6 ms·

Personally I prefer geostrategic determinism over kitchen sink sociology. "From the Russian point of view, creating a sphere of influence that would return Rus

Personally I prefer geostrategic determinism over kitchen sink sociology. "From the Russian point of view, creating a sphere of influence that would return Russia to its relatively defensible imperial boundaries is imperative." https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-russia-permanent-struggle https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-russia-pe... [https://web.archive.org/web/20220301131639/https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fworldview.stratfor.com%2Farticle%2Fgeopolitics-russia-permanent-struggle https://web.archive.org/web/20220301131639/https://12ft.io/p...] But what is really interesting is, everybody knew that. But nonetheless let it happen, for one reason or another.

refurb 5y ago
A plug for Stratfor. I know they have connections to the Western intelligence agencies but if you’re ever looking for a facts based analysis of a geopolitical situation, their reports are very good - dry, but highly detailed and often provide a lot of historical context for how the present situation arose. Not unbiased, but I guarantee you’ll learn something.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Most organisations (and indeed people) can be a lot more accurate about their enemies than they can be about their friends.
- overkalix 5y ago
  Really? The reports about the issues I intimately know are superficial and laughable. A mixture of newspaper clippings, geopolitical fanfic and macro statistics only aim to reassure the biases of the authors.
  - refurb 5y ago
    It’s all relative boss. Compared to someone involved in day to day? Superficial. Compared to NYTimes? Detailed and well researched.
didymospl 5y ago
Let's step back from these geopolitical speculations for a while and ask: why would any European country invade Russia in any foreseeable future? It's the 21st century, Western Europe has its own problems, barely any army and Russia has nuclear weapons capable of wiping out humankind from the earth. It's real life, not some Paradox Interactive game. I mean, even in times when such invasion could have made more sense, Napoleon's France and Nazi Germany tried, and they both failed miserably. I simply don't understand Russian concerns and I think about them as cheap excuses for enslaving and killing innocent people.
- verbify 5y ago
  I'm no geopolitical expert, but the economic concerns are there. Ukraine is a 'breadbasket', if they were to join the EU's common market (with export tarrifs) then presumably Russians would face rising food costs. The motivation to keep Ukraine in Russia's military sphere probably has as much to do with economics as anything else.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    It's an interesting question but it also show something about international relationships now. Russia seems to get stuck in military control of resources while other countries are more fluid and want threat-free negotiations. Now I could be wrong and maybe there are a lot of strings being pulled in disguise.
  - abraxas 5y ago
    Then you sign a border trade agreement. Not fucking invade a sovereign country!
    - Borrible 5y ago
      Yes, because we all know what happens when the most competent nations try to topple regimes the cheap way with the help of The Company and its friends like say '53 in Teheran. In the end you have paranoid rulers that try to secure their position under all circumstances with secret police and else fun stuff. Which then causes riots and revolutions as a reaction. And the trouble you have then for decades, which is again advantageous for others, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... Operation Ajax, how fitting. He also ended tragically in insanity.
vbezhenar 5y ago
West wants to destroy Russia. Russia wants to survive. It's simple as that.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  Is it 'West' or maybe 'Them', or maybe it the reptilians?
- Borrible 5y ago
  You don't have to actively destroy things, with or without malicious intent, it's enough to just let them take their natural course. That is the great Russian tragic, they never can be sure to be safe. It ends in paranoia. Paranoia with nukes.
  - vbezhenar 5y ago
    War bases around country is not paranoia. It’s a strangulation. US was not happy with nukes in Cuba. What would you say today if Russia put nukes to Cuba? Would you be paranoid ?
    - Borrible 5y ago
      Yes, but then again, no one took the opportunity to wipe you out in the 1990s, did they?
      - vbezhenar 5y ago
        Nukes were present in 1990, there was no opportunity. Just to clarify, I'm not from Russia, neither I support this war. But I don't think that West is innocent and wouldn't take a chance to destroy Russia at the first possibility. By destroying I don't necessary mean physical destruction. Disarming, separate regions into different countries (divide and conquer), convert those into little harmless countries depending on West with everything. That still destruction in my book.
        5y ago

refurb 5y ago

A plug for Stratfor. I know they have connections to the Western intelligence agencies but if you’re ever looking for a facts based analysis of a geopolitical situation, their reports are very good - dry, but highly detailed and often provide a lot of historical context for how the present situation arose. Not unbiased, but I guarantee you’ll learn something.

pjc50 5y ago
Most organisations (and indeed people) can be a lot more accurate about their enemies than they can be about their friends.
overkalix 5y ago
Really? The reports about the issues I intimately know are superficial and laughable. A mixture of newspaper clippings, geopolitical fanfic and macro statistics only aim to reassure the biases of the authors.
- refurb 5y ago
  It’s all relative boss. Compared to someone involved in day to day? Superficial. Compared to NYTimes? Detailed and well researched.

didymospl 5y ago

Let's step back from these geopolitical speculations for a while and ask: why would any European country invade Russia in any foreseeable future? It's the 21st century, Western Europe has its own problems, barely any army and Russia has nuclear weapons capable of wiping out humankind from the earth. It's real life, not some Paradox Interactive game. I mean, even in times when such invasion could have made more sense, Napoleon's France and Nazi Germany tried, and they both failed miserably. I simply don't understand Russian concerns and I think about them as cheap excuses for enslaving and killing innocent people.

verbify 5y ago
I'm no geopolitical expert, but the economic concerns are there. Ukraine is a 'breadbasket', if they were to join the EU's common market (with export tarrifs) then presumably Russians would face rising food costs. The motivation to keep Ukraine in Russia's military sphere probably has as much to do with economics as anything else.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  It's an interesting question but it also show something about international relationships now. Russia seems to get stuck in military control of resources while other countries are more fluid and want threat-free negotiations. Now I could be wrong and maybe there are a lot of strings being pulled in disguise.
- abraxas 5y ago
  Then you sign a border trade agreement. Not fucking invade a sovereign country!
  - Borrible 5y ago
    Yes, because we all know what happens when the most competent nations try to topple regimes the cheap way with the help of The Company and its friends like say '53 in Teheran. In the end you have paranoid rulers that try to secure their position under all circumstances with secret police and else fun stuff. Which then causes riots and revolutions as a reaction. And the trouble you have then for decades, which is again advantageous for others, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... Operation Ajax, how fitting. He also ended tragically in insanity.

vbezhenar 5y ago

West wants to destroy Russia. Russia wants to survive. It's simple as that.

me_me_me 5y ago
Is it 'West' or maybe 'Them', or maybe it the reptilians?
Borrible 5y ago
You don't have to actively destroy things, with or without malicious intent, it's enough to just let them take their natural course. That is the great Russian tragic, they never can be sure to be safe. It ends in paranoia. Paranoia with nukes.
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  War bases around country is not paranoia. It’s a strangulation. US was not happy with nukes in Cuba. What would you say today if Russia put nukes to Cuba? Would you be paranoid ?
  - Borrible 5y ago
    Yes, but then again, no one took the opportunity to wipe you out in the 1990s, did they?
    - vbezhenar 5y ago
      Nukes were present in 1990, there was no opportunity. Just to clarify, I'm not from Russia, neither I support this war. But I don't think that West is innocent and wouldn't take a chance to destroy Russia at the first possibility. By destroying I don't necessary mean physical destruction. Disarming, separate regions into different countries (divide and conquer), convert those into little harmless countries depending on West with everything. That still destruction in my book.
      - 5y ago