the only post soviet republic, that cannot claim it gained independence after USSR collapse. I wonder why that could be...

Now, "Russia" is overall a russophobic panic, which isn't something new historically
Invasion into Georgia in 2008, invasion into Ukraine in 2014 (wikileaks cables have shown Georgian president, instead of talking about own occupied country, back in 2009 was warning Vershbow Putler would try to grab Crimea, was totally "russophobic panic" as well I presume).



Both were thought as "nah, Russia would never do it".

2008 war was brushed off by "Georgia started it" (somehow, within borders of the own territory) else "Russia would never do it"
2014 was... a bit harder to brush off.

There is a bunch of conflicts within former USSR that Russia inspired, fueled, funded, of which you probably haven't even heard.

...the fears that existed had no basis whatsoever...
Because... Russia totally have not invaded its neighbors. Oh wait (being Norwegian, you surely would recognize this guy):



Of course, Russia is always trying to secure its own interests...
Of course, Nazi Germany is always trying to secure its own interests...
Exactly where does the line, where "secure own interests" no longer justifies what is going on, may I ask?

Oh, and of course, the US had their stint of Red Scare and McCarthyism, due to communist panic and fears, from the 1947 and at least throughout the 1950s.
I wish people would stop treating MCarthyism as a proof that Red Threat was not real. It was as real as it freaking gets.
Stalin was OK with nuking the hell of a "UN forces" heading to Korea.
The last head of USSR I recall that was fine with having Communism win by military means was Andropov. He died in 1984.

France and Germany have tried a different solution
German Rheinmetall helped Putler build Ukraine invasion army, providing facilities where 10k troops can be trained in parallel.
France was fine with selling Mistral to Putler right after Georgia invasion, even after Russian General openly expressed dismay they didn't have ships like this, else war would end even faster.
Germany built "North Stream" the whole point of which was to circumvent Ukraine. And Then followed up by "North Stream II".
When Malasian Airlines flight was shot down by Russians, German TVs were "not sure" what is going on and weren't able to figure only Ukrainian planes where shot down before and separatists had no air forces. (BBC and CNN somehow could).
There is too much lobbying of business groups to call out what "countries" stand for.


But some crappy facebook memes by a russian costing barely any money ($100,000) isn't really "interference in the election"...[/url]
Fuck Frau Clinton, this isn't about her.
You have downplayed what has actually happened, but it is not about actual impact something could or could not have, as it stands, one could only guess.
It's about the fact of Russia getting aggressive enough to dare mess with US like with banana republic and face no consequences.

Pathetic.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
20,221
41,424
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
It is just a "panic". I believe Russia -- internally -- is actually headed in a great direction. Resurgence of Russian Orthodoxy and a gradual acceptance of what they did (USSR) will help the process along. The populace is trying to grapple with the crimes they've committed against themselves, a true survivor's guilt complex affecting their whole culture.

Outwardly, Russia strong, Russia pure. They are still playing their mid-80s PR game, pretending the wall never fell, pretending their gov't system is superior. Getting caught doping so many of their athletes and the subsequent ban is a perfect microcosm of Russia's current circumstances: desperate to prove they still got it so they resort to underhanded tactics.

Asia will soon need a central authority (and it ain't gonna be China). If the West can bury the hatchet between itself and Russia, we could rebuild the region and help establish peace on the continent. In a roundabout way, peace between Russia and the West would be the worst outcome possible for China.
 

brap's wife’s boyfriend

Formerly 'Cybrwzrd’
Sep 29, 2014
6,436
9,548
910
I wish people would stop treating MCarthyism as a proof that Red Threat was not real.
Everything most people have learned about McCarthyism is a lie, taught by communist sympathizers. They won the propaganda game. The Verona project's reveal pretty much validated all of McCarthy's claims.

To think that the people who got into high level and tenured positions in both the government and education did not seek to hire more sympathizers over the decades since is naïve at best. They run our bureaucracy and education system these days. That's the deep state. Thousands of far left leaning individuals who all have similar goals cultivated by decades of friendly hiring practices.

They have spent decades working against American interests and providing intelligence to communists world wide. And they cover for one another. It isn't an organized "conspiracy" though.

The thing is, Russia isn't their ally anymore. They are outwardly hostile to them.
 
Last edited:

King of Foxes

Member
Jan 9, 2018
1,778
3,228
635
Latvia
Having them as a neighbour has me nervous sometimes.

They regularly hold military drills on our borders at election time each year.

That's fun
 

RokkanStoned

Member
Jan 14, 2018
2,139
2,376
585
Norway
Russia is the only post soviet republic, that cannot claim it gained independence after USSR collapse. I wonder why that could be...
That reason is simple enough, and that's because the USSR started from the Russian Empire through the Russian revolution. Still, considering the transformation, it's pretty obvious that the Russian Empire and USSR were completely different things that just encapsulated the area known as Russia. What followed after the dissolution of the USSR can hardly be called a continuation either, just as the USSR wasn't really a continuation of the Russian Empire, despite the Bolsheviks being a part of the Duma before the revolution. The Duma, a great effort of democratization (basically a sort of parliament), thought of by Sergei Witte, was a construction of the later Russian Empire, then reintroduced after the fall of USSR to Russia.
So indeed, if you take the perspective of Russia as a nation of PEOPLE, then it certainly gained independence, even so in our western perspective. Now, the aftermath is of course a different deal, especially with how roguishly things were during the 90s in Russia and furthermore with Putin securing influence and presidential spot in the 00s, continuing a more authoritarian remnant of the USSR.

Invasion into Georgia in 2008, invasion into Ukraine in 2014 (wikileaks cables have shown Georgian president, instead of talking about own occupied country, back in 2009 was warning Vershbow Putler would try to grab Crimea, was totally "russophobic panic" as well I presume).



Both were thought as "nah, Russia would never do it".

2008 war was brushed off by "Georgia started it" (somehow, within borders of the own territory) else "Russia would never do it"
2014 was... a bit harder to brush off.

There is a bunch of conflicts within former USSR that Russia inspired, fueled, funded, of which you probably haven't even heard.
Again, you're not really getting the understanding of the picture. That Russia has control over its own geopolitical interest sphere, is not surprising. Generally, whenever a country within their geopolitical interest sphere turns towards the west, it forces Russia to have to react. That happened in Georgia. That happened in Ukraine. That's also why the Ukraine situation was a failure on the West, by not foreseeing the actions that Russia would take. That's without considering the situation that Georgia was in after the dissolution of the USSR.
Historically, the threat of Russia has often been magnified from a misunderstanding of their interests. There's a long line of fear that Norway had about Russia, that was based on simply on the idea of Russia needing ice free ports in the North for their navy, with Norway being the natural place military strategically. The thing is that they already had an ice free port in Murmansk, making the idea ludicrous, but still the idea continuously resurfaced.
Heck, during the end of WW2, when northern Norway was liberated by the Soviet army, a fear of them not leaving the north of Norway existed. Which shouldn't be surprising, considering the circumstances of WW2 (the invasion of Finland) and even more understandable in the context of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. That said, Stalin never had any plan to stick in Norway. In fact, he looked favourably towards the norwegians and their resistance against the germans during WW2, so much that their resistance was spoken of during the battle of Stalingrad.
Finland was a different deal, where Stalin obviously felt a bit resentment, funnily despite the fact that the Soviet Union attacked Finland first and thus forced them to depend on Germany. Funny enough, despite being able and having the casus belli to take over Finland, thanks to clever work by the finns, they managed to remain an independent nation post-WWII. A lot of stipulations, as well as territorial concessions, more than those from the Winter War, but still that shows that one shouldn't get too invested in a view of Soviet or Russia as some simply motivated country.



Because... Russia totally have not invaded its neighbors. Oh wait (being Norwegian, you surely would recognize this guy):

Why would I, a Norwegian, be that knowledgable about a Finnish soldier? Oh, and where did I say that Russia hasn't invaded its neighbours? In order to understand history you need to treat it historically and not paint an ahistoric picture as it suits you. That requires understanding motives of leaders and states in why they act as they do.

Of course, Nazi Germany is always trying to secure its own interests...
Exactly where does the line, where "secure own interests" no longer justifies what is going on, may I ask?
I see the Nazi Germany example, but you know that USSR in itself could've just as well been used, instead of trying to evoke Godwin's law? You know, the purges in the 1930s? If you're trying to use Nazi Germany in a war manner (in which it was a case of territorial expansion), then that doesn't really work either, because most wars are done to secure own interests, unless it's a statement about war itself.

It's pretty simple. Nations will in regards to their foreign policy and their own national interests, generally accept subverting another nation and taking territory. This is not something exceptionally new. More so, in the post WWII era, with the neorealist/structuralist angle, the bipolar system of international relations with the USA and USSR at each side, the geopolitical influence sphere became important, not merely a geographical one, but overall ideologically global one. That's why you had conflicts in various nations like Korea and Vietnam and Afghanistan, with one nation taking active part and the other one supporting the other side. All of the USSR territories were of course geographically naturally part of the interest spheres once the USSR dissolved. Of course, some countries have managed to escape it, like Poland, others have been within their interest sphere all the time, like Ukraine and Georgia. While the Cold War was officially over, that doesn't mean that the overall systems of power globally has been diminished. You can imagine if Mexico and Canada turned away from the US and towards a Russian-centric alliance? US would go ballistic, it would entrench upon the Monroe Doctrine, which detailed their own interest sphere. You can see the disturbance and strategic defeat of the Cuban revolution and subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis.
Losing Georgia and Ukraine towards a more Western realignment would be for Russia to concede ground and feel the "enemy" get closer to home and thus experience a further existential threat. This isn't something new and similar harshness is shown in domestic issues as well as foreign policy issues in numerous western countries as well. Heck, Jon Neu Jon Neu has written a lot about the Catalonian cause, as a nation within a nation state, whereupon brutal realities and sovereignty matters more than ideals in the end for states like Spain. Thereby using brutal violence to deal with that issue, where you'll find a lot of people having different opinions, but I know my professor in political science is on the spanish sovereignty's side, which is funny considering Norway only got its independence in 1905 from Sweden. Which further colors Spain's actions in international relations, to avoid encouraging separatist movements. That's because power is the driving force in international relations. Some try to exercise soft power, but you'll often see governments of high ideals bow down before more real means of power, especially economic ones. You've seen the same sort of power having been used against Brexit, with economic force/threats being used to deter a choice that was democratically driven.

I wish people would stop treating MCarthyism as a proof that Red Threat was not real. It was as real as it freaking gets.
Stalin was OK with nuking the hell of a "UN forces" heading to Korea.
The last head of USSR I recall that was fine with having Communism win by military means was Andropov. He died in 1984.
Depends on what you mean by "red threat". USSR was a threat, but so was the US towards the USSR. It's the bipolar system that was established post-WWII, with NATO and the Warsaw Pact at each side. Heck, both were a threat to the world and various nations. Both suffered humiliating defeats as well, in Afghanistan and Vietnam respectively. Generally, the threat was an imagined one, as MAD made military action limited. The War was won through economic means, where the US dominated and it's part of what makes China a far more chilling threat nowadays. That said, Russia's success in warfare in Georgia and Ukraine, albeit part of their interest sphere, is still a bit chilling, due to how it could be considered as possible training and leading up to same strategies towards nations outside their interest sphere and even part of NATO. This has of course revitalized the military options a bit, but Russia is still struggling economically, so it's still looking like it might end up a repeat of the USSR situation. What's the most worrying is Russia's actions in Syria, but honestly, best thing would be economically pressure Russia to spend more resources in stupid wars. "Tampering" with elections is definitely not a concern, unless it's some actual tampering with votes. Cybersecurity as a whole, is another issue as well, but not like what's called "Russiagate", which was far more a domestic dispute between the US presidential campaigns, trying to exert pressure and seek justification for why they (Democrats) lost to Donald Trump.
Of course, Cold War was also a time of spies, which was a very real threat, but which again is more an intelligence issue. And it often ended up in a paranoid hunt for spies and dubious in regards to the ideals of the US.



Also, I'd love to see the citations for Stalin credibly wanting to nuke UN forces heading to Korea. I haven't heard that before. Not that it matters, since the US, especially General MacArthur was really keen on nuking Korea. Really, there's no need to try to justify why Stalin was a bad guy. There's numerous examples of that, especially during the 1930s, and even Stalin himself knew of his cruel reputation, so much that he wanted Soviet historians to give Ivan the Terrible a better reputation, as means to better paint himself as cruelly necessary. Heck, even Khrushchev recognized this in the Secret Speech he held in a closed session of the Party Congress. That's without considering the other things, like forced collective farming and for Ukraine a really tender issue of "holodomor", albeit most historians have shown that there was little Stalin could've done. Back then it was still a bit of a backwards agrarian country, so like many other agrarian countries bad weather and harvests could easily lead to hunger crisis.

German Rheinmetall helped Putler build Ukraine invasion army, providing facilities where 10k troops can be trained in parallel.
France was fine with selling Mistral to Putler right after Georgia invasion, even after Russian General openly expressed dismay they didn't have ships like this, else war would end even faster.
Germany built "North Stream" the whole point of which was to circumvent Ukraine. And Then followed up by "North Stream II".
When Malasian Airlines flight was shot down by Russians, German TVs were "not sure" what is going on and weren't able to figure only Ukrainian planes where shot down before and separatists had no air forces. (BBC and CNN somehow could).
There is too much lobbying of business groups to call out what "countries" stand for.
That Germans are more careful when it comes to Russia isn't really surprising and I wouldn't try to be so reductionistic as to only paint it as being purely economic interests, especially when it comes to news organizations. UK and US are traditionally far more in opposition towards Russia, so that BBC and CNN jump more quickly onto judging Russia responsible for something, isn't that surprising.
Russia isn't really an economic power at this point, unlike China. Russia has a GDP of about 1.6 trillion USD, while China has one of 12.25 trillion USD. Russia's military spendings are a quarter of China's, while also taking a bigger part of the GDP. Russia about 66 billion USD, China 228 billion USD. Russia has a bit of an advantage in terms of some military forces, but even that's just slowly but surely being surpassed by China as well. EU, US and the respective companies of these countries are far much further feeling chinese pressures, especially with China being a far more relevant economic power. I mean, Russia despite being bigger and more populous has a GDP that's less than Germany or France or Canada or Brazil.
China has even been a harsh issue in Norway, due to some corporations, as well as the government (for economic reasons), have tried to better the relationship with China, trying to silence criticism from the governmental side at least, while most media in Norway are calling it out. Latest example is from our neighbouring country, Sweden, due to a freedom of speech award.

Really, being wary of Russia is fine, but it all needs to be within a scope of understanding the actual threats it poses and not the international drama that's being driven by various interests. That means not having a reductionist view of Russia, even further conflating the difference between different epochs and being clouded by one's own judgement. No one's saying that what Russia did in Georgia and Ukraine wasn't wrong, just that it's rational and part of typical actions of big powers, as well as a self-identification with Russia being the closest to a successor to the USSR. More so, there's generally very little to be done in these situations, if nothing was done preemptively of the Russian clever use of unmarked soldiers. Sanctions have just made China and Russia strengthen their ties more. And the sanctions don't really hinder Russia's military actions abroad.
It'd be easy to have a traditionalist view of USSR/Russia, but while the revisionists of the 1970s at times could be overly sympathetic to the USSR, it also allowed for a much more varied interpretation of the Soviet Union.
As someone in northern Norway, we get a feeling of Russian provocations and drills all the time. Despite that our military has been steadily reduced over the years and we lack more and more capabilities to deal with Russia. Of course, we're also wary of too much build up as well, as it could be seen as provocations and we've historically had a rather good relationship with USSR/Russia. Still, almost every nation in NATO are failing their goals in terms of defense budget, so we've more or less put ourselves dependent on NATO as a deterrent like the others.
Personally I feel like there should be severe build-up in the border regions of NATO countries, to protect from possible russian operations/incursions. Such pressure would lead to a build-up in the russian budget, making it far more effective than merely sanctioning Russia. Of course, it might unnecessary provocations, but it might also serve as a leverage to get Russia out of Ukraine, much like the US missiles in Turkey during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
7,016
4,388
775
That reason is simple enough, and that's because the USSR started from the Russian Empire through the Russian revolution.
I recall Poland and Finland and Baltic states were part of RI, but not of USSR. Oh wait, Baltic states actually changed status after WWII...

Russia started "through the Russian revolution". Most of the republics, however, were forcefully brought in. Poland managed to fend the fuckers off. Lenin's take on what would become USSR was more like RSFSR, but Joseph Stalin, curiously, managed to push his concept through.

Becoming independent from Kremlin sounds funny for RSFSR, let alone, that USSR collapse was just an unsuccessful attempt of the Eltsin to come to power, replacing Gorbatchiov. The CIS quickly followed, but Moscow's control was mostly symbolic, it definitely couldn't take on Ukraine, that had major army and over 1200 strategic ballistic missiles with nukes (and what not) but small countries like Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova felt the "consequences" immediately. Some of the mentioned, unlike Ukraine, didn't even have own army (men, when serving at military, were sent to other republics, mostly to Russia) so messing up situation there was no big deal for Kremlin.


Why would I, a Norwegian, care about a Finnish soldier?
Care? No. Recognize. I'd expect Norwegians to know more about Russo-Finnish war, than, say, British, let alone Americans.


Generally, whenever a country within their geopolitical interest sphere turns towards the west, it forces Russia to have to react. That happened in Georgia. That happened in Ukraine. That's also why the Ukraine situation was a failure on the West, by not foreseeing the actions that Russia would take. That's without considering the situation that Georgia was in after the dissolution of the USSR.
Historically, the threat of Russia has often been magnified from a misunderstanding of their interests.
I have cognitive dissonance reading this.
Had this BS approach taken place in Stalin's era, commies would have taken over the world.

Also, I'd love to see the citations for Stalin credibly wanting to nuke UN forces heading to Korea. I haven't heard that before.
That is how "anti-air defense umbrella" around Moscow was built. Beria told Stalin that the Red Army wouldn't be able to stop massive air attack.
Disappointed, Stalin asked to address it. They ended building all kind of crap, military roads leading to swamps to confuse the enemy, having nuclear (!!!) surface to air missiles.
I've heard it more than once in Russian documentaries quite a while ago (back in Eltsin's era)

For written statements that I could find (and only in Russian :S) there was major military buildup on the far east (with alleged plans to attack US; note that there were no tensions with China at that point and Mao had admired Stalin) and Molotov's words (recorded by his biographer, Felix Chuev) "10 more years and we would have ended the World Imperialism".

That Germans are more careful when it comes to Russia isn't really surprising and I wouldn't try to be so reductionistic as to only paint it as being purely economic interests, especially when it comes to news organizations.
There is no point downplaying Germany playing major role in Putler's military build up.
Let alone the fact that it was Merkel who has blocked granting NATO Membership Accession Plan to Ukraine and Georgia; it was the first time of history of NATO that US president hasn't achieved openly announced goals.

More so, there's generally very little to be done in these situations
Brzezinski noted, right after Crimea Anschluss, that had anyone suggested those kinds of events could have taken place, he'd be accused of scary mongering. Georgian President was talking about Ukraine being next back in 2009. What did the West do? Oh, help Putler train troops. (all he could scrap back in 2008 was 64 thousand with 2000+ units of armor and about 200 planes, enough for Georgia with around 16k soldiers, but nothing to take on on bigger countries like Ukraine)

1) Russian threat is real
2) Going unpunished (no sanctions whatsoever, bar some mild nuclear fuel crap by US after Georgia Invasion) it got more and more aggressive up into Ukraine invasion (again, the only serious sanction is actually indirect: major oil price drop)
3) Even Brezhnev's USSR was much less aggressive than today's Russia. Had the wast handled the situation the way it is now, Eastern Germany would still be building communism.
 

brap’s dad

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
18,905
34,308
1,450
Australia
UPDATE: asked mod to fix spelling in the title.


Russia was under Mongols/Tatars for 5 centuries. In Russia's most hated countries, the top 5 look like:

US
Ukraine/Georgia
UK/Poland

Bar US, remind me, when did any of those invade Russia?

And you are totally missing the point: having people who are buthurt about losing war alive AND IN COMMAND makes a huge difference.




Russia is the only post soviet republic, that cannot claim it gained independence after USSR collapse. I wonder why that could be...


Invasion into Georgia in 2008, invasion into Ukraine in 2014 (wikileaks cables have shown Georgian president, instead of talking about own occupied country, back in 2009 was warning Vershbow Putler would try to grab Crimea, was totally "russophobic panic" as well I presume).



Both were thought as "nah, Russia would never do it".

2008 war was brushed off by "Georgia started it" (somehow, within borders of the own territory) else "Russia would never do it"
2014 was... a bit harder to brush off.

There is a bunch of conflicts within former USSR that Russia inspired, fueled, funded, of which you probably haven't even heard.


Because... Russia totally have not invaded its neighbors. Oh wait (being Norwegian, you surely would recognize this guy):




Of course, Nazi Germany is always trying to secure its own interests...
Exactly where does the line, where "secure own interests" no longer justifies what is going on, may I ask?


I wish people would stop treating MCarthyism as a proof that Red Threat was not real. It was as real as it freaking gets.
Stalin was OK with nuking the hell of a "UN forces" heading to Korea.
The last head of USSR I recall that was fine with having Communism win by military means was Andropov. He died in 1984.


German Rheinmetall helped Putler build Ukraine invasion army, providing facilities where 10k troops can be trained in parallel.
France was fine with selling Mistral to Putler right after Georgia invasion, even after Russian General openly expressed dismay they didn't have ships like this, else war would end even faster.
Germany built "North Stream" the whole point of which was to circumvent Ukraine. And Then followed up by "North Stream II".
When Malasian Airlines flight was shot down by Russians, German TVs were "not sure" what is going on and weren't able to figure only Ukrainian planes where shot down before and separatists had no air forces. (BBC and CNN somehow could).
There is too much lobbying of business groups to call out what "countries" stand for.
Why are you screeching?

If anyone’s missing the point, it’s you. I’m simply refuting your assertion that Russia is the only country with leaders butthurt over losing wars.
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
3,503
3,370
600
I recall Poland and Finland and Baltic states were part of RI, but not of USSR. Oh wait, Baltic states actually changed status after WWII...

Russia started "through the Russian revolution". Most of the republics, however, were forcefully brought in. Poland managed to fend the fuckers off. Lenin's take on what would become USSR was more like RSFSR, but Joseph Stalin, curiously, managed to push his concept through.

Becoming independent from Kremlin sounds funny for RSFSR, let alone, that USSR collapse was just an unsuccessful attempt of the Eltsin to come to power, replacing Gorbatchiov. The CIS quickly followed, but Moscow's control was mostly symbolic, it definitely couldn't take on Ukraine, that had major army and over 1200 strategic ballistic missiles with nukes (and what not) but small countries like Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova felt the "consequences" immediately. Some of the mentioned, unlike Ukraine, didn't even have own army (men, when serving at military, were sent to other republics, mostly to Russia) so messing up situation there was no big deal for Kremlin.



Care? No. Recognize. I'd expect Norwegians to know more about Russo-Finnish war, than, say, British, let alone Americans.



I have cognitive dissonance reading this.
Had this BS approach taken place in Stalin's era, commies would have taken over the world.


That is how "anti-air defense umbrella" around Moscow was built. Beria told Stalin that the Red Army wouldn't be able to stop massive air attack.
Disappointed, Stalin asked to address it. They ended building all kind of crap, military roads leading to swamps to confuse the enemy, having nuclear (!!!) surface to air missiles.
I've heard it more than once in Russian documentaries quite a while ago (back in Eltsin's era)

For written statements that I could find (and only in Russian :S) there was major military buildup on the far east (with alleged plans to attack US; note that there were no tensions with China at that point and Mao had admired Stalin) and Molotov's words (recorded by his biographer, Felix Chuev) "10 more years and we would have ended the World Imperialism".


There is no point downplaying Germany playing major role in Putler's military build up.
Let alone the fact that it was Merkel who has blocked granting NATO Membership Accession Plan to Ukraine and Georgia; it was the first time of history of NATO that US president hasn't achieved openly announced goals.


Brzezinski noted, right after Crimea Anschluss, that had anyone suggested those kinds of events could have taken place, he'd be accused of scary mongering. Georgian President was talking about Ukraine being next back in 2009. What did the West do? Oh, help Putler train troops. (all he could scrap back in 2008 was 64 thousand with 2000+ units of armor and about 200 planes, enough for Georgia with around 16k soldiers, but nothing to take on on bigger countries like Ukraine)

1) Russian threat is real
2) Going unpunished (no sanctions whatsoever, bar some mild nuclear fuel crap by US after Georgia Invasion) it got more and more aggressive up into Ukraine invasion (again, the only serious sanction is actually indirect: major oil price drop)
3) Even Brezhnev's USSR was much less aggressive than today's Russia. Had the wast handled the situation the way it is now, Eastern Germany would still be building communism.
Maybe you should call somebody by its name not this putler junk because nobody knows what the fuck you talking about. And it sounds childish as hell and frankly people won't take u seriously remotely.

Ukraine got invaded because EU fucked up massively in there goal to expand and expand against all cost. They pushed there borders closer towards russia something russia warned them against for multiple times/ They don't want the EU near moskou its that simple, specially not with there anti rocket shields and other shields that could rain terror down on them in seconds that was talked about daily by russia against the EU.

EU like the little shits they are put ukraine in a fucked up situation purely for profit and expanding. They them cut in there military capacity, locked down by EU country's regulations which cripples them in responding which made them a easy target for russia and a good warn signal that enough is enough. As russia know the EU would do jack shit and its friends against it if they take it fast enough. And everybody see's the kremlin as Russia anyway in the west. So if you want to be mad, go be mad at the EU.

The west was more interested in the fact that ukraine joined EU illegally and democratic ways got removed while we are at it, because if we can't push our ways forwards through rules we just bend them. then ukraine invasion by Russia. Hell lots of EU people actually liked it for the fact that EU got face palmed right there.

About your mh17 plane that got shot down above ukraine, was nobody else fault then this woman beating loser that even fled from his political position to never been talked about again.



This fucker messed everything up he ever touched, got into a high position at schiphol ( airport ) because of friends in political sector and fucked that up so big that he allowed a fucking airplane to fly over a air space to save a few bucks that shoots war planes out of the air on even higher heights then that airplane was flying.

Everything all the sharade and all the bullshit that came after it was just a massive coverup for this guy to not get his hands burned as they protect each other big time and a super good situation for US and EU to push there garbage further at the same time.

The fact that netherlands does a neutral criminal investigation even while they are the victims in this crime is laughable at best ( by the same elites ) and with the corruption going on with people on it clearly being biased which even got it rebooted because people lied about having met putin in moscow which seemed to be completely fake.

Then writing russia off ass bad guy is far more interesting towards them then ukraine or anybody on that front simple by pushing attention away from themselves. It became a political tool to push against russia something US always wanted. And a tool for left side to push EU further in a aggressive manner towards the Russia boarder. Sadly both failed when Trump came in power. Even while Obama tried there shit at the last month of his office towards russia again.

All of it is literally there own EU elite fault, they should have never moved a airplane over a warzone. And guess what they did straight after it? ban that airspace to fly over. LOL.

Ukraine got exploited and used by the west, and there own politicians and that results in the state they are today.

It's the elite that in the EU and US that got greedy and fucked the country up for there gain. Ukraine is a easy target because there politicians are corrupt as fuck ( like any eastern country really ) and will bend for any bribe money life line which EU is known for providing. And now with Biden and US and Ukraine situation it confirms it even more then ever.

Now lets get back to you so hated putin. I personally think anybody against putin and the way he rules stuff in his country in the west is a complete and utter idiot. The way the west works will not work in Russia without massive genocides happening. We saw this over and over again. They need a powerful leader that keeps them all in line. There are tons of examples what happens when putin type of leaders fall away. It becomes total anarchy to the point the west isn't burning there hands on or wants to even remotely.

This guy holds a fuck ton of religions / cultures all under his umbrella without them going after each other. We already saw this a few time when a leader falls away. EU will be flooded with Russia asylum seekers where middle east seems like a joke.

Putin is by far the best leader they can have for now. I don't see anybody better on this front. Without a iron fist that country is going to end up in pure chaos. So a friendly nice guy will never run that place. And Putin is by far the best russians they had in recent history and the west with it.

He's more protecting his own country from hostile EU / US interferences then the other way around. U will probably never see any in depth talks with putin about how he looks at things how he thinks about things which are readily available and what his motivations are because the west actively tries to sensor his every move and keep you as dumb as fucking possible.

The reason why Russia is a problem for the west:

1) They can't buy him
2) He doesn't obay the elite.
3) yet they have tons of land they can't exploit for there own gains.
4) good to push propoganda forwards to profit for the elite through militairy contracts or power projections markets etc. Lots of reasons.
5) US needs a enemy, to validate there spending on there massive army and keep the people in line so they won't implode themselves.
6) EU now also needs a enemy to validate there new military that france is going to push hard for as there markets are tanking hard. To finance them. Russia is the only good target for this.

I personally think Putin is the best guy they have in Russia.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,145
2,799
495
Russia's time to flex on the world stage is effectively "now or never", as they face catastrophic demographic decline that is going to rapidly erode their power of force projection in the coming decades.
 

Sign

Member
Jun 4, 2012
484
730
590
Russia's time to flex on the world stage is effectively "now or never", as they face catastrophic demographic decline that is going to rapidly erode their power of force projection in the coming decades.
Every major first world country is about to run into this outside the U.S. and it is going to be a clusterfuck.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,145
2,799
495
Every major first world country is about to run into this outside the U.S. and it is going to be a clusterfuck.
Agreed. Russia is going to feel it the hardest, as their demographic crisis is worse than most, and they also have the largest borders in the world to defend, and almost no friends nearby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sign

Alx

Member
Jan 22, 2007
18,537
761
1,350
So EU legally expands its union, Russia doesn't like it and invades Ukraine as retaliation. And EU is supposed to be the bad guy there ?
 

IKSTUGA

Member
Jan 9, 2019
641
470
365
In the Finnish military we have a saying that the threat will always come from the east. I don't think NATO countries should be too worried, it's mostly the neighbouring countries that should be somewhat wary of Russian aggression. Russian immigration and investment should be limited to prevent another situation like Crimea where Russia has the incentive to Annex (significant Russian population/assets in the neighbouring country). I'm of course only talking about military action here, economic/cyber warfare are a totally different topic.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: RokkanStoned

zeorhymer

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2013
2,663
2,330
750
San Francisco, CA
China is the real threat. Having consulates trespassing through military areas and getting a slap on the wrist. Even a month ago, China got caught trying to install a spy into the Australian parliament. I don't think Russia is even a remote threat.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
7,016
4,388
775
I guess this asshole is "joking" again (previous time was why he "can't root for Russia" in Russo-Ukrainian conflict:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Greedings

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,145
2,799
495
I guess this asshole is "joking" again (previous time was why he "can't root for Russia" in Russo-Ukrainian conflict:

What's your critique? Of course an anti-interventionist doesn't want us involved.

Critiquing anti-interventionism in general, or taking offense @ the notion of Ukraine being in the sphere of Russia? Or something else?
 

Greedings

Member
May 23, 2016
2,126
1,784
440
Russia is a genuine threat, maybe not to the US, but absolutely to the sovereignty of its neighbours.

Ukraine is continually fucked over by Russia, whether through manipulation of politicians with Russian money, or through literal invasions.

I am still stunned that no western countries have come to Ukraine's aide to deal with a Russian invasion. Sending arms is pathetic. There should be NATO (and if the leaders had any decency, American, British and French) tanks and troops rolling into eastern Ukraine.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
38,598
5,588
1,575
Best Coast
I am still stunned that no western countries have come to Ukraine's aide to deal with a Russian invasion. Sending arms is pathetic. There should be NATO (and if the leaders had any decency, American, British and French) tanks and troops rolling into eastern Ukraine.
Historically speaking, actions like this have caused more harm than good. Why would this time be any different?
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
9,013
1,419
1,700
I can't decide if this recent switch by Republicans/conservatives defending Russia, specifically Putin's Kremlin, is indicative of conservatism as a whole always being a opportunistic sham of supposed values being exploited, if they're super insecure about the fact they're being aided and abetted by Russia, or if Trump's marks are really just that dumb that they truly believe Russia and Putin are fine.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
20,221
41,424
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
I can't decide if this recent switch by Republicans/conservatives defending Russia, specifically Putin's Kremlin, is indicative of conservatism as a whole always being a opportunistic sham of supposed values being exploited, if they're super insecure about the fact they're being aided and abetted by Russia, or if Trump's marks are really just that dumb that they truly believe Russia and Putin are fine.
Huh?
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
9,013
1,419
1,700
Small gubunate muh liberties give me freedom from tyranny except when Putin's murdering his dissidents and running a de facto mob state that continually abuses its population ahh well that's fine, what're you people worried about?

I see three options here: conservatives never really cared about the values of freedom from tyranny, freedom of speech, etc. and just touted them as opportunists, or they can't be seen for what they've been doing, which is getting help from these evil fucks so they're now forced to downplay their evil or both sides (such as Trump always washing Putin's balls by saying how bad the US is too), or Trump supporters are really just that dumb that they believe the Russian propaganda Dear Leader propagates. It could be a combination of all three, mind you.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
20,221
41,424
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Small gubunate muh liberties give me freedom from tyranny except when Putin's murdering his dissidents and running a de facto mob state that continually abuses its population ahh well that's fine, what're you people worried about?
You seem to be having a mental breakdown, or you've smoked too much weed and you're having a conversation with no one in particular, dunking on no one in particular a.k.a strawmanning.

I see three options here: conservatives never really cared about the values of freedom from tyranny, freedom of speech, etc. and just touted them as opportunists, or they can't be seen for what they've been doing, which is getting help from these evil fucks so they're now forced to downplay their evil or both sides (such as Trump always washing Putin's balls by saying how bad the US is too), or Trump supporters are really just that dumb that they believe the Russian propaganda Dear Leader propagates. It could be a combination of all three, mind you.
It could be none of those three, also. 🤷‍♀️
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
3,503
3,370
600
So EU legally expands its union, Russia doesn't like it and invades Ukraine as retaliation. And EU is supposed to be the bad guy there ?
Russia wants the east left alone to create a buffer zone between EU and them. EU wants to attract as much poor as shit country's to slave wage there population into there elite company's.

EU invaded ukraine on the west, russia invaded Ukraine on the right. As result.

This isn't uncommon behaviour we had the same thing with netherlands and france, we created belgium as a buffer zone which basically is half dutch and half france. Ukraine is the new buffer zone on that front. ( whole east is )

Everybody in the EU know this was going to happen, and the netherlands voted with 95% against it as result. Which made them joining completely illigal. But corrupt brussel started to bend some rules if not all there rules and banned the votes entirely after it to let them still join.

For US people it's the same as if the US invaded north korea on the right side with china having a massive army on the other side. see how fast china invades the other side. specially when they warn you 10 times over to not do it.


I guess this asshole is "joking" again (previous time was why he "can't root for Russia" in Russo-Ukrainian conflict:

That tucker guy is spot on. US has nothing to search in Ukraine. The only reason they sit in there is to exploit the country to shit financially what biden is doing.

Russia's time to flex on the world stage is effectively "now or never", as they face catastrophic demographic decline that is going to rapidly erode their power of force projection in the coming decades.
Maybe you missed the 1000's of nukes they got. They can be run by 1 million people and still annihilate the entire globe. Population isn't there issue remotely for power projection.
 
Last edited:

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
7,016
4,388
775
For all the conservative uberbrains here, who are apparently fine with "The only purpose of protecting Czechoslovakia is to antagonize nazi Germany.":

1) EU didn't show any signs to wish to expand for... decades by now
2) There is a long list of countries who want to join EU (starting with Turkey and most of the former USSR, including countries like Armenia which have zero land that is geographically in Europe)
3) I said "countries", but I mean PEOPLE who live in those countries. They prefer to form a union with EU, rather than Russia. Curious, why would they, eh?
4) Re-read #1

On "why poor US has anything to do with it", you poor little things, I'm so sorry to bother you about it.
It just happens, besides other wonderful things such as "morale" and "stopping the bully", there is this little thing:


Sign by, hold on, USA, in return for Ukraine giving up 1200+ strategic nuclear ballistic missiles (more than entire Russian arsenal at this point)


As for Tucker, so was the asshole not joking when he was "rooting for Russia in Russian-Ukrainian conflict"? Asking just for clarity.
 
Last edited:

HE1NZ

Member
Apr 9, 2019
303
391
380
Putin is a danger to Russia's neighbours to be sure. Ukraine, Georgia, Baltic countries, etc. But the idea that he is a danger to US elections and the notion that he "sent talking points to the Republics" is just ridiculous (Democrats are probably projecting this because they all get their talking points from somewhere). Putin and his politburo have never won a fair election, he is not a public person and have no idea how to conduct a real political campaign. Their strategy of "winning" elections have more in common with what Democrats are doing these days: control the media, buy out opposition and when in power subvert existing democractic institutions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: manuels

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,145
2,799
495
Maybe you missed the 1000's of nukes they got. They can be run by 1 million people and still annihilate the entire globe. Population isn't there issue remotely for power projection.
Yes, they have a nuclear arsenal. I'm saying that as their population decreases, they are going to need to vastly change their way of life. They aren't going to have the manpower to defend that giant border against hostile neighbors. Are you saying that Russia has a vested interest in using nuclear weapons over border clashes/resource wars?

Also, as the population declines, and thus the tax base withers, how does Russia continue to maintain all of their weaponry? Do they lose the ability to maintain the level of nuclear armament? Do they lose the ability to effectively deliver their nuclear payload? At what point do impoverished outer regions (where a lot of their arsenals are kept) start to break away from Moscow?
 

Alx

Member
Jan 22, 2007
18,537
761
1,350
Russia wants the east left alone to create a buffer zone between EU and them. EU wants to attract as much poor as shit country's to slave wage there population into there elite company's.

EU invaded ukraine on the west, russia invaded Ukraine on the right. As result.
EU invaded jack shit. You may disagree with the EU expansion (and Ukraine isn't even part of it), but that's totally legal and nobody forced any member to join (nor prevented any member to leave, as Brexit can prove).
Russia doesn't like having EU near its borders ? Well tough luck, it's not for them to decide.
 

RokkanStoned

Member
Jan 14, 2018
2,139
2,376
585
Norway
I recall Poland and Finland and Baltic states were part of RI, but not of USSR. Oh wait, Baltic states actually changed status after WWII...

Russia started "through the Russian revolution". Most of the republics, however, were forcefully brought in. Poland managed to fend the fuckers off. Lenin's take on what would become USSR was more like RSFSR, but Joseph Stalin, curiously, managed to push his concept through.

Becoming independent from Kremlin sounds funny for RSFSR, let alone, that USSR collapse was just an unsuccessful attempt of the Eltsin to come to power, replacing Gorbatchiov. The CIS quickly followed, but Moscow's control was mostly symbolic, it definitely couldn't take on Ukraine, that had major army and over 1200 strategic ballistic missiles with nukes (and what not) but small countries like Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova felt the "consequences" immediately. Some of the mentioned, unlike Ukraine, didn't even have own army (men, when serving at military, were sent to other republics, mostly to Russia) so messing up situation there was no big deal for Kremlin.
Sorry for the late reply, been a bit busy. Had actually written about 75% of the reply, but it weirdly disappeared, so back onto it again.

Now, are you actually making a point here? Because it doesn't feel like you're doing so. To further point out the quote you responded to. The reason why "Russia" wasn't viewed as "liberated" as a nation after the fall of the wall, was because most of the central government was within the area of Russia and that what preceded USSR was the Russian Empire (and so shortlived it doesn't matter Russian Republic).
Further, when you're speaking about history, be a bit clearer about what you're talking about because it seems like you're jumping all over the place. That and I have a big problem with your ahistorical painting of Russia, which seems utterly antagonistic.
More so, most people also viewed "Russia" as liberated, although not as much in terms of a nation state, but in terms of humans. It was the fall out communist ideology and victory of the western capitalism.


Care? No. Recognize. I'd expect Norwegians to know more about Russo-Finnish war, than, say, British, let alone Americans.
I know more than enough, but pointing out a soldier is purely popular history or something more fit for a Finnish historian to go on about. My field is both Arctic and minority history, thereupon the persecution of minorities in the Arctic such as the Sámi people in Norway, Sweden, as well as many Russian minorities suffering in the 1930s.

I have cognitive dissonance reading this.
Had this BS approach taken place in Stalin's era, commies would have taken over the world.
You might have cognitive dissonance, but that might also be a consequence of your lack of understanding of power, interest spheres in International Relations. Also, no commies wouldn't have taken over the world. Both USSR and the US had their share of failures during the Cold War. The USSR never took the full advantage they could've had in the aftermath of WW2 either, despite being under an ambitious man as Stalin.
If you are able to show a bit more perspective, then understand that a country isn't an ahistorical unit, that only has one overall foreign policy or one single motivation in every instance. But they are also much like individuals vying for power, willing to abandon principles for gains/power, marking areas which are theirs. Ukraine and Georgia are in the Russian geopolitical sphere, which is why Russia as it still remains a great power, still has interests in it. Now, due to being not much democratic, it also further gives Russia leeway to act aggressively once Western nations try (whether by their own will or by another party) extend their interest sphere. It's kind of a "this is the line!" statement. For a look at interest spheres, look at all that the US did in South America to the nations there.


That is how "anti-air defense umbrella" around Moscow was built. Beria told Stalin that the Red Army wouldn't be able to stop massive air attack.
Disappointed, Stalin asked to address it. They ended building all kind of crap, military roads leading to swamps to confuse the enemy, having nuclear (!!!) surface to air missiles.
I've heard it more than once in Russian documentaries quite a while ago (back in Eltsin's era)

For written statements that I could find (and only in Russian :S) there was major military buildup on the far east (with alleged plans to attack US; note that there were no tensions with China at that point and Mao had admired Stalin) and Molotov's words (recorded by his biographer, Felix Chuev) "10 more years and we would have ended the World Imperialism".
Again, could you please give me a citation for your claim (and not speculation), whether Russian or not. Also, believing a statement like that from Molotov is hilarious.


There is no point downplaying Germany playing major role in Putler's military build up.
Let alone the fact that it was Merkel who has blocked granting NATO Membership Accession Plan to Ukraine and Georgia; it was the first time of history of NATO that US president hasn't achieved openly announced goals.
I think you're underestimating Russia a lot here. A NATO membership to said countries would be blocked by Russia, by military force. Again, because it's well within their geopolitical interest sphere. What should be worrying people about Russia shouldn't be their typical moves to insure they keep their interest sphere intact, but rather an expansion of operations in the Middle East, trying to increase influence in said region. Crimea and Georgia in a defensive context doesn't matter as much, but once you take in an increased presence towards the Middle East, with flirtings with Turkey and Syria, it does become much scarier. My worry about an expansion into the West is less than one to the South. Now, do I think they'll see large successes? I'm a bit unsure, but it can easily get them in over their head and lead to failure as well due to alliance making in the region. Towards the West? Skeptical, NATO still functions as a deterrent, otherwise it'd be easy to take over Norway for a long time. A lot of modern nations aren't that interested in conquering and assimilating other nations of course, far more interested in their influence over a geographical area/states. Still as Norwegian I'd love if the rest of western Europe (and Norway) would up their military spendings, forcing Russia to respond and up their military spendings.


Brzezinski noted, right after Crimea Anschluss, that had anyone suggested those kinds of events could have taken place, he'd be accused of scary mongering. Georgian President was talking about Ukraine being next back in 2009. What did the West do? Oh, help Putler train troops. (all he could scrap back in 2008 was 64 thousand with 2000+ units of armor and about 200 planes, enough for Georgia with around 16k soldiers, but nothing to take on on bigger countries like Ukraine)
Stop trying to use statements about from the past about the future to make them seem predicting, you have no basis for that, because nothing follows from what the actual circumstances are. In fact, Russia didn't need to go after Ukraine before the Ukraine revolution of 2014, when Yanukovych was deposed. Perhaps you might speak about Russia's interest in keeping pro-Russian governments in Ukraine, in which that'd be something I'd view likely.
Of course, the situation in Ukraine isn't as easy as Ukrainian revolt either, because Yanukovych has a lot of support in eastern Ukraine as well.

1) Russian threat is real
2) Going unpunished (no sanctions whatsoever, bar some mild nuclear fuel crap by US after Georgia Invasion) it got more and more aggressive up into Ukraine invasion (again, the only serious sanction is actually indirect: major oil price drop)
3) Even Brezhnev's USSR was much less aggressive than today's Russia. Had the wast handled the situation the way it is now, Eastern Germany would still be building communism.
1) WHICH Russian threat? If you can formulate an exact threat, then you're just fearmongering and trying to play all the odds. That's not something showing understanding, but rather just plain prejudice. In fact, as long as Russia spends time within its interest spheres, then that's a case of either, the US would have to challenge it through other means than sanction, ie. military, or there's nothing else to do but whine and sanction. Russia can't afford losing its place as a great power on stage and has to keep control over what's left of its traditional geopolitical sphere since WW2.
More so, warfare has changed with the introduction of atomic weapons, making traditional conflict obsolete. Otherwise, a thing like this would've been solved by the US and NATO going to war against Russia and winning, then signing a peace treaty whereupon Russia would retreat out of the country as well as either pay damages economically and/or having to give up some land.
2) Tell me HOW sanctions would stop a Russian intervention within ITS OWN geopolitical interest sphere. The big problem with sanctions is that they don't work and often consolidate a lot of internal strifes, giving a cause to rile against (mainly "westerners" hitting all Russians). More so, there's numerous other options for Russia to depend on, because in a bipolar system, all the other players that don't fall within the American bloc, will further try to cooperate. Like with how Chinese-Russian relations have improved.
3) Calling Brezhnev's USSR much less aggressive seems rather laughable, I'd might buy comparable, but using "even Brezhnev's USSR" considering the strides made under Stalin seems like a weird use of a phrase. What Brezhnev did and what Russia does are the same interests that all great powers share, though most of them partially limited by democratic procedure (like the US). Also, another claim at the end that lacks any verifiability.

Really, this is what I hate about people taking a traditionalist/revisionist stance, they generally just affirm their own conclusions. If you're well-versed within Soviet history, then you'll know about the two general groups, the older traditionalists and the revisionists from about the 1970s onwards. This is of course within a western perspective, of course, as the literature was written in the west, though got further information from the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s with opened archives. Both carry important analysis and showing different aspects of Soviet society, but neither is giving a very balanced. Parts of the former would inflate the numbers of dead under Stalin, parts of the latter would ridiculously underestimate them.

If you're all "black and white" and if you view my analysis of the realities in the anarchy of our world, my overall representation of the international system and international relations, as somehow being a Russia apologist, then you're approaching this from the wrong place, clouded by your own grudges. Russia is undemocratic sure, no one's disputing that. Russia is intervening in a foreign country and that's generally viewed as wrong as the aggressor. However, countries usually keep domestic and foreign policy separate, and because there's no overarching authority keeping things in line and countries will have to use power (whatever means of influencing another country/party) to keep themselves safe, what general ideals we have will ultimately be sacrificed for realpolitik in the game of states. Most states depend on a fragile basis for their sovereignty, where even democratic movements will be shut down and given no claims. Not because of anything ideal, other than the understanding that a country's sovereignty is paramount. This view exists at the same time as countries will often tread upon another's sovereignty when it suits their goals, as they have the power to do so and the benefits outweigh the negatives.
 
Last edited:

RokkanStoned

Member
Jan 14, 2018
2,139
2,376
585
Norway
In the Finnish military we have a saying that the threat will always come from the east. I don't think NATO countries should be too worried, it's mostly the neighbouring countries that should be somewhat wary of Russian aggression. Russian immigration and investment should be limited to prevent another situation like Crimea where Russia has the incentive to Annex (significant Russian population/assets in the neighbouring country). I'm of course only talking about military action here, economic/cyber warfare are a totally different topic.

See, this is a far more rational opinion. Like you I doubt the NATO countries should be too worried, but I would still prefer military spending and presence was increased in bordering NATO countries (by the collective NATO, so bordering countries aren't forced to foot the bill and act as a buffer). Like Norway has more or less degraded in terms of its military investments, depending far more on saving money, establishing smaller elite forces to do operations abroad and using NATO as a crutch. There is as you said a worry that the strategy of using black operations like they did in Ukraine, though I doubt that has much effect towards NATO countries.
My worry would be in regards to the south, but also to non-NATO countries in Europe, whereupon Russia might seek to either just outright increase their influence sphere, or areas within their influence sphere that might be heading towards a more eurocentric alignment. Problem is that there's very little for the west to do, as in a bipolar system, Russia will never give up under pressure, at least economic ones (until it all falls apart), and they can seek other allies to make up for other losses. It also leads to losses to allied nations, which have to pay the price of the sanctions might have on their economy.

My plan would be to increase the spending of NATO countries (making Russia have to respond in turn) and expansion of NATO in response, to show that any attempt at influencing independent nations in the interest sphere will only end up with NATO expanding its territory and investments. Reciprocity. Should then have a joint agreement about countries within the buffer zone, in which neither US or Russia are allowed to exercise influence, while the russian naval bases in Crimea are kept for their lease and that negotiations about an extension would have to be agreed with Ukraine. Allowing Russia to back out without feeling like it was a loss.