I know "you" should be a real Irish person unless someone or something else has your account now. If you reread I claimed the ideas themselves may originate from said bots/trolls [I don't know if they do but they put a spin on things I could imagine Russian govt. would approve of], not that you are a bot.
They seem like very unique ways of viewing German reunification (when poor East Germany got anschlussed by the West), Yugoslav war(s) (NATO sent in troops to carve up the country) + the Iraq war / other ME wars (involving "the EU" and "NATO" as belligerants). I don't think its just me that would disagree...very strongly with them. I've never heard anything like it at all, but if they are your own wild ideas fair enough. If they come from somewhere else originally, would be interested to read it.
Russia's web brigades/influence operations? Friend, I've been posting on this forum for many years before you. This isn't some sock account registered a few weeks ago. I would indeed cringe at some of the posts I made 20 years ago. But they were my views then, and these are my own views now. So give the laughable Russian bots/psy ops narrative a rest. It is possible someone can independently reach views that disagree with your own.
On the Western double standards I was wondering what happened at the UN over the flight MH17 incident. I didn't know and was curious as it seemed like the kind of thing the countries worst affected might try to raise there. They (Malaysia, Netherlands) did, but of course it got nowhere because Russia is a permanent UN security council member, one of the guardians of the global peace post WW2 etc. Russia may not be a superpower any more & much reduced from Soviet Union days, but it is a big & powerful country with alot of clout, and as such not really a good example of a victim of international double standards created by the West.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33710088
The US was the primary victor.
Indeed, and I believe that is the standard interpretation or version of the final result of WW2, surely?
They emerged from the war with a streamlined industrial base, the British gold reserves, the paramount supplier/seller of military hardware, managing to push the Imperial/colonial powers to release their colonies, while also establishing a range of international agreements limiting other countries, without being bound by them themselves.
Approx. 28 million soviet citizens died during WW2 - I wouldn't call that being the "primary victors".
This is a story from the current front line in Donbas. It seems that the ongoing conflict has made what was once a Russian speaking area much more pro-Ukraine.
Since the war began, Avdiyivka’s character has changed. According to Mariia Lepilova, a former teacher, the younger generation is more pro-Ukrainian. Donbas was once mostly Russian-speaking. There had been a switch to the Ukrainian language in schools and shops, she said. Children learn Ukrainian in class from the age of six or seven
Here is the story
I'm not so sure of that. Sanctions against Iran weren't relatively minor, and had a major effect on it's population for a rather long time. Same with Pakistan in the past. I suspect a nation like Russia could shrug off the effects of sanctions easily enough though, as they have close ties with both China and India, both being countries with existing agreements. In addition Russia would continue bringing in an income from it's arms sales worldwide.
Oh, I agree that they wouldn't want war with the West, but it's equally possible they see it happening eventually. Anyway, Ukraine, and other border countries could easily be taken without Western intervention, and the returns in accessible natural resources could offset any downsides of sanctions. Honestly, it's a lot like Hitler expanding in Europe before Poland was invaded... how long will the bluffs succeed before the Allies decide enough is enough?
If I understood correctly, you suggested US could/should have been sanctioned through international orgs.
I didn't specify sanctions. Just the double standards at play that completely ignored US actions with Iraq, and then punished other countries for their actions.
I don't think sanctions are "useless" even though it will be painful for those doing the sanctioning also & may take time to show positive effects.
I don't think sanctions will be the cause of any positive effects when it comes to Russia. I suspect it'll come down to negotiation and concessions made on both sides. Perhaps the removal of US supported military bases and listening posts around Russian borders, in return for a guarantee of Ukrainian (or other nations) independence, providing scope for Russia to be reassured that these nations won't become direct allies of America/the West. I dunno.. but I seriously doubt anything will stop Russia from "reclaiming" certain territories, short of a serious commitment of troops by the US in those territories, and TBH I suspect that might actually tip the hand of Russia towards open warfare with the West.
If that’s true, the NATO sec general handled that situation with supreme incompetence.
Russia has closed large part of the Azoz sea which connects to the black sea ,due to naval and artillery action directly outside Ukrainian military and civilian ports , Ukrainian vessels must apply to Russia to sail through their own waters
It doesn't need to be corrected, but perhaps I should have been a bit clearer there.
I didn't mean to exclude or slight Russia (i.e. Soviet Union) as "victor" or winner in WW2 at all, but they are not generally considered part of "the West" in way its being used on this thread, so Russia are not "Western [and] WW2 victors".
If I understood correctly, you suggested US could/should have been sanctioned through international orgs./the UN for Iraq, and idea that they could be was absurd (my word), solely because the West/US was the one "providing the backbone" for said international orgs. Hence there is a double standard/who guards the guardians type situation when it comes to Western "offences" (like US Iraq invasion) vs Russia perhaps (if it does launch an(other) attack on Ukraine).
I just pointed out that idea of any UN backed/led sanctions on Russia over a Ukraine invasion looks to me like being equally absurd, for similar reasons (power/importance of Russia in UN). US/EU sanctions are a different matter. The Western countries can make their own decisions about relations with Russia.
I think you may have a point about a Western bias in UN trade sanctions however. In the past (maybe post cold war 90s/00s) US/Europe made up a large majority of the global economy and so they had a unique ability to create and apply the sanctions and enforce them or not and compel others. However I don't think this is the case as much as it was, and now you also have China imposing unilateral trade sanctions against the countries that offend/anger it and trading/interacting with countries the US or the West has sanctioned.
There was a time when Putin actually wanted to join NATO (the late-90s I believe). He asked the British NATO Sec. General at the time when can he expect an invite, the Sec. Gen. told him that NATO isn't an invite club - that nations must apply and meet criteria with their defence industry etc.
Putin apparently got in a huff and basically said Russia isn't just any other nation and shouldn't have to jump through hoops.
The point is not the destruction of the country, just to make it unpalatable and economically unviable. Most current sanctions are relatively minor and targeted, but if Russia black/white invaded Ukraine, there'd be a large global backlash. Selling resources cheaper elsewhere is losing revenue. As mentioned, they have the approx. GDP of Italy, and such a scenario would be economically painful for them. Again, the Kremlin knows this, which is why I would be extremely surprised if they actually went ahead with a major conflict.
I wonder will there be an attempt to block Russia from SWIFT.
Though i am a little doubtful the attempt would succeed.
True but the main sources of income won't be touched. The German gas agreement wouldn't be touched, nor would trade with India or China. The truth is that sanctions/restrictions only involves certain countries, and while it might hurt Russia somewhat, there are plenty of other markets or countries willing to trade under the radar.
Sorry to nit-pick fly_agaric but you said something here that should be corrected:
"They [Russia] are pillars of the UN/international structure as much as the Western WW2 victors (in particular the US) are."
Russia were allies in WWII and were clearly victors as US was scrambling to get a foothold into Europe to insure they gained a seat at the winners circle. While the US/UK were "winners" by securing the most western parts of Europe(and the US winners in the S Pacific); Russia were clearly among the biggest winners of WWII by the sheer scale of their involvement and the amount of land and resources that came under their control across eastern Europe in the immediate aftermath.
Infact there is some debate that Russia were the primary victors of WWII.
I think a lot of the blame for the current situation stems from the foreign policy of George W Bush and the devils on his shoulder, not least of whom was Condoleeza Rice.
A decade after the USSR collapsed, Bush could have been magnanimous (as Clinton seemed to be) and said, OK Russia is back, as a republic. Russia - the country of Tchaikovsky and Tolstoy, the country that was allied to the US and the UK in WWI and WW2, the country that humbled Napoleon, the country that served as a Christian bulwark against Ottoman-Islamic expansion for centuries. The country that suffered the tragedy of a lunatic communist takeover at the same coincidentally unfortunate time that nuclear weaponry was invented, which exacerbated the tensions, could have been treated with more respect. Bush could have said, "Let's focus on building a friendship and strategic partnership with Russia in terms of trade and security, and basically ring-fence the Global North with western-minded nations."
But instead, enamored with the now obviously fallacious 'end-of-history' thesis; unhealthily distracted by a few savages hiding in the caves of Afghanistan; and offended by Russia's objections to the invasion of Iraq, Bush decided to court the less significant ejecta of the USSR's explosion - Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and so forth. In a recent interview about his reflections on working with Angela Merkel, Bush recalled that his biggest disagreement with Merkel was on Georgia's admission to NATO, where he wanted Georgia in, and she didn't. Imagine: one of his biggest regrets was not getting Georgia into NATO, rather than alienating Russia by expanding NATO in 2004 and withdrawing from the ABM treaty - unilaterally - in 2002.
If he had instead cultivated closer relations with Russia rather than the smaller states of eastern Europe, the security of the Baltics, Ukraine and the Caucuses might naturally been settled satisfactorily: much as Belgium no longer worries that Germany will storm its frontiers, the smaller former Soviet states might have had a similar trajectory.
Might have. Who knows. These are what ifs. There are admittedly a few reasons to think it wouldn't have been such an easy path (again, Russia is compelled by geography to be more authoritarian than other western countries would like), but I don't think we'd be in the dire situation we are in now.
Indeed but there's a lot of action the rest of the world can take via sanctions, restrictions, etc with Russia, which is heavily dependent on foreign trade.
Yes, but the UN can be bypassed, if the EU, US, and other trading blocs decided to apply sanctions. The point about the UN, is that it's still a mechanism for gaining support, even if the security council steps in to veto.
Think back to why I raised the UN as part of the discussion, although you'll have to consider more than Russia to do so.
In any case, sanctions are next to useless in doing anything to Russia.
Yes, it was UN sanctions that were mentioned though. Out of my depth now, but I did think the Security Council had to approve that and the permanent members could block it (?). As said when it comes to a country like US/Russia/China etc., there is no effective global policeman.
Unilateral sanctions. Also Russia is no stranger to international sanctions currently.
Okay - you didn't tell me to shut up. Regardless of all that...I don't see how there will be, or ever could be sanctions at the UN on Russia (could they not just veto it?) They are not Iraq or similar. Russia and China are both permanent members of UN security council. They are pillars of the UN/international structure as much as the Western WW2 victors (in particular the US) are. The UN sanctioning either seems just as absurd as the West sanctioning the US or itself over Iraq. There may be harsh words about Russia at the UN said by Western countries + allies but any sanctions post a Ukraine invasion will be by the West or countries they can persuade to join them.
Yeah I'm not too worried about it, and am still expecting more step by step actions/escalations to come.
That said, it's still a continuous conflict zone along the rebel held territory, daily exchanges, etc
Seems like Putin is following the Foundations of Geopolitics playbook as expected.
The same could be said about the US vetoing of resolutions. None of them have their hands clean in that regard.
Goal post moving. You claimed that China and Russia repeatedly hobble the UN with vetoes.
While there is some truth in that statement regarding Russia/USSR's use of the veto, it is certainly not true for China. And infact you should have cited Russia/USSR and US use of the veto is what hobbles the UN.
You also could have included UK because despite their smallness in comparison to global power at the UN, they are lackey's of the US and they register #3 on use of UN veto.
I appreciate your efforts at steer conversation away from Russia in a Russia titled thread but this is a country whose advanced anti aircraft systems drive themselves across an international border shoot down passenger planes and then drive back and all you get are whataboutisms and deflections and conspiracies as a reply for barbaric acts.
Referring to other organisations or countries, is not steering the discussion away from Russia. That's a deflection from you, because it's easier (black/white) to focus entirely on Russia without considering international politics and events.
Nobody has sought to excuse Russian behavior... so for someone on about whataboutisms, you're introducing quite a bit of it yourself.
He certainly would. These two interviews, with western reporters, should be watched by everyone. Please disregard the YouTube titles and annoying captioning - the content of the videos are what matter. I think it's clear that he feels genuinely aggrieved and makes salient points to back this up:
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3694d3d768784d2dd89108859b666f01.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eaabbaf8a16773590ee22dd6c15f1d68.svg)