American Politics

[DeadCosmos]

Who are the "leftist" people in power in Russia?

Not sure exactly, I just know those guys are on the left side. China is communist which is leftist and they like Russia so there is already a connection there! Russia used to be controlled by the communists very heavily and the communist era was not long ago. Russia is definitely still on the leftist side.

 

[shionoro]

Yeah, I'm sure Ukraine closed off water supply to rectify a standing water "debt" with Crimea only after it was annexed by Russia and not before. Totally procedural and not at all intentional to make them fail agriculturally.

I think what this boils down to is me taking exception with the notion of "western influence = good, everything else = bad". I'm not in that camp, I think most non-neolib analysts looking at the current situation aren't either. My thoughts pretty much line-up with what Jeremy Scahill had to say on it -

We were talking about Nato encouraging that. There is no evidence for that, nor is there a good reason to do it.

And yes, i am taking the stance of 'a former autocracy moving to a more liberal democracy' is a good thing, that was what Ukraine was doing.
That it might have done mistakes on the way, probably, yes, but you cannot view that in isolation away from the endless hostilities Russia was putting onto them without reason.

You also cannot claim nato goaded them on without any evidence or clear motive behind that. America was moving out of Europe more and more, especially under Trump but even before under Obama.
France and Germany explicitly wanted a solution that would have bad terms for ukraine to appease Russia. So who was goading them on?

It is intellectually dishonest to ignore the broken promises from the US & NATO regarding NATO expansion. It is lunacy to deny that Russia has legitimate security concerns posed by this expansion even if its response to these concerns is a heinous invasion. Both can be true.
During the 78 day NATO bombing of Serbia and Montenegro in 1999, the US-led NATO alliance committed similar or identical acts that it is now condemning Russia for in Ukraine.
President Clinton sidestepped both the UN and the US Congress in initiating this bombing. Joe Biden was among its biggest cheerleaders.
Under the command of US General Wesley Clark, NATO intentionally bombed Radio Television Serbia, killing 16 media workers, including technicians and makeup artists.
The US-led NATO force used internationally-banned cluster bombs, including on a crowded marketplace in the city of Nis.
The US-led NATO force bombed a civilian passenger train and then released a doctored video, sped up to make it appear as though it was a mistake made in a split second. This was a total fabrication.

That is already really revisionist. What Nato did in Serbia was not in the slightest similar to what Russia did in Ukraine. Neither is there ever any clear substance put behind the claim that 'Nato broke promises', unless one naively believes that the typical mistrusting Russians in the cold war would believe assurances that were not put into writing.
And even if you think that is true, as i explained before, it is hardly imaginable how Nato would endanger Russia, nor is it fair to ignore how many promises putin broke towards the west before.

That Nato and the US committed warcrimes is true. Nobody denies that and that we can be hypocritical about that, especially when it comes to iraq, yemen or other places is also true. But that this has anything to do with Russia having legitimate security concerns when it comes to georgia, ukraine or moldova is just not true tho. Nor is Serbia comparable to Ukraine.
Before Nato intervened in Yugoslawia, there were actual ethnic cleansings going on. That never happened in Ukraine.

Right now, in Ukraine, there is a war going on in which Nato's sole mistake was not arming Ukraine earlier or letting it join Nato back then.

You're free to cry whataboutism all you want. But claiming solidarity with Ukraine and then buying 700 million dollars worth of natural gas from Russia right before the new sanctions kick in is also quite... counterintuitive.

That is not counterintuitive. Buying it now as long as you can before Russia escalates and you are out of resources makes a lot of sense. There are energy dependencies that you need to replace now, but it can hardly bee seen as support for the current situation if the US imports resources that they need for their industry, at least not before the math is done about how to replace them.
It would be ill advised to stop important gas and oil before you did the math to see whether you can even sustain that ban. Or what is gonna happen when you cannot sustain that sanction and have to take it back while russia happily keeps murdering ukrainians?

 

[xi0]

Not sure exactly, I just know those guys are on the left side. China is communist which is leftist and they like Russia so there is already a connection there! Russia used to be controlled by the communists very heavily and the communist era was not long ago. Russia is definitely still on the leftist side.

Would you consider Saudi Arabia leftist? They don't have a free market, after all.

 

[shionoro]

This is weird to me. It's pretty damn clear that a decent number of US security concerns have not been legitimate or true. And the lesson from those should be, at least partly, to not take such claims at face value. historic evidence is not evidence of anything. You could justify anything with something like that. Ukraine or nato posed a military threat to russia? Of what kind? What were they doing? When they were planning on taking any sort of military action? Putin's claims are such utter horseshit that they are framed in such a way that there's not even a diplomatic path out of this. Would nato and ukraine pledging ukraine will never join solve the conflict? Would ukraine pledging to give up it's military altogether get russia to back off? This invasion is at least half a decade in the making....

It is amazing to me how people can even claim Nato was threatening Russia. Nato was constantly appeasing Russia while it went increasingly hostile.

Putin took over, right off the bat, with the destruction of Chechnya without any mercy. At that point, the West was investing into Russia and there were no hostilities towards Russia. If the West had wanted to, it could have kept Russia isolated from the world stage after it lost the cold war. The west did not do that, instead there was technology transfer and dependencies on russia's resources were built up.

When Ukraine wanted to join Nato, the US wanted it. Europe said no. So Nato said no. How can this be interpreted as threatening? Nato ultimate said no to appease Russia, it said an independent country was not allowed to join so Russia would not feel threatened. That is appeasement.

When Bush wanted to install missiles in poland, Putin intervened and Bush relented. This was Putin's right to argue with that and feel threatened, there were actual missiles stationed in poland, but, as i said, after Russia raised a fuss, Russia relented.

What Russia did then, after Nato appeased them twice, was invading Georgia and only because the US started threatened it they stopped from taking it whole and "just" took two big chunks out of it.

What did the west do? It shrugged at some point and kept russia inside its circles, in g8 and so on. That is not threatening. Putin was the only person who attacked another coutnry, so how is it threatening of the baltics join Nato? There were no troops stationed, it was impossible that estonia attacks russia and it also did not happen.
Russia CONSTANTLY threatened free countries like finland from joining nato. And then russia attacked in Ukraine and took another chunk of land, while Ukraine did not even want to join Nato but the EU.

This just is not rational, Nato was appeasing Russia time after time, especially the europeans

 

[Sanity Check]

BOOM! Western Hegemony!

It appears a confederation of nations is forming.

Consisting of.

• Russia
• Syria
• Turkey
• Bangladesh
• Kazakhstan

(And whoever else I missed as someone who does not pay much attention to politics)

The media pretends russia is isolated & alone as a rogue state.

But that does not appear to be the case.

 

[xi0]

Right now, in Ukraine, there is a war going on in which Nato's sole mistake was not arming Ukraine earlier or letting it join Nato back then.

Define "back then" though? If you go back to the immediate post-Soviet era Ukraine itself never entered into official procedures to do so, and still remains a part of PfP because of that. There wasn't anything approaching widespread support in Ukraine for entering into NATO if you look at the nation on the whole until Poroshenko.

That is not counterintuitive. Buying it now as long as you can before Russia escalates and you are out of resources makes a lot of sense. There are energy dependencies that you need to replace now, but it can hardly bee seen as support for the current situation if the US imports resources that they need for their industry, at least not before the math is done about how to replace them.
It would be ill advised to stop important gas and oil before you did the math to see whether you can even sustain that ban. Or what is gonna happen when you cannot sustain that sanction and have to take it back while russia happily keeps murdering ukrainians?

I realize the practical reasoning behind why it happened. Still, you are giving money to the country that is shelling your "ally". It is the definition of counterintuitive to claim support for the people of Ukraine and then to do that.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 9, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 9, 2022 ---

It appears a confederation of nations is forming.

Consisting of.

• Russia
• Syria
• Turkey
• Bangladesh
• Kazakhstan

(And whoever else I missed as someone who does not pay much attention to politics)

The media pretends russia is isolated & alone as a rogue state.

But that does not appear to be the case.

Turkey is in NATO and the Ukrainians are literally killing Russian soldiers with Turkish drones. Kazakhstan refused Russian requests to send troops to Ukraine. Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries on Earth.

Russia's only notable lifeline is it's resources and maybe Chinese indifference.

 

[DeadCosmos]

Would you consider Saudi Arabia leftist? They don't have a free market, after all.

Nope. they seem pretty conservative to me.

 

[shionoro]

Define "back then" though? If you go back to the immediate post-Soviet era Ukraine itself never entered into official procedures to do so, and still remains a part of PfP because of that. There wasn't anything approaching widespread support in Ukraine for entering into NATO if you look at the nation on the whole until Poroshenko.

About joining Nato, they could have done that 2005. About arming them up, they should have done that after the Crimea annexation more, at least immediately before the russian aggression happened and Us intelligence already knew it was going to happen.

It was clear Russia would attack since December.

Even if you think that this is 'hindsight', you can clearly see how Nato, turn after turn, tried to appease Russia and it failed. Russia threatened and bullied Ukraine long before Ukraine ever signed the European Ascension Treaty and obviously it is Ukraine's right to do so. But Russia wanted to Bully Ukraine into joining the Eurasian Union and the CSTO, which is a defense alliance.

If Russia wants to make Ukraine join a defense Alliance when it is right beside the Nato state poland, how can it interpret Ukraine joining EU or Nato (which, back then, wasn't even going to happen) as a threat?

I realize the practical reasoning behind why it happened. Still, you are giving money to the country that is shelling your "ally". It is the definition of counterintuitive to claim support for the people of Ukraine and then to do that.

Not if you actually put down sanctions and weapons that help that Ally and try your best to reduce your energy dependency. The west got gas and oil from Russia even in the cold war and i guess you are not saying that Nato and Russia were not actual enemies in the cold war.
It is ugly and we should stop as fast as we can (even for climate reasons alone) but it should not be interpreted as not truly supporting Ukraine.

 

[xi0]

Nope. they seem pretty conservative to me.

Then you can maybe see why Right-Left is lazy nomenclature, no? Putin could probably not be labeled universally Right wing, but he has more in common with the Right then he does the left. His biggest political opponents in Russia are Communists.

 

[Sanity Check]

Turkey is in NATO and the Ukrainians are literally killing Russian soldiers with Turkish drones. Kazakhstan refused Russian requests to send troops to Ukraine. Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries on Earth.

Russia's only notable lifeline is it's resources and maybe Chinese indifference.

As a "NATO member" turkey is currently under sanctions from the USA as of 2020.

United States Imposes Sanctions on Turkey under CAATSA Section 231 for Purchase of Russian Missile System

Introduction On December 14, 2020, the U.S. imposed sanctions on the Republic of Turkey’s Presidency of Defense Industries (“SSB”) pursuant to Section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (“CAATSA”), which mandates the imposition of sanctions against non-U.S. persons...

www.paulweiss.com

Turkey also opposed sanctions on russia.

NATO member Turkey, opposed to sanctions, in bind over Ukraine

When Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his decision to recognise two breakaway regions in east Ukraine as independent, NATO member and Black Sea neighbour Turkey swiftly criticised the move, but stopped short of announcing any punitive measures.

www.reuters.com

Kazakhstan may not be willing to participate in war, but they remain a russian ally and could move to support russia later.

...

If russia can continue to amass power and influence in the region, beginning with the conquest of ukraine.

Other nations could hop on the bandwagon to support them.

 

[xi0]

About joining Nato, they could have done that 2005. About arming them up, they should have done that after the Crimea annexation more, at least immediately before the russian aggression happened and Us intelligence already knew it was going to happen.

It was clear Russia would attack since December.

Even if you think that this is 'hindsight', you can clearly see how Nato, turn after turn, tried to appease Russia and it failed. Russia threatened and bullied Ukraine long before Ukraine ever signed the European Ascension Treaty and obviously it is Ukraine's right to do so. But Russia wanted to Bully Ukraine into joining the Eurasian Union and the CSTO, which is a defense alliance.

If Russia wants to make Ukraine join a defense Alliance when it is right beside the Nato state poland, how can it interpret Ukraine joining EU or Nato (which, back then, wasn't even going to happen) as a threat?

I mean, I think we're both aware that there are energy reasons for the appeasement, and the fact that Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth.

We can say this or that should have happened, but with Russia the options are sanctions, appeasement, or nuclear war.

 

[shionoro]

Other nations could hop on the bandwagon to support them.

What would their reason to do so be? Which nations? They might be forced to play along, but why would Kasachstan like and support when Russia, a country that already claimed at times that Kasachstan is actually Russia, invades another state to control it on ground of that state being little russia?

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 9, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 9, 2022 ---

I mean, I think we're both aware that there are energy reasons for the appeasement, and the fact that Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth.

We can say this or that should have happened, but with Russia the options are sanctions, appeasement, or nuclear war.

Yes, my point was not that i cannot understand why appeasement was done. My point was that the claims that Russia rightfully felt threatened are made up, but often repeated.
Russia never felt threatened, putin started out back in 2005 or so to get the old russian empire back. He just did it slow and steady enough for the west not to notice.

And we could have already used sanctions and a more robust safety structure back then. We could also, back then, have decided to become less dependent instead of more dependent on russian energy. But we did not, that was a mistake, but our mistake was not being threatening towards russia.
Russia was threatening us and we didnt even understand just how much.

 

[Sanity Check]

What would their reason to do so be? Which nations? They might be forced to play along, but why would Kasachstan like and support when Russia, a country that already claimed at times that Kasachstan is actually Russia, invades another state to control it on ground of that state being little russia?

Everyone wants to be on the winning team.

Europe is weak without the united states to support it.

The united states is weak under Biden and america's economy is floundering.

Russia has a strong leader and a legitimate vision for the future, which is more than most world leaders can say.

 

[shionoro]

Everyone wants to be on the winning team.

Europe is weak and nothing without the united states to support it.

The united states is weak under Biden and america's economy is floundering.

Russia has a strong leader and a legitimate vision for the future, which is more than most world leaders today can say.

But you are not on the winning team if you ally with someone who is going to cannibalize you.

I think you assessment of the geopolitics on a whole is wrong, seeing what you think about US, EU and Russia.

 

[xi0]

As a "NATO member" turkey is currently under sanctions from the USA as of 2020.

United States Imposes Sanctions on Turkey under CAATSA Section 231 for Purchase of Russian Missile System

Introduction On December 14, 2020, the U.S. imposed sanctions on the Republic of Turkey’s Presidency of Defense Industries (“SSB”) pursuant to Section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (“CAATSA”), which mandates the imposition of sanctions against non-U.S. persons...

www.paulweiss.com

Turkey also opposed sanctions on russia.

Erdogan plays both sides. It's the one thing he actually excels at. It doesn't change the reality that leaving NATO would be disastrous for him and the country.

If russia can continue to amass power and influence in the region, beginning with the conquest of ukraine.

Other nations could hop on the bandwagon to support them.

Is... that a good thing to you?

 

[shionoro]

On the short term, this is going to be a rough time.

But on the long term, no matter the situation in ukraine, this also means the West is going to push for renewable energy. That is going to make EU and US far less dependent on other countries, especially whent he EU builts up their military.
It also will serve as a reminder that they should not trust countries like china, russia, saudi arabia and so on and topics like taking production away from china will flair up.

That cannot be in the interest of the autocratic states, to be honest. This is going to hurt them on the long run, because at least europe is a child that lost its innocence now and the US is going to take a tougher stance on them, too (especially when it comes to russian fake news).

 

[xi0]

Yes, my point was not that i cannot understand why appeasement was done. My point was that the claims that Russia rightfully felt threatened are made up, but often repeated.
Russia never felt threatened, putin started out back in 2005 or so to get the old russian empire back. He just did it slow and steady enough for the west not to notice.

My viewpoint is I don't really know whether the "rightfully" aspect here is important or not. We're not dealing with someone who wants the best thing for his economy or his people.

 

[Sanity Check]

But you are not on the winning team if you ally with someone who is going to cannibalize you.

I think you assessment of the geopolitics on a whole is wrong, seeing what you think about US, EU and Russia.

Russia isn't bringing an iron curtain with them this time.

Cannabilizing was Stalin's thing.

Is... that a good thing to you?

I'm not a fan of the media's portrayal.

They're acting like Putin's demise is pre determined.

The way they acted when they said "Mueller was closing in" and Trump didn't have a chance.

The way they acted when they said Hillary had a "97% chance" of winning the 2016 elections.

Haven't people had enough of that by now?

...

I know I've had enough of it.

The only thing I feel towards the media's abysmal coverage of russia is a need to tell them to stfu.

 

[shionoro]

My viewpoint is I don't really know whether the "rightfully" aspect here is important or not. We're not dealing with someone who wants the best thing for his economy or his people.

Possibly, but I also strongly doubt he felt threatened at all. I would not see how, that would mean he does not understand the reality of power and at least for these kinds of strategic war games, i do not think putin is (or was) that incompetent. There just never were actual build ups of nato troops or missiles near Russia that were in any way strong enough to threaten him.

And even if he was ignorant about these matters, that would mean we should have moved in a more robust way, not tiptoed around more. Every time Putin won out with his cyber attacks, invasions or other kinds of attacks (fake news and stuff like that included), he felt encourage about the west being weak and letting him do anything he wants.
He was never going to stop, no matter how small we would have made ourselves.

If Putin would have controlled all of Europe, he would still have claimed Alaska and Japan are threatening him. And I think we should learn that lesson now and do everything we can to enable sustainable sanctions that will end his regime on the long term or at least inflict so much damage that china will think twice about doing the same in Taiwan.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 9, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 9, 2022 ---

Russia isn't bringing an iron curtain with them this time.

Cannabilizing was Stalin's thing.

You can clearly see that this is not true. Ukraine played nice with Russia before Euromaidan, Russia still threatened them. Russia also openly thought about Kasachstan not being a real state before, even tho Kasachstan never took a hostile stance against Russia. Why would you want to be in that situation?
You don't. Whenever there is a chance, you will try to get out, just like Kasachstan binds itself more and more to china and Ukraine to the West. Because Russia is not a reliable ally. It will eat you.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

It appears a confederation of nations is forming.

Consisting of.

• Russia
• Syria
• Turkey
• Bangladesh
• Kazakhstan

(And whoever else I missed as someone who does not pay much attention to politics)

The media pretends russia is isolated & alone as a rogue state.

But that does not appear to be the case.

Not 'forming'... formed. Arabs and Sauds are ignoring Biden. Half the world's population/resources/industry is aligned with Russia if you consider China, India, a few Arab states, some 'stans, and the like.

BRICS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pay attention to the countries interested or invited.

Collective Security Treaty Organization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Organization of Turkic States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

^^ some of the more prominent representing economic and military ties.

Full list here:

List of military alliances - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org