You must log in or register to comment.
Is it possible to make any argument for Russia’s economy?
Arguably ‘russia’s economy’ is a word combination without obvious linguistic problems
And it sets up a truble joke beautifully.
Only if you’re a landlocked Central Asian country with no other avenues for more trading opportunities with the wider world.
Even then, it seems smarter to go with China or India since those countries will actually consume the raw materials being produced by these countries.
The economic and political infrastructures between Russia and Central Asian states are already well established thanks to history, which makes both parties still rely on each other. But the connection between Central Asia and China and India is not well established, which makes more immediate realignment difficult for Central Asians. The Belt and Road Initiative is still in its infancy in Central Asia. But even then, many analysts say the BRI infrastructures in Central Asia has not been profitable for China. Many say the real purpose of BRI in Asia is to provide back up trading route for China, if South China Sea ever becomes a war zone too dangerous for shipment towards the country.
Can’t they ship from St. Petersburg?
Because nato and the UN are the first sign internationally cooperation, but people want to shit on it because they don’t have a good argument of why the structure doesn’t work, so instead of creating a good argument about the current structure, they just shit on it and say “NATO BAD”.
There is a reason why it is obvious to some people why NATO and the UN are bad and not to others. There are obvious good reasons to hate those organizations if you are the kind of person or nation who wants to do horrible things to other people or nations for your own benefit.
I’m not saying any of those people are wrong or right. What I’m saying is is people put forth the energy to criticize those organizations and countries involved without coming up with solutions to improve said organizations. Instead people just say that those orgs are evil or bad. Both organizations are international coops, so how is that a bad thing? It shows a great chance, but instead of trying to find solutions, they want to chastise it.
So with that being said, what would be your solution to improve NATO and the UN?
Both organizations are international coops, so how is that a bad thing?
What I am saying is that that is a bad thing if you are the bully everyone else is cooperating to protect themselves from.
It’s interesting to think about “NATO vs Russia” framing.
When we think like that, of seems like there are these two similar entities opposed to each other. Not even close to true!
NATO = THIRTY TWO distinct governments representing many hundreds of millions of people who voted for them
Russia = One government that doesn’t properly represent its people and heavily relies on propaganda to survive
Legit multipolarization?
NATO, in particular, is highly coupled to the American/anti-Russian agenda. How much chance did Europe get to discuss the pros and cons of bankrolling a long-term conflict in Ukraine vs getting railroaded into it with the insinuations of being the next Chamberlain?
Even Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin don’t wake up every morning asking “how can I be evil today?” They may have a different agenda than the West, but it still comes from a place of caring for their country, legacy, and position. These are not wholesale foreign concepts. They can be understood and worked with. But I suspect the sort of organizations that would get the best out of them would require certain countries to acknowledge their place among equals and be willing to comptomise their sphere of influence.
pfft. europes support of ukraine is way outsideo of just nato obligations. This is stuff happening right off their borders.
Then do something about the problem! For fuck’s sake. If you see a problem and choose not to do anything about the problem beside complain about the problem, then you’re part of the problem.
Yup. I argued to a Russian troll before that the “similar culture” is not good reason to violate national sovereignty. Like, UK could not forcefully retake New York simply because New York once belonged to the UK and both speak English. The troll responded that if the people want to join another richer country, then just let that happen. Which is a farcical argument, even for a Russian soaked in Putin’s propaganda, that the US is ten times richer than the UK, and of course New York would wish to remain with the former, if economy is the arbitrator on where one should side with. It did not also occur to the troll that he/she should apply the same logic to Ukraine as to why they want to align with the EU/West. Because the West the way richer and even ordinary Russians know it.
Sorry Vlady, the West could afford a bigger wedding ring.
hides his plans to “liberate” the Anglosphere and make them states
Removed by mod
Don’t spread misinformation.
I have said this before, the issue of political and economic alignment among Ukrainians, and the separatist conflict on Eastern Ukraine is an internal one. And there is no evidence of persecution of Russia-speakers. Much of the separatist sentiment had been stoked, more than likely by Kremlin. And Zelensky is a Russian-speaking Ukrainian Jew; meanwhile the Ukrainian defense chief, Oleksandr Syrsky, is a Russian himself who have come to call Ukraine his home. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to accuse Ukraine as Nazis or Russophobe.
With all that said, the supposed systemic persecution of Russian-speakers is made up, and the divide between Russian and Ukrainian-speakers on whether to align with the West or Russia is internal issue that does not justify invading another sovereign country. I always make the analogy that it is like the Republic of Ireland invading Northern Ireland, which the latter is legally part of UK, after making the justification to defend Catholics (and the Irish government did draw up a plan for an invasion but they did not go ahead because they know it’s illegal). Or Turkey invading the entirety of Cyprus after already occupying the northern part. Invading another country which everyone knows are flimsy pretexts is illegal.
And america has no racism because we had a black president. Your logic sounds pretty but falls apart once you start trying replacement variables.
Not to justify any bigotry, but the key point here is whether or not it’s systemic, which the UN reported on one of the links I presented. The UN report stated there are prejudices on individual basis, which they do not nor anyone should condone, but there is no Ukrainian state-sponsored discrimination on Russian-speakers.
You’re just really trying to shoe-horn obvious Kremlin propaganda.
Removed by mod
Right, and there is no state sponsored discrimination of minorities in america. Go ahead and show me a law that explicitly states it.
We’re not in 1950s American and pretty sure there isn’t one. And since you insist there is one at present and brought it up, you should present it. The burden of proof is on you.
I’m making the point the racism exists without it being explicitly written out. Theres even minorities who uphold laws that cause racist outcomes.
Does that mean a black police officer can’t be racist?
Wanting to join a state power that is infamously non-democratic, faking and manipulating elections and foreign affairs, is inherently a dead give-away that you are a pawn, just like arguing for it.
I vaguely recall a certain whisky-producing region having some sort of referendum at one point. Must have dreamt it, sorry.
The South is not allowed to secede.
Nor is Scotland, if that’s what you’re referring to.
Scotland was given the choice to secede, they chose not to
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
George Washington crushed it.
six foot ten weighs a fucking ton
🎶Three on the vine, so divine. 🎶 EDIT: WAIT it was 6 on the vine! Come back, 2002!
the defenestration is incredibly relevant.
China (but not Russia) does make arguments as to why their political and economic systems are superior pretty regularly
Hey, China, the nine dash thing isn’t working. Instead of picking a fight with the every country (aside from NK) in the entire south pacific, perhaps… take a cue from the Russo-Japanese war - look north man, there’s shittons of resources up there, and space… tons of space. Hell, get Yongmingcheng back and just… see where it goes. The second best army in RU (ukraine’s forces in Kursk currently being #1 apparently) isn’t gonna stop the might of the PLA.
Worried about the international backlash? HAHAHAA THE REST OF THE WORLD WILL NOT COME TO RUSSIA’S AID. Give it a nibble, russia’s had ages to exploit these resources and barely sprinkled the lands with their people.
You could fight everyone in the south pacific over taiwan, or, you could fight the second best army in russia. So many benefits.
I understand the Taiwan argument, I don’t understand Ukraine, how does everyone joining NATO help Russia/China in any capacity? By that logic, they should attack Switzerland or the Cayman Islands and piss off most of the billionaires in the world who hide their assets there…
The purpose behind attacking Ukraine was to prevent them from joining NATO, and that kind of relied on a quick resolution to the war before other countries have a chance to join. The goal was to get in and get out with a treaty that formally recognizes Russia’s control over Crimea and promises to not join NATO.
The purpose behind attacking Ukraine was to prevent them from joining NATO
NO, that’s Kremlin propaganda.
If the Kremlin was worried about NATO, they wouldn’t put everything they have against Ukraine and leave themselves so exposed like they are right now where Ukraine alone has been easily holding part of their territory for a month.
The reason for this barbaric war was to take industrial infrastructure in Donbas, secure a land bridge to Crimea, take recently uncovered fossil fuel resources, give Russians a common enemy to make them more nationalistic, and prevent Ukraine from flourishing as a democracy because then Russians might want the sameas their neighbors.
I thought they’re devoting so much to this war largely because Putin needs it to stay in power. As in, they started it because they thought they could secure a peace deal really quickly (i.e. no NATO and official handover of Crimea), but things didn’t go as planned and Putin has to see it through to maintain his power. The nationalism and crushing of Democracy was plan B, not the primary goal.
I don’t think they need more fuel reserves, and they already have a bridge to Crimea, so they don’t really need any of the land in E. Ukraine. I think Russia attacked with the excuse of assisting Russian separatists in the east, but I really don’t think they care about them, they just want Ukraine to stay within their sphere of influence, and failing that, not join the west. Before 2014, the government of Ukraine was pretty pro-Russia, and then they switched to a pro-west government (some say through western influence, but not sure how much of that is propaganda).
Yes agreed, at this point Putin will look weak if he doesn’t get something out of all this. Which could give someone an opportunity to take him down.
They don’t really need more fuel reserves, but they want to prevent Ukraine from undercutting them on the market.
Putin’s bridge to Crimea has almost been destroyed already, and they’ve stopped even using it for a lot of military logistics. A land bridge isn’t vulnerable like that.
Attacking Ukraine to prevent them joining NATO would have worked had Ukrainians been as weak as Putin thought. But nope, what does Putin expect from a group of people, whom his country had subjected to Holodomor before? Somehow happily rejoin Russia for another round of persecution? That’s like UK invading Ireland again, and expecting Ireland to give up and happily rejoin the UK despite the previous 800 years of atrocities.
Putin had also thought the Ukrainian military are still the same Ukrainian forces who were doing badly in 2015. But the fact that Ukraine was on the verge of defeating separatists in Luhansk and Donbas, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, would have hinted to him that the UFA have matured. Former Ukrainian defense chief, Valerii Zaluzhny, attributed the eight years of fighting in Eastern Ukraine for allowing UFA to gain valuable combat experience that has been indispensable in the current war. In hindsight, the Russian meddling in Eastern Ukraine only helped Ukraine to gain more experience! Thank you Putin!
That Putin, he’s a teacher at heart, he failed to teach Tucker Carlson history, but he helped Ukraine to become the strongest military in one hundred settlements and what, 300 square km of Russian territory? EDIT:removed possibly incorrect name for Ukrainian army personnel assigned to occupy Russia. Ukraine Territorial Defense? Ukraine Defense Force?
That’s not what Putin said in the first week of March 2022, he said they were sending a special operation to protect ethnic Russians living in Ukraine and to de-nazify Ukraine. Those were his words. Not Putin’s fault the FSB couldn’t find any Nazis for the livestreams, right? Must be tough to be him, when his own words were streamed around the world and can’t be erased. Is bombing maternity hospitals part of his strategy to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO? Strangely, crushing women and children to death using glide bomb attacks on apartment buildings has not been persuasive.
I don’t really believe anything Putin says, I believe what he does. I think “protecting ethnic Russians” was an excuse to achieve his main goal, which was to keep Ukraine from joining NATO, and to resolve the dispute around Crimea.
I think he wanted a quick war, but Ukraine didn’t play ball and now he needs to save face to stay in power. So he desperately needs a win here, so he’s pivoting to Russian nationalism to stay in power because it’s becoming pretty clear that this war is going to drag on.
I’m saying that what Putin DOES is send resources to eradicate Ukraine as a nation. You’re right that the excuses keep changing. It was never really about preventing NATO membership for him. It’s about seizing and destroying.
Idk, if he completely absorbs Ukraine, that puts him right next door to a very angry NATO. I really don’t think he wants that, he wants a buffer, and he wants Europe to get over what he’s done in Ukraine. I think he now sees that ship has sailed, and he can’t really back down due to local political pressure, so he has to keep going.
You’re saying two different things. Him attacking Ukraine is him doing something but the only way you could read the motivation as something done to stop Ukraine joining NATO is either basing it off of what someone in the regime said (hypocritical) or projecting what you want onto the situation to square a pre-conceived narrative in your head.
There seems to have been a set of informal assurances between the US/NATO and the USSR that NATO wouldn’t expand eastward past Germany, though there were no legally binding agreements. Russia objected when NATO expanded in the 90s, and it continued objecting as more and more countries joined NATO. This isn’t new, it’s a clearly established pattern.
So when we get to Putin, I think his argument that NATO is being too aggressive has merit, at least from the Russian perspective. If he allows NATO to continue expanding, the Russian people would justifiably be pretty upset, so he essentially is forced to take some kind of action to show that Russia has certain lines in the sand. If he lets Ukraine, their next-door neighbor, join NATO, who would trust that he actually has any kind of power to protect Russian interests? So it makes complete sense that Putin decided to invade Ukraine for the primary purpose of preserving a line of buffer states, as well as legally justify the taking of Crimea. That sends a message to other border states that Russia will not stand by while it’s regional influence is further eroded.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying he was justified in attacking Ukraine, I’m merely saying he was obligated to demonstrate a show of force to retain his position of power. If he was able to get a peace agreement from Ukraine to not join NATO and to formally recognize Russian control of Crimea, I think he would’ve withdrawn. That didn’t happen, so now he’s between a rock and a hard place and needs to get significant concessions from Ukraine to retain his power in Russia.
I don’t really believe anything Putin says, I believe what he does…
So when we get to Putin, I think his argument that NATO is being too aggressive has merit…
I think you’re picking when to listen to Putin to support your preconceived notion that NATO started it.
I’m looking at the history between Russia/USSR and USA/NATO and trying to see things from their perspective. I’m not saying their perspective is correct (NATO is only obligated to actual, legal contracts), just explaining how Russians see things to understand why they think they were justified in instigating a conflict.
Once you understand why your enemy is doing certain things, you can more carefully craft a peace deal that’s mutually beneficial.
deleted by creator
Nacho brother, pal. ;) I prefer “fren” or “buddy”.
You mean the war that is not a war, and the attack that Putin said he wasn’t going to perform until he did, leaving even Putindrones running confused for an excuse because Putin’s cancer was acting up making him panic and rush so even they didn’t know? How’s Prighozin, by the way?
