4 ms·

The point I'm making is that there's simply no evidence to suggest that Russia is interested in colonialism. It's neither in their ideological nor economic best

The point I'm making is that there's simply no evidence to suggest that Russia is interested in colonialism. It's neither in their ideological nor economic best interest - by contrast a strong and independent Africa that has good relations with them, absolutely is! Also, the US has not been in the least bit caught off guard by anything Russia has done. Here [1] is a fun cable dating back to 2008, describing in detail how NATO looking to take in Ukraine would likely lead to war. --- "NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene." --- That's just one paragraph. The whole cable is an easy read, interesting, and full of evidence. But what makes that cable fun is not only how clearly it emphasizes we knew exactly what would happen, but also who wrote it. It was written by William J Burns - the current head of the CIA. [1] - https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

racional 3y ago
The point I'm making is that there's simply no evidence to suggest that Russia is interested in colonialism. A very strange thing to say, given that war against Ukraine is an extremely blatant attempt at re-colonization (with a heaping dose of full-tilt racist ethnic cleansing to boot). Putin's designs in Africa are clearly different, and "colonialism" probably isn't the right conceptual model to apply there. But this insinuation you're making that he's on some kind of "anti-colonial" mission there (or that that he's lending the people in those countries a helping hand in any other way) is equally bizarre, an fundamentally quite naive.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Russia's motivations were spelled out plainly in the diplomatic cables, both in their own words and then in our analysis of them. Obviously it has nothing to do with colonialism. Similar for this nonsense about the Ukraine war being an ethic cleansing. The UN has put the total civilian death toll in Ukraine at 10,675 [1] in the more than 2 years of fighting. That number is a minimum, but it's not going to be orders of magnitude higher. The Ukraine War has had one of the lowest civilian casualty ratios of any significant scale war. Russia's motivations in Africa obviously aren't anti-colonial or whatever. It's the same stuff that's going on with South Africa, Brazil, China, and so on. They're simply pivoting towards the 85% of the world, the 'global south' - a pivot that began many years ago, but which the conflict has accelerated due to strained relations with the 15%. The stronger and more independent the global south, the more beneficial and productive the pivot. [1] - https://ukraine.un.org/en/264355-report-human-rights-situation-ukraine-1-december-2023-29-february-2024 https://ukraine.un.org/en/264355-report-human-rights-situati... (page 10, note 38)
  - racional 3y ago
    Obviously it has nothing to do with colonialism. You're way off base on that. Just look at any of Putin's numerous (and incredibly obnoxious) pronouncements on the topic of Russia-Ukraine relations. I don't think further discussion will be productive here. I'll have to leave you to sort these issues out on your own.
wumeow 3y ago
Ukraine has flirted with NATO since it split from the Soviet Union, but it wasn’t until the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas war that it began seriously pursuing membership. Now Finland and Sweden have joined, and whatever’s left of Ukraine after the war will probably join too. If Russia doesn’t want countries to join NATO, it should stop giving them reasons to. > It was written by William J Burns - the current head of the CIA When Burns joined the CIA in March 2021, Russia was already building up troops for the invasion. I’m not sure what, if anything, you’re insinuating here.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  The annexation of Crimea didn't happen until the situation predicted by Burns played out exactly as expected. And the catalyst there was us backing a coup that overthrew a [democratically elected] Russian leaning President, sending the largely ethnic Russian regions (including Crimea and Donbas) into outright rebellion, starting the exact civil war Burns had predicted. Conveniently for furthering US interests in Ukraine, this predictable consequence also resulted in the disenfranchisement of a very large chunk of the entire Russian leaning voterbase in Ukraine, the normalization of groups like Azov, and so on. It's easy to see how such things could be alluring with a myopic analysis of the situation. The importance of it being written by Burns is that there are a lot of cables written, often shooting in many different directions. But in this case, the intelligence on what would happen with Ukraine not only remained consistent, but the individuals writing it were and remained extremely high level players within the government. So the idea the US was, in any way, surprised by what happened can be quite safely discarded as false.
  - wumeow 3y ago
    > The annexation of Crimea didn't happen until the situation predicted by Burns played out exactly as expected. Except Ukraine wasn't seeking NATO membership, they were going to sign the EU cooperation agreement until Russia bullied and threatened them into backing out. Again, Russia is ultimately the one encouraging NATO expansion. > And the catalyst there was us backing a coup that overthrew a [democratically elected] Russian leaning President, sending the largely ethnic Russian regions (including Crimea and Donbas) into outright rebellion, starting the exact civil war Burns had predicted. The US didn't want Yanukovych ousted. The Nuland tape shows that the US was trying to set up meetings between him and oppo leaders after he opened up spots in his interim government (because both sides wanted a neutral mediator and the EU was dragging it's feet, hence the famous comment). He chose to flee, though, and was voted out by parliament.

racional 3y ago

The point I'm making is that there's simply no evidence to suggest that Russia is interested in colonialism. A very strange thing to say, given that war against Ukraine is an extremely blatant attempt at re-colonization (with a heaping dose of full-tilt racist ethnic cleansing to boot). Putin's designs in Africa are clearly different, and "colonialism" probably isn't the right conceptual model to apply there. But this insinuation you're making that he's on some kind of "anti-colonial" mission there (or that that he's lending the people in those countries a helping hand in any other way) is equally bizarre, an fundamentally quite naive.

somenameforme 3y ago
Russia's motivations were spelled out plainly in the diplomatic cables, both in their own words and then in our analysis of them. Obviously it has nothing to do with colonialism. Similar for this nonsense about the Ukraine war being an ethic cleansing. The UN has put the total civilian death toll in Ukraine at 10,675 [1] in the more than 2 years of fighting. That number is a minimum, but it's not going to be orders of magnitude higher. The Ukraine War has had one of the lowest civilian casualty ratios of any significant scale war. Russia's motivations in Africa obviously aren't anti-colonial or whatever. It's the same stuff that's going on with South Africa, Brazil, China, and so on. They're simply pivoting towards the 85% of the world, the 'global south' - a pivot that began many years ago, but which the conflict has accelerated due to strained relations with the 15%. The stronger and more independent the global south, the more beneficial and productive the pivot. [1] - https://ukraine.un.org/en/264355-report-human-rights-situation-ukraine-1-december-2023-29-february-2024 https://ukraine.un.org/en/264355-report-human-rights-situati... (page 10, note 38)
- racional 3y ago
  Obviously it has nothing to do with colonialism. You're way off base on that. Just look at any of Putin's numerous (and incredibly obnoxious) pronouncements on the topic of Russia-Ukraine relations. I don't think further discussion will be productive here. I'll have to leave you to sort these issues out on your own.

wumeow 3y ago

Ukraine has flirted with NATO since it split from the Soviet Union, but it wasn’t until the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas war that it began seriously pursuing membership. Now Finland and Sweden have joined, and whatever’s left of Ukraine after the war will probably join too. If Russia doesn’t want countries to join NATO, it should stop giving them reasons to. > It was written by William J Burns - the current head of the CIA When Burns joined the CIA in March 2021, Russia was already building up troops for the invasion. I’m not sure what, if anything, you’re insinuating here.

somenameforme 3y ago
The annexation of Crimea didn't happen until the situation predicted by Burns played out exactly as expected. And the catalyst there was us backing a coup that overthrew a [democratically elected] Russian leaning President, sending the largely ethnic Russian regions (including Crimea and Donbas) into outright rebellion, starting the exact civil war Burns had predicted. Conveniently for furthering US interests in Ukraine, this predictable consequence also resulted in the disenfranchisement of a very large chunk of the entire Russian leaning voterbase in Ukraine, the normalization of groups like Azov, and so on. It's easy to see how such things could be alluring with a myopic analysis of the situation. The importance of it being written by Burns is that there are a lot of cables written, often shooting in many different directions. But in this case, the intelligence on what would happen with Ukraine not only remained consistent, but the individuals writing it were and remained extremely high level players within the government. So the idea the US was, in any way, surprised by what happened can be quite safely discarded as false.
- wumeow 3y ago
  > The annexation of Crimea didn't happen until the situation predicted by Burns played out exactly as expected. Except Ukraine wasn't seeking NATO membership, they were going to sign the EU cooperation agreement until Russia bullied and threatened them into backing out. Again, Russia is ultimately the one encouraging NATO expansion. > And the catalyst there was us backing a coup that overthrew a [democratically elected] Russian leaning President, sending the largely ethnic Russian regions (including Crimea and Donbas) into outright rebellion, starting the exact civil war Burns had predicted. The US didn't want Yanukovych ousted. The Nuland tape shows that the US was trying to set up meetings between him and oppo leaders after he opened up spots in his interim government (because both sides wanted a neutral mediator and the EU was dragging it's feet, hence the famous comment). He chose to flee, though, and was voted out by parliament.