5 ms·

> A good example are Georgia and Ukraine: crises were created out of nothing to keep a festering boil on Russia’s ass. I'm ukrainian, can you tell me more? You

by slezyr 9y ago

> A good example are Georgia and Ukraine: crises were created out of nothing to keep a festering boil on Russia’s ass. I'm ukrainian, can you tell me more? You know how maidan started? It was a peaceful protest and if cops simply ignored it, nothing would happen. Instead they did this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-talnbWQDpI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-talnbWQDpI This caused a bigger protest and response was the same. And etc and etc. At some moment they started to kidnap protesters from the hospitals. Then one of protesters have been found dead near the river. Another found in the wood with plastic bag on his head and they took out his intestines. > created out of nothing to keep a festering boil on Russia’s ass There been reasons for it. You know, I've been a pro-russian ukrainian all my life. I didn't liked ukrainian language(I'm from russian speaking part) and still can't speak it. But when russians started it propaganda campaign I started hate EVERYTHING about russia. Unlike Russia Today russian speaking propaganda was much dirtier and much more retarded. One they showed a magnet from speaker on TV and said that it was a bomb with HIV dropped by ukrainian aircraft. So... I wanted to say: fuck your "good example". Because isn't good for non-retarded person.

0xbear 9y ago
I’m Russian, but I don’t live in Russia, so I’m not exposed to “Russian propaganda” (you do seem to be exposed to the Ukrainian flavor of it though). I also commiserate with what happened on the Ukrainian side, and in every election where Putin ran I voted against Putin. I dislike the man, and think he will be harmful to Russia in the long term. That said, you also can’t deny the involvement of the US Department of state in those events. The fundamental geostrategical priority for Russia is to maintain control (or at least good relations with, see Belarus) of the buffer regions around its densely populated regions. This stems from geography and topology: there are no mountains to protect the West of Russia from a land invasion. This is inviolable geostrategic principle that Russia, having learned the lessons of WW2, will just not let anyone touch. That is why there are “tensions” when your neighbor begins discussions of entering NATO with a bit of USDS help. NATO means (eventually) foreign military bases and tactical nukes within 100km of Rostov-on-Don and Taganrog. This is fundamentally unacceptable to Russia, which they have been saying again and again to everyone who would listen years before things turned ugly. It’s not personal, it’s a question of national security for them. The US would have done the same or worse if Russia got Mexico to enter a military alliance with it. Again, I sympathize, but I really can’t see how, given the progression of events, things could have turned any differently.
- skrebbel 9y ago
  I see your point but at the same time my country has American nukes in it and we're not scared. Of course that's a ridiculous comparison given current tensions, but you're assuming that Russia and the USA / NATO somehow have to be enemies by definition and the rest of your argument follows from that. Why would a Russia-Mexico alliance need to be scary? Why would a USA-Ukraine alliance need to be scary? Hey, can't we have Entire-Northern-Hemisphere alliance? Of course this is not currently realistic, and I'm not actually suggesting all our leaders just hug and be friends. But the only reason that I can see that things are like this is because just about everybody, all the policymakers as well as friendly internet commenters like yourselves, just assume it has to be like this. That makes it sort of a self-fulfilling cycle. Russia and America have a cold war because they have a cold war. There are plenty of countries in NATO that are about as undemocratic as Russia, or less culturally similar to the founding NATO countries than Russia. If Turkey can be in NATO, why can't Russia? Renaming "NATO" should be the blocker, right. Momentum is the only reason that I can see why these two sides need to be sides. Really, I don't see why we need to be enemies other than ego tripping politicians doing a penis size contest. But I'm probably missing something.
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    What you’re missing is 20M+ Russians were killed in the last world war. That kind of causes deep seated trust issues. You’re also utterly missing any understanding of geopolitics. May I recommend “Flashpoints” by George Friedman and “World Order” by Henry Kissinger. This will open your eyes to how the world works, and why things are the way they are. And you should be worried if there are US nukes in you country. That means you’re now in other ICBM-capable countries’ targeting computers, likely for no other reason. When shit hits the fan you’re gonna get nuked. Congratulations.
    - Sommersonn 9y ago
      >What you’re missing is 20M+ Russians were killed in the last world war. That kind of causes deep seated trust issues. 20M+ _Soviets_, not Russians. And USSR started that war ON THE SAME SIDE as Hitler, so they can blame themselves for 'trust issues'.

by slezyr 9y ago

0xbear 9y ago

I’m Russian, but I don’t live in Russia, so I’m not exposed to “Russian propaganda” (you do seem to be exposed to the Ukrainian flavor of it though). I also commiserate with what happened on the Ukrainian side, and in every election where Putin ran I voted against Putin. I dislike the man, and think he will be harmful to Russia in the long term. That said, you also can’t deny the involvement of the US Department of state in those events. The fundamental geostrategical priority for Russia is to maintain control (or at least good relations with, see Belarus) of the buffer regions around its densely populated regions. This stems from geography and topology: there are no mountains to protect the West of Russia from a land invasion. This is inviolable geostrategic principle that Russia, having learned the lessons of WW2, will just not let anyone touch. That is why there are “tensions” when your neighbor begins discussions of entering NATO with a bit of USDS help. NATO means (eventually) foreign military bases and tactical nukes within 100km of Rostov-on-Don and Taganrog. This is fundamentally unacceptable to Russia, which they have been saying again and again to everyone who would listen years before things turned ugly. It’s not personal, it’s a question of national security for them. The US would have done the same or worse if Russia got Mexico to enter a military alliance with it. Again, I sympathize, but I really can’t see how, given the progression of events, things could have turned any differently.

skrebbel 9y ago
I see your point but at the same time my country has American nukes in it and we're not scared. Of course that's a ridiculous comparison given current tensions, but you're assuming that Russia and the USA / NATO somehow have to be enemies by definition and the rest of your argument follows from that. Why would a Russia-Mexico alliance need to be scary? Why would a USA-Ukraine alliance need to be scary? Hey, can't we have Entire-Northern-Hemisphere alliance? Of course this is not currently realistic, and I'm not actually suggesting all our leaders just hug and be friends. But the only reason that I can see that things are like this is because just about everybody, all the policymakers as well as friendly internet commenters like yourselves, just assume it has to be like this. That makes it sort of a self-fulfilling cycle. Russia and America have a cold war because they have a cold war. There are plenty of countries in NATO that are about as undemocratic as Russia, or less culturally similar to the founding NATO countries than Russia. If Turkey can be in NATO, why can't Russia? Renaming "NATO" should be the blocker, right. Momentum is the only reason that I can see why these two sides need to be sides. Really, I don't see why we need to be enemies other than ego tripping politicians doing a penis size contest. But I'm probably missing something.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  What you’re missing is 20M+ Russians were killed in the last world war. That kind of causes deep seated trust issues. You’re also utterly missing any understanding of geopolitics. May I recommend “Flashpoints” by George Friedman and “World Order” by Henry Kissinger. This will open your eyes to how the world works, and why things are the way they are. And you should be worried if there are US nukes in you country. That means you’re now in other ICBM-capable countries’ targeting computers, likely for no other reason. When shit hits the fan you’re gonna get nuked. Congratulations.
  - Sommersonn 9y ago
    >What you’re missing is 20M+ Russians were killed in the last world war. That kind of causes deep seated trust issues. 20M+ _Soviets_, not Russians. And USSR started that war ON THE SAME SIDE as Hitler, so they can blame themselves for 'trust issues'.