8 ms·

My understanding, as a software engineer with an interest in history: Russian history is essentially the story of Russia getting invaded time and time again. T

My understanding, as a software engineer with an interest in history: Russian history is essentially the story of Russia getting invaded time and time again. The Mongols, Napoleon, Hitler, the list goes on and on and on. This, combined with borders that are difficult to defend (no mountain ranges or other natural barriers), has left the Russian psyche with a sense that their position is always precarious. It seems reasonable to me, given Russian history, and the fact that less than 100 years ago their society was nearly eradicated by Nazis. So the Russians are always wary of other powers and are always concerned about their borders. Now, since the end of the Cold War, Russia has lost quite a lot of territory. This territory has all been snapped up by NATO, even though the Cold War was apparently over. NATO has now slowly expanded to the point that it is right up on Russia's border in the Baltics. The Russians look at this, and look at the failures of "shock therapy" economics in the 90s, and look at their demographic crunch, and look at the increasingly unstable political situation of their Western neighbors. They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can. So that's what this is about - it's a response of geopolitical insecurity. Russia thinks the West is very aggressive and unstable, and seeks to put Ukraine in its "sphere of influence" before it's too late. To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border. How would Americans feel if we lost the cold war and Russia started trying to dominate Mexico and Canada?

tgflynn 5y ago
Yes, for 30 years the West has been playing a dangerous game of poke the Bear, it probably won't end well.
artem247 5y ago
So following your logic every country has a right to exert influence over it’s neighbors using military power. The are pro-Russian political parties in Ukraine, yet their support is low, around 10% and falling, so no hope of achieving Russia-oriented Ukraine via political means. The presence of West in Ukraine is overstated. Yes, Ukraine follows pro-Western foreign policy, what else could be done? Ukrainian electorate is wary of Russia, there are no other players here except West.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I dont think they were making a moral judgement, just a realpolitik analysis.
- dfadsadsf 5y ago
  To be fair Ukrainian government blocked/stopped from distribution most pro Russian media (both TV and newspapers) and jailed/drove to exile pro Russian politicians so whether actual election outcome represents preferences of the public is not clear before we even consider election fraud. 0% people voted for Taliban in Afghanistan (as no Taliban politician was allowed to participate in elections) yet they clearly enjoyed support of majority of population.
  - artem247 5y ago
    The blocking of ‘some’ of TV channels happened last year. Election to parliament happened almost three years ago, where actually one of the opposition parties won in a landslide. Exile happened in 2014, due to closeness to Yanukovitch, for a portion of politicians. That was rather voluntary for them, mainly related to their stance on Crimea and so on. New “pro-Russian” figures came on the scene. There are still pro—Russian political parties in parliament , which have media support (they are backed by powerful oligarchs) The richest man of Ukraine was the backer of Yanukovich, he hasn’t lost his influence or assets. There is still internet, for example those blocked channels are very active on Youtube. There is plenty of data that show suppport for those parties through out the years and it is pretty consistent with what I say - since 2014 it is around 10 - 15 % due to a number of reasons. On the ground situation is very different than on RT or alike.
stfods 5y ago
Russian history is essentially a history of occupying and integrating bordering countries into the empire. That was the way to expand from several regions around Moscow to the empire's enormous pre-revolution territory in the beginning of XX century. You may google "Expansion of russian empire" maps to get an impression of this expansions. Historically, most of multi-national empires in Europe (Austria-Hungary; Germans; Osmans) has fallen in the beginning of 20th century, but this one has mostly survived. Poland and Finland were lucky enough to separate, some other countries (Baltics, Ukraine) were less successful and got reintegrated into the new, totalitarian XX century edition of the empire. It's natural that any neighbouring country not willing to become a playground for now less totalitarian but still oppressive and oligarch-run empire of Russian Federation would unite with anyone who could help, especially NATO. For example NATO and US could be the only reason for Estonia still being independent and successful just 100 km away from st. Peteresburg
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Yeah. How did Siberia get to be Russian? It wasn't by the Mongols invading Russia...
HappyDreamer 5y ago
Do you need to write things like "Russia thinks the West ..."? By doing so it sounds as if you group the people living in Russia, together with Putin. But this maybe-invasion would be the deed of a dictator and his men. Not Russia-the-people. The people suffer under Putin.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  When I say "Russia" I am talking about the government of Russia, just like how people often use "Americans" when talking about the USG, or "China" when talking about the CCP. I would actually bet that average Russian and American people probably have a lot more in common with each other than they do with their political leaders and elites.
  - HappyDreamer 5y ago
    > I would actually bet that average Russian and American people probably have a lot more in common Yes definitely. Thing is, when someone writes "Russia" but in fact means "Putin and his men", or writes "China" but means "the CCP", then I'm afraid this pushes the people (ordinary citizens) living in those places, away from the people in Europe and the US. Because when you write "Russia" and "China", they likely think about that, as including them -- they'd feel that anything critical, was criticizing them too. Whilst if one writes "Putin and his men", then, ordinary people living in Russia will clearly see that you don't have anything against _them_ -- that you might even be their friend. And maybe one day they (the people in Russia) and the West together can try to do something about Putin.
    - uejfiweun 5y ago
      I see your point, and that's totally fair. I'll make a better effort to be specific about this from now on.
      - HappyDreamer 5y ago
        :-) Now I just need to write that same message, to 330M + 450M other people in the USA and the EU :-/ (If you share with others this different way of writing, maybe we could split 330M+450M / 2. But maybe you live elsewhere)
snyena 5y ago
>To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border. How would Americans feel if we lost the cold war and Russia started trying to dominate Mexico and Canada? As a former citizen of Czechoslovakia I could not disagree more. Our countries are still recovering from decades of communism and Russian "help" and to this day Russia tries to exert influence over us. I hope Ukraine joins NATO one day.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  Look, I get that Russia is not exactly kind to its neighbors, I have some Polish relatives who tell me all about that. But I'm just not really sure that the US has any business being in Russia's "near abroad" anymore. The US isn't 50% of the world GDP anymore, and is politically paralyzed - I don't think we have the appetite nor the finances for another gigantic war. Now this is controversial, so don't take this the wrong way, but I'd feel a lot better about the US defending Europe if Europe would also shoulder some of the burden. I honestly don't see why the US needs to spend so much on this project, while other NATO members are unable to even meet the 2% spending commitment. As a regular American it just kind of seems like Europe is riding on our backs with this. As much as I love Europe, Europeans, and European culture, I can't get behind spending tax dollars on defending countries that don't care enough to spend money to defend themselves.
  - snyena 5y ago
    I actually agree with that. I think Europe should strive to meet its 2% spending commitment. There have been talks about a joint European army as well. I am no expert in these matters but I am of the impression that Europe should be more committed to defending itself.
  - JaggerJo 5y ago
    I’m German and think we spend too little on our own military - to the point where it’s a joke. Europe needs to grow up and get able to defend itself.
jakeinspace 5y ago
You're saying the invasion of a democratic (ish) country, whose population is now very anti-russia, is ethically defensible? The US/NATO may be pushing up against Russia, but not by force. How is offering a country NATO membership at all comparable to invading?
vanusa 5y ago
How would Americans feel if we lost the cold war and Russia started trying to dominate Mexico and Canada? That's a lot of "what-if", and more than a lot of hyperbole there. In any case the U.S. isn't trying to dominate any of the former Soviet republics (or even former Warsaw Pact) countries in any meaningful sense. To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border So how do most Ukrainians feel about the issue? Does that matter to you at all? They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can. Since you're basically saying a Russian invasion is essentially justified - please tell us how exactly how many civilian + military deaths (and severe maiming and dismemberment) you are willing to "accept" (on behalf of the Ukrainian citizenry) as the natural, inevitable price for this bold, strategic move you are advocating. Hint: something on the order of 10x the number in the Donbas conflict to date (which I'm sure you know) would be a good place to start.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  Dude, I get that you're outraged about this, but you need to read a little more carefully. They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can. They conclude They In case you didn't notice, the title of this post is "What's Russia's Endgame in Ukraine?" I literally attempted to respond to the question by saying what Russia's government wants. I'm an American guy, I'm not advocating any deaths or dismemberment as you say, I don't like war either. I'm simply saying that I understand the Russian position here, it's something you could get from reading a simple news article. Christ almighty.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    You also said: Russia thinks the West is very aggressive and unstable, and seeks to put Ukraine in its "sphere of influence" before it's too late. To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border. Which suggests a strong overlap between "their" position and your own. So perhaps you'd like to clarify: Would Russia be "not in the wrong" if the actually invaded Ukraine? If that's what it ultimately takes to put Ukraine back in their sphere of influence? Because it sure sounds like you would be more or less OK with such an invasion.
vanusa 5y ago
There's one more thing I need to ask you: Now, since the end of the Cold War, Russia has lost quite a lot of territory. This territory has all been snapped up by NATO, even though the Cold War was apparently over. Which "Russian territory" are you referring to as being "snapped up by NATO"? It would have to be the Baltics (and perhaps Poland), right? As "Russian" territory? Please do clarify.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  I encourage you to use Google if you want to investigate my claims, and decide for yourself. Seems like your mind is already made up though.
  - seanw444 5y ago
    Apparently people don't know about the former Soviet satellite states?
    - vanusa 5y ago
      We all know the history. It's the implication that these are somehow naturally "Russian" territories (and that the world just needs to step back and accept this fact) that I find kind of -- strange.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    That's about the kind of (non-) answer I was expecting, actually.
    - uejfiweun 5y ago
      No, I want to get the last word in! If you're implying that I'm some Russian internet troll, then all I can say is lol.
      - vanusa 5y ago
        Nothing of the sort. But your responses do seem to be consistently evasive, for whatever reason. If you think the Baltics somehow "belong" to Russia, or that Russia would be justified in taking "action" to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO (which is definitely what you were implying in your posts) -- then just come out and say it.

tgflynn 5y ago

Yes, for 30 years the West has been playing a dangerous game of poke the Bear, it probably won't end well.

artem247 5y ago

So following your logic every country has a right to exert influence over it’s neighbors using military power. The are pro-Russian political parties in Ukraine, yet their support is low, around 10% and falling, so no hope of achieving Russia-oriented Ukraine via political means. The presence of West in Ukraine is overstated. Yes, Ukraine follows pro-Western foreign policy, what else could be done? Ukrainian electorate is wary of Russia, there are no other players here except West.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
I dont think they were making a moral judgement, just a realpolitik analysis.
dfadsadsf 5y ago
To be fair Ukrainian government blocked/stopped from distribution most pro Russian media (both TV and newspapers) and jailed/drove to exile pro Russian politicians so whether actual election outcome represents preferences of the public is not clear before we even consider election fraud. 0% people voted for Taliban in Afghanistan (as no Taliban politician was allowed to participate in elections) yet they clearly enjoyed support of majority of population.
- artem247 5y ago
  The blocking of ‘some’ of TV channels happened last year. Election to parliament happened almost three years ago, where actually one of the opposition parties won in a landslide. Exile happened in 2014, due to closeness to Yanukovitch, for a portion of politicians. That was rather voluntary for them, mainly related to their stance on Crimea and so on. New “pro-Russian” figures came on the scene. There are still pro—Russian political parties in parliament , which have media support (they are backed by powerful oligarchs) The richest man of Ukraine was the backer of Yanukovich, he hasn’t lost his influence or assets. There is still internet, for example those blocked channels are very active on Youtube. There is plenty of data that show suppport for those parties through out the years and it is pretty consistent with what I say - since 2014 it is around 10 - 15 % due to a number of reasons. On the ground situation is very different than on RT or alike.

stfods 5y ago

Russian history is essentially a history of occupying and integrating bordering countries into the empire. That was the way to expand from several regions around Moscow to the empire's enormous pre-revolution territory in the beginning of XX century. You may google "Expansion of russian empire" maps to get an impression of this expansions. Historically, most of multi-national empires in Europe (Austria-Hungary; Germans; Osmans) has fallen in the beginning of 20th century, but this one has mostly survived. Poland and Finland were lucky enough to separate, some other countries (Baltics, Ukraine) were less successful and got reintegrated into the new, totalitarian XX century edition of the empire. It's natural that any neighbouring country not willing to become a playground for now less totalitarian but still oppressive and oligarch-run empire of Russian Federation would unite with anyone who could help, especially NATO. For example NATO and US could be the only reason for Estonia still being independent and successful just 100 km away from st. Peteresburg

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Yeah. How did Siberia get to be Russian? It wasn't by the Mongols invading Russia...

HappyDreamer 5y ago

Do you need to write things like "Russia thinks the West ..."? By doing so it sounds as if you group the people living in Russia, together with Putin. But this maybe-invasion would be the deed of a dictator and his men. Not Russia-the-people. The people suffer under Putin.

uejfiweun 5y ago
When I say "Russia" I am talking about the government of Russia, just like how people often use "Americans" when talking about the USG, or "China" when talking about the CCP. I would actually bet that average Russian and American people probably have a lot more in common with each other than they do with their political leaders and elites.
- HappyDreamer 5y ago
  > I would actually bet that average Russian and American people probably have a lot more in common Yes definitely. Thing is, when someone writes "Russia" but in fact means "Putin and his men", or writes "China" but means "the CCP", then I'm afraid this pushes the people (ordinary citizens) living in those places, away from the people in Europe and the US. Because when you write "Russia" and "China", they likely think about that, as including them -- they'd feel that anything critical, was criticizing them too. Whilst if one writes "Putin and his men", then, ordinary people living in Russia will clearly see that you don't have anything against _them_ -- that you might even be their friend. And maybe one day they (the people in Russia) and the West together can try to do something about Putin.
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    I see your point, and that's totally fair. I'll make a better effort to be specific about this from now on.
    - HappyDreamer 5y ago
      :-) Now I just need to write that same message, to 330M + 450M other people in the USA and the EU :-/ (If you share with others this different way of writing, maybe we could split 330M+450M / 2. But maybe you live elsewhere)

snyena 5y ago

>To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border. How would Americans feel if we lost the cold war and Russia started trying to dominate Mexico and Canada? As a former citizen of Czechoslovakia I could not disagree more. Our countries are still recovering from decades of communism and Russian "help" and to this day Russia tries to exert influence over us. I hope Ukraine joins NATO one day.

uejfiweun 5y ago
Look, I get that Russia is not exactly kind to its neighbors, I have some Polish relatives who tell me all about that. But I'm just not really sure that the US has any business being in Russia's "near abroad" anymore. The US isn't 50% of the world GDP anymore, and is politically paralyzed - I don't think we have the appetite nor the finances for another gigantic war. Now this is controversial, so don't take this the wrong way, but I'd feel a lot better about the US defending Europe if Europe would also shoulder some of the burden. I honestly don't see why the US needs to spend so much on this project, while other NATO members are unable to even meet the 2% spending commitment. As a regular American it just kind of seems like Europe is riding on our backs with this. As much as I love Europe, Europeans, and European culture, I can't get behind spending tax dollars on defending countries that don't care enough to spend money to defend themselves.
- snyena 5y ago
  I actually agree with that. I think Europe should strive to meet its 2% spending commitment. There have been talks about a joint European army as well. I am no expert in these matters but I am of the impression that Europe should be more committed to defending itself.
- JaggerJo 5y ago
  I’m German and think we spend too little on our own military - to the point where it’s a joke. Europe needs to grow up and get able to defend itself.

jakeinspace 5y ago

You're saying the invasion of a democratic (ish) country, whose population is now very anti-russia, is ethically defensible? The US/NATO may be pushing up against Russia, but not by force. How is offering a country NATO membership at all comparable to invading?

vanusa 5y ago

How would Americans feel if we lost the cold war and Russia started trying to dominate Mexico and Canada? That's a lot of "what-if", and more than a lot of hyperbole there. In any case the U.S. isn't trying to dominate any of the former Soviet republics (or even former Warsaw Pact) countries in any meaningful sense. To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border So how do most Ukrainians feel about the issue? Does that matter to you at all? They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can. Since you're basically saying a Russian invasion is essentially justified - please tell us how exactly how many civilian + military deaths (and severe maiming and dismemberment) you are willing to "accept" (on behalf of the Ukrainian citizenry) as the natural, inevitable price for this bold, strategic move you are advocating. Hint: something on the order of 10x the number in the Donbas conflict to date (which I'm sure you know) would be a good place to start.

uejfiweun 5y ago
Dude, I get that you're outraged about this, but you need to read a little more carefully. They conclude that now is the last and best possible time to make an aggressive chess move against the West, and snatch up Ukraine before the West can. They conclude They In case you didn't notice, the title of this post is "What's Russia's Endgame in Ukraine?" I literally attempted to respond to the question by saying what Russia's government wants. I'm an American guy, I'm not advocating any deaths or dismemberment as you say, I don't like war either. I'm simply saying that I understand the Russian position here, it's something you could get from reading a simple news article. Christ almighty.
- vanusa 5y ago
  You also said: Russia thinks the West is very aggressive and unstable, and seeks to put Ukraine in its "sphere of influence" before it's too late. To be honest, I don't think Russia is in the wrong here, there is no real reason why Americans should even be involved with this country right up on the Russian border. Which suggests a strong overlap between "their" position and your own. So perhaps you'd like to clarify: Would Russia be "not in the wrong" if the actually invaded Ukraine? If that's what it ultimately takes to put Ukraine back in their sphere of influence? Because it sure sounds like you would be more or less OK with such an invasion.

vanusa 5y ago

There's one more thing I need to ask you: Now, since the end of the Cold War, Russia has lost quite a lot of territory. This territory has all been snapped up by NATO, even though the Cold War was apparently over. Which "Russian territory" are you referring to as being "snapped up by NATO"? It would have to be the Baltics (and perhaps Poland), right? As "Russian" territory? Please do clarify.

uejfiweun 5y ago
I encourage you to use Google if you want to investigate my claims, and decide for yourself. Seems like your mind is already made up though.
- seanw444 5y ago
  Apparently people don't know about the former Soviet satellite states?
  - vanusa 5y ago
    We all know the history. It's the implication that these are somehow naturally "Russian" territories (and that the world just needs to step back and accept this fact) that I find kind of -- strange.
- vanusa 5y ago
  That's about the kind of (non-) answer I was expecting, actually.
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    No, I want to get the last word in! If you're implying that I'm some Russian internet troll, then all I can say is lol.
    - vanusa 5y ago
      Nothing of the sort. But your responses do seem to be consistently evasive, for whatever reason. If you think the Baltics somehow "belong" to Russia, or that Russia would be justified in taking "action" to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO (which is definitely what you were implying in your posts) -- then just come out and say it.