6 ms·

Russia actively refused integration in order to preserve its autonomy. It was not in any sense a result of the US denying them integration. Also, you are assum

Russia actively refused integration in order to preserve its autonomy. It was not in any sense a result of the US denying them integration. Also, you are assuming that true global integration is both possible and necessarily a good thing, which are both far from clear.

gonvaled 10y ago
Missile shield in Poland. I rest my case. Global collaboration and integration is surely better than conflict, and I dont see a third option, long term.
- pjlegato 10y ago
  The missile shield in Poland was only begun years after Russia had made it very clear that it was uninterested in participating in any international institutions that would restrict its autonomy in any way. The choice between global integration and conflict is a false dichotomy. There are many other options: political decentralization and autonomy, linked by mutually beneficial and voluntary trade arrangements, for example. Besides, historically, the integration of diverse societies with vastly different cultural norms and expectations can only be done through the use of overwhelming force. It has never worked any other way.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    > after Russia had made it very clear that it was uninterested in participating in any international institutions that would restrict its autonomy in any way Exactly! The USA was leading by example (Kyoto, International Court of Justice, ...) and Russia said “me too“. And the USA, feeling unchallenged, dared put offensive/defensive military infraestructure on the door to Russia. Well played!
    - pjlegato 10y ago
      You've changed your argument completely. At first you said that Russia wanted to join international organizations and integrate with the world, but couldn't because the US was somehow actively blocking Russia from joining. Now you are saying that the US itself didn't join certain international organizations, which encouraged Russia to also actively reject membership in international organizations. Which is it? These are two very different and opposite arguments.
      - gonvaled 10y ago
        I said: > What a blunder the west is playing: only 25 years after the URSS collapse, and instead of integrating Russia into the global institucions, the USA decided to proffit the strategic advantage to expand and provoke. We have managed to turn the possibility of true global integration, collaboration and progress into a new cold (actually warm and soon hot) war. I stand by that: if the west (read USA) had lead by example, by transfering power to international organizations, truly independent, that would have reassured other parties to follow. Instead, we got the neocons.
        pjlegato 10y ago
        I think it's much more likely that Russia would have interpreted any voluntary surrender of power by the US to international organizations as a sign of weakness, which would only have emboldended it even further and sooner into aggressive expansionism. Russian culture is both profoundly averse to the existence of any foreign influence over Russia, and very expansionist.
        gonvaled 10y ago
        At the end of the cold war, Russia was very weak economically, and its leaders were fairly internationalists. There was a window of oportunity to strengthen the UN, but the USA just wanted a an American empire. Foreign influence? Can you tell me once when the USA has submitted its interests to the will of the international community? Expansionist? The USA has military presence all around the world, and has interferred politically and/or military everywhere, including central and south america, middle east, europe, and far east. The USA does not annex countries because its strategy is different: invade and destroy country, plant friendly regime, build economic ties (corruption at highest levels) and profit. No need to be running countries when your puppets do it for you.
- spriggan3 10y ago
  > Global collaboration and integration or said in a vulgar manner, becoming USA's b\*tch , because that's basically what Poland is : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27973473 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27973473 > Using vulgar language, he(Sikorski) compared Polish subservience to the US to giving oral sex.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    We could have had collaboration without submission, which is what Russia would have accepted, but the USA wanted to abuse its temporary strategic supremacy to force long term submission. And now we are here.
- hx87 10y ago
  Unless the Strategic Rocket Forces were in much worse condition in 2003 than everyone thought, the idea that a few interceptors in Poland threatened Russian strategic deterrence in any way was laughable. In all likelihood the object was a screen for other concerns such as NATO expansion.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    What has the effectivity of the shield to do with anything? The shield was mainly a signal by the USA: “I can do whatever, whenever and wherever“, and Russia has been saying “not really“ for the last ten years.
    - pjlegato 10y ago
      Russia could never have perceived the relatively insignificant missile shield as a serious or realistic threat. It was thus not a major factor in Russia's strategic calculations.
      - gonvaled 10y ago
        What part of “signal“ is unclear to you?
        pjlegato 10y ago
        Let's skip the insulting tone. The signal value was, at best, an extremely minor signal. The shield was never a significant military threat to Russia, which was obvious and well known to both the US and Russia at the time. The only information it carried was that Poland was choosing the US over Russia, which had also been extremely obvious to everyone for a long time, since they had been announcing it to anyone who would listen for years. The shield was thus of utterly insignificant value as a signal in terms of Russia's decision to join or not join international organizations. It was a signal to Poland, not to Russia.
        gonvaled 10y ago

gonvaled 10y ago

Missile shield in Poland. I rest my case. Global collaboration and integration is surely better than conflict, and I dont see a third option, long term.

pjlegato 10y ago
The missile shield in Poland was only begun years after Russia had made it very clear that it was uninterested in participating in any international institutions that would restrict its autonomy in any way. The choice between global integration and conflict is a false dichotomy. There are many other options: political decentralization and autonomy, linked by mutually beneficial and voluntary trade arrangements, for example. Besides, historically, the integration of diverse societies with vastly different cultural norms and expectations can only be done through the use of overwhelming force. It has never worked any other way.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  > after Russia had made it very clear that it was uninterested in participating in any international institutions that would restrict its autonomy in any way Exactly! The USA was leading by example (Kyoto, International Court of Justice, ...) and Russia said “me too“. And the USA, feeling unchallenged, dared put offensive/defensive military infraestructure on the door to Russia. Well played!
  - pjlegato 10y ago
    You've changed your argument completely. At first you said that Russia wanted to join international organizations and integrate with the world, but couldn't because the US was somehow actively blocking Russia from joining. Now you are saying that the US itself didn't join certain international organizations, which encouraged Russia to also actively reject membership in international organizations. Which is it? These are two very different and opposite arguments.
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      I said: > What a blunder the west is playing: only 25 years after the URSS collapse, and instead of integrating Russia into the global institucions, the USA decided to proffit the strategic advantage to expand and provoke. We have managed to turn the possibility of true global integration, collaboration and progress into a new cold (actually warm and soon hot) war. I stand by that: if the west (read USA) had lead by example, by transfering power to international organizations, truly independent, that would have reassured other parties to follow. Instead, we got the neocons.
      - pjlegato 10y ago
        I think it's much more likely that Russia would have interpreted any voluntary surrender of power by the US to international organizations as a sign of weakness, which would only have emboldended it even further and sooner into aggressive expansionism. Russian culture is both profoundly averse to the existence of any foreign influence over Russia, and very expansionist.
        gonvaled 10y ago
        At the end of the cold war, Russia was very weak economically, and its leaders were fairly internationalists. There was a window of oportunity to strengthen the UN, but the USA just wanted a an American empire. Foreign influence? Can you tell me once when the USA has submitted its interests to the will of the international community? Expansionist? The USA has military presence all around the world, and has interferred politically and/or military everywhere, including central and south america, middle east, europe, and far east. The USA does not annex countries because its strategy is different: invade and destroy country, plant friendly regime, build economic ties (corruption at highest levels) and profit. No need to be running countries when your puppets do it for you.
spriggan3 10y ago
> Global collaboration and integration or said in a vulgar manner, becoming USA's b\*tch , because that's basically what Poland is : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27973473 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27973473 > Using vulgar language, he(Sikorski) compared Polish subservience to the US to giving oral sex.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  We could have had collaboration without submission, which is what Russia would have accepted, but the USA wanted to abuse its temporary strategic supremacy to force long term submission. And now we are here.
hx87 10y ago
Unless the Strategic Rocket Forces were in much worse condition in 2003 than everyone thought, the idea that a few interceptors in Poland threatened Russian strategic deterrence in any way was laughable. In all likelihood the object was a screen for other concerns such as NATO expansion.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  What has the effectivity of the shield to do with anything? The shield was mainly a signal by the USA: “I can do whatever, whenever and wherever“, and Russia has been saying “not really“ for the last ten years.
  - pjlegato 10y ago
    Russia could never have perceived the relatively insignificant missile shield as a serious or realistic threat. It was thus not a major factor in Russia's strategic calculations.
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      What part of “signal“ is unclear to you?
      - pjlegato 10y ago
        Let's skip the insulting tone. The signal value was, at best, an extremely minor signal. The shield was never a significant military threat to Russia, which was obvious and well known to both the US and Russia at the time. The only information it carried was that Poland was choosing the US over Russia, which had also been extremely obvious to everyone for a long time, since they had been announcing it to anyone who would listen for years. The shield was thus of utterly insignificant value as a signal in terms of Russia's decision to join or not join international organizations. It was a signal to Poland, not to Russia.
        gonvaled 10y ago