4 ms·

>>>still he is using talking-points that come from Kremlin's propaganda, like "The US will fight Russia to the last ukrainian" That's considered "Russian propa

>>>still he is using talking-points that come from Kremlin's propaganda, like "The US will fight Russia to the last ukrainian" That's considered "Russian propaganda"? We've managed to goad Putin into grinding up his conventional military in a large-scale war. We've set the Russian economy back decades. And we've so far pulled off both of these, without any NATO member paying a massive price in blood for it. Russian propaganda? More like "Greatest US foreign policy success of the 21st century". I've been really critical of the moves we've made in Europe for the past 10-15 years, but I have to say, if this doesn't escalate into WW3....kudos to the CIA and the State Department for playing the long game and having it work out. But it definitely sucks for the Ukrainians. I still would have preferred the relationship we had with Russia in the early 2000s. It would have been nice to leverage Russia's geographic position in the inevitable confrontation with China: a bunch of Russian tank divisions under a nuclear umbrella in Siberia would keep China nervous about a vulnerable 2nd front, and perhaps unable to mass combat power against Taiwan/Japan/etc.

skeletal88 5y ago
He explained that the crisis in Russia is the fault of / was somehow started by the US. He said that a few months ago, not this week. Now he doesn't say anything anymore.
jquery 5y ago
Don’t let Putin off the hook for his own bad decision to invade. The USA did nothing but tell the world what Putin was planning, we did not goad him into it. Nobody put a gun to Putin’s head and said invade or else.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  I look at it like this: The US has spent ~15 years holding it's finger 5mm in front of Russia's eye saying "I'm not touching you...I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you." When that hasn't been working, we then whispered "Oh by the way, I'm the reason your ex-wife Ukraine left you. I'm definitely touching her." When Russia finally snaps, slaps our hand out of its face, and uppercuts Ukraine**, we sit there with a smug look on our facing going "Dude, why are you such an asshole?"
koonsolo 5y ago
> I've been really critical of the moves we've made in Europe for the past 10-15 years So Germany buying gas from Russia, then trying to buy even more gas and then for a large part depending on it. Do you consider that a good or a bad move?
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  2000-2010? Good move. Would have helped with integration of Russia into Europe. Post 2010 (really post 2007-2008, but it might have taken a few years to react): bad move. This is roughly when the relationship between the US-led NATO and Russia really soured. It should have been obvious what kind of long game the US was playing, given the switch from a Republican President (Bush) to a Democrat one (Obama). Yet the hardline against Russia remained, clearly the work of the entrenched bureaucrats (aka the "Deep State") beholden to neither party's politics for their power. At that point Germany should have hedged its bets by finding alternative industrial power (keep your nuclear plants!) and heating (other natgas exporters).
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    But to be honest I don't see how US could have such a big influence on EU-Russia relationship. The conflict is all due to having a dictator in one part of that equation. And then for EU to have good relationships with US, the toughest power in NATO, seems like a good idea. Sorry but Russia could have played this way better. It's clear that they can't play nice with anyone. Would have been very good for EU and Russia if they were playing nice. Now it's a bit of divide an conquer for US. Let's face it, Putin screwed both EU and Russia. What an idiot. It's very strange to blame CIA or Republicans. Especially since he's so anti-US, but he's not damaging US in any way.
    - CapricornNoble 5y ago
      >>>The conflict is all due to having a dictator in one part of that equation. Don't pin the turn of events on one man. He is merely the strongest in a coalition of kleptocrats, all of which hold some variation of similar principles. Who do you think will run the country if Putin steps down / retires / dies / goes to jail for warcrimes /etc? Do you imagine suddenly a free democratic election will instantly usher in EU-style rainbows and happiness? The country has ~6,000 nuclear weapons. Do you want a repeat of the collapse of the Soviet Union, where there was a very real concern of nukes ending up in the wrong hands? If not, there MUST be buy-in from the national security apparatus for a smooth transition of power. But you can't transition to a Western-friendly democratic President when the senior leadership of the military (who I'm sure have been carefully vetted/culled) are essentially "Neo-Russian Empire" loyalists. Another forum I frequent has a pretty level headed Russian hawk who is anti-Putin. He's said that Dmitri Medvedev is actually far scarier than Putin. He has most of his strengths but few of his character flaws. According to this guy, Medvedev wanted to do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2014. >>>Now it's a bit of divide an conquer for US. Let's face it, Putin screwed both EU and Russia. I'd argue the US is screwing both the EU and Russia. I think the US keeps NATO alive in order to have America holding the position of primacy in European affairs and security. It keeps a European superpower from coalescing. A 500 million+ population Europe, with advanced tech and industry, a strong global currency, and that actually takes its defense and foreign policy seriously? That would undermine America's unipolar world order. It would be another competitor like China. Can't have that. >>>It's very strange to blame CIA or Republicans. I mentioned both Republicans AND Democrats, to demonstrate that these policies are party-independent. Not strange at all to blame the CIA. Look at their history. https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1730002_colored-revolutions-a-new-form-of-regime-change-made-in-usa-.html https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1730002_colored-revolu... https://thewashingtonstandard.com/documents-reveal-us-spent-22-million-promoting-anti-russia-narrative-in-ukraine-abroad/ https://thewashingtonstandard.com/documents-reveal-us-spent-... from 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
tim333 5y ago
Yup Russian propaganda. Try finding that from any normal / neutral information source.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  You've identified two types of information: "Russian propaganda" and "Normal/neutral information sources". Are you aware that there is a third category: "Non publicly-released information"? There is a small demographic of HNers who handle that third information category regularly. It helps to have coworkers who are ex-JSOC, or ex-NMCC intel briefers ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Military_Command_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Military_Command_Cent... ). I'll let them know that the conclusions we've drawn mean we are clearly the victims of Russian propaganda. They could use a good laugh.

skeletal88 5y ago

He explained that the crisis in Russia is the fault of / was somehow started by the US. He said that a few months ago, not this week. Now he doesn't say anything anymore.

jquery 5y ago

Don’t let Putin off the hook for his own bad decision to invade. The USA did nothing but tell the world what Putin was planning, we did not goad him into it. Nobody put a gun to Putin’s head and said invade or else.

CapricornNoble 5y ago
I look at it like this: The US has spent ~15 years holding it's finger 5mm in front of Russia's eye saying "I'm not touching you...I'm not touching you....I'm not touching you." When that hasn't been working, we then whispered "Oh by the way, I'm the reason your ex-wife Ukraine left you. I'm definitely touching her." When Russia finally snaps, slaps our hand out of its face, and uppercuts Ukraine**, we sit there with a smug look on our facing going "Dude, why are you such an asshole?"

koonsolo 5y ago

> I've been really critical of the moves we've made in Europe for the past 10-15 years So Germany buying gas from Russia, then trying to buy even more gas and then for a large part depending on it. Do you consider that a good or a bad move?

CapricornNoble 5y ago
2000-2010? Good move. Would have helped with integration of Russia into Europe. Post 2010 (really post 2007-2008, but it might have taken a few years to react): bad move. This is roughly when the relationship between the US-led NATO and Russia really soured. It should have been obvious what kind of long game the US was playing, given the switch from a Republican President (Bush) to a Democrat one (Obama). Yet the hardline against Russia remained, clearly the work of the entrenched bureaucrats (aka the "Deep State") beholden to neither party's politics for their power. At that point Germany should have hedged its bets by finding alternative industrial power (keep your nuclear plants!) and heating (other natgas exporters).
- koonsolo 5y ago
  But to be honest I don't see how US could have such a big influence on EU-Russia relationship. The conflict is all due to having a dictator in one part of that equation. And then for EU to have good relationships with US, the toughest power in NATO, seems like a good idea. Sorry but Russia could have played this way better. It's clear that they can't play nice with anyone. Would have been very good for EU and Russia if they were playing nice. Now it's a bit of divide an conquer for US. Let's face it, Putin screwed both EU and Russia. What an idiot. It's very strange to blame CIA or Republicans. Especially since he's so anti-US, but he's not damaging US in any way.
  - CapricornNoble 5y ago
    >>>The conflict is all due to having a dictator in one part of that equation. Don't pin the turn of events on one man. He is merely the strongest in a coalition of kleptocrats, all of which hold some variation of similar principles. Who do you think will run the country if Putin steps down / retires / dies / goes to jail for warcrimes /etc? Do you imagine suddenly a free democratic election will instantly usher in EU-style rainbows and happiness? The country has ~6,000 nuclear weapons. Do you want a repeat of the collapse of the Soviet Union, where there was a very real concern of nukes ending up in the wrong hands? If not, there MUST be buy-in from the national security apparatus for a smooth transition of power. But you can't transition to a Western-friendly democratic President when the senior leadership of the military (who I'm sure have been carefully vetted/culled) are essentially "Neo-Russian Empire" loyalists. Another forum I frequent has a pretty level headed Russian hawk who is anti-Putin. He's said that Dmitri Medvedev is actually far scarier than Putin. He has most of his strengths but few of his character flaws. According to this guy, Medvedev wanted to do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2014. >>>Now it's a bit of divide an conquer for US. Let's face it, Putin screwed both EU and Russia. I'd argue the US is screwing both the EU and Russia. I think the US keeps NATO alive in order to have America holding the position of primacy in European affairs and security. It keeps a European superpower from coalescing. A 500 million+ population Europe, with advanced tech and industry, a strong global currency, and that actually takes its defense and foreign policy seriously? That would undermine America's unipolar world order. It would be another competitor like China. Can't have that. >>>It's very strange to blame CIA or Republicans. I mentioned both Republicans AND Democrats, to demonstrate that these policies are party-independent. Not strange at all to blame the CIA. Look at their history. https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1730002_colored-revolutions-a-new-form-of-regime-change-made-in-usa-.html https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1730002_colored-revolu... https://thewashingtonstandard.com/documents-reveal-us-spent-22-million-promoting-anti-russia-narrative-in-ukraine-abroad/ https://thewashingtonstandard.com/documents-reveal-us-spent-... from 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

tim333 5y ago

Yup Russian propaganda. Try finding that from any normal / neutral information source.

CapricornNoble 5y ago
You've identified two types of information: "Russian propaganda" and "Normal/neutral information sources". Are you aware that there is a third category: "Non publicly-released information"? There is a small demographic of HNers who handle that third information category regularly. It helps to have coworkers who are ex-JSOC, or ex-NMCC intel briefers ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Military_Command_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Military_Command_Cent... ). I'll let them know that the conclusions we've drawn mean we are clearly the victims of Russian propaganda. They could use a good laugh.