5 ms·

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 globa

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.
  - gdy 7y ago
    "every single hegemonic imperial power" What does this have to do with Russia? "will pursue its perceived interest at the expense of everyone else, often with horrifying results" Sounds like the US. "It was in fact" Was it? The raids were happening after the peace was signed. And ethnic cleansing of non-Chechens was happening before the first war. "And if you want other instances, it suffices to mention Afghanistan" You probably haven't got the memo -- there is no USSR for almost 30 years. The country has changed dramatically, which couldn't be said about the US after Vietnam war. "Is that some sort of an attempt to substitute virtue signaling for argument" On your part there was no argument, only prejudice. "if you're a country that borders Russia, your chances of being subject to measures" Correction: "if you're are a country on Russian border inviting NATO and threatening by this Russia's own security". Being relatively neutral like Finland is just fine.
- sgift 7y ago
  > There are no other instances. Conveniently forgetting Ukraine for a current example. Or the havoc Russia did in the 20th century in all of Eastern Europe. > "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. Last time I checked Israel didn't subjugate half a continent for 50 years.
  - gdy 7y ago
    The conflict in Ukraine is overblown in your free media. It's nothing compared to what is happening in the Middle East. "subjugate half a continent for 50 years" After losing 26 million people to the invasion that had come from that continent, that was a prudent measure.

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.
- gdy 7y ago
  "every single hegemonic imperial power" What does this have to do with Russia? "will pursue its perceived interest at the expense of everyone else, often with horrifying results" Sounds like the US. "It was in fact" Was it? The raids were happening after the peace was signed. And ethnic cleansing of non-Chechens was happening before the first war. "And if you want other instances, it suffices to mention Afghanistan" You probably haven't got the memo -- there is no USSR for almost 30 years. The country has changed dramatically, which couldn't be said about the US after Vietnam war. "Is that some sort of an attempt to substitute virtue signaling for argument" On your part there was no argument, only prejudice. "if you're a country that borders Russia, your chances of being subject to measures" Correction: "if you're are a country on Russian border inviting NATO and threatening by this Russia's own security". Being relatively neutral like Finland is just fine.
sgift 7y ago
> There are no other instances. Conveniently forgetting Ukraine for a current example. Or the havoc Russia did in the 20th century in all of Eastern Europe. > "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. Last time I checked Israel didn't subjugate half a continent for 50 years.
- gdy 7y ago
  The conflict in Ukraine is overblown in your free media. It's nothing compared to what is happening in the Middle East. "subjugate half a continent for 50 years" After losing 26 million people to the invasion that had come from that continent, that was a prudent measure.