8 ms·

"Our other options are to associate with eg China or Russia, and between those the US, even with people like Trump at the wheel, is splendid." Russia has done

by gdy 7y ago

"Our other options are to associate with eg China or Russia, and between those the US, even with people like Trump at the wheel, is splendid." Russia has done nothing even remotely comparable to what the US has done in Middle East: after the second Iraq war the country still hasn't recovered, Libya is a mess, Syria is a mess, ISIS was a horror. After all that calling the US splendid compared to Russia is bizarre. Maybe you at least should try to do what benefits the EU, not the US, or Russia, or China.

keldaris 7y ago
The only reason Russia comes out okay in your comparison is because it simply lacks the capacity to project power the way the U.S. does - there's only one global superpower, for now. If you look at areas where Russia has had an effectively free hand - like Chechnya, for instance - adjusting for scale, the resulting atrocities are worse than anything the U.S. has done since Vietnam. And in terms of internal repression, there's just no comparison at all. The EU is simply not a credible military force. For many EU states therefore "friendship" (which really means acquiescence) to the U.S. is the only effective antidote to the geographical malady of being next to Russia.
- gdy 7y ago
  "The only reason Russia comes out okay in your comparison is because it simply lacks the capacity to project power the way the U.S. does" Why do you presume this? "like Chechnya, for instance" There are no other instances. And in that particular case, we don't know what the alternatives are. Considering Chechen raids into neighbouring regions and Saudi Arabia's and Turkey's influence in Chechnya, we could've gotten another Islamic State. As for the US, we don't know what would the US government do if there was an armed rebellion of Hispanic population in the southern states sponsored by Mexico. "geographical malady of being next to Russia" This sounds Russophobic. When you want to write something like this, try replacing Russians and Russia with Jews and Israel, and see if it still sounds okey.
  - tannedNerd 7y ago
    I like how you conveniently don’t mention Afghanistan, which was the Soviet Unions Vietnam, except with more war crimes somehow.
    - gdy 7y ago
      I haven't mentioned Vietnam either. And if I were you, I wouldn't bring up Afghanistan, because the US was on the side of Islamic extremists. The main recipient of American weapons was the guy who had been throwing acid into faces of female students.
  - keldaris 7y ago
    > Why do you presume this? Because every single hegemonic imperial power in human history has a list of atrocities only limited by its reach and time in power. That Russia happens to be a repressive kleptocracy makes it an even safer bet, of course, but any state whose power is effectively unchecked will pursue its perceived interest at the expense of everyone else, often with horrifying results. > There are no other instances. And in that particular case, we don't know what the alternatives are. Considering Chechen raids into neighbouring regions and Saudi Arabia's and Turkey's influence in Chechnya, we could've gotten another Islamic State. The First Chechen War predates the first Chechen attacks outside of their own territory by over two years. That fact alone eliminates any potential rationale along the lines of "preventing terrorism". It was in fact the Russian military operation (opposed at the time by many of their own military commanders as an atrocity in the making) and its brutality that caused some of the guerilla groups to turn to terrorism, not vice versa. This fact doesn't excuse any of the many atrocities committed by the guerillas, by the way, merely invalidates your argument. And if you want other instances, it suffices to mention Afghanistan. Obviously, there are others, but like I said - the reach of the Russian government is blissfully short. > "geographical malady of being next to Russia" This sounds Russophobic. When you want to write something like this, try replacing Russians and Russia with Jews and Israel, and see if it still sounds okey. Is that some sort of an attempt to substitute virtue signaling for argument? I'm not familiar with this tactic. Regardless, my point is trivially simple - if you're a country that borders Russia, your chances of being subject to measures ranging from targeted state-sponsored cyberattack on vital infrastructure all the way to outright occupation go way up. Historically, that's always been the case with expansionistic empires, there just aren't many of those left.
pjc50 7y ago
Russian treatment of Chechnya is comparable.
- gdy 7y ago
  Not really, see my over comments here.
Spooky23 7y ago
I hear Grozny is lovely this time of year.
- c0nfused 7y ago
  For those of you who are younger during the second Chechen war in 1999-2000 the Russian army surrounded the city and proceeded to level the whole city with artillery. Primarily to avoid the high losses they took during the first war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%932000) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%9... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%9395) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%9...
- gdy 7y ago
  As a matter of fact, yes, it is [0]. Billions of roubles have been poured into rebuilding Grozny and development of Chechnya in general. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny#/media/File:Montage-of-Grozny-(2016).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny#/media/File:Montage-of-...
dgoldstein0 7y ago
Russia backed Assad in Syria, who attacked his own citizens with chemical weapons. Their main strategy was to target the moderate anti government factions, so the longer the war went on, the less attractive options were available for backing anti government groups. And let's not forget about Russian meddling in Ukraine, and annexing Crimea. Probably not the only stuff they've done, but it's what comes to mind.
- arethuza 7y ago
  Also the Russian use of chemical and radiological weapons against individuals within the UK.
  - gdy 7y ago
    "Alleged", you missed that word.
  - gdy 7y ago
    And how does it compare with million dead Iraqis?
- gdy 7y ago
  And the US allies created ISIS. Pretty clear which side to support, don't you think? Russian meddling in Ukraine has cost hundred times less lives than American adventures in Iraq. And Crimea has been Russian for over two hundred years before it was reassigned to the Ukrainian SSR in Soviet times.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  >>>Russia backed Assad in Syria, who attacked his own citizens with chemical weapons That position is suspect given the growing number of whistleblowers coming out from the OPCW stating that evidence pointing to the rebels behind the worst attacks was suppressed while compiling their reports.[1][2] >>>Their main strategy was to target the moderate anti government factions The main strategy was to secure the major population centers of Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo, and secure the highway that links them and runs North-South through the whole country. These areas were largely held by a mix of moderates as well as al-Qaeda-adjacent jihadists (Jabat Al-Nusra, HTS, etc.). The least-moderate factions were largely near the Turkish border in Idlib (no surprise, this is how foreign hardline fighters were flooding into the country), or deep in the eastern desert (ISIS spilled over from Iraq). The Syrian Army was in no position to bypass its biggest cities, extend its supply routes (given the Army's non-existent logistical capability), and expose its flanks to attack the "REALLY bad guys" first instead of the "just kinda-bad guys". [1]https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/opcw-losing-credibility-as-even-more-revelations-surface-on-douma-755a0621710b https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/opcw-losing-credibility-a... [2]https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/new-opcw-leak-further-vindicates-skeptics-establishment-syria-narrative https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/new-opcw-leak-further...
nradov 7y ago
Most Finns, Poles, and Ukrainians would probably disagree with you regarding Russian benevolence. Considering how they were invaded and all.
- gdy 7y ago
  Finns and Poles are history. And I'd bet Iraqis would choose Russian-style 'invasion' over American one which cost them about million lives in total.

by gdy 7y ago

keldaris 7y ago

The only reason Russia comes out okay in your comparison is because it simply lacks the capacity to project power the way the U.S. does - there's only one global superpower, for now. If you look at areas where Russia has had an effectively free hand - like Chechnya, for instance - adjusting for scale, the resulting atrocities are worse than anything the U.S. has done since Vietnam. And in terms of internal repression, there's just no comparison at all. The EU is simply not a credible military force. For many EU states therefore "friendship" (which really means acquiescence) to the U.S. is the only effective antidote to the geographical malady of being next to Russia.

gdy 7y ago
"The only reason Russia comes out okay in your comparison is because it simply lacks the capacity to project power the way the U.S. does" Why do you presume this? "like Chechnya, for instance" There are no other instances. And in that particular case, we don't know what the alternatives are. Considering Chechen raids into neighbouring regions and Saudi Arabia's and Turkey's influence in Chechnya, we could've gotten another Islamic State. As for the US, we don't know what would the US government do if there was an armed rebellion of Hispanic population in the southern states sponsored by Mexico. "geographical malady of being next to Russia" This sounds Russophobic. When you want to write something like this, try replacing Russians and Russia with Jews and Israel, and see if it still sounds okey.
- tannedNerd 7y ago
  I like how you conveniently don’t mention Afghanistan, which was the Soviet Unions Vietnam, except with more war crimes somehow.
  - gdy 7y ago
    I haven't mentioned Vietnam either. And if I were you, I wouldn't bring up Afghanistan, because the US was on the side of Islamic extremists. The main recipient of American weapons was the guy who had been throwing acid into faces of female students.
- keldaris 7y ago
  > Why do you presume this? Because every single hegemonic imperial power in human history has a list of atrocities only limited by its reach and time in power. That Russia happens to be a repressive kleptocracy makes it an even safer bet, of course, but any state whose power is effectively unchecked will pursue its perceived interest at the expense of everyone else, often with horrifying results. > There are no other instances. And in that particular case, we don't know what the alternatives are. Considering Chechen raids into neighbouring regions and Saudi Arabia's and Turkey's influence in Chechnya, we could've gotten another Islamic State. The First Chechen War predates the first Chechen attacks outside of their own territory by over two years. That fact alone eliminates any potential rationale along the lines of "preventing terrorism". It was in fact the Russian military operation (opposed at the time by many of their own military commanders as an atrocity in the making) and its brutality that caused some of the guerilla groups to turn to terrorism, not vice versa. This fact doesn't excuse any of the many atrocities committed by the guerillas, by the way, merely invalidates your argument. And if you want other instances, it suffices to mention Afghanistan. Obviously, there are others, but like I said - the reach of the Russian government is blissfully short. > "geographical malady of being next to Russia" This sounds Russophobic. When you want to write something like this, try replacing Russians and Russia with Jews and Israel, and see if it still sounds okey. Is that some sort of an attempt to substitute virtue signaling for argument? I'm not familiar with this tactic. Regardless, my point is trivially simple - if you're a country that borders Russia, your chances of being subject to measures ranging from targeted state-sponsored cyberattack on vital infrastructure all the way to outright occupation go way up. Historically, that's always been the case with expansionistic empires, there just aren't many of those left.

pjc50 7y ago

Russian treatment of Chechnya is comparable.

gdy 7y ago
Not really, see my over comments here.

Spooky23 7y ago

I hear Grozny is lovely this time of year.

c0nfused 7y ago
For those of you who are younger during the second Chechen war in 1999-2000 the Russian army surrounded the city and proceeded to level the whole city with artillery. Primarily to avoid the high losses they took during the first war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%932000) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%9... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%9395) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%9...
gdy 7y ago
As a matter of fact, yes, it is [0]. Billions of roubles have been poured into rebuilding Grozny and development of Chechnya in general. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny#/media/File:Montage-of-Grozny-(2016).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny#/media/File:Montage-of-...

dgoldstein0 7y ago

Russia backed Assad in Syria, who attacked his own citizens with chemical weapons. Their main strategy was to target the moderate anti government factions, so the longer the war went on, the less attractive options were available for backing anti government groups. And let's not forget about Russian meddling in Ukraine, and annexing Crimea. Probably not the only stuff they've done, but it's what comes to mind.

arethuza 7y ago
Also the Russian use of chemical and radiological weapons against individuals within the UK.
- gdy 7y ago
  "Alleged", you missed that word.
- gdy 7y ago
  And how does it compare with million dead Iraqis?
gdy 7y ago
And the US allies created ISIS. Pretty clear which side to support, don't you think? Russian meddling in Ukraine has cost hundred times less lives than American adventures in Iraq. And Crimea has been Russian for over two hundred years before it was reassigned to the Ukrainian SSR in Soviet times.
CapricornNoble 7y ago
>>>Russia backed Assad in Syria, who attacked his own citizens with chemical weapons That position is suspect given the growing number of whistleblowers coming out from the OPCW stating that evidence pointing to the rebels behind the worst attacks was suppressed while compiling their reports.[1][2] >>>Their main strategy was to target the moderate anti government factions The main strategy was to secure the major population centers of Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo, and secure the highway that links them and runs North-South through the whole country. These areas were largely held by a mix of moderates as well as al-Qaeda-adjacent jihadists (Jabat Al-Nusra, HTS, etc.). The least-moderate factions were largely near the Turkish border in Idlib (no surprise, this is how foreign hardline fighters were flooding into the country), or deep in the eastern desert (ISIS spilled over from Iraq). The Syrian Army was in no position to bypass its biggest cities, extend its supply routes (given the Army's non-existent logistical capability), and expose its flanks to attack the "REALLY bad guys" first instead of the "just kinda-bad guys". [1]https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/opcw-losing-credibility-as-even-more-revelations-surface-on-douma-755a0621710b https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/opcw-losing-credibility-a... [2]https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/new-opcw-leak-further-vindicates-skeptics-establishment-syria-narrative https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/new-opcw-leak-further...

nradov 7y ago

Most Finns, Poles, and Ukrainians would probably disagree with you regarding Russian benevolence. Considering how they were invaded and all.

gdy 7y ago
Finns and Poles are history. And I'd bet Iraqis would choose Russian-style 'invasion' over American one which cost them about million lives in total.