4 ms·

Why not?

jl6 5y ago
Taking over the world just seems like a cartoonish plan with no basis in reality. Maybe the old USSR had that aspiration in the form of spreading their ideology, but I don’t see it in 2020s Russia. Much more likely is that they are trying to establish/maintain a buffer of weak/client states between themselves and NATO - and possibly to redraw borders around majority-ethnic-Russian regions of their neighbours in pursuit of some kind of nationalist goal. And since my comment also included China, I see their assertiveness in their region (e.g. blue water navy and island building) not as a prelude to world domination, merely regional preeminence, driven by defensive security concerns. I’m not condoning it, I’m just saying I think they are playing the same bully game that every large power has done historically.
- fartcannon 5y ago
  Does it matter? You're splitting hairs.
- caskstrength 5y ago
  You arguing a straw man. Thinking that Russia will bomb Perl Harbor and attempt to take over US next day after occupying Ukraine is not a mainstream opinion. However, Russia is already military active far outside their self-proclaimed "sphere of influence" (Mali, Syria), so you are factually incorrect and (wittingly or un-wittingly) perpetuate Russian propaganda talking points.
  - jl6 5y ago
    The NATO mutual defence pact is based on the theory of “first they came for my friends, etc. etc., then when they came for me there was no one left to defend me”, implicitly believing that a local expansion is a prelude to a global expansion. And there may indeed have been some truth to this in the part of the 20th century when communism was a globalist totalitarian ideology. So I don’t think it’s a straw man at all, but rather the entire basis of NATO. The US is also militarily active far outside its territory but I also don’t believe this is a world domination plot either.
    - caskstrength 5y ago
      > The NATO mutual defence pact is based on the theory of “first they came for my friends, etc. etc., then when they came for me there was no one left to defend me”, implicitly believing that a local expansion is a prelude to a global expansion. I don't know what you are basing this on. NATO concern is that multiple of its members are threatened by Russia directly. Now ever more so after Russia explicitly demanded to "roll-back" NATO to its 1997 state. > And there may indeed have been some truth to this in the part of the 20th century when communism was a globalist totalitarian ideology. "Some"? > So I don’t think it’s a straw man at all, but rather the entire basis of NATO. Entire basis of NATO is security of its members. Including eastern European ones. Care to provide reference to any NATO treaty/document that states that NATO is only concerned with threats of "global domination" (whatever you think that means)? > The US is also militarily active far outside its territory but I also don’t believe this is a world domination plot either. Of course it is? Or it was, since US successfully achieved it in early nineties and then found out that they don't really want it anyway? US, with some notable recent exceptions, has been targeting status of "world police" in some form since the end of WW2.

Why not?

jl6 5y ago

Taking over the world just seems like a cartoonish plan with no basis in reality. Maybe the old USSR had that aspiration in the form of spreading their ideology, but I don’t see it in 2020s Russia. Much more likely is that they are trying to establish/maintain a buffer of weak/client states between themselves and NATO - and possibly to redraw borders around majority-ethnic-Russian regions of their neighbours in pursuit of some kind of nationalist goal. And since my comment also included China, I see their assertiveness in their region (e.g. blue water navy and island building) not as a prelude to world domination, merely regional preeminence, driven by defensive security concerns. I’m not condoning it, I’m just saying I think they are playing the same bully game that every large power has done historically.

fartcannon 5y ago
Does it matter? You're splitting hairs.
caskstrength 5y ago
You arguing a straw man. Thinking that Russia will bomb Perl Harbor and attempt to take over US next day after occupying Ukraine is not a mainstream opinion. However, Russia is already military active far outside their self-proclaimed "sphere of influence" (Mali, Syria), so you are factually incorrect and (wittingly or un-wittingly) perpetuate Russian propaganda talking points.
- jl6 5y ago
  The NATO mutual defence pact is based on the theory of “first they came for my friends, etc. etc., then when they came for me there was no one left to defend me”, implicitly believing that a local expansion is a prelude to a global expansion. And there may indeed have been some truth to this in the part of the 20th century when communism was a globalist totalitarian ideology. So I don’t think it’s a straw man at all, but rather the entire basis of NATO. The US is also militarily active far outside its territory but I also don’t believe this is a world domination plot either.
  - caskstrength 5y ago
    > The NATO mutual defence pact is based on the theory of “first they came for my friends, etc. etc., then when they came for me there was no one left to defend me”, implicitly believing that a local expansion is a prelude to a global expansion. I don't know what you are basing this on. NATO concern is that multiple of its members are threatened by Russia directly. Now ever more so after Russia explicitly demanded to "roll-back" NATO to its 1997 state. > And there may indeed have been some truth to this in the part of the 20th century when communism was a globalist totalitarian ideology. "Some"? > So I don’t think it’s a straw man at all, but rather the entire basis of NATO. Entire basis of NATO is security of its members. Including eastern European ones. Care to provide reference to any NATO treaty/document that states that NATO is only concerned with threats of "global domination" (whatever you think that means)? > The US is also militarily active far outside its territory but I also don’t believe this is a world domination plot either. Of course it is? Or it was, since US successfully achieved it in early nineties and then found out that they don't really want it anyway? US, with some notable recent exceptions, has been targeting status of "world police" in some form since the end of WW2.