6 ms·

Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on... I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audac

Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on... I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be upfront about it.

wavefunction 10y ago
You are defending the Russians to a slight extent by bringing up the misdeeds of the US. Two wrongs do not make a right. American here.
- konstmonst 10y ago
  I don't see sanctions against US. So this is very hypocritical of wetern nations.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Not sure if it's still going on, but Russia banned food imports from the US, EU, and friends last year.
- VLM 10y ago
  With all due respect you're confusing diplomacy with morality. The question isn't if Socrates would find the behavior pleasingly moral, but if pragmatically at least one country has been invading random 3rd world countries on the other side of the planet for decades without the world collapsing into WW3 then what is the likely outcome of a much more minor ... international misbehavior. Therefore a country "invading" direct neighbors who historically have always been part of the empire is extremely unlikely in a pragmatic analysis to cause geopolitical instability or WW3 or whatever warhark ridiculousness. Don't get me wrong, it can still be morally and ethically "wrong" in an abstract sense. But most people are concerned with the fearmongering "Oh no, Russian tanks will be rolling down the boulevard in Paris next year unless we ..." is all completely ridiculous. Russia already fought and lost a COIN "Vietnam" against a majority Islamic nation of Afghanistan, once demographic replacement takes hold Russia isn't going to want a piece of France or Germany even if handed to them on a plate, oh no last thing they want is the suburbs of Paris in revolt as usual. The Russian Bear has been content to be contained in its den, as long as its not poked, for centuries. The odds of the Russians regime changing Mexico and fighting a failing counter insurgency in Mexico on our border for decades is approximately zero, like space aliens landing on the white house lawn is a more realistic concern. There are world wide geopolitical problems, none of which involve the Russians. As a land empire on the other side of the planet, with people more or less like us, following a religion more or less like ours, and a economic system vaguely similar enough, a space alien would assume the Russians should be our closest ally... and if it were not for unfortunate temporary historical anomalies they almost certainly would be. In an unperturbed system (LOL as if international diplomacy has ever been that) they would be great allies.
  - khana 10y ago
    Nailed it!
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - literallycancer 10y ago
    Good for you. However some of us live in the countries that are quite close to it, and it hasn't been that long when we had Russian soldiers stationed here. So either "contained in its den" means eating up half of Europe (which just isn't good enough) or there's plenty to be wary about.
bluetomcat 10y ago
Back in the 1990s, NATO reconnaissance aircraft didn't stop flying over Russia, although Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite friendly to the US. Post-2000 Putin's Russia is a result of the West's decline to treat it with respect. The arms race was started again and additionally fueled by the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe.
- wbl 10y ago
  Do you know about Open Skies treaty? Russia actually wanted surveillance flights as they are the best way of assuring people "yes, my troops are not massing on the frontier"
- geoka9 10y ago
  Well, "treating Russia with respect" to Russia means "let us do with our neighbouring countries as we please regardless of their wishes". So of course _that_ had to be declined.
  - bluetomcat 10y ago
    And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands?
    - cabalamat 10y ago
      > And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan The USA hasn't tried to annex parts of those countries. > the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands Most countries would fight a war if their territory was invaded.
      - nitrogen 10y ago
        The USA hasn't tried to annex parts of those countries. Do military bases count?
pmcollins 10y ago
The only recent proxy invasion that I know about was Russia's invasion of eastern Ukraine where the invasion was Russian but none of the combatants bore Russian insignia. What are you referring to when you say US proxy invasions? Iraq and Afghanistan were direct invasions.
seppin 10y ago
> Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on... One occupies and annexes land, the other plays war games and regime change. If you are arguing that there is no difference between the two, do so.

Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on... I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be upfront about it.

wavefunction 10y ago

You are defending the Russians to a slight extent by bringing up the misdeeds of the US. Two wrongs do not make a right. American here.

konstmonst 10y ago
I don't see sanctions against US. So this is very hypocritical of wetern nations.
- burkaman 10y ago
  Not sure if it's still going on, but Russia banned food imports from the US, EU, and friends last year.
VLM 10y ago
With all due respect you're confusing diplomacy with morality. The question isn't if Socrates would find the behavior pleasingly moral, but if pragmatically at least one country has been invading random 3rd world countries on the other side of the planet for decades without the world collapsing into WW3 then what is the likely outcome of a much more minor ... international misbehavior. Therefore a country "invading" direct neighbors who historically have always been part of the empire is extremely unlikely in a pragmatic analysis to cause geopolitical instability or WW3 or whatever warhark ridiculousness. Don't get me wrong, it can still be morally and ethically "wrong" in an abstract sense. But most people are concerned with the fearmongering "Oh no, Russian tanks will be rolling down the boulevard in Paris next year unless we ..." is all completely ridiculous. Russia already fought and lost a COIN "Vietnam" against a majority Islamic nation of Afghanistan, once demographic replacement takes hold Russia isn't going to want a piece of France or Germany even if handed to them on a plate, oh no last thing they want is the suburbs of Paris in revolt as usual. The Russian Bear has been content to be contained in its den, as long as its not poked, for centuries. The odds of the Russians regime changing Mexico and fighting a failing counter insurgency in Mexico on our border for decades is approximately zero, like space aliens landing on the white house lawn is a more realistic concern. There are world wide geopolitical problems, none of which involve the Russians. As a land empire on the other side of the planet, with people more or less like us, following a religion more or less like ours, and a economic system vaguely similar enough, a space alien would assume the Russians should be our closest ally... and if it were not for unfortunate temporary historical anomalies they almost certainly would be. In an unperturbed system (LOL as if international diplomacy has ever been that) they would be great allies.
- khana 10y ago
  Nailed it!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- literallycancer 10y ago
  Good for you. However some of us live in the countries that are quite close to it, and it hasn't been that long when we had Russian soldiers stationed here. So either "contained in its den" means eating up half of Europe (which just isn't good enough) or there's plenty to be wary about.

bluetomcat 10y ago

Back in the 1990s, NATO reconnaissance aircraft didn't stop flying over Russia, although Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite friendly to the US. Post-2000 Putin's Russia is a result of the West's decline to treat it with respect. The arms race was started again and additionally fueled by the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe.

wbl 10y ago
Do you know about Open Skies treaty? Russia actually wanted surveillance flights as they are the best way of assuring people "yes, my troops are not massing on the frontier"
geoka9 10y ago
Well, "treating Russia with respect" to Russia means "let us do with our neighbouring countries as we please regardless of their wishes". So of course _that_ had to be declined.
- bluetomcat 10y ago
  And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands?
  - cabalamat 10y ago
    > And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan The USA hasn't tried to annex parts of those countries. > the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands Most countries would fight a war if their territory was invaded.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      The USA hasn't tried to annex parts of those countries. Do military bases count?

pmcollins 10y ago

The only recent proxy invasion that I know about was Russia's invasion of eastern Ukraine where the invasion was Russian but none of the combatants bore Russian insignia. What are you referring to when you say US proxy invasions? Iraq and Afghanistan were direct invasions.

seppin 10y ago

> Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on... One occupies and annexes land, the other plays war games and regime change. If you are arguing that there is no difference between the two, do so.