4 ms·

> 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.

> 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.
- keldaris 7y ago
  > Sounds like the US. Absolutely. Like I said, the only real difference in terms of atrocities abroad is one of capabilities. The U.S. happens to be the overwhelmingly most powerful state since WW2 (arguably since WW1), so it conducts most of the atrocities. > Was it? The raids were happening after the peace was signed. And ethnic cleansing of non-Chechens was happening before the first war. Neither of which contradicts my point at all. Not sure what you're arguing here. > 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. In terms of its perceived behavior abroad, the most significant difference is that it now has a number of neighbors that had been forcibly incorporated into the USSR and want to avoid a repetition of that miserable fate at all costs. > 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. The reason most of those countries did everything they could to get into NATO as quickly as possible is because they perceive Russia as a threat. Unless you seriously think NATO is going to conduct a first strike attack on Russia, the only way in which that threatens Russia's security is if you think "security" means "ability to interfere in neighbors' affairs unchecked". In which case, yes, that's the point. Ultimately, this back and forth misses the actual reason EU countries are overwhelmingly friendlier to the U.S. than to Russia. One is a highly flawed hegemonic empire with a history of ill advised military adventurism and, crucially, a high standard of living. The other is a crumbling kleptocracy with a low standard of living and a myriad of social problems. If you have to choose one, it's not a hard choice at all. Comparisons of atrocities conducted on the other side of the world don't really enter into it for most people. EDIT: By the way, since you took issue with my "geographical malady" phrasing and seem to think I'm defending the U.S. in some way - I also think it's a geographical malady to be a small country on the doorstep of the U.S. Virtually the entire region of Central America serves as a poignant example of that. Being a tiny country on the doorstep of a powerful empire is just a tough place to be, and Eastern European countries are lucky that they can use U.S. influence as a counterweight to Russia and thereby eke out a measure of independence. Others don't have that luxury.
  - gdy 7y ago
    "Like I said, the only real difference in terms of atrocities abroad is one of capabilities" And before that you said that the US is 'splendid' compared to Russia. "because they perceive Russia as a threat." That is a paranoid mentality stuck in the past. "Unless you seriously think NATO is going to conduct a first strike attack on Russia, the only way in which that threatens Russia's security" An American NATO general gave an order to attack Russian paratroopers in Serbia during NATO's illegal compaing there. NATO countries have been closing air space to Russian military planes and refusing refuelling to Russian warships under the pressure from Washington. A NATO member shot down a Russian bomber. Most importantly, if you have a loaded gun pointed to someone's head, you don't need to fire it to get complaince. "If you have to choose one, it's not a hard choice at all." Did the EU actually had to choose? Was it in the EU's interest to antagonize Russia by trying to expand NATO into Georgia and Ukraine? By excluding Russia from its security arrangements? There was an immense amount of good will in Russia of 1990's towards the West and the US and American elite choose to throw that away and go ahead with NATO expansion.

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.

keldaris 7y ago
> Sounds like the US. Absolutely. Like I said, the only real difference in terms of atrocities abroad is one of capabilities. The U.S. happens to be the overwhelmingly most powerful state since WW2 (arguably since WW1), so it conducts most of the atrocities. > Was it? The raids were happening after the peace was signed. And ethnic cleansing of non-Chechens was happening before the first war. Neither of which contradicts my point at all. Not sure what you're arguing here. > 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. In terms of its perceived behavior abroad, the most significant difference is that it now has a number of neighbors that had been forcibly incorporated into the USSR and want to avoid a repetition of that miserable fate at all costs. > 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. The reason most of those countries did everything they could to get into NATO as quickly as possible is because they perceive Russia as a threat. Unless you seriously think NATO is going to conduct a first strike attack on Russia, the only way in which that threatens Russia's security is if you think "security" means "ability to interfere in neighbors' affairs unchecked". In which case, yes, that's the point. Ultimately, this back and forth misses the actual reason EU countries are overwhelmingly friendlier to the U.S. than to Russia. One is a highly flawed hegemonic empire with a history of ill advised military adventurism and, crucially, a high standard of living. The other is a crumbling kleptocracy with a low standard of living and a myriad of social problems. If you have to choose one, it's not a hard choice at all. Comparisons of atrocities conducted on the other side of the world don't really enter into it for most people. EDIT: By the way, since you took issue with my "geographical malady" phrasing and seem to think I'm defending the U.S. in some way - I also think it's a geographical malady to be a small country on the doorstep of the U.S. Virtually the entire region of Central America serves as a poignant example of that. Being a tiny country on the doorstep of a powerful empire is just a tough place to be, and Eastern European countries are lucky that they can use U.S. influence as a counterweight to Russia and thereby eke out a measure of independence. Others don't have that luxury.
- gdy 7y ago
  "Like I said, the only real difference in terms of atrocities abroad is one of capabilities" And before that you said that the US is 'splendid' compared to Russia. "because they perceive Russia as a threat." That is a paranoid mentality stuck in the past. "Unless you seriously think NATO is going to conduct a first strike attack on Russia, the only way in which that threatens Russia's security" An American NATO general gave an order to attack Russian paratroopers in Serbia during NATO's illegal compaing there. NATO countries have been closing air space to Russian military planes and refusing refuelling to Russian warships under the pressure from Washington. A NATO member shot down a Russian bomber. Most importantly, if you have a loaded gun pointed to someone's head, you don't need to fire it to get complaince. "If you have to choose one, it's not a hard choice at all." Did the EU actually had to choose? Was it in the EU's interest to antagonize Russia by trying to expand NATO into Georgia and Ukraine? By excluding Russia from its security arrangements? There was an immense amount of good will in Russia of 1990's towards the West and the US and American elite choose to throw that away and go ahead with NATO expansion.