This is a great conversation, although I'd offer the caveat that they're far too sympathetic to the point of view that the predominance of Russian speakers in Donbas / Lukhansk / Kharkiv etc makes them legitimate targets of Russian irredentist ambitions and the underhanded hybrid warfare. For one thing, a lot of those Russian speakers were transplanted in the Donbas etc after heavy Soviet industrialization of the coal mining areas which really took off after the war. Further, a lot of those Russian speakers are ethnically Ukrainian and their grandfathers would have been subsumed into the Russian-speaking working class upon moving to the cities.
Here's a map of the ethnic makeup of Ukraine in 1900 (Helpful if you can read Cyrillic). Of the above cites, Donetsk* is a Russian ethnic island in a sea of Ukrainian ethnics, Kharkiv and Lukhansk majority Ukrainian at the time. There may have been either a majority of or a large minority of Russian speakers in these cities, but only just and it's largely because Russian was the language of modernity. Speaking Russian as a first language is not an accurate proxy for one's ethnicity or even one's attitudes towards the Ukrainian national question (even today).
Also note Crimea which at the time was a multiethnic appendage to the Russian Empire. Crimean Tartars now dispersed all over former Soviet lands thanks to Stalin's efforts. Crimea was a place where wealthy Muscovites and those from Petrograd came to convalesce and go swimming in the Black Sea. A place a lot of Russian nationalists have a fondness for I'm sure, but the hard-line that is was Russia since time immemorial doesn't hold much historical water. Note also that Ukrainian ethnics are spread far and wide beyond the modern borders of the country.
Putin's angle is a crude headcounts of Russian speakers in the 21st century to target areas to destabalise the country like a jealous ex-boyfriend because she's found a new date
*Fun-fact, Donetsk was founded by a Welsh mining engineer called Hughes and was called Yuzivka (as can be seen on the map). Maybe Boris Johnson could set up a Peppa Pig World amusement park there and claim it for the Tans.
** Red = Ukranian, Green = Russian. See the key on the bottom left for other ethnics (in Cyrillic)
Discussion between Alexander Mercouris, Alex Christoforou and Gonzalo Lira (Chilean-American who lives in Kharkov, Ukraine) on the politics of Ukraine from the Russian side.
Ah , I see where you are coming from now.
Patton tried to convince Eisenhower , correctly that Russia / USSR was a bigger threat than Germany but at Yalta Roosevelt and Churchill confident in the power of the atom bomb to subjugate Russia had already carved up Europe to their own ends.
Big Russia build up against Ukraine now, currently 94,000 troops amassed at the border now, intelligence experts saying an invasion could start early 2022. Personally I think it's a giant exercise by Putin to appease nationalists at home and extract some sort of concessions, but obviously a highly dangerous game to play.
I don't think it is in Ireland's interests to encourage militarization or warfare on the part of any of the great powers (aka bullies/rogue states), or to champion any of the great powers' narratives.
He's right about pretty much everything there.
Putin's critique of current western values:
translation
"The importance of a solid support in the sphere of morals, ethics and values is increasing dramatically in the modern fragile world. In point of fact, values are a product, a unique product of cultural and historical development of any nation. The mutual interlacing of nations definitely enriches them, openness expands their horizons and allows them to take a fresh look at their own traditions. But the process must be organic, and it can never be rapid. Any alien elements will be rejected anyway, possibly bluntly. Any attempts to force one’s values on others with an uncertain and unpredictable outcome can only further complicate a dramatic situation and usually produce the opposite reaction and an opposite from the intended result.
We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal.
Listen, I would like to point out once again that they have a right to do this, we are keeping out of this. But we would like to ask them to keep out of our business as well. We have a different viewpoint, at least the overwhelming majority of Russian society – it would be more correct to put it this way – has a different opinion on this matter. We believe that we must rely on our own spiritual values, our historical tradition and the culture of our multiethnic nation.
The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.
This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past – such as Shakespeare – are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’ that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin colour. I specifically asked my colleagues to find the following quote from Martin Luther King: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by their character.” This is the true value. However, things are turning out differently there. By the way, the absolute majority of Russian people do not think that the colour of a person's skin or their gender is an important matter. Each of us is a human being. This is what matters.
In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.
Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised. “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “'birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender. I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.
Not to mention some truly monstrous things when children are taught from an early age that a boy can easily become a girl and vice versa. That is, the teachers actually impose on them a choice we all supposedly have. They do so while shutting the parents out of the process and forcing the child to make decisions that can upend their entire life. They do not even bother to consult with child psychologists – is a child at this age even capable of making a decision of this kind? Calling a spade a spade, this verges on a crime against humanity, and it is being done in the name and under the banner of progress."
You said for 100 years. Missing WWII is fairly elementary.
The Russians are natural allies of Europeans, the US is the enemy.
Good looking girls though....
Also I'm on a computer forum and a guy on it is from Russia. And Americans told him to order the item and get it tomorrow he said I can order it now and it will be delivered in less than 3 hours. Americans thinking their great with the overnight delivery. He said there are some great things about Russia but you have to deal with the cold.
Ah come on now on! Europe was carved up at the Yalta Conference and Patton was going no further than the Elbe.
WW1 was more than 100 years ago smart lad , Russia/USSR interests briefly coincided in WW2 but George Patton was willing to keep driving east after Germany fell , the first decade after the fall of communism was an era of lawlessness and the rise of the Oligarchs when Russia was more of a danger to itself . To entrust our energy supply to such an entity was madness.
That is not an entirely accurate picture.
Russia can still sell plenty of it's gas to the ever increasing Asian markets.
It's even part of it's long term strategy
Russia will still hold a colossal amount of influence so long as Europe is dependent on gas.
I don't know what your point is supposed to be.
Regarding Afghanistan, geography and the nature of the conflict determined the losses involved. The same problems that the US had themselves in trying to control the area. One of the major problems for Russia, was the over reliance on conscripted forces, and morale within the Russian forces. The continuance of the Communist model for the military. That's changed somewhat since Putin got into control, but Afghanistan will always be a terrible place to occupy. In the case of a conventional war between nations, technology has advanced dramatically, but the weapons of 40 years ago, are still effective on the ground.
Occupation of territory is next to impossible in the modern sense, especially, if you wish to continue interacting with the international community afterwards.
I've said that I don't see Russia as a direct threat to Europe. Regardless of military capabilities, there are far too many negatives with taking and holding European territories.
The same applies to Russian forces and equipment , during the Georgian conflict something like 80% of Russian weapons missed their targets and a high percentage of those weapons that missed failed to even detonate ,they also struggled against relatively small numbers in East Ukraine professional russian forces couldn't defeat inexperienced football houilgans ,
And yes people will look at NATO against the goat herders In Afghanistan ,the same goat herders pushed russians out ,all the while russia lost more men , equipment and aircraft in a shorter period than NATO loses over 20 years period ,
Syria is another example russia declared they defeated all anti Assad regime forces and Isis in under three weeks ,all the while releasing Videos of their forces dropping bombs on empty Fields in parts of Syria before having to ask the French government for help finding Isis in Syria ,
Russia has modernised a small percentage of their forces but for most part they are still poorly trained and equipped using 70s era weapons
Without the cash he is still popular as ever because Russians would blame the west. He’d divert sales to China anyway or his near abroad.
100 years? Good man. Might wanna research WWI and WWII, and the first decade of the post Cold War era and the fall of communism.
small bit of research.
I don't know if I'd use Trump as my news source!
Which is not what I said.
I said there were a number of documentaries covering the lack of maintenance of European arsenals/hardware.
Again, I don't see any reason why Russia would invade Europe, enough to justify the risks involved over the long term.
I don't know if I'd use Trump as my news source! On paper European forces vastly over match Russia. Europe's bigger problem is it has too many soldiers and resources to co-ordinate among 20+ countries. Any prolonged war would see Europe get more organised surely. Also, think of the level of Europe's technological capacity for equipment production. Here is a quote:
the sheer size of the EU military forces and the size of their collective defense budgets. If taken together, the collective defense budgets of all EU states is second only to the USA in total spending. The number of soldiers in the EU is also very high - there are more EU soldiers than US soldiers. By themselves, the UK, France, Italy, and Germany all make it into the top 10 most powerful militaries, some of them are regularly ranked above Russia in terms of conventional military power. The pool of recruits in the EU is also vastly above Russia, as the population of the EU is roughly 4x larger than that of Russia.
Also:
NATO’s European members contain more than 500 million people; Russia’s population is only 145 million. Europeans are also much healthier: Average life expectancy in Europe is roughly 82 years, whereas in Russia it is only 72 (and even lower for men). NATO Europe’s combined GDP is more than $15 trillion; Russia’s GDP is only $1.7 trillion, which is smaller than Italy’s alone.
I just think we have this bogeyman view of Russia which doesn't necessarily tally with the facts, though a Russo-European war would be horrific.
No it's not in any way accurate unless your member of the russian communist party ,
Germany was one country until the red army arrived in 1945 and annexed everything east of Berlin .
The people of Germany took back this country when they the people brought down the Berlin wall .
Perception doesn't come into it
Why do people always forget that the pipeline goes both ways? gas goes to the EU and cash goes to Russia, without the cash Putin is for the gulag, the cash is whats keeping him there and pays for his war games.
I said it was a matter of perception. Within the West, the actions of NATO or Western forces tends to be lauded for being humanitarian, even when it involves the reinforcement or installation of pro-western regimes/attitudes. Outside of the west though, countries will see these actions as being no different from the behavior of other countries in their own spheres of influence.
I'm not criticising NATO or European forces for what they've done.. but I can see that there are double standards being applied. It boils down to propaganda, and the perception of what is "right".
I dunno. Remember when Trump was going on and on about the lack of commitment by European nations? There were a number of documentaries at that time covering the state of European arsenals, and their readiness for combat, with many criticisms that European equipment wasn't being maintained properly.
In any case, I see any kind of occupation as being unsustainable... so why would Russia bother to invade Europe? There's no upside.
I don't think Russia winning a straight out war against Europe is plausible let alone likely. Europe is far better equipped in most respects. And the Russian army is rife with disease at the personal level.
How did western Europe manage to become dependent on gas from a rogue state which has continued to be at loggerheads with it for the last 100 years ?
Ok on Yugoslavia - how is the Srebenica massacre perceived as this was main driver in Nato getting involved militarily
I dunno, is that how they frame those 2 events (German reunification & the Yugoslav wars) on RT, or in crib notes given to Russia's web brigades/influence operations? If it is, I suppose these talking points will just get repeated and reposted on madhouses like this forum seems to be becoming.
He also mentioned an "EU/NATO" invasion of Iraq which is another erm ..somewhat unique...way to look at the US (& UK) invasion of that country.
It's receding into past now so I suppose people can start to trial-balloon nonsense like that. Why were the prime movers, the US/UK, not mentioned?
In fact as regards the different Western military interventions (in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan) there's just one direct reference to the elephant in the room (US) hiding right at the end. This follows after multiple distorted statements of the "EU [!?]/NATO" leading all these military interventions around the globe! The EUs divisions sure have been busy.
It's accurate. It's just a matter of perception.
The whole nord stream thing is something the Americans want to ban anyway, but at a major cost to Europe. Kicking Russia out of swift will probably just cause a different system to be used. The Russians have their own already.
West Germany annexed East Germany and EU/NATO repeatedly intervened militarily to support the carve-up of Yugoslavia.
What alternative history book was that in .
West Germany annexed East Germany and EU/NATO repeatedly intervened militarily to support the carve-up of Yugoslavia. European states have used force in the same time period to suppress secessionist movements as in Northern Ireland and Catalonia, amongst others. European states happily use police and security forces to suppress internal dissent when expedient. EU/NATO has invaded and occupied Afghanistan for close to 20 years, Iraq for slightly shorter, as well as attacking Libya and Syria. They have also attempted to influence internal politics in other states, not least of which being Ukraine. As far back as the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians told the people of Melos that "you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Rightly or wrongly, Putin and Russia are not content to accept that they must take the role of Melos.
EU/NATO is perfectly happy to use military force and economic threats/coercion when it suits its own purposes to redraw borders, suppress independence movements or force political/legal outcomes in their own sphere of influence. Putin's view of politics is clearly cynical but its not necessarily unique or unusual in that context. One of the primary complaints and causes of Russian resentment over the past 30 years has been that the US and EU/NATO talk a good game about high minded ideals whilst playing in the mud.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a08d55691d6f78a042612a7aa18ff3ab.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/86b2bf519a78c14958c9040117dc4dc1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/87962ff026856470eacf12f9c3179c90.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
