4 ms·

> Why put up with Russia expansion Why put up with NATO expansion? Russia's expansion is also totally defensive! wink-wink > It's funny how Russia always pret

> Why put up with Russia expansion Why put up with NATO expansion? Russia's expansion is also totally defensive! wink-wink > It's funny how Russia always pretend to be a victim It's ironic how Russia is always assumed to be a passive unresponsive corpse with no concerns or perspective and memory of its own. I wonder if it's even hypothetically possible for people to try to fairly grasp that perspective, otherwise Europe (and yeah, that includes Russia) would be an "interesting" place to be in the upcoming years.

actionfromafar 4y ago
I never assumed Russia was a passive unresponsive corpse with no concerns or perspective and memory of its own. In fact, I am very concerned about its death-worshipping perspective and distorted memory. You still have to stand up to a bully, or you encourage them. A strategic mistake was not putting severe sanctions on Russia in 2014 when they annexed Crimea.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > death-worshipping perspective and distorted memory Elaborate? The point of distorted memories and elective outlooks on the past event had been on my mind for some time now. > bully Anthropomorphizing countries distorts reality, but do you honestly don't see how every narrative of Russian imperialism and so on could be just as well applied to western post-Cold War totally never-ever threatened very polite expansionism?
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Death-worshipping - the ever more insane Great Patriotic war rememberance. Anthropomorphizing coutries - yes it distorts, but much less so in dictatorships, because so few (actual!) people hold the reigns. Putin is a bully, let's rephrase it like that. Not kicking his balls encourages him and others like him.
mopsi 4y ago
> It's ironic how Russia is always assumed to be a passive unresponsive corpse with no concerns or perspective and memory of its own. Indeed, and apologists of Russia often take this position: in their mind, Russia has no will and no ambitions, and only reacts to what the US is doing. Whatever they do is always the fault of americans and never a manifestation of their own will. Here in Eastern Europe the perspective is a bit different: Russia is a failed state that never developed a free and open civil society, and instead fluctuates between soft and hard authoritarianism. Their dictators tend to develop imperialist delusions from time to time and that makes them a direct threat to their neighbors and that's why everyone is so keen on building international cooperation to set up an unified front against Russian invasions. The ground under my feet has seen Russian invasions, raping, pillaging every 1-2 generations for as long as Russians have existed.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > Indeed, and apologists of Russia often take this position: in their mind, Russia has no will and no ambitions, and only reacts to what the US is doing. Whatever they do is always the fault of americans and never a manifestation of their own will. Thank you for that perspective, but isn't it similar to the mindset of north-atlantics? "Russia is acting totally unprovoked, we hoped for totally good neighborhood trade and whatnot" > Here in Eastern Europe the perspective is a bit different: Russia is a failed state that never developed a free and open civil society I've been to Eastern Europe and my experience with it makes me feel like this is a European chauvinism mentality bit and a patting thyselves on the back. > Their dictators tend to develop imperialist delusions from time to time and that makes them a direct threat to their neighbors and that's why everyone is so keen on building international cooperation to set up an unified front against Russian invasions. Eh, Russia is fighting against imperialism (at least from its perspective) and that "international cooperation" largely consists of countries that had historical struggles with Russia, as you say. > The ground under my feet has seen Russian invasions, raping, pillaging every 1-2 generations for as long as Russians have existed. I always chuckle when Europeans try to do some historical moral grandstanding. Yo, man, Europe is the source of the most of genocides and is the birthplace of fascism and nazism. The people that had lived on the ground under your feet had been doing the same to everyone around, including Russians, all while being awfully proud of themselves. Even more so when spoken of Baltic states, but whatever, by all accounts, the historical perception of Europeans is that of pompous brutal animals.
lesuorac 4y ago
> Why put up with NATO expansion? Russia's expansion is also totally defensive! wink-wink The difference between NATO's expansion and Russia's expansion is that Finland is not under a threat of violence from NATO. Quite clearly Russia is threatening Ukraine with violence if it doesn't become part of Russia. That would be why Russia's expansion isn't totally defensive. I mean, it's defensive for Russia sure. Just not for Ukraine. Similar to the old joke. A man from American tells his Soviet friend; freedom is being able to criticize Regan from outside the White House without being arrested. His Soviet friend tells him; we have freedom too! You can criticize Regan from outside the Kremlin as well!
- foverzar 4y ago
  > The difference between NATO's expansion and Russia's expansion is that Finland is not under a threat of violence from NATO. But Finland isn't technically under a threat of violence from Russia. "Wasn't" at least, as there had been no warm grievances that anyone really cared about. You'll say that Finland has to assume threat and mitigate risks, but this is hardly any different from Russia's perspective against NATO. > Quite clearly Russia is threatening Ukraine with violence if it doesn't become part of Russia. Eh, methinks this is an overestimation of Russia's ambition. One could realistically argue that Russia merely "defends" east-leaning loyalish "Russian-speaking" regions. Realistically, even action towards Odessa would automatically involve Prednisone and then no one would be handle that Genie without major clusterfuck. > I mean, it's defensive for Russia sure. Just not for Ukraine. Sure, but that's exactly the point I am trying to convey: enemy military can talk about "defense" all it wants, but at the end of the day their job is to kill people and that might as well include you.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    > You'll say that Finland has to assume threat and mitigate risks, but this is hardly any different from Russia's perspective against NATO. Finland is considered by Russia to be an unfriendly country. That's an escalation towards violence and the USSR and Finland have fought several wars. No reason to wait a decade to get invaded like Ukraine; just join NATO now while you can. The difference is how Finland and Russia are mitigating their threats. Finland is mitigating the threat of Russia by joining a defense alliance. Russia is mitigating the threat of NATO's power expansion by invading countries that might join. Russia could create their own defense alliance, lets call it the Warsaw Pact. And then it could allow Ukraine to join their Warsaw Pact. If NATO invaded Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from joining the Warsaw pact I'd say NATO was in the wrong. > Eh, methinks this is an overestimation of Russia's ambition. One could realistically argue that Russia merely "defends" east-leaning loyalish "Russian-speaking" regions. Realistically, even action towards Odessa would automatically involve Prednisone and then no one would be handle that Genie without major clusterfuck. The problem is the phrase "regions". Nobody cares when you kill people within your own borders. Ukraine is outside of Russia's borders and so we care.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

actionfromafar 4y ago

I never assumed Russia was a passive unresponsive corpse with no concerns or perspective and memory of its own. In fact, I am very concerned about its death-worshipping perspective and distorted memory. You still have to stand up to a bully, or you encourage them. A strategic mistake was not putting severe sanctions on Russia in 2014 when they annexed Crimea.

foverzar 4y ago
> death-worshipping perspective and distorted memory Elaborate? The point of distorted memories and elective outlooks on the past event had been on my mind for some time now. > bully Anthropomorphizing countries distorts reality, but do you honestly don't see how every narrative of Russian imperialism and so on could be just as well applied to western post-Cold War totally never-ever threatened very polite expansionism?
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Death-worshipping - the ever more insane Great Patriotic war rememberance. Anthropomorphizing coutries - yes it distorts, but much less so in dictatorships, because so few (actual!) people hold the reigns. Putin is a bully, let's rephrase it like that. Not kicking his balls encourages him and others like him.

mopsi 4y ago

> It's ironic how Russia is always assumed to be a passive unresponsive corpse with no concerns or perspective and memory of its own. Indeed, and apologists of Russia often take this position: in their mind, Russia has no will and no ambitions, and only reacts to what the US is doing. Whatever they do is always the fault of americans and never a manifestation of their own will. Here in Eastern Europe the perspective is a bit different: Russia is a failed state that never developed a free and open civil society, and instead fluctuates between soft and hard authoritarianism. Their dictators tend to develop imperialist delusions from time to time and that makes them a direct threat to their neighbors and that's why everyone is so keen on building international cooperation to set up an unified front against Russian invasions. The ground under my feet has seen Russian invasions, raping, pillaging every 1-2 generations for as long as Russians have existed.

foverzar 4y ago
> Indeed, and apologists of Russia often take this position: in their mind, Russia has no will and no ambitions, and only reacts to what the US is doing. Whatever they do is always the fault of americans and never a manifestation of their own will. Thank you for that perspective, but isn't it similar to the mindset of north-atlantics? "Russia is acting totally unprovoked, we hoped for totally good neighborhood trade and whatnot" > Here in Eastern Europe the perspective is a bit different: Russia is a failed state that never developed a free and open civil society I've been to Eastern Europe and my experience with it makes me feel like this is a European chauvinism mentality bit and a patting thyselves on the back. > Their dictators tend to develop imperialist delusions from time to time and that makes them a direct threat to their neighbors and that's why everyone is so keen on building international cooperation to set up an unified front against Russian invasions. Eh, Russia is fighting against imperialism (at least from its perspective) and that "international cooperation" largely consists of countries that had historical struggles with Russia, as you say. > The ground under my feet has seen Russian invasions, raping, pillaging every 1-2 generations for as long as Russians have existed. I always chuckle when Europeans try to do some historical moral grandstanding. Yo, man, Europe is the source of the most of genocides and is the birthplace of fascism and nazism. The people that had lived on the ground under your feet had been doing the same to everyone around, including Russians, all while being awfully proud of themselves. Even more so when spoken of Baltic states, but whatever, by all accounts, the historical perception of Europeans is that of pompous brutal animals.

lesuorac 4y ago

> Why put up with NATO expansion? Russia's expansion is also totally defensive! wink-wink The difference between NATO's expansion and Russia's expansion is that Finland is not under a threat of violence from NATO. Quite clearly Russia is threatening Ukraine with violence if it doesn't become part of Russia. That would be why Russia's expansion isn't totally defensive. I mean, it's defensive for Russia sure. Just not for Ukraine. Similar to the old joke. A man from American tells his Soviet friend; freedom is being able to criticize Regan from outside the White House without being arrested. His Soviet friend tells him; we have freedom too! You can criticize Regan from outside the Kremlin as well!

foverzar 4y ago
> The difference between NATO's expansion and Russia's expansion is that Finland is not under a threat of violence from NATO. But Finland isn't technically under a threat of violence from Russia. "Wasn't" at least, as there had been no warm grievances that anyone really cared about. You'll say that Finland has to assume threat and mitigate risks, but this is hardly any different from Russia's perspective against NATO. > Quite clearly Russia is threatening Ukraine with violence if it doesn't become part of Russia. Eh, methinks this is an overestimation of Russia's ambition. One could realistically argue that Russia merely "defends" east-leaning loyalish "Russian-speaking" regions. Realistically, even action towards Odessa would automatically involve Prednisone and then no one would be handle that Genie without major clusterfuck. > I mean, it's defensive for Russia sure. Just not for Ukraine. Sure, but that's exactly the point I am trying to convey: enemy military can talk about "defense" all it wants, but at the end of the day their job is to kill people and that might as well include you.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  > You'll say that Finland has to assume threat and mitigate risks, but this is hardly any different from Russia's perspective against NATO. Finland is considered by Russia to be an unfriendly country. That's an escalation towards violence and the USSR and Finland have fought several wars. No reason to wait a decade to get invaded like Ukraine; just join NATO now while you can. The difference is how Finland and Russia are mitigating their threats. Finland is mitigating the threat of Russia by joining a defense alliance. Russia is mitigating the threat of NATO's power expansion by invading countries that might join. Russia could create their own defense alliance, lets call it the Warsaw Pact. And then it could allow Ukraine to join their Warsaw Pact. If NATO invaded Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from joining the Warsaw pact I'd say NATO was in the wrong. > Eh, methinks this is an overestimation of Russia's ambition. One could realistically argue that Russia merely "defends" east-leaning loyalish "Russian-speaking" regions. Realistically, even action towards Odessa would automatically involve Prednisone and then no one would be handle that Genie without major clusterfuck. The problem is the phrase "regions". Nobody cares when you kill people within your own borders. Ukraine is outside of Russia's borders and so we care.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]