5 ms·

The US, a sole world leader in the 1990s-2000s, had the responsibility and opportunity to uphold international law. Instead they chose to function as an imperia

The US, a sole world leader in the 1990s-2000s, had the responsibility and opportunity to uphold international law. Instead they chose to function as an imperialist power. Today they claim to protect international law. EDIT: RESPONSE TO BELLOW > Russia was already violating the human rights chapters in ‘95 Correction, Russia was already violating rights of its own citizens in 1993 [0] with full US blessings [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_cr...

meepmorp 3y ago
> Russia was already violating rights of its own citizens in 1993 [0] with full US blessings Why are the Americans (or NATO) always responsible for the awful things the Russian government does?
- medo-bear 3y ago
  Because Yeltsin was heavily supported by the US. He bombed elected officials not favourable to the US. Similar thing happened when the US supported Saddam and Pinochet
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    Yeah, ok, so just the basic "America bad," view of things.
    - medo-bear 3y ago
      Just goes to show there are useful idiots on every side :)
      - meepmorp 3y ago
        That's not a nice thing to say about yourself.
        medo-bear 3y ago
        its not about me ... uncle sam needs YOU ;)
        meepmorp 3y ago
        Don't sell yourself short, I'm sure you're quite useful.
  - chrysler 3y ago
    If you want Americans to run your country and be responsible for everything that happens there, then start by flying Stars and Stripes over the Kremlin.
  - thodin 3y ago
    BTW, US embassy staff was trying to negotiate peaceful meeting between opposition and Eltsin's team. But "elected officials" tried to seize TV building with military force instead of discussions. I don't see how US could be blamed for this.
    - medo-bear 3y ago
      im not really interested in blaming the US. but the fact is he would never had gotten away with it had the US not stood by him. at that time in Russia there was a real prospect of communists returning to power ... through elections. mainly im interested in pointing out that the US is a hypocrite when it comes to its own values and that it too should be seen as an imperialist power. same as Russia. only once people see both entities as bad a proper thesis about a better more just world can be made. i have no problem saying f*ck putin or f*ck biden (or f*ck trump) as long as it is in the same sentence
      - thodin 3y ago
        So you think that US had to invade Russia to remove Eltsin?! He was elected in 1991 (even before USSR collapsed) and had very strong support in Moscow and major cities. And elections in 1993 (after the dissolution of parliament) were won by Zhirinovsky's party, communists were only 3rd. US never supported Zhirinovsky and he wasn't a communist. I don't see how US could be blamed for anything that happened in 1993 because they were really trying to stop the crisis, but far-right nationalists (like Barkashov and Makashov) started military actions, like mayor's office assault and TV building attack. This is not a "returning to power ... through elections" for sure.
        medo-bear 3y ago
        > So you think that US had to invade Russia to remove Eltsin?! You should practice reading plain English. > This is not a "returning to power ... through elections" for sure. Communists returning to power in Russia was an actual concern for the US foreign policy. For example it is unclear if Yeltsin fairly won against Zyuganov in 1996. Even today the Communist Party of the Russian Federation polls around 20%. They are the largest opposition party. Although it is pretty obvious they are a fake Communist Party
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> US, a sole world leader in the 1990s-2000s, had the responsibility and opportunity to uphold international law That’s a hell of a punt there. You said “the US set the precedent” for disregarding international law, starting by citing the bombing of Yugoslavia in ‘99. Russia was already violating the human rights chapters in ‘95, and the Soviet Union (alongside America) was violating the foreign-intervention chapters since basically they were penned. So no, there was no precedent. America continued with the status quo. You’re arguing Washington failed to create a new precedent, as it did when it had global nuclear hegemony in the aftermath of WWII. That’s a legitimate argument. But a different one from that which you’re making.

meepmorp 3y ago

> Russia was already violating rights of its own citizens in 1993 [0] with full US blessings Why are the Americans (or NATO) always responsible for the awful things the Russian government does?

medo-bear 3y ago
Because Yeltsin was heavily supported by the US. He bombed elected officials not favourable to the US. Similar thing happened when the US supported Saddam and Pinochet
- meepmorp 3y ago
  Yeah, ok, so just the basic "America bad," view of things.
  - medo-bear 3y ago
    Just goes to show there are useful idiots on every side :)
    - meepmorp 3y ago
      That's not a nice thing to say about yourself.
      - medo-bear 3y ago
        its not about me ... uncle sam needs YOU ;)
        meepmorp 3y ago
        Don't sell yourself short, I'm sure you're quite useful.
- chrysler 3y ago
  If you want Americans to run your country and be responsible for everything that happens there, then start by flying Stars and Stripes over the Kremlin.
- thodin 3y ago
  BTW, US embassy staff was trying to negotiate peaceful meeting between opposition and Eltsin's team. But "elected officials" tried to seize TV building with military force instead of discussions. I don't see how US could be blamed for this.
  - medo-bear 3y ago
    im not really interested in blaming the US. but the fact is he would never had gotten away with it had the US not stood by him. at that time in Russia there was a real prospect of communists returning to power ... through elections. mainly im interested in pointing out that the US is a hypocrite when it comes to its own values and that it too should be seen as an imperialist power. same as Russia. only once people see both entities as bad a proper thesis about a better more just world can be made. i have no problem saying f*ck putin or f*ck biden (or f*ck trump) as long as it is in the same sentence
    - thodin 3y ago
      So you think that US had to invade Russia to remove Eltsin?! He was elected in 1991 (even before USSR collapsed) and had very strong support in Moscow and major cities. And elections in 1993 (after the dissolution of parliament) were won by Zhirinovsky's party, communists were only 3rd. US never supported Zhirinovsky and he wasn't a communist. I don't see how US could be blamed for anything that happened in 1993 because they were really trying to stop the crisis, but far-right nationalists (like Barkashov and Makashov) started military actions, like mayor's office assault and TV building attack. This is not a "returning to power ... through elections" for sure.
      - medo-bear 3y ago
        > So you think that US had to invade Russia to remove Eltsin?! You should practice reading plain English. > This is not a "returning to power ... through elections" for sure. Communists returning to power in Russia was an actual concern for the US foreign policy. For example it is unclear if Yeltsin fairly won against Zyuganov in 1996. Even today the Communist Party of the Russian Federation polls around 20%. They are the largest opposition party. Although it is pretty obvious they are a fake Communist Party

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> US, a sole world leader in the 1990s-2000s, had the responsibility and opportunity to uphold international law That’s a hell of a punt there. You said “the US set the precedent” for disregarding international law, starting by citing the bombing of Yugoslavia in ‘99. Russia was already violating the human rights chapters in ‘95, and the Soviet Union (alongside America) was violating the foreign-intervention chapters since basically they were penned. So no, there was no precedent. America continued with the status quo. You’re arguing Washington failed to create a new precedent, as it did when it had global nuclear hegemony in the aftermath of WWII. That’s a legitimate argument. But a different one from that which you’re making.