3 ms·

> I'm not Russian (you don't have to believe me, but surely you can find some non Russians in your vicinity with the same ideas that wasn't installed by ...trol

> I'm not Russian (you don't have to believe me, but surely you can find some non Russians in your vicinity with the same ideas that wasn't installed by ...trolls in them) > NATO has been surrounding Russia with bases There is strong contradiction between these statements. You are either Russian or you have been strongly (perhaps without your own knowledge) influenced by the Russian propaganda. If you do not believe this then ask yourself, why were the countries near the Russian border so desperate to join NATO?

nostrademons 8y ago
"Strong states do as they will; weak states do as they must" and "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? There's this trend in all tribal politics where the tribes that are geographically nearest to you are the biggest threat, because everybody else would need to go through them to get to you. If you are a weak state bordered by a nearby strong state, your existence as a state is threatened daily. It makes a lot of sense to ally with a stronger but more distant partner to gain leverage over your nearby rivals. The U.S. is a very convenient ally for this because with an ocean on both sides of us, it's difficult for us to directly invade the countries in question without being invited in. At the same time, we have an industrial & military might that's a very useful counterbalance to potential regional aggression. The same dynamic plays out both in other regions (Taiwan & Japan ally with the U.S. as a check on China; Saudi Arabia allies with the U.S. as a check on Iran; Africa allies with China as a check on the U.S; Cuba allies with Russia as a check on the U.S.); within racial groups in the historical U.S. (black slaves allied with Northern abolitionists against Southern planters); and within social classes in contemporary U.S. politics (minorities ally with urban liberals against the white working class; the white working class allies with old-line business owners against urban liberals; urban liberals ally with technocrats against old-line business owners). Everything coldtea said was factually correct. I personally don't have a problem with it because I'm American and it's to my benefit to have citizenship in a geopolitically strong nation. But your response is conflating "that which is true" vs. "that which is convenient for me". You can acknowledge geopolitical realism without passing judgment on it.
- eveningcoffee 8y ago
  > Everything coldtea said was factually correct. "NATO has been surrounding Russia with bases, and satellite states (using countries like Georgia, changing regimes, etc) ever since the "end" of the Cold War, and they're supposed to just sit back and take it." Except this is exactly the Russian narrative coldtea is repeating. "NATO has been surrounding Russia with bases, and satellite states" Is this a fact or an opinion? Joining NATO has been each time initiated by the new member state. Nobody has been called to NATO. Quite contrary, there was clear opposition to this and it was not at all certain if any of the new members would ever be able to join NATO. This narrative like NATO is circling Russia is repeated every day in the Russian media. It is not Russian neighbors fault that Russia has constantly demonstrated aggression towards its neighbors and willingness to repeat the invasion. Russian neighbors still remember the genocide that happened after the previous invasion. "They're supposed to just sit back and take it." In principle, in a civilized world where Russia has abandoned the expansion idea, yes. Russia has chosen the isolation. Russia and NATO have been partners for long time but apparently the interests of both do not align anymore. Edit: I agree with your description of the bigger picture.
coldtea 8y ago
>There is strong contradiction between these statements. You are either Russian or you have been strongly (perhaps without your own knowledge) influenced by the Russian propaganda. Or you know, I could have independently formed my own opinion, and know the facts of that, much more closer to me, corner of the world than somebody in NY or Colorado reading the mainstream news. It's like somebody following the CNN, the NYT, the Time, the Economist, etc, and their own country's government, experts, and pundit opinions about global affairs -- without them ever having read people like Chomsky, Zinn, or anybody local on the places they read about (e.g. Eduardo Galeano) that's not an ally chose for interview by said media -- and thinking theirs is the only possible version of history and world affairs, and anything else is X propaganda (or, another term people are conditioned to use, "conspiracy theory"). >If you do not believe this then ask yourself, why were the countries near the Russian border so desperate to join NATO? The same reason some of those countries liked the Nazis as well in WWII. Because they had beefs with Russia as USSR (which fucked some of them over royally), and now fear it as a powerful player that could do them damage for its interests. That's in many cases the popular sentiment. In other cases, and especially where ethnic Russia populations are concerned is more Russian friendly. But add some foreign funding to candidates and parties promoting a rift with Russia, constant hammering of "independent" organizations, diplomatic pressure, some lures like loans, investments and aid if they go NATO, and it's a no brainer. That said, not all of the where that "desperate to join the NATO", and not all at the same degree. Some understandingly, wanted to keep ties with Russia and play both sides, by cheap resources, do business etc. Those players were also undermined (e.g. by "orange revolutions") in favor of more hardcore lackeys (to the detriment of their country's interests too).

nostrademons 8y ago

"Strong states do as they will; weak states do as they must" and "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? There's this trend in all tribal politics where the tribes that are geographically nearest to you are the biggest threat, because everybody else would need to go through them to get to you. If you are a weak state bordered by a nearby strong state, your existence as a state is threatened daily. It makes a lot of sense to ally with a stronger but more distant partner to gain leverage over your nearby rivals. The U.S. is a very convenient ally for this because with an ocean on both sides of us, it's difficult for us to directly invade the countries in question without being invited in. At the same time, we have an industrial & military might that's a very useful counterbalance to potential regional aggression. The same dynamic plays out both in other regions (Taiwan & Japan ally with the U.S. as a check on China; Saudi Arabia allies with the U.S. as a check on Iran; Africa allies with China as a check on the U.S; Cuba allies with Russia as a check on the U.S.); within racial groups in the historical U.S. (black slaves allied with Northern abolitionists against Southern planters); and within social classes in contemporary U.S. politics (minorities ally with urban liberals against the white working class; the white working class allies with old-line business owners against urban liberals; urban liberals ally with technocrats against old-line business owners). Everything coldtea said was factually correct. I personally don't have a problem with it because I'm American and it's to my benefit to have citizenship in a geopolitically strong nation. But your response is conflating "that which is true" vs. "that which is convenient for me". You can acknowledge geopolitical realism without passing judgment on it.

eveningcoffee 8y ago
> Everything coldtea said was factually correct. "NATO has been surrounding Russia with bases, and satellite states (using countries like Georgia, changing regimes, etc) ever since the "end" of the Cold War, and they're supposed to just sit back and take it." Except this is exactly the Russian narrative coldtea is repeating. "NATO has been surrounding Russia with bases, and satellite states" Is this a fact or an opinion? Joining NATO has been each time initiated by the new member state. Nobody has been called to NATO. Quite contrary, there was clear opposition to this and it was not at all certain if any of the new members would ever be able to join NATO. This narrative like NATO is circling Russia is repeated every day in the Russian media. It is not Russian neighbors fault that Russia has constantly demonstrated aggression towards its neighbors and willingness to repeat the invasion. Russian neighbors still remember the genocide that happened after the previous invasion. "They're supposed to just sit back and take it." In principle, in a civilized world where Russia has abandoned the expansion idea, yes. Russia has chosen the isolation. Russia and NATO have been partners for long time but apparently the interests of both do not align anymore. Edit: I agree with your description of the bigger picture.

coldtea 8y ago

>There is strong contradiction between these statements. You are either Russian or you have been strongly (perhaps without your own knowledge) influenced by the Russian propaganda. Or you know, I could have independently formed my own opinion, and know the facts of that, much more closer to me, corner of the world than somebody in NY or Colorado reading the mainstream news. It's like somebody following the CNN, the NYT, the Time, the Economist, etc, and their own country's government, experts, and pundit opinions about global affairs -- without them ever having read people like Chomsky, Zinn, or anybody local on the places they read about (e.g. Eduardo Galeano) that's not an ally chose for interview by said media -- and thinking theirs is the only possible version of history and world affairs, and anything else is X propaganda (or, another term people are conditioned to use, "conspiracy theory"). >If you do not believe this then ask yourself, why were the countries near the Russian border so desperate to join NATO? The same reason some of those countries liked the Nazis as well in WWII. Because they had beefs with Russia as USSR (which fucked some of them over royally), and now fear it as a powerful player that could do them damage for its interests. That's in many cases the popular sentiment. In other cases, and especially where ethnic Russia populations are concerned is more Russian friendly. But add some foreign funding to candidates and parties promoting a rift with Russia, constant hammering of "independent" organizations, diplomatic pressure, some lures like loans, investments and aid if they go NATO, and it's a no brainer. That said, not all of the where that "desperate to join the NATO", and not all at the same degree. Some understandingly, wanted to keep ties with Russia and play both sides, by cheap resources, do business etc. Those players were also undermined (e.g. by "orange revolutions") in favor of more hardcore lackeys (to the detriment of their country's interests too).