5 ms·

> Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. Come on stop spreading this dumb western propaganda, Russia isn't threatening anybody in western

> Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. Come on stop spreading this dumb western propaganda, Russia isn't threatening anybody in western Europe. They took Crimea back and sabotaged Ukraine because strategically they can't afford to have yet another NATO country right at their doorstep. They're not going to invade Poland any time soon (what for anyway?). They're not crazy nor blood thirsty. This is the same with North Korea: their actions make perfect sense once you look past our propaganda.

roenxi 6y ago
If you look past the propaganda, basically there are a bunch of countries in the world. One would assume that Russia/North Korea/China/the UK/Kazakhstan/Somalia etc want to invade other places about as much as America does. So if you look at America's record for foreign 'Peacekeeping' it seems prudent to keep a sizeable army on hand to defend against the Russians. Places with strong armies invade places that aren't protected by strong armies.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >One would assume that Russia/North Korea/China/the UK/Kazakhstan/Somalia etc want to invade other places about as much as America does. Historically, not every country did it "as much as America does", and not globally. Both because of differences in culture, and because of differences in role and capacity.
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  Of course you need a strong army to protect your country so that your neighbors don't become hungry for what you have. However I resent the dumb propaganda that is served to us and has no basis in reality.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    > I resent the dumb propaganda that is served to us and has no basis in reality I suggest ignoring "geopolitics", and considering to what extent your input matters even in local political matters. If you find that such impact is minimal locally, then from a political consideration, it is a waste of your time to spend energy on "Russian threat" or any other geopolitical narrative (many dating to 19th century.) You should focus on your local issues. Geopolitical policy is opaque to uninitiated and uninformed. It is not clear to me why the elite make a show of discussing geopolitics for the public at large. Join CFR in a meaningful capacity and you may get a whif of what actually are the dynamics and issues that drive international relations.
    - jmnicolas 6y ago
      Geopolitics matter even for simple people like me: first it's always better to not live in the matrix of lies of someone else and secondly it can help understand what's happening or what is going to happen.
      - eternalban 6y ago
        > it can help understand what's happening or what is going to happen. This is hopelessly naive, imho. The information asymmetry is off the charts, and a rational "analyst/reader" (the role you want to play) of geopolitics should be aware of this fact, and its implications. You simply have no idea what is really going on. You don't have the data and it is naive to assume what is printed in a handful of outlets by an equally limited number of promoted authors are the "geopolitical facts". So, yes geopolitics certainly "matter" but that was not the point.
mschuster91 6y ago
They have literally been caught financing Brexit and every major alt-right, antidemocratic, Europe-skeptic party there is - Germany's AfD, France's FN, Italy's Salvini bunch. Russia is a threat to democracy and an enemy of Europe, directly competing with China.
- morsch 6y ago
  Well yeah, but the thread so far was referring to military threats.
  - drran 6y ago
    If Russian Federation can be beaten by west military, then it's stupid to threat western countries in any way. They can bluff West for a few years, but then what?
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    Russia can't compete with any Western country in open warfare. Cyber warfare and nation destabilizing by propaganda campaigns however? That is way cheaper, and the Russians have quite a history of such actions with the KGB. The side benefit is that, in contrast to a Russian airplane dumping Russian bombs on a city, the Russian government can easily deny that they are responsible for a group of hackers or an oligarch's "donation" to a far right party.
- SilentBan 6y ago
  The Russian brigade is doing great job downvoting you. This is another proof that you are right.
zaphirplane 6y ago
I thought it was about getting land locked not so much having a NATO country on it border
- fakedang 6y ago
  Warm water port + not wanting a NATO country within driving distance of Moscow. Same reason why Russia is heavily invested in maintaining its hegemony over Belarus.
ignasl 6y ago
They won't invade Poland or Baltics because those countries are in NATO and EU and it's way too risky. Russia seems pretty involved in all the hotspots lately including starting a war in Ukraine. Very likely same fate would be for Poland and Baltics if they didn't protect themselves with stronger allies. And even if current Russia is not interested/capable to cause trouble to east EU - that doesn't mean it won't change in the future. Country leader shouldn't just look in the last 2 years - he needs to prepare country for the next 50 years.
- iguy 6y ago
  I guess a big factor must be to ask what they would gain. Domestic PR / distraction is one thing, but Crimea also has warm-water ports, and a (largely?) ethnic Russian population. Eastern Poland has... some farmland, some ancient forests? People with a 5-generation deep tradition of suicidal attempts to kick the Russians out? Whereas the Baltics are sandwiched with Kalinngrad, and some have fair-sized Russian populations, who can be painted as oppressed. That seems much more concerning.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- elmo2you 6y ago
  In case you didn't get that memo: the shit in the Ukraine didn't start with Russian involvement. It started with very active meddling, spending copious amounts of money, into the internal politics of the country. It should also be noted that much of that money went to ultra-right-wing militant organizations, who have zero respect for democracy or freedom. Essentially, the USA bought itself a (fascist) private army to take control (or at least try to) over the natural resources in East Ukraine and Crimea. Russia responded rather predictably to that. Some might even argue that they had every right to do so. I'd love to see Americans react, if Russia were to sponsor some kind of anti-US militia in Alaska, that would subsequently take control of state (military bases with missile launch facilities included). I'm pretty sure that US citizens would call that for what it is: an act of aggression. No, the reason Russia doesn't invade Poland or the Baltic countries isn't because of NATO. Ironically, if those countries are at risk in any way, it's probably rather because of NATO. NATO (and its members) keeps insisting that the organization is defensive in nature only, yet its actions tell a rather different story (and it has done so for a long time, at least since the '90).
oblio 6y ago
Geopolitics are an interesting thing. It's also interesting how 2 regimes with totally different ideologies ended having similar borders (Imperial Russia and the USSR). > Russia isn't threatening anybody in western Europe Those poor schmucks not in Western Europe can just be thrown under the bus like the last 2 times, right? :-)

roenxi 6y ago

If you look past the propaganda, basically there are a bunch of countries in the world. One would assume that Russia/North Korea/China/the UK/Kazakhstan/Somalia etc want to invade other places about as much as America does. So if you look at America's record for foreign 'Peacekeeping' it seems prudent to keep a sizeable army on hand to defend against the Russians. Places with strong armies invade places that aren't protected by strong armies.

coldtea 6y ago
>One would assume that Russia/North Korea/China/the UK/Kazakhstan/Somalia etc want to invade other places about as much as America does. Historically, not every country did it "as much as America does", and not globally. Both because of differences in culture, and because of differences in role and capacity.
jmnicolas 6y ago
Of course you need a strong army to protect your country so that your neighbors don't become hungry for what you have. However I resent the dumb propaganda that is served to us and has no basis in reality.
- eternalban 6y ago
  > I resent the dumb propaganda that is served to us and has no basis in reality I suggest ignoring "geopolitics", and considering to what extent your input matters even in local political matters. If you find that such impact is minimal locally, then from a political consideration, it is a waste of your time to spend energy on "Russian threat" or any other geopolitical narrative (many dating to 19th century.) You should focus on your local issues. Geopolitical policy is opaque to uninitiated and uninformed. It is not clear to me why the elite make a show of discussing geopolitics for the public at large. Join CFR in a meaningful capacity and you may get a whif of what actually are the dynamics and issues that drive international relations.
  - jmnicolas 6y ago
    Geopolitics matter even for simple people like me: first it's always better to not live in the matrix of lies of someone else and secondly it can help understand what's happening or what is going to happen.
    - eternalban 6y ago
      > it can help understand what's happening or what is going to happen. This is hopelessly naive, imho. The information asymmetry is off the charts, and a rational "analyst/reader" (the role you want to play) of geopolitics should be aware of this fact, and its implications. You simply have no idea what is really going on. You don't have the data and it is naive to assume what is printed in a handful of outlets by an equally limited number of promoted authors are the "geopolitical facts". So, yes geopolitics certainly "matter" but that was not the point.

mschuster91 6y ago

They have literally been caught financing Brexit and every major alt-right, antidemocratic, Europe-skeptic party there is - Germany's AfD, France's FN, Italy's Salvini bunch. Russia is a threat to democracy and an enemy of Europe, directly competing with China.

morsch 6y ago
Well yeah, but the thread so far was referring to military threats.
- drran 6y ago
  If Russian Federation can be beaten by west military, then it's stupid to threat western countries in any way. They can bluff West for a few years, but then what?
- mschuster91 6y ago
  Russia can't compete with any Western country in open warfare. Cyber warfare and nation destabilizing by propaganda campaigns however? That is way cheaper, and the Russians have quite a history of such actions with the KGB. The side benefit is that, in contrast to a Russian airplane dumping Russian bombs on a city, the Russian government can easily deny that they are responsible for a group of hackers or an oligarch's "donation" to a far right party.
SilentBan 6y ago
The Russian brigade is doing great job downvoting you. This is another proof that you are right.

zaphirplane 6y ago

I thought it was about getting land locked not so much having a NATO country on it border

fakedang 6y ago
Warm water port + not wanting a NATO country within driving distance of Moscow. Same reason why Russia is heavily invested in maintaining its hegemony over Belarus.

ignasl 6y ago

They won't invade Poland or Baltics because those countries are in NATO and EU and it's way too risky. Russia seems pretty involved in all the hotspots lately including starting a war in Ukraine. Very likely same fate would be for Poland and Baltics if they didn't protect themselves with stronger allies. And even if current Russia is not interested/capable to cause trouble to east EU - that doesn't mean it won't change in the future. Country leader shouldn't just look in the last 2 years - he needs to prepare country for the next 50 years.

iguy 6y ago
I guess a big factor must be to ask what they would gain. Domestic PR / distraction is one thing, but Crimea also has warm-water ports, and a (largely?) ethnic Russian population. Eastern Poland has... some farmland, some ancient forests? People with a 5-generation deep tradition of suicidal attempts to kick the Russians out? Whereas the Baltics are sandwiched with Kalinngrad, and some have fair-sized Russian populations, who can be painted as oppressed. That seems much more concerning.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
elmo2you 6y ago
In case you didn't get that memo: the shit in the Ukraine didn't start with Russian involvement. It started with very active meddling, spending copious amounts of money, into the internal politics of the country. It should also be noted that much of that money went to ultra-right-wing militant organizations, who have zero respect for democracy or freedom. Essentially, the USA bought itself a (fascist) private army to take control (or at least try to) over the natural resources in East Ukraine and Crimea. Russia responded rather predictably to that. Some might even argue that they had every right to do so. I'd love to see Americans react, if Russia were to sponsor some kind of anti-US militia in Alaska, that would subsequently take control of state (military bases with missile launch facilities included). I'm pretty sure that US citizens would call that for what it is: an act of aggression. No, the reason Russia doesn't invade Poland or the Baltic countries isn't because of NATO. Ironically, if those countries are at risk in any way, it's probably rather because of NATO. NATO (and its members) keeps insisting that the organization is defensive in nature only, yet its actions tell a rather different story (and it has done so for a long time, at least since the '90).

oblio 6y ago

Geopolitics are an interesting thing. It's also interesting how 2 regimes with totally different ideologies ended having similar borders (Imperial Russia and the USSR). > Russia isn't threatening anybody in western Europe Those poor schmucks not in Western Europe can just be thrown under the bus like the last 2 times, right? :-)