Russia General

[Rydygier 1302]

So as soon as someone points out that Russia's actions are a reaction to NATO's actions, that someone is told to shut up because "we speak about Russia, you are only allowed to bash Russia here".

And NATO as a whole was reaction on the USSR actions. Etc. This way we could go back to the Big Bang itself. But this misses the point. Russia is led and inhabited by people of free will, not determined to make only certain reaction for given action. Frankly, I do believe, they believe, they only reacting on the threats (even if that aren't the NATO planes consequently violating Russia borders, it's not NATO that robbed Ukraine from the Crimea by force etc. Russia does all that. In the self defence, you say? Right. maybe they think that way). But again, third time, threat is only in their minds polluted by assumptions dictated by imperialistic ambitions. As soon they remove that bloody shit from their heads, they have situation no needing any of such reactions, any such "defense". No threat to react. It's their choice, if and how to react on something.

Russia is the topic. Want to bash USA? Go to the proper thread. May be equal in size possibly. Or stay here and focus on good things about the Russia. Lots of them, I'm sure. It's not about "bashing" anyway. It's about the facts and opinions. Currently - Russia bashes itself and its neighbours. That's IMO deeply wrong, so I'm saying that.

And why is Russia in need of mental changes and not the USA for example?

You're asking me? Did I said, USA doesn't need mental changes? IMO in one or another degree same applies to all the world. But IMO again much more for Russia today, than for USA today. Why? Some time ago in the Ukraine thread I cited some Russian that was in opinion, Russia as a country is in agonal state and will die and rot soon, it's inevitable according to him. Harsh it may be, I read and heard many opinions in the similar tone about Russia. Confirmed by numerous stories about Russian reality of life. Not really as many of such teriffying stuff about USA I ever heard. And that's all about USA from me in this tread, I hope.

And I had no prejudices against USA until I have served along their soldiers and have seen what they think of us and how they act towards us.

Yes, that's my point. Due to certain, factual experiences you could gain some prejudicies not existing earlier, projecting attitude of some in one aspect on the whole nation/country and all aspects. No one is free from such flaw of thinking, myself included.

What I mean is that while condeming one nation as an iperialistic monster, we are supporting another imperialistic monster at the same time.

Naming an evil is supporting another evil? There is only one evil named such name by me here so far - cynical imperialism crushing lives of the people in its blind and stupid as hell quest for power and influences - things not worthy even single human life. That's evil. Not Russia nor any other country. Although at least in Poland many, that remember history, may think about Russia as "a monster" with indeed good reasons (I would 100x prefer some prancing Yankees instead. Moderate dose of annoyance is better than bloodshed and terror), it's not my opinion here. I have completely nothing against Russians peacefully trying to live their lifes in their country or wherever they want. Great, if they do so, God bless them all in that. Many of Russia's actions though was and are worthy of some inhuman monster. For sure I'm not here to condemn a nation. Putin/government =/= nation (although he is from that nation, chosen by this nation, what has meaning too). Judging actions as good or wrong =/= condemning an acting person.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Rydygier

[negah 26]

So Russia should wait and do nothing just like Stalin did because he believed that Hitler was his best friend for life until the Wehrmacht stood at his front yeard and millions of civilians were dead?

Not like Stalin cared about civilians but I guess he didnt like to look of the map of his country after Barbarossa.

Yeah you could say that "omg how can I dare to imply that NATO wants to attack someone, clearly Russia is ze evil aggressor", just look at how many countries has USA/NATO attacked in the recent history.

I mean both Churchill and Patton wanted to attack the Soviet Union after the WWII.

Just look at the weapons and doctrines of both countries, who has developed the purely offensive weapons like aircraft carriers and a strong air force and who has invested into the purely defensive weapons like strong air defense and a big submarine fleet.

Of course Russia has nuclear weapons which might be the only reason we havent seen a WWIII yet.

Seeing how the US have got rich because of world wars in the first place and seeing their national debt right now and how they struggle each year not to declare themselves bankrupt:

$ 18,022,738,932,490 http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates

and how the whole Russia bashing in our media has started far before the whole Ukraine crisis (basically after Russia has prevented the USA from attacking Syria, how dare they), there are certainly some people who would like to lead a contained war or a proxy war against Russia.

[mistyronin 1181]

So Russia should wait and do nothing just like Stalin did because he believed that Hitler was his best friend for life until the Wehrmacht stood at his front yeard and millions of civilians were dead?

Not like Stalin cared about civilians but I guess he didnt like to look of the map of his country after Barbarossa.

Russia already invaded other countries before a German soldier set foot in Russia, in fact even years before Hitler declared war to it.

For instance Finland was invaded partially by Russia in 1939.

[negah 26]

I know and I didnt want to protect Russia there, I wanted to say that it makes sense to try to make defensive preparations before someone attacks you and not wait untill the supposed "friend" kills off 10% of your population like ProfTournesol has suggested and only then admit its the enemy.

Therefore the new russian Doctrine where NATO is stated as an enemy, since thats what NATO and Russia are at the moment = enemies.

Edited December 27, 2014 by negah

[mistyronin 1181]

Therefore the new russian Doctrine where NATO is stated as an enemy, since thats what NATO and Russia are at the moment = enemies.

Russia and NATO were not enemies 1 year ago, in fact were partners, and also with the EU. It's Russia's actions in Ukraine that have changed the balance of things.

[negah 26]

As I said the totally negative portrayal of Russia in our media has started far before the Ukraine crisis.

[mistyronin 1181]

As I said the totally negative portrayal of Russia in our media has started far before the Ukraine crisis.

In what media? I lived in diff countries in the EU and the portrayal was really positive. In fact for example here in Finland the Gov. was promoting business with Russia ( in fact most of the money comes from exports to Russia ), also when I lived in Spain.

I've never seen any EU mass media criticizing Russia. In fact specially after the Syria gas case, even US media was commenting how good Putin played his cards. A year ago Putin was considered only a danger to its own citizens.

[negah 26]

The German media, by preventing US from attacking Syria Putin has prevented the spread of freedom, democracy and supported murdering of democracy loving ISIS people and other extremists.

Then we had PussyRiot, gays, GreanPeace activists etc, and how evil russian laws towards them are. The Winter Olympics were almost described as a crime and how we should boykott them.

[Rydygier 1302]

I didn't noticed any extraordinary anti-Russian message in the Polish media before 2014 either, except some period, when Russia "defended itself from aggressive NATO" in Georgia. All started from Ukraine.

So Russia should wait and do nothing just like Stalin did because he believed that Hitler was his best friend for life until the Wehrmacht stood at his front yeard and millions of civilians were dead?

Not like Stalin cared about civilians but I guess he didnt like to look of the map of his country after Barbarossa.

So, you actually believe, NATO would invade Russia (assuming no nukes) if only had a chance? Or you believe, Putin seriously believes in that? He might, who knows (but IMO he just cynically makes NATO a threat for the internal propaganda pruposes). He is wrong if so, although his decisions last year are effective way to make this true some day.

Stalin, as far as, we know, was pretty busy that time. USSR's goal never was just to defend. Actually as far from that, as possible. The goal was to spread plague of communism across the Europe and later - the world. Stalin could observe, as Lenin tries to achieve exactly that in 1920. Just wasn't yet ready, when Hitler stroke.

BTW Submarines, especially those with nukes on board, was one of the most offensive weaponry created. Similarly "defensive" in nature was massive tank divisions. In fact, I'm pretty curious, how exactly USSR doctrine of that times was looking. And how some professional analyze of Red Army structure and main purpose judging by this.

To sum it up a bit - Russia declares new military doctrine naming NATO a main threat after a years (it's started before Ukraine in fact, Georgia was an earlier example, taken shamefully reaction-less by the NATO) of aggressive, imperialistic policy. It's good move for them now IMO, I agree with negah on that, as who makes enemies, he has to start affraid them.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Then we had PussyRiot, gays, GreanPeace activists etc, and how evil russian laws towards them are. The Winter Olympics were almost described as a crime and how we should boykott them.

Considering how gay people are treated in Russia, i'd say that's perfectly logic. BTW you should read a little about Sotchi's Olympics, and why it costed such a insane amount of money.

[negah 26]

Submarines with nuclear weapons are meant to ensure a retaliation strike since they are more or less immune to a first strike against nuclear forces of a country.

So a rather defensive weapon meant to ensure the MAD.

So Russia was protecting some territories who have declared themselves independent of Georgia years ago from a Georgian offensive and city shellings? Dont these people have right for self determination too?

Considering how gays are sentenced with lashing, long prison sentences and sometimes death sentences in Saudi Arabia (a dictatorship and our close ally) and no one is saying a word about it, but Russia is so evil because it wants to prohibit gay propaganda so that their children can grow up without being led to believe that being homosexual is "cool" and "swag" and whatever, I find it highly hypocritical.

Edited December 27, 2014 by negah

[ProfTournesol 956]

Considering how gays are sentenced with lashing, long prison sentences and sometimes death sentences in Saudi Arabia (a dictatorship and our close ally) and no one is saying a word about it, but Russia is so evil because it wants to prohibit gay propaganda so that their children can grow up without being led to believe that being homosexual is "cool" and "swag" and whatever, I find it highly hypocritical.

Once again, that doesn't excuse what happens in Russia. But i agree that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are very doubtful friends, but Assad isn't any better.

[Rydygier 1302]

Dont these people have right for self determination too?

"Self" or "Russia determination"?

In general, when I'm trying to judge, what is right or wrong, it's not about any a priori rights however. It leads nowhere. Such rights, sooner or later, become an excuse, that can be biased and abused to support any interest. And are all the time. In reality rights are dictated by those, who has strength to enforce them.

It's about the outcome regarding the people to me. If, for example, in Poland, people of Silesia decide to declare independence from Poland, for me it is not matter, if they had "right" to do such secession (and which one right exactly - constitutional? Historical? Universal? Human?). Or if, Germany for example would have a right to enter Polish territory to defend independence of Silesia if Poland oppose secession. Or Catalonia case perhaps. For my moral judgement matters, what will be result of this for all affected people, where affection is wider and deeper, it seems at first. Hard to judge.

Now let's consider a situation, where Russian minority in some country, let's say gathered as local majority on some territory would "declare independence". Country, naturally, would oppose. How to judge such event basing on so called universal rights? Russia will say, its their holy right and will not hesitate to enter such country to "defend" right of self determination of those Russians, according, what Russia is saying in matter of such cases, granting to itself such right of intervention. In fact, obviously, Russia will this way just expand its influence zone if not territory (and screw the people harmed in the process). Would that be good or bad thing and why? "West" will say, it was set up by Russia excuse to take another piece of territory from the helpless, smaller country. It will be condemned etc. Good or wrong? Also about Crimea annexation, if we focus on the so called rights, we could argue without any hope for any conclusion - both sides here will name own rights supporting their stances, and what will matter in the end is force standing behind the claim. Russia has bigger force than Ukraine, while NATO is too far and too hesitiating, thus Crimea is "rightfully" Russian now. Who has real right of self determination? All or none? All this "rights" stuff is one big phantasmagoria to me, that sounds nice but that's all about it.

Submarines with nuclear weapons are meant to ensure a retaliation strike since they are more or less immune to a first strike against nuclear forces of a country.

So a rather defensive weapon meant to ensure the MAD.

That would be true for static launchers located in the country. But not for submarines. Those could sneak to the enemy's shore and from there perform effective first strike with as short time for any reaction as possible. Trying to deploy nuclear warheads on Cuba nearly triggered WW3. Such "boomer" submarine is worse threat, as can be located closer to the shore, than Cuba is.

I find it highly hypocritical.

Because it is. Like most of politics. Same, as described "rights" case.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Rydygier

[Tonci87 163]

negah, sorry to say it like that, but seriously stop beeing in favour of Russia just because you don´t like Americans. I´m living in the same Germany as you do and I have never seen negative press about Russia unless Putin did something stupid.

Invading Georgia during the Olympics, that got him bad press.

Supporting Assad in Syria, that got him bad press too.

Degrading human rights standards in Russia and limiting freedom of press, imprisoning of political enemies, etc, that obviously got him bad publicity.

The Sochi winter olympics got him bad press for the same reasons.

Invading Ukraine...well...what do you think?

Generally Russia and Putin had very good press in Germany until the thing with Syria. People here in Germany are a bit sensible when it comes to poison gas and supporting people who use it. They even broadcasted the whole ceremony when he became president again, etc.

And about Nato "expanding" to Russias borders: Nato didn´t simply expand, allmost all the nations in east europe that previously were under soviet rule wanted to get into NATO as soon as they could. They decided that this time they would try to keep their independence and freedom by joining their "former enemy". How much does that tell you about Russia and the Soviet union?

[Sub-Human 10]

So Russia was protecting some territories who have declared themselves independent of Georgia years ago from a Georgian offensive and city shellings? Dont these people have right for self determination too?

In Russia it is illegal to ask for a referendum and discuss federalization in a protest. So maybe Putin should ask his fellow Russians what they think about self determination, before forcing it on the people of other states?

[mistyronin 1181]

In Russia it is illegal to ask for a referendum and discuss federalization in a protest. So maybe Putin should ask his fellow Russians what they think about self determination, before forcing it on the people of other states?

In fact in Russia it's even forbidden to talk about self-determination inside Russia ( it's a crime ).

[oxmox 73]

Interesting that basically NATO has spread its zone of influence directly up to russian borders and now blames Russia for imperialism, whereas it tries to save what little pieces of its own zone of influence has left.

NATO not imposing its will onto foreign countries? Please, the whole Middle East, northern Africa and some south american countries think otherwise.

During my time at the Bundeswehr I have started to greatly dislike our north american "partners", who behaved themselves like the masters here in Germany when we had joint excersices at Grafenwöhr.

Exactly, seems like some forget that the US-Empire, actually the world power, is trying to hold their influence or even expand it.

The cold war 2.0 did start already years ago or such cold war did never really end. Russia was warning about NATO expansion, US-missile defence in Poland, Georgia and NATO/EU support and so on...the conflict in the Ukraine was forseen, at least about the crimea and the strategical importance of Sevastopol.

You can blame maybe the reactions but you have ask yourself who did aswell contribute to this situation.

negah, sorry to say it like that, but seriously stop beeing in favour of Russia just because you don´t like Americans.

This would be quiete a one sided view, same if it would be the opposite of the message.

Invading Georgia

Should I post again reports about the official EU investigation about 2008 and the result that actually Georgia did start the war with an invasion ? People forget fast.

And about Nato "expanding" to Russias borders: Nato didn´t simply expand, allmost all the nations in east europe that previously were under soviet rule wanted to get into NATO as soon as they could.

There are always two parties who need to agree not only one who just want to.

The expansion is called "enlargement".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

Edited December 27, 2014 by oxmox

[ProfTournesol 956]

In fact in Russia it's even forbidden to talk about self-determination inside Russia ( it's a crime ).

Funny when Russia promotes self determination abroad :rolleyes:

[mistyronin 1181]

According to the Russian law, Putin and most of the Russian media should go to jail for promoting self-determination.

Funny when Russia promotes self determination abroad :rolleyes:

( Pravda ) Putin signs law approving criminal punishment for calls to separatism

In accordance with the law, public calls to separatism are punishable by a fine up to 300,000 rubles, compulsory works for up to 300 hours, or imprisonment for up to three years.

Offenses committed through the media or the Internet, shall be punishable either by compulsory works for up to 480 hours or imprisonment for up to five years. The law will come in effect on May 9, 2014.

[danil-ch 165]

discuss federalization

Double federalization? :D

[mistyronin 1181]

Double federalization? :D

Sub-Human meant real federalization, not only in name.

[oxmox 73]

According to the Russian law, Putin and most of the Russian media should go to jail for promoting self-determination.

( Pravda ) Putin signs law approving criminal punishment for calls to separatism

Interesting is the historical background and aims of "Siberian regionalism" and there is the question if it has common aims with the current calls of such small movements. Iam pretty sure you are talking about self-determination and Siberia.

--> "The idea of an autonomous Siberia was supported by Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, hoping it would become a democratic state, prosperous within a union with United States and leading to the collapse of Imperial Russia."

Michael Bohm of The Moscow Times also commented on the rise of Siberian self-identification in the census, calling not to return the 'nationality' to Russian passports and citing Siberian alienation from Moscow.[9] The census results showed that approximately 6,000 citizens identified themselves as 'Siberian'.

Western Siberia provides most of Russia's oil and gas, but the region gets very little benefit since the taxes go to Moscow.

But yeah, it sounds comical that seperatism abroad is getting supported but restricted inside Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_regionalism

Edited December 27, 2014 by oxmox

[Sub-Human 10]

I think the brightest example is Pridnestrovye (Transnitria), who are under control of Russia and have no voice in whether they want to become part of Moldova or just remove Russian troops from their territory.

[oxmox 73]

I think the brightest example is Pridnestrovye (Transnitria), who are under control of Russia and have no voice in whether they want to become part of Moldova or just remove Russian troops from their territory.

These struggles have always not only political but ethnical and a culturel background, this is the result when powers melt whole areas. It is not only visible after the collaps of the Sovjetunion, Yugoslavia another example. One of the biggest problems are seen in the whole middle and far east where world powers did divide & create countries, drawn with the lineal, around geopolitical and ressource rich areas. This is the root of the problems we have nowadays.

And when it comes to Transnitria, this small region did succeed with a secession from Moldova in 1990. Only Russia is backing it up probably with the aim for own interests and because of the ehtnics and poltical decisions in this area, wheras for the rest of the world this country does not even exist and their move for independence is not recognized. Other countries seem not be much different than Russia, only recognize or acknowledge something if it fits with their own interests.

Edited December 27, 2014 by oxmox

[Sub-Human 10]

Moscow Court Brings Navalny Verdict Forward To December 30

A Russian court says it will issue its verdict in a fraud case against opposition politician Aleksei Navalny on December 30, bringing the date forward from January 15.

The Moscow court made the announcement on December 29.

Bastards!