4 ms·

> 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 overwh

> 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.
- keldaris 7y ago
  > And before that you said that the US is 'splendid' compared to Russia. I've said no such thing. Why are you making quotes up now? > That is a paranoid mentality stuck in the past. Many Ukrainians would disagree. Regardless, I'm not arguing that they should feel that way, only that they do as a matter of fact. > 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. And a British general countermanded that order, during events that took place far from Russian territory. There is no credible loaded gun pointed at Russia simply because it is apparent to all parties that a first strike on Russia would be utterly ruinous to the West. > Did the EU actually had to choose? The entire EU? No. The EU countries that border Russia? Yes, they did. And it is obvious by their actions that they want to get away from Russia's sphere of influence as quickly as possible. It's not hard to figure out why if you know a bit of history and look at the state of Russia today. > Was it in the EU's interest to antagonize Russia by trying to expand NATO into Georgia and Ukraine? In retrospect, probably not. This is now fairly widely regarded as a geopolitical mistake among EU policymakers and analysts. > 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. That's a very simplified view of a complicated decade of international relations. You're not wrong, but you're also omitting a long list of things done by Russia that also squandered Western (particularly European) good will. Mistakes were made by both sides.

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.

keldaris 7y ago
> And before that you said that the US is 'splendid' compared to Russia. I've said no such thing. Why are you making quotes up now? > That is a paranoid mentality stuck in the past. Many Ukrainians would disagree. Regardless, I'm not arguing that they should feel that way, only that they do as a matter of fact. > 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. And a British general countermanded that order, during events that took place far from Russian territory. There is no credible loaded gun pointed at Russia simply because it is apparent to all parties that a first strike on Russia would be utterly ruinous to the West. > Did the EU actually had to choose? The entire EU? No. The EU countries that border Russia? Yes, they did. And it is obvious by their actions that they want to get away from Russia's sphere of influence as quickly as possible. It's not hard to figure out why if you know a bit of history and look at the state of Russia today. > Was it in the EU's interest to antagonize Russia by trying to expand NATO into Georgia and Ukraine? In retrospect, probably not. This is now fairly widely regarded as a geopolitical mistake among EU policymakers and analysts. > 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. That's a very simplified view of a complicated decade of international relations. You're not wrong, but you're also omitting a long list of things done by Russia that also squandered Western (particularly European) good will. Mistakes were made by both sides.