4 ms·

The things that I have seen over the last two months (a lot of social media coming out of Russia, street interviews, phone calls, public statements) make me bel

The things that I have seen over the last two months (a lot of social media coming out of Russia, street interviews, phone calls, public statements) make me believe that Russia is completely different than elsewhere in the West. The number of people who'd be easily willing to just murder a bunch of people for an invented reason is much greater than elsewhere. Americans can get 'nationalist' but they are absolutely not like that, beyond a smaller group, Americans are by default positive and gregarious. I believe Russia's dark past, their permanent oppression, total lack of hope for something to change makes them amenable to this. Basically, institutionalized cynicism. I believe that even Putin himself, former counter espionage is the most cynical it gets, like Machiavellian without recognizing that 'hope and prosperity' are actually legitimate things. He sees everything as a cynical game of power. The Americans 'can't possibly be acting in good faith' because 'there is no such thing as good faith' - but even worse - not even knowing what 'good faith' is because he's never been exposed to it. 'People who smile are fools, unserious, they can't be competent!' etc. not able to just recognize a basic common joy. The contrast between attitudes and motivations by Ukrainians these days is just unbelievable, which is interesting because despite historical similarities, it's almost as if 'modern Ukrainian identity' is formed out of the hope that arises when coming out of that rubble. Even regular Ukrainians, farmers seem to be on a different wavelength.

wara23arish 4y ago
Americans are gregarious and positive but they simply do not know about what goes on abroad. Either they do not know or do not care. That signals that they too miss a pretty basic level of empathy. The number of countries ravaged/destroyed by americans and their decisions is countless.
- jollybean 4y ago
  The lack of empathy for the destruction of some places wrought by American power is evident, yes, but on the whole there's almost always a positive impetus. "number of countries ravaged/destroyed by americans and their decisions is countless. " - this is rubbish. The argument could be made for Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, but even then, those are uneven arguments and motivations were righteous if flawed. In Afghanistan for example, did not actually spend much time at all bombing Afghanistan infrastructure proper, there are no 'cities levelled' by Americans and there are layers of bureaucracy to try to avoid civilian damage if necessary, they have operating procedures for it, there is even some transparency though it's never perfect. They didn't consistently destroy strategic facilities like 'Oil Refineries' or 'Factories, they spent 10's of Billions investing in Afghanistan, trying to build infrastructure, schools, trying desperately to get little girls to be able to attend schools, trying desperately for some semblance of basic civility. The indifference, lack of basic civil foundation, mass corruption (Afghan leaders funnelling billions into Dubai etc.) made it an impossible task even over 20 years, though plausible with a few more decades. Despite that, there's overwhelming goodwill otherwise.
  - wara23arish 4y ago
    im not sure why you are limiting the argument to three countries. this just proves my point. i really dont mean disrespect, the american news media simply does not do a good job of educating americans on their own government’s actions overseas. what happened to: syria libya egypt lebanon yemen venezuela nicaragua the list goes on and on.. i dont think anyone would argue that arming literal islamist extremists in syria is righteous. the number of american interventions is too many to count, and the fact that YOU believe they were righteous proves yet again that you lack empathy. what good does that do to all the victims? intervention after intervention, the situation just gets worse and worse. no one ever get held accountable, american citizens dont know any better and get to be gregarious and positive
  - freeflight 4y ago
    > on the whole there's almost always a positive impetus That's just regular old propaganda [0], even many of Russians in Ukraine think they are there for a positive reason, like actually denazifying Ukraine. Just like plenty of Americans had the positive reason of debaathifying Iraq for serving there. But even American soldiers are not always convinced of that "positive impetus" [1], particularly after witnessing the realities on the ground for long enough. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsehood_in_War-Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsehood_in_War-Time [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
skissane 4y ago
> The number of people who'd be easily willing to just murder a bunch of people for an invented reason is much greater than elsewhere. The 2003 invasion of Iraq? Quite popular in the US at first (opinion polls at the time of the invasion showed over 70% support); people who opposed it were frequently belittled, shunned, harassed, boycotted (remember the controversy over the Dixie Chicks?). The reasons for the war were essentially invented – weapons of mass destruction which could never be found, attempts to link the Iraqi government to the 9/11 terrorist attacks despite the fact that there was no evidence the Iraqi government had any involvement. Many thousands died in the initial invasion, and hundreds of thousands in the ensuing war which the invasion began – all due to a war based on lies. Sure, Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but the world is full of evil men who do evil things – many of which the US is happy to call its friends (such as the Saudi regime) – but was removing that man from power worth all the ensuing death and destruction and chaos, especially when so many other equally evil regimes were left in place? Most of the worst things he'd done (such as genocidal massacres of ethnic minorities) were in the past, and more limited international interventions (such as the no-fly zones) appeared to be succeeding at preventing further such atrocities. I'm not saying what Putin is doing to Ukraine is the same thing as what the US did to Iraq – Volodymyr Zelenskyy is no Saddam Hussein, and certainly not the Adolf Hitler which Russian propaganda presents him as being – only that Russians are not quite as different from Americans (among others) as you are suggesting they are.
- jollybean 4y ago
  ? There were massive movements against the war in Iraq, including I thin the largest protests in all of history on Jan 15 2003 around the world, 100's of thousands of people in major cities. That there were antagonisms between pro/against doesn't mean Americans were not empathetic one way or another, and the 'pro war' were as maligned by other side just as well i.e. 'war monger' etc.. While the popular justification for war was exaggerated, Iraq did have WMD, but more importantly, the geostrategic consideration for removing Saddam just isn't something that can be used in a populist context. You can't say "We failed to complete the mission in 1993, Saddam is operating a rogue regime" etc.. Remember that there was a 'no fly zone' over Iraq for a decade to keep the Iraqi Air Force down - this is arguably an untenable position. If the 'post invasion' process were to have been better prepared for and planned and less direct political failure etc. I suggest people would look at it as a 'success'. My point being - the 'motives' are very tied to 'execution' in terms of our understanding of whether or not it was a good thing. Most poignantly - the US wasn't trying to create a vassal, just the opposite. None of the Iraqi Oil contracts even when to American firms, during the occupational period US had considerable influence but would actually rather not. The US spent gazillions of dollars trying to 'get some kind of civil framework' going, which they accomplished, just barely so. In hindsight it was a hugely bad decision, but it were to have been less chaotic than arguably it might not have been a bad decision. Putin's decision to invade Ukraine is purely Imperialist, his objective is to 'erase' Ukraine. If Ukraine had capitulated, sure, there would be less bloodshed, but you'd also see a nation evaporate, and, another 10's of millions of people living in another Russian Vassal s*thole.
freeflight 4y ago
> The number of people who'd be easily willing to just murder a bunch of people for an invented reason is much greater than elsewhere. > Americans can get 'nationalist' but they are absolutely not like that, beyond a smaller group, Americans are by default positive and gregarious. Americans killed millions, and displaced tens of millions [0] in a "crusade on terror" the consequences of which lasting to this day, for a whole bunch of invented reasons [1] [2] [3]. And that was after the largest protest movement, in human history, literally begged them not to do it [4]. Which is quite a stark contrast to the Russia Ukraine situation; That has been a situation for by now nearly a decade, with Russia being very vocal about its own interests and where it draws the line in term of NATO expansion. All of that was ignored, for years, as Russia's interests were not deemed important, or even worth considering from a Western, and particularly US perspective, that only considered one thing; Steady NATO expansion, steady encroachment on Russia [5]. After literally decades of this [6] the bear is now in the corner, and it's very predictably leashing out, yet most of the West still keeps acting like the bear is irrational for acting like that. Particularly as the West rather wants to peddle the narrative of the expansionist bear who is soon to roll into Berlin, to justify all that NATO expansion.. [0] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2020/Displacement_Vine%20et%20al_Costs%20of%20War%202020%2009%2008.pdf https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/20... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_li... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein%27s_alleged_shredder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein%27s_alleged_shr... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot... [5] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464... [6] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-...
- mda 4y ago
  I am sorry but this is total bs, nobody cornered Russia.
justsomehnguy 4y ago
> The number of people who'd be easily willing to just murder a bunch of people for an invented reason is much greater than elsewhere. Sure, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell#/media/File:Colin_Powell_anthrax_vial._5_Feb_2003_at_the_UN.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell#/media/File:Colin...

wara23arish 4y ago

Americans are gregarious and positive but they simply do not know about what goes on abroad. Either they do not know or do not care. That signals that they too miss a pretty basic level of empathy. The number of countries ravaged/destroyed by americans and their decisions is countless.

jollybean 4y ago
The lack of empathy for the destruction of some places wrought by American power is evident, yes, but on the whole there's almost always a positive impetus. "number of countries ravaged/destroyed by americans and their decisions is countless. " - this is rubbish. The argument could be made for Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, but even then, those are uneven arguments and motivations were righteous if flawed. In Afghanistan for example, did not actually spend much time at all bombing Afghanistan infrastructure proper, there are no 'cities levelled' by Americans and there are layers of bureaucracy to try to avoid civilian damage if necessary, they have operating procedures for it, there is even some transparency though it's never perfect. They didn't consistently destroy strategic facilities like 'Oil Refineries' or 'Factories, they spent 10's of Billions investing in Afghanistan, trying to build infrastructure, schools, trying desperately to get little girls to be able to attend schools, trying desperately for some semblance of basic civility. The indifference, lack of basic civil foundation, mass corruption (Afghan leaders funnelling billions into Dubai etc.) made it an impossible task even over 20 years, though plausible with a few more decades. Despite that, there's overwhelming goodwill otherwise.
- wara23arish 4y ago
  im not sure why you are limiting the argument to three countries. this just proves my point. i really dont mean disrespect, the american news media simply does not do a good job of educating americans on their own government’s actions overseas. what happened to: syria libya egypt lebanon yemen venezuela nicaragua the list goes on and on.. i dont think anyone would argue that arming literal islamist extremists in syria is righteous. the number of american interventions is too many to count, and the fact that YOU believe they were righteous proves yet again that you lack empathy. what good does that do to all the victims? intervention after intervention, the situation just gets worse and worse. no one ever get held accountable, american citizens dont know any better and get to be gregarious and positive
- freeflight 4y ago
  > on the whole there's almost always a positive impetus That's just regular old propaganda [0], even many of Russians in Ukraine think they are there for a positive reason, like actually denazifying Ukraine. Just like plenty of Americans had the positive reason of debaathifying Iraq for serving there. But even American soldiers are not always convinced of that "positive impetus" [1], particularly after witnessing the realities on the ground for long enough. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsehood_in_War-Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsehood_in_War-Time [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

skissane 4y ago

> The number of people who'd be easily willing to just murder a bunch of people for an invented reason is much greater than elsewhere. The 2003 invasion of Iraq? Quite popular in the US at first (opinion polls at the time of the invasion showed over 70% support); people who opposed it were frequently belittled, shunned, harassed, boycotted (remember the controversy over the Dixie Chicks?). The reasons for the war were essentially invented – weapons of mass destruction which could never be found, attempts to link the Iraqi government to the 9/11 terrorist attacks despite the fact that there was no evidence the Iraqi government had any involvement. Many thousands died in the initial invasion, and hundreds of thousands in the ensuing war which the invasion began – all due to a war based on lies. Sure, Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but the world is full of evil men who do evil things – many of which the US is happy to call its friends (such as the Saudi regime) – but was removing that man from power worth all the ensuing death and destruction and chaos, especially when so many other equally evil regimes were left in place? Most of the worst things he'd done (such as genocidal massacres of ethnic minorities) were in the past, and more limited international interventions (such as the no-fly zones) appeared to be succeeding at preventing further such atrocities. I'm not saying what Putin is doing to Ukraine is the same thing as what the US did to Iraq – Volodymyr Zelenskyy is no Saddam Hussein, and certainly not the Adolf Hitler which Russian propaganda presents him as being – only that Russians are not quite as different from Americans (among others) as you are suggesting they are.

jollybean 4y ago
? There were massive movements against the war in Iraq, including I thin the largest protests in all of history on Jan 15 2003 around the world, 100's of thousands of people in major cities. That there were antagonisms between pro/against doesn't mean Americans were not empathetic one way or another, and the 'pro war' were as maligned by other side just as well i.e. 'war monger' etc.. While the popular justification for war was exaggerated, Iraq did have WMD, but more importantly, the geostrategic consideration for removing Saddam just isn't something that can be used in a populist context. You can't say "We failed to complete the mission in 1993, Saddam is operating a rogue regime" etc.. Remember that there was a 'no fly zone' over Iraq for a decade to keep the Iraqi Air Force down - this is arguably an untenable position. If the 'post invasion' process were to have been better prepared for and planned and less direct political failure etc. I suggest people would look at it as a 'success'. My point being - the 'motives' are very tied to 'execution' in terms of our understanding of whether or not it was a good thing. Most poignantly - the US wasn't trying to create a vassal, just the opposite. None of the Iraqi Oil contracts even when to American firms, during the occupational period US had considerable influence but would actually rather not. The US spent gazillions of dollars trying to 'get some kind of civil framework' going, which they accomplished, just barely so. In hindsight it was a hugely bad decision, but it were to have been less chaotic than arguably it might not have been a bad decision. Putin's decision to invade Ukraine is purely Imperialist, his objective is to 'erase' Ukraine. If Ukraine had capitulated, sure, there would be less bloodshed, but you'd also see a nation evaporate, and, another 10's of millions of people living in another Russian Vassal s*thole.

freeflight 4y ago

> The number of people who'd be easily willing to just murder a bunch of people for an invented reason is much greater than elsewhere. > Americans can get 'nationalist' but they are absolutely not like that, beyond a smaller group, Americans are by default positive and gregarious. Americans killed millions, and displaced tens of millions [0] in a "crusade on terror" the consequences of which lasting to this day, for a whole bunch of invented reasons [1] [2] [3]. And that was after the largest protest movement, in human history, literally begged them not to do it [4]. Which is quite a stark contrast to the Russia Ukraine situation; That has been a situation for by now nearly a decade, with Russia being very vocal about its own interests and where it draws the line in term of NATO expansion. All of that was ignored, for years, as Russia's interests were not deemed important, or even worth considering from a Western, and particularly US perspective, that only considered one thing; Steady NATO expansion, steady encroachment on Russia [5]. After literally decades of this [6] the bear is now in the corner, and it's very predictably leashing out, yet most of the West still keeps acting like the bear is irrational for acting like that. Particularly as the West rather wants to peddle the narrative of the expansionist bear who is soon to roll into Berlin, to justify all that NATO expansion.. [0] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2020/Displacement_Vine%20et%20al_Costs%20of%20War%202020%2009%2008.pdf https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/20... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_li... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein%27s_alleged_shredder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein%27s_alleged_shr... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot... [5] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464... [6] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-...

mda 4y ago
I am sorry but this is total bs, nobody cornered Russia.

justsomehnguy 4y ago

> The number of people who'd be easily willing to just murder a bunch of people for an invented reason is much greater than elsewhere. Sure, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell#/media/File:Colin_Powell_anthrax_vial._5_Feb_2003_at_the_UN.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell#/media/File:Colin...