6 ms·

Why is it more important to listen to Russia than to listen to Ukraine, Sweden, and Finland? Or also Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekis

Why is it more important to listen to Russia than to listen to Ukraine, Sweden, and Finland? Or also Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia?

lnxg33k1 5y ago
Because Russia has 10k nuclear warheads that yankees are apparently ignoring, and the expansion of NATO is happening on european soil at european stability expenses, which apparently EU leaders are ignoring, you guys seem to think that I come here to say these things because I am a fan of Mister Putin, I am not, but I am aware that actions have consequences and if Hilary Clinton and Obama tell a guy that he is Hitler, when the guy is at the head of a state with 10k nuclear warheads, then Clinton and Obama need to fuck off a stay out of European soil affairs, because it is ultimately European states that border with this state. I understand this is not an issue for you, as you don't border with it and don't have business and energy and companies depending on it, but we are, the wellbeing and stability of the continent depends on talking and dealing with Putin at the moment, so we need EU leaders to stop being US puppet and start keeping in mind european interests and lives
- watwut 5y ago
  The thing is, Russia invasion and occupation (again) is not in interest of European countries around Russia.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  You know, Eastern European leaders are even harder line against Russia right now than the US is, let alone Western Europe. I guess having living memory of having been invaded and occupied by Russia makes you especially eager to sign up to, and enforce, a pact that will commit a much, much larger power to go to war against Russia if you get invaded. I'm not worried about nuclear weapons, and this is why: nuclear weapons are the last form of escalation possible. If Putin uses nuclear weapons, there is nothing he can do to further deter NATO from invading Russia, and I strongly suspect that public opinion would be in favor of NATO doing so. I don't see any scenario where the use of nuclear weapons wouldn't harm Russian positions, let alone a scenario where nuclear weapons are actually helpful.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  I don't know what you're talking about. Obama famously tried to reset the US relationship with Russia back to something more cordial and Vladimir Putin used that as an opportunity to spit at their feet, as if it were a sign of weakness. Because the only thing Putin seems to respect as a potential limit on his power are overt physical threats.
thriftwy 5y ago
Do you think you are capable of listening to those countries? Take Kazakhstan. It's a country which is in several bloc-like agreements with Russia: СНГ, ОДКБ, ЕАЕС. How are you going to listen to it? I will tell you how the West do it every time: You are going to find some opposition crackpot who will badmouth Russia and crap on Kazakhstan regime, and you will ignore all other voices. The one who may as well be on some Western "free press" aid program and therefore not really speaking for themself but for you. You are only going to listen to yourself.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  > Do you think you are capable of listening to those countries? Honestly, no. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth listening to, it just means we need to find someone who is capable of listening to them. And it's equally worth pointing out that listening to Kazakhstan through a Russian filter is as dangerously misguided as listening to it through a Western filter.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  I don't have to understand those countries to believe they should have the right to make their own sovereign decisions. Let Russia try to influence by diplomatic means, let the west do the same, let the country decide what it wants. You just seem to be arguing that these countries should be Russian proxies instead of Western proxies, which is absurd. Let them be neither. Russia's problem is that it's primary mode of influence is force. The west focusses much more on economic influence. And yes, lest you try for a simplistic "what about", they do use force too, but the focus is overwhelmingly on economic and diplomatic influence first.
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    Almost all of the countries that you have listed depend on Russia economically to the same extent as on the West, or in greater fashion. "Let them be neither" does not work, as demonstrated by the NATO expansion.
    - ineedasername 5y ago

lnxg33k1 5y ago

Because Russia has 10k nuclear warheads that yankees are apparently ignoring, and the expansion of NATO is happening on european soil at european stability expenses, which apparently EU leaders are ignoring, you guys seem to think that I come here to say these things because I am a fan of Mister Putin, I am not, but I am aware that actions have consequences and if Hilary Clinton and Obama tell a guy that he is Hitler, when the guy is at the head of a state with 10k nuclear warheads, then Clinton and Obama need to fuck off a stay out of European soil affairs, because it is ultimately European states that border with this state. I understand this is not an issue for you, as you don't border with it and don't have business and energy and companies depending on it, but we are, the wellbeing and stability of the continent depends on talking and dealing with Putin at the moment, so we need EU leaders to stop being US puppet and start keeping in mind european interests and lives

watwut 5y ago
The thing is, Russia invasion and occupation (again) is not in interest of European countries around Russia.
jcranmer 5y ago
You know, Eastern European leaders are even harder line against Russia right now than the US is, let alone Western Europe. I guess having living memory of having been invaded and occupied by Russia makes you especially eager to sign up to, and enforce, a pact that will commit a much, much larger power to go to war against Russia if you get invaded. I'm not worried about nuclear weapons, and this is why: nuclear weapons are the last form of escalation possible. If Putin uses nuclear weapons, there is nothing he can do to further deter NATO from invading Russia, and I strongly suspect that public opinion would be in favor of NATO doing so. I don't see any scenario where the use of nuclear weapons wouldn't harm Russian positions, let alone a scenario where nuclear weapons are actually helpful.
ineedasername 4y ago
I don't know what you're talking about. Obama famously tried to reset the US relationship with Russia back to something more cordial and Vladimir Putin used that as an opportunity to spit at their feet, as if it were a sign of weakness. Because the only thing Putin seems to respect as a potential limit on his power are overt physical threats.

thriftwy 5y ago

Do you think you are capable of listening to those countries? Take Kazakhstan. It's a country which is in several bloc-like agreements with Russia: СНГ, ОДКБ, ЕАЕС. How are you going to listen to it? I will tell you how the West do it every time: You are going to find some opposition crackpot who will badmouth Russia and crap on Kazakhstan regime, and you will ignore all other voices. The one who may as well be on some Western "free press" aid program and therefore not really speaking for themself but for you. You are only going to listen to yourself.

jcranmer 5y ago
> Do you think you are capable of listening to those countries? Honestly, no. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth listening to, it just means we need to find someone who is capable of listening to them. And it's equally worth pointing out that listening to Kazakhstan through a Russian filter is as dangerously misguided as listening to it through a Western filter.
ineedasername 5y ago
I don't have to understand those countries to believe they should have the right to make their own sovereign decisions. Let Russia try to influence by diplomatic means, let the west do the same, let the country decide what it wants. You just seem to be arguing that these countries should be Russian proxies instead of Western proxies, which is absurd. Let them be neither. Russia's problem is that it's primary mode of influence is force. The west focusses much more on economic influence. And yes, lest you try for a simplistic "what about", they do use force too, but the focus is overwhelmingly on economic and diplomatic influence first.
- thriftwy 5y ago
  Almost all of the countries that you have listed depend on Russia economically to the same extent as on the West, or in greater fashion. "Let them be neither" does not work, as demonstrated by the NATO expansion.
  - ineedasername 5y ago