4 ms·

Is the unstated assumption here that Russia is mindlessly belligerent and going to attack any neighbor for any reason?

by gatlin 4y ago

adriancr 4y ago
That seems to be its history, so yes. Although reason seems mostly to expand, you probably meant with any pretext.
- gatlin 4y ago
  We have experienced different realities. There is no point in trying to discuss this.
ben_w 4y ago
Mindlessly belligerent, yes. "Any reason" is a bit of a stretch — I doubt Putin has a dice with country names on it — but given how dumb it was to invade Ukraine, it's not unreasonable to assume he's dumb enough to try Japan.
- EGreg 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - adriancr 4y ago
    It seems you can't really handle OP being right and have resorted to what-about-ism. So it seems you have conceded the argument and agree that Russia is mindlessly belligerent and now are saying that's fine because you think x-y-z are also belligerent? (Wrong but eh, not the subject of discussion).
    - EGreg 4y ago
      If by "the OP being right" you mean that Russia is pretty much like every other "Great Power" then yeah. Not only can I handle that, but I'm saying the same thing. But that's not what the OP seems to be saying. He seems to be saying that, history has shown Russia is uniquely a bloodthirsty country that wants to attack its neighbors for no reason, any chance it gets. In a "normal" analysis of countries since, say, 1980s, one would see that countries typically attack as a reaction to something. Even USA invading Iraq was officially in response to Saddam ousting inspectors and maintaining ambiguity about WMDs. And even the secret war of bombing in Laos, which was especially egregious (since Laos presented zero threat, and yet was bombed more than any country in history), was justified by the "domino theory" that we cannot allow communism to spread around the world, because one day it may "challenge our interests". That's why USA and NATO want to flip Russia's neighbors against Russia, even if it means a CIA-sponsored insurgency war where a million people die. In this kind of geopolitical chess, it is far better that they fight Russia over there, than having to later fight them all over here, economically and militarily, as a geopolitical bloc. Pick them off, divide and conquer. Russia, like a cornered animal, will react, as would any country to whom it is done. That kind of stuff is understandable -- geopolitical chess, action, reaction. But if one goes to say that Russia is somehow beyond reacting, actually goes out and invades countries to grab their territory for fun and profit, that's saying much more. And in that case, I would push back on that narrative. Even the USA isn't doing that, officially. They are always "reacting" to what they perceive are a threat to their interests and security. But in the USA case it's much harder to justify when a country they're invading is 3000 miles away. The point of my reply was to say that each country (Russia included) has media that radicalizes their population to think exactly this kind of "cartoon villain" thing about their geopolitical rival, and I wish we would all listen to each other's media and hold our politicians accountable to talk to each other more frequently, as Khrustchev and Kennedy did, so they can avoid killing millions of people as "collateral damage" between the Great Powers. Because watch, if we escalate with China around Taiwan, we'll be saying the same thing about China being a cartoon villain in about 3-4 years from now. Oh, and avoiding nuclear war: https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15250.doc.htm https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15250.doc.htm
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - ben_w 4y ago
        > If by "the OP being right" you mean that Russia is pretty much like every other "Great Power" then yeah. Not only can I handle that, but I'm saying the same thing. So you agree makes Russia a potential threat that Japan needs to care about? Because your response didn't read like that.
        EGreg 4y ago
        If Japan doesn’t join an alliance that threatens to eventually station nukes aimed at Russian cities, and doesn’t attack Russia directly, I doubt that Russia would do something to further encroach on Japan. Why would they? The onus is on you to explain. The original comment seemed to say, well, Russia is just uniquely bloodthirsty, maybe has too many weapons lying around etc. I need something more rooted in realistic analysis. But then again, I can’t say the same for, say, China building artificial islands or USA invading Haiti to restore order. Maybe I am wrong and Russia has a reason to gradually encroach and attack, so I am willing to hear it. I am certainly suspecting that Russia’s spy agencies are helping foment a revolution against the governments in Moldova and Slovakia, which may in the future lead to a civil war there!
      - adriancr 4y ago
        If at first you don't succeed... You now feign agreement with the first point only to say it's because of what-about-USA... and then disagree again. All the while you're polluting the whole argument with needless arguments in the hope that something sticks or at least draws discussion somewhere else.
        EGreg 4y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - _0lhw 4y ago
      Excellent use of ad-hominem, incorrect use of whataboutism and to top it off, a classic strawman.
- bigbillheck 4y ago
  > it's not unreasonable to assume he's dumb enough to try Japan. One thing Japan has that Ukraine does not is a whole bunch of US military installations. (And a mutual defense treaty, but you know what they say about three useless forms of North American paper)
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > but you know what they say about three useless forms of North American paper I don't, but I can guess where you're going from the context.
blibble 4y ago
what do you mean assumption? they have attacked several neighbours for no reason and have stated they wish to "reclaim" others
- selivanovp 4y ago
  That's simply not true. You should learn about conflicts not from CNN news. 1. Russia hasn't stated a wish to reclaim other countries, even former parts of USSR. 2. Both military conflicts with neighbors Russia participated in: Georgia and Ukraine had very serious reasons and it was not Russia, that initiated both.
  - blibble 4y ago
    > You should learn about conflicts not from CNN news. what would be better then? RT I suppose?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > Russia hasn't stated a wish to reclaim other countries, even former parts of USSR. Actions count more than words. 20 Feb 2022: "Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov denied Sunday that the Kremlin is preparing for an invasion of neighboring Ukraine..." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-ambassador-anatoly-antonov-no-such-plans-invasion-face-the-nation/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-ambassador-anato... 21 Feb 2022: Invasion!

Is the unstated assumption here that Russia is mindlessly belligerent and going to attack any neighbor for any reason?

by gatlin 4y ago

Is the unstated assumption here that Russia is mindlessly belligerent and going to attack any neighbor for any reason?

adriancr 4y ago

That seems to be its history, so yes. Although reason seems mostly to expand, you probably meant with any pretext.

gatlin 4y ago
We have experienced different realities. There is no point in trying to discuss this.

ben_w 4y ago

Mindlessly belligerent, yes. "Any reason" is a bit of a stretch — I doubt Putin has a dice with country names on it — but given how dumb it was to invade Ukraine, it's not unreasonable to assume he's dumb enough to try Japan.

EGreg 4y ago
[flagged]
- adriancr 4y ago
  It seems you can't really handle OP being right and have resorted to what-about-ism. So it seems you have conceded the argument and agree that Russia is mindlessly belligerent and now are saying that's fine because you think x-y-z are also belligerent? (Wrong but eh, not the subject of discussion).
  - EGreg 4y ago
    If by "the OP being right" you mean that Russia is pretty much like every other "Great Power" then yeah. Not only can I handle that, but I'm saying the same thing. But that's not what the OP seems to be saying. He seems to be saying that, history has shown Russia is uniquely a bloodthirsty country that wants to attack its neighbors for no reason, any chance it gets. In a "normal" analysis of countries since, say, 1980s, one would see that countries typically attack as a reaction to something. Even USA invading Iraq was officially in response to Saddam ousting inspectors and maintaining ambiguity about WMDs. And even the secret war of bombing in Laos, which was especially egregious (since Laos presented zero threat, and yet was bombed more than any country in history), was justified by the "domino theory" that we cannot allow communism to spread around the world, because one day it may "challenge our interests". That's why USA and NATO want to flip Russia's neighbors against Russia, even if it means a CIA-sponsored insurgency war where a million people die. In this kind of geopolitical chess, it is far better that they fight Russia over there, than having to later fight them all over here, economically and militarily, as a geopolitical bloc. Pick them off, divide and conquer. Russia, like a cornered animal, will react, as would any country to whom it is done. That kind of stuff is understandable -- geopolitical chess, action, reaction. But if one goes to say that Russia is somehow beyond reacting, actually goes out and invades countries to grab their territory for fun and profit, that's saying much more. And in that case, I would push back on that narrative. Even the USA isn't doing that, officially. They are always "reacting" to what they perceive are a threat to their interests and security. But in the USA case it's much harder to justify when a country they're invading is 3000 miles away. The point of my reply was to say that each country (Russia included) has media that radicalizes their population to think exactly this kind of "cartoon villain" thing about their geopolitical rival, and I wish we would all listen to each other's media and hold our politicians accountable to talk to each other more frequently, as Khrustchev and Kennedy did, so they can avoid killing millions of people as "collateral damage" between the Great Powers. Because watch, if we escalate with China around Taiwan, we'll be saying the same thing about China being a cartoon villain in about 3-4 years from now. Oh, and avoiding nuclear war: https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15250.doc.htm https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15250.doc.htm
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ben_w 4y ago
      > If by "the OP being right" you mean that Russia is pretty much like every other "Great Power" then yeah. Not only can I handle that, but I'm saying the same thing. So you agree makes Russia a potential threat that Japan needs to care about? Because your response didn't read like that.
      - EGreg 4y ago
        If Japan doesn’t join an alliance that threatens to eventually station nukes aimed at Russian cities, and doesn’t attack Russia directly, I doubt that Russia would do something to further encroach on Japan. Why would they? The onus is on you to explain. The original comment seemed to say, well, Russia is just uniquely bloodthirsty, maybe has too many weapons lying around etc. I need something more rooted in realistic analysis. But then again, I can’t say the same for, say, China building artificial islands or USA invading Haiti to restore order. Maybe I am wrong and Russia has a reason to gradually encroach and attack, so I am willing to hear it. I am certainly suspecting that Russia’s spy agencies are helping foment a revolution against the governments in Moldova and Slovakia, which may in the future lead to a civil war there!
    - adriancr 4y ago
      If at first you don't succeed... You now feign agreement with the first point only to say it's because of what-about-USA... and then disagree again. All the while you're polluting the whole argument with needless arguments in the hope that something sticks or at least draws discussion somewhere else.
      - EGreg 4y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - _0lhw 4y ago
    Excellent use of ad-hominem, incorrect use of whataboutism and to top it off, a classic strawman.
bigbillheck 4y ago
> it's not unreasonable to assume he's dumb enough to try Japan. One thing Japan has that Ukraine does not is a whole bunch of US military installations. (And a mutual defense treaty, but you know what they say about three useless forms of North American paper)
- ben_w 4y ago
  > but you know what they say about three useless forms of North American paper I don't, but I can guess where you're going from the context.

blibble 4y ago

what do you mean assumption? they have attacked several neighbours for no reason and have stated they wish to "reclaim" others

selivanovp 4y ago
That's simply not true. You should learn about conflicts not from CNN news. 1. Russia hasn't stated a wish to reclaim other countries, even former parts of USSR. 2. Both military conflicts with neighbors Russia participated in: Georgia and Ukraine had very serious reasons and it was not Russia, that initiated both.
- blibble 4y ago
  > You should learn about conflicts not from CNN news. what would be better then? RT I suppose?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Russia hasn't stated a wish to reclaim other countries, even former parts of USSR. Actions count more than words. 20 Feb 2022: "Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov denied Sunday that the Kremlin is preparing for an invasion of neighboring Ukraine..." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-ambassador-anatoly-antonov-no-such-plans-invasion-face-the-nation/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-ambassador-anato... 21 Feb 2022: Invasion!