5 ms·
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 com
by 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 agoI 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 agoWhat 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'.
- 0xbear 9y agoMostly Russians. And 20M is the “official” number. There are independent estimates that put the casualties even higher. USSR was never “on the same side” as Hitler. It was never a part of The Axis. Stalin was just hoping that capitalist swine would take each other out and then he would roll in and take over. Same as the US was hoping Hitler would fuck up Russia and much of Europe so they could roll in and take over. As far as the spoils of war, the real winner was the US. Britain gave up its last ambitions of being a naval superpower and handed over its navy bases to the US. The US was propelled to the superpower status with relatively little loss of life, and became the dominant industrial power as well. Weakened USSR was denied power in Western Europe. What’s not to like?
- EliRivers 9y agoMuch of the world considers making a deal to carve up Poland as being "on the same side". You don't, but lots of people do, so terms need to be spelled out clearly if you're going to communicate.
- slezyr 9y ago> you do seem to be exposed to the Ukrainian flavor of it though What makes you think so? > That said, you also can’t deny the involvement of the US Department of state in those events. Can you deny existence of life beyond our planet? Neither side can prove or disprove both statements. > 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. Yes. Sounds if any neighbor make any decision, which russia won't like it grantees that glorious russians soldiers will happily jump to fight US forces there. > NATO means (eventually) foreign military bases and tactical nukes within 100km of Rostov-on-Don and Taganrog. So now we have damn nukes in Crimea. Russia moved them closer to NATO countries. I guess they need entire Moldova to secure those missiles in Crimea. > The US would have done the same or worse if Russia got Mexico to enter a military alliance with it Cuba? It wasn't good for it, but not as bad as here.
- Sommersonn 9y ago>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. Invading your neighbours is ok, if you'll just call it 'good relations'? >That is why there are “tensions” when your neighbor begins discussions of entering NATO with a bit of USDS help. Invading Ukraine was not a 'tension' and had nothing to do with NATO. Russia used another pretense.
- 0xbear 9y agoInvasion of Donetsk and Luhansk has never been proven. Crimea, sure I will concede that. For the record, I don’t approve of it, even though Crimea has been under Russia’s control for hundreds of years, and was only given to Ukraine by Khrushchev in the 50s.
- RUG3Y 9y agoYes. Some knowledge of history helps in these conversations. Crimea has been under Russian control in some form for hundreds of years and is the home of their most important naval installation. Under political pressure from the West, the felt that their position there was threatened. Anyone who thinks America wouldn't do the same given the circumstances is mistaken. We're not the "good guys" in the world.
- Sommersonn 9y agoRussia don't exist for 'hundred of years'. Why you people are repeating the nonsense?
- 9y ago