5 ms·

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

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'.
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    Mostly 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 ago
      Much 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.
      - 0xbear 9y ago
        The alternative to not “carving up Poland” was to not sign the mutual non-aggression pact and essentially enter into war with Germany before it thoroughly fucks up Britain and France. Britain and France would be quite delighted if Hitler pursued that course of action. I’m pretty sure theyd even withhold any meaningful military assistance to help things along while Hitler makes his run on Russia, for the same reason Stalin did. In fact they sorta had done that already by refusing to enter into a pact against Nazi Germany. You can’t reason about geostrategic considerations in terms of moral high ground. Those dudes were dealing with a very dangerous and volatile situation, and the decisions they made were literally matters of life and death for their respective peoples. That’s not to absolve anyone of guilt, but if you’re going to be an armchair quarterback, do yourself a favor and study history a bit more thoroughly. At that negotiating table any of us today would have made the exact same choice.
        9y ago
- skrebbel 9y ago
  > May I recommend “Flashpoints” by George Friedman and “World Order” by Henry Kissinger. Kissinger, seriously? I find it typical for neorealists to assume that if you're not also a neorealist, you "don't understand geopolitics". Cutthroat policy making for its own sake.
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    Kissinger, yes. Dude knows his geopolitics. The book is _really_ good, once you account for Kissinger’s well understood biases.

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'.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Mostly 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 ago
    Much 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.
    - 0xbear 9y ago
      The alternative to not “carving up Poland” was to not sign the mutual non-aggression pact and essentially enter into war with Germany before it thoroughly fucks up Britain and France. Britain and France would be quite delighted if Hitler pursued that course of action. I’m pretty sure theyd even withhold any meaningful military assistance to help things along while Hitler makes his run on Russia, for the same reason Stalin did. In fact they sorta had done that already by refusing to enter into a pact against Nazi Germany. You can’t reason about geostrategic considerations in terms of moral high ground. Those dudes were dealing with a very dangerous and volatile situation, and the decisions they made were literally matters of life and death for their respective peoples. That’s not to absolve anyone of guilt, but if you’re going to be an armchair quarterback, do yourself a favor and study history a bit more thoroughly. At that negotiating table any of us today would have made the exact same choice.
      - 9y ago
skrebbel 9y ago
> May I recommend “Flashpoints” by George Friedman and “World Order” by Henry Kissinger. Kissinger, seriously? I find it typical for neorealists to assume that if you're not also a neorealist, you "don't understand geopolitics". Cutthroat policy making for its own sake.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Kissinger, yes. Dude knows his geopolitics. The book is _really_ good, once you account for Kissinger’s well understood biases.