View Full Version : World Politics - Russia to go newcular against Poland,
InsaneApache
08-16-2008, 09:48
Russia threatened Poland with a nuclear strike yesterday as the ripples of the Caucasus conflict spread through Europe and pitched West against East along new border
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4543744.ece
They wouldn't, would they? :inquisitive:
Papewaio
08-16-2008, 10:47
Standard doctrine methinks.
The US & Russian ICBMs are aimed at:
1) Each others military capacity
2) Each others allies military capacity
3) Each others most populated civilian centers
4) Each others allies most populated civilian centers.
There will be differentiation within each of these, but that would be the general order of precedence that I would be using in a MAD scenario.
Poland has just put its hand up as an American ally. So it gets dishes 2 & 4.
Just as does Australia with Pine Gap.
Adrian II
08-16-2008, 10:58
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4543744.ece
They wouldn't, would they? :inquisitive:The Telegraph must learn to think before they publish. A Russian General has said Poland would be a nuclear target in case of a conflict with America, not immediately upon emplacement of the anti-missile battery. Russian PM Medvedev moderated the General's words to Angela Merkel and said the missile issue was 'not that dramatic'.
By the way this sort of bullying is the reason why Poland should have it asap, as a further sign of commitment from the Americans. European Nato partners should step up as well. It is probably not going to happen. I am deeply disappointed in the overall weak attitude of Nato in this episode.
Russia should be made aware that since it is encircled by countries that suffered its oppression, it has a duty to be extremely respectful of them if it ever wants to cooperate with the rest of Europe.
EDIT
Of course the general would be an idiot if he thinks Poland can be nuked and there won;t be a huge fall-out problem on Russian territory for years to come. But making the world think that idiots are pushing Kremlin buttons and that we had better appease them is just another bullying tactic. What I find unnerving is that public opinion is so quickly unnerved over such issues. We are all too ready to throw our hands in the air and give in to third-rate bullies.
Sarmatian
08-16-2008, 12:43
If true nuclear war happens, chances are that half of the world will be uninhabitable... Top half actually, so it doesn't matter much at which targets in particular are those missiles directed...
The missiles in poland do not protect the US from Russia, they would need to be situated in Alaska to do that (which incidently is a place you will already find US ABM missiles).
They do protect the US from missiles launched in the Middle-East, but more importantly they protect northern Europe from the east, which most notably includes Russia.
It is true that the number of ABM missiles is totally irrelevant when held against the possibility of all out nuclear war, but it will be very effective against limited strikes. This is important, because the net result is political advantage not military.
Russia has been willing threaten eastern Europe with its ballistic capability as consequence for falling further into NATO's sphere of influence, but what has changed is that Poland et-al can now retort; "Are you really willing to sink the world into total Armageddon just so you can dictate gas prices to the Baltic states?" It is all or nothing, and Russia will not opt for 'all' because therein lies its own death too.
So America is being disingenuous when it talks about defending its soil from rogue states, but Russia is even more so for talk of the US recklessly rocking the balance of power. Russia has the numbers to swamp, and the technology to avoid, any ABM defence network the US could afford to deploy, so it is not about the balance of power.
Missiles in Poland, and Radars in Czech boil down to one thing, giving Europe the tools to resist Russia's bullying, and Russia doesn't like it one bit.
The Telegraph must learn to think before they publish.
that is a times article, not telegraph. look, it says so in the link.
Sarmatian
08-16-2008, 13:42
1. Russia has the numbers to swamp, and the technology to avoid, any ABM defence network the US could afford to deploy, so it is not about the balance of power.
2. Missiles in Poland, and Radars in Czech boil down to one thing, giving Europe the tools to resist Russia's bullying, and Russia doesn't like it one bit.
Do you notice some contradictions here? If it doesn't affect the balance of power, how does it give Europe tools to resist Russia's bullying?
KukriKhan
08-16-2008, 13:47
I think he means the "intimidation" part of bullying, not the follow-through 'punch' as it were.
Adrian II
08-16-2008, 14:15
that is a times article, not telegraph. look, it says so in the link.Hoist on my own petard.
Do you notice some contradictions here? If it doesn't affect the balance of power, how does it give Europe tools to resist Russia's bullying?
it does nothing to knacker MAD, but it does mean poland et-al can raise two fingers to russia.
kukri is correct
Actually as a typical Pole I'm not too scared by Russian theats. They repeat same things everytime when someone show them that they do not rule into Eastern Europe.
According to them I should be annihilated about about 5 times.
1) Poland join NATO
2) Poland join EU
3) Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia join NATO
4) Poland support Ukraine
5) Poland support Georgia
Russians can simply threat - they can not talk and behave like civilised people but only threats.
Threats mentioned here were given by russian commanders - into which civilised country soldiers
can say something like that :) Only good reply on these threats and generally on Russian behavior is strenght - Russia respect only strong partners (they eat weak :) ). It worked good into Ukraine case and I think it will be working again.
On the other hand American "shield" will not help Poland into increasing its safety level. USA gave us Patriot missiles but I'm not sure who is commanding them and property of whom will they be. I can imagine Russian attack on Poland and America does nothing because American garrisons are not under attack. In my opinion best thing to protect Poland and make us absolutely safe is .... nuclear weapon. If we will be having 100 nukes objected into Moscov, St. Petersburg, Volgograd and Kazan - they will think twice before attack.
Actually as a typical Pole I'm not too scared by Russian theats. They repeat same things everytime when someone show them that they do not rule into Eastern Europe.
According to them I should be annihilated about about 5 times.
1) Poland join NATO
2) Poland join EU
3) Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia join NATO
4) Poland support Ukraine
5) Poland support Georgia
Russians can simply threat - they can not talk and behave like civilised people but only threats.
Threats mentioned here were given by russian commanders - into which civilised country soldiers
can say something like that :) Only good reply on these threats and generally on Russian behavior is strenght - Russia respect only strong partners (they eat weak :) ). It worked good into Ukraine case and I think it will be working again.
agreed
On the other hand American "shield" will not help Poland into increasing its safety level. USA gave us Patriot missiles but I'm not sure who is commanding them and property of whom will they be. I can imagine Russian attack on Poland and America does nothing because American garrisons are not under attack. In my opinion best thing to protect Poland and make us absolutely safe is .... nuclear weapon. If we will be having 100 nukes objected into Moscov, St. Petersburg, Volgograd and Kazan - they will think twice before attack.
disagreed, if you are in NATO you are covered by the collective defence clause.
Sarmatian
08-16-2008, 20:05
I think he means the "intimidation" part of bullying, not the follow-through 'punch' as it were.
To threaten with the use of force, you have to have the means to project that force, otherwise it's a hollow threat, an empty gun. If your ability to use force is diminished or lessened, your threat of force immediately loses some weight.
So, Russia's ability to "bully" won't lose it's effectiveness if the balance of power is unchanged (ie if the shield really doesn't have an effect whatsoever). On the other hand, Russia's ability to "bully" as Furunculus puts it, will be lessened if the shield in fact can affect the balance of power.
So, it's either one or another. It can't be both...
KukriKhan
08-16-2008, 20:47
Point taken.
However, the shield, even if it alone will not fully defense against the bully's thrown fist, it (the less-than 100% effective shield) also represents the certain, inevitable retaliation of your pal, the even bigger bully with a bigger fist, just behind you. Bully #1 knows this. And so is reduced to merely shaking his fist at you - and others - but never actually throwing a punch.
--edit--
That he did so in Georgia is a metter of unfortunate timing, that nation not yet having joined NATO.
Adrian II
08-16-2008, 20:58
[..] Russia's ability to "bully" as Furunculus puts it, will be lessened if the shield in fact can affect the balance of power.Russia's ability to bully depends on the will of Poland and its allies to stand up to it, to ignore Russian pressure even in the face of potential nuclear annihilation. In this sense the shield agreement strengthens Poland's ability to stand up to Russian bullying. It is not alone out there in the case of either a conventional or a nuclear confrontation, and Moscow has been served notice.
CountArach
08-17-2008, 00:28
The Polish people would live on...
This is just sabre rattling.
Sorry Arach but ....
I'M STILL ALIVE
CountArach
08-17-2008, 14:02
Sorry Arach but ....
I'M STILL ALIVE
Glad to hear KrooK, the Backroom wouldn't be the same without you.
To threaten with the use of force, you have to have the means to project that force, otherwise it's a hollow threat, an empty gun. If your ability to use force is diminished or lessened, your threat of force immediately loses some weight.
So, Russia's ability to "bully" won't lose it's effectiveness if the balance of power is unchanged (ie if the shield really doesn't have an effect whatsoever). On the other hand, Russia's ability to "bully" as Furunculus puts it, will be lessened if the shield in fact can affect the balance of power.
So, it's either one or another. It can't be both...
Q: Is russia willing to destroy the whole of humanity in order to bully the baltic states into its bidding?
A: No
Q: Is it therefore logical that russia's threats against those states take the form of a limited strike?
A: Yes
Q: What will be the effect of the missile shield?
A: It will stop a limited strike
Q: What will be the effect of this?
A: A limited strike will no longer be a credible threat against a nation otherwise powerless to respond
Q: Will russia revert to threatening baltic states with total armageddon over trifling issues?
A: Not unless they are insane beyond all reckoning
Q: Does 10 ABM's in Poland and 20 or so in Alaska have any material effect on the result of a first strike?
A: No
Q: If it were 100 in Poland and 200 in Alaska would this change things?
A: Not greatly, given that russia still has thousands of warheads
Q: Does russia have the technology to make missiles that are very hard to intercept?
A: Yes it does
Q: Does it matter if they can't successfully dodge ABM's all the time, or even 30% of the time.
A: No it does not, the US either has confidence that its shield will work, or it does not.
Q: Does MAD still exist as a relevant doctrine adhered to by both russia and the US?
A: Yes it does.
Q: Does therefore the balance of power remain between russia and the US regarding strategic nukes?
A: Yes
Q: Do i need to continue?
A: ..............................
Sarmatian
08-17-2008, 19:28
Q: Do i need to continue?
A: ..............................
As far as I am concerned you shouldn't have even started. What I've had to say about contradictions in your original statement I've already said. Nothing to add there.
But the point here isn't about current ability, it's about potential. If U.S. continues to invest in that technology, it may at point become advanced enough to limit Russia's nuclear capabilities. At this point it doesn't change much in the grand scale of things, but what about 2020 or 2050? Following that logic. US shouldn't have made a fuss about North Korean nuclear program because they don't have the advanced missiles that can reach US. No immediate threat. But, of course thing might change and North Korea may acquire that technology in ten or twenty years.
So at the present situation, Russia will naturally want to keep existing balance of power. After installment of the shield, it's first action is to re-target some of it's missiles. If the shield becomes more effective Russia's answer will probably be more missiles and more advanced missiles, because it is much cheaper than developing their own shield. Russian economy still isn't strong enough for that. By pumping money into that shield, US will force Russia to pump money into more missiles, and it may very well trigger another arms race. Russia won't have any other choice if it wants to keep the current balance of power and its position in the world.
I fully understand American logic behind the idea of ABM shield. They've made enemies on all continents and the idea that some of them may acquire nuclear weapons is certainly not pleasing, so the ability to protect themselves from that is very useful. And if the shield becomes more effective so that it can actually stop some Russian missiles, all the better. Don't think that no one really thought of that in the US. I can't believe that if that actually happens someone will be surprised - "Look, we've developed technology that can stop Russian missiles. What, you don't say! Well, bugger. We can't use it since we said that the shield won't be useful against Russian missiles." With these things taken into account, I totally understand Russian position. They want to keep the existing balance of power and they rightfully fear that the shield might potentially be used to limit effectiveness of their nuclear arsenal...
Adrian II
08-17-2008, 19:47
I fully understand American logic behind the idea of ABM shield. They've made enemies on all continents and the idea that some of them may acquire nuclear weapons is certainly not pleasing, so the ability to protect themselves from that is very useful.The U.S. has liberated a lot of countries back in the days when wars were still conventional. It's image is such that it is still the single most popular emigration target for people all around the world.
Russia has liberated no other country in its entire history. It has only ever installed puppet monarchs and regimes in the territories it conquered. It is hard to see how it ever will in its present shape.
As long as there are powerful undemocratic countries like China and Russia around, the U.S. is totally justified in protecting itself and its allies with the best technology the world has to offer.
The alternative would be that the Russians or Chinese develop it first and take advantage of it. That would be desastrous.
As far as I am concerned you shouldn't have even started. What I've had to say about contradictions in your original statement I've already said. Nothing to add there.
But the point here isn't about current ability, it's about potential. If U.S. continues to invest in that technology, it may at point become advanced enough to limit Russia's nuclear capabilities. At this point it doesn't change much in the grand scale of things, but what about 2020 or 2050? Following that logic. US shouldn't have made a fuss about North Korean nuclear program because they don't have the advanced missiles that can reach US. No immediate threat. But, of course thing might change and North Korea may acquire that technology in ten or twenty years.
So at the present situation, Russia will naturally want to keep existing balance of power. After installment of the shield, it's first action is to re-target some of it's missiles. If the shield becomes more effective Russia's answer will probably be more missiles and more advanced missiles, because it is much cheaper than developing their own shield. Russian economy still isn't strong enough for that. By pumping money into that shield, US will force Russia to pump money into more missiles, and it may very well trigger another arms race. Russia won't have any other choice if it wants to keep the current balance of power and its position in the world.
I fully understand American logic behind the idea of ABM shield. They've made enemies on all continents and the idea that some of them may acquire nuclear weapons is certainly not pleasing, so the ability to protect themselves from that is very useful. And if the shield becomes more effective so that it can actually stop some Russian missiles, all the better. Don't think that no one really thought of that in the US. I can't believe that if that actually happens someone will be surprised - "Look, we've developed technology that can stop Russian missiles. What, you don't say! Well, bugger. We can't use it since we said that the shield won't be useful against Russian missiles." With these things taken into account, I totally understand Russian position. They want to keep the existing balance of power and they rightfully fear that the shield might potentially be used to limit effectiveness of their nuclear arsenal...
that is absurd, every nation has to realise the potential future implications any technology can have for any nation at any unknown point in the future. the world does not exist in stasis even for russia who seem to believe they have the right to a second opinion on the new world order.
Louis VI the Fat
08-17-2008, 23:23
The U.S. has liberated a lot of countries back in the days when wars were still conventional. It's image is such that it is still the single most popular emigration target for people all around the world.
Russia has liberated no other country in its entire history. It has only ever installed puppet monarchs and regimes in the territories it conquered. It is hard to see how it ever will in its present shape.
As long as there are powerful undemocratic countries like China and Russia around, the U.S. is totally justified in protecting itself and its allies with the best technology the world has to offer.
The alternative would be that the Russians or Chinese develop it first and take advantage of it. That would be desastrous.My, Adrian, amidst all the tragically confused nonsense you've been posting lately, a flash of logic and insight from you that I can fully agree with.
Is all that delicious Central European beer from your trip finally wearing off? ~;p ~;)
Sarmatian
08-18-2008, 00:05
The U.S. has liberated a lot of countries back in the days when wars were still conventional. It's image is such that it is still the single most popular emigration target for people all around the world.
Russia has liberated no other country in its entire history. It has only ever installed puppet monarchs and regimes in the territories it conquered. It is hard to see how it ever will in its present shape.
As long as there are powerful undemocratic countries like China and Russia around, the U.S. is totally justified in protecting itself and its allies with the best technology the world has to offer.
The alternative would be that the Russians or Chinese develop it first and take advantage of it. That would be desastrous.
What makes US prime emigration target is it's economic strength, not the image.
That Soviet Union was much worse in its treatment of "liberated" countries than US is not news. But to say that US were always fair is a lie. How many revolutions, dictators, coups were supported by the US after WW2? Often followed by US troops being stationed in those countries to ensure that no one gets funny ideas.
Russia liberated a lot of countries in the past. Balkan countries have only Russia to thank for their freedom from the Ottomans. Western powers wanted to preserve Ottoman Empire. And are you forgetting Russian part in defeating the worst regime and ideology ever in the history of the world? Yes, Adrian, at least a small part of freedom you're enjoying right now you owe to the Russians. Not directly, but indirectly you do. In fact, almost all nations in the world do. A good portion of thanks goes to the US and UK too, I'm not forgetting that, but the country that is most responsible for defeat of Nazi Germany and it's allies is Soviet Union. And this especially goes for us "sub-humans" who were slaughtered on an industrial scale. You wanna go back in history? Maybe something connected with current events will be more appropriate? No problem. Small group of people known as Ossetians asked to be incorporated into Russian Empire to protect them from the Turks.
US indeed liberated a lot of countries, too. It's role in the defeat of Nazism wasn't marginal. But they've had their fair share of blunders. Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan are the most recent. And there are much more examples if you take a peak a little bit in the past. Their policies in Latin American countries weren't and still aren't something to be proud of. In fact, if you count the number of wars all countries have started since the end of WW2, don't be surprised when you find US on top of that list. How much democratic West still pressures other countries? Several months ago there were elections in Serbia. You couldn't open a newspaper or turn on TV and not see Solana, Kuchner, Rehn, Rice or some other western politician saying which government in Serbia is acceptable, which politicians are appropriate, which are going to get "help" from the West, which are democratic and so on. Every single day during the campaign. And I mean every. You know what the Russians said? One statement by Putin saying that they will cooperate in the same way with any government Serbia democratically elects. And you know what they said when pro-NATO government was elected, not their favourites certainly? They congratulated Serbian citizens on fair and democratic elections and reiterated that they will cooperate with the government Serbs democratically elected. Although democratically elected is a bad choice of words since this government was more or less forced on Serbia by EU. Some Serbian politicians don't even hide it. Vuk Draskovic, whose party is one of many in the government, publicly stated on national television that this government was formed in Brussels.
Is that how west supports democracy? By picking governments of countries instead of citizens of those countries? The fact that it's done indirectly doesn't make it any less wrong. Or does it?
And how is Russia undemocratic? Ah, the term democracy has been raped so much in the last several decades that it has lost all meaning. For example in the case of Russia government and politicians that received most of votes at the election aren't democratic. In other cases governments that are formed through outside pressure are democratic. It seems that the term can change its meaning depending on the situation.
Even better it can not only be applied to election system but to individuals, groups of people, ideology, ethnic groups or even entire nations.
And in the end, yes, I can agree with you that Soviet regime was terribly oppressive. But it's not like it was oppressive to some. It's not like Russians were living in luxury while all others were living in misery. No, Russians were oppressed just the same as Poles, Czechs or Georgians. That's not irrelevant. It separates that system from other oppressive systems like western European colonialism where people in the colonies were most often at gun point forced to work for pittance or no wages so that someone in western Europe could grow fat on profits. Or how African Americans were treated in the democratic US. Long after WW2 they were treated in some instances as second class citizens. Not to mention WW2 time period or before. It wasn't until 1948 that democratic US' military forces were desegregated. When Pentagon was built, separate bathrooms for "whites" and "coloured" were built. In the symbol of American military might. Ironic in a way... So it took black people almost 200 years to achieve to be treated as human being with full human rights in the country that's always been considered democratic. If fact, you could probably find some areas in the US where even today black people are treated as second class citizens sometimes.
Now, after all this text, it will be hard for anyone to believe that I don't hate America, but I really don't. Change is sometimes difficult to achieve. It takes time. That's why I don't understand when people don't see it in the case of Russia or China. True, there are human rights issues in China, especially in Tibet but it's improving and it's been improving for quite some time. It can't happen overnight. So maybe focusing on that when dealing with China would be more beneficial. Instead of threat and accusations.
To conclude: I'm well aware of how Soviet Union was an oppressive regime but I am also well aware of many instances where Russians shined as champions of the oppressed. I am aware of how US saved a lot countries from that oppressive regime, when in intervened to stop an injustice but I am also aware of times when US installed oppressive regime, when it financed revolutions that resulted in oppressive regimes, when it supported terrorist or dictators, when it invaded countries on false premises and so on. So, don't ask of me to get into a cold war frame of mind of "us" and "them". Maybe it's non-aligned legacy, but I just can't do that.
P.S. Sorry for the long post that's off-topic in several parts... Hope it's not out of the line...
What makes US prime imigration target is it's economic strength, not the image.
True.
That Soviet Union was much worse in its treatment of "liberated" countries than US is not news. But to say that US were always fair is a lie. How many revolutions, dictators, coups were supported by the US after WW2? Often followed by US troops being stationed in those countries to ensure that no one gets funny ideas.
Also true. The USA aren't the Good Samaritan country in the world that Adrian apparently tried to make a comparison with. It is actually very far from it.
Russia liberated a lot of countries in the past. Balkan countries have only Russia to thank for their freedom from the Ottomans. Western powers wanted to preserve Ottoman Empire.
Wait, what? Europeans wanting to keep the Ottoman Empire? That's not true. If anything, the European powers wished for the full and complete partition and division of the Ottoman Empire into colonies and spheres of influence: "London Pact", "Sykes Picot Agreement", "Maurienne Agreement", etc.
As far as Russia's intention of liberating countries went, neither it didn't liberate them from the Ottoman Empire ad hoc. It did incite to a Pan-Slavic nationalist movements, with the intentions of weakening the Ottoman Empire, trying to bring all those Slav Balkan countries under Russian direct rule. (Another nation who did also incite to nationalism within the Ottoman Empire (And Russia itself) was Napoleon III's France, who was increasingly isolated in Europe and found that method a way of obtaining support) It had no intentions of liberating the countries because they were being oppressed.
And are you forgetting Russian part in defeating the worst regime and ideology ever in the history of the world? Yes, Adrian, at least a small part of freedom you're enjoying right now you owe to the Russians. Not directly, but indirectly you do. In fact, almost all nations in the world do. A good portion of thanks goes to the US and UK too, I'm not forgetting that, but the country that is most responsible for defeat of Nazi Germany and it's allies is Soviet Union. And this especially goes for us "sub-humans" who were slaughtered on an industrial scale. You wanna go back in history? Maybe something connected with current events will be more appropriate? No problem. Small group of people known as Ossetians asked to be incorporated into Russian Empire to protect them from the Turks.
The contrarywould then also be possible. Should I also be thankful to the Fascist Spanish who won the Civil War, because they stopped a Communist regime from taking place in Spain, and later very possibly passing on to Portugal (Which I am a national of.)? Once again, in case you don't know, from NKVD documents, Stalin planned to attack the Nazi Germany (Since his prior attempt to ally with Germany and gain the Middle East and Scandinavia as his sphere of influence, failed) in 1945. Hitler was just as power-hungry as Stalin, but he had the benefit of already having a fully ready army, and beat Stalin to it by attacking earlier. Stalin (Russia) was forced to defend itself from the Germans, and choosing between Stalinism or Facsism, I'd rather have the devil pick the option for me.
US indeed liberated a lot of countries, too. It's role in the defeat of Nazism wasn't marginal. But they've had their fair share of blunders. Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan are the most recent. And there are much more examples if you take a peak a little bit in the past. Their policies in Latin American countries weren't and still aren't something to be proud of. In fact, if you count the number of wars all countries have started since the end of WW2, don't be surprised when you find US on top of that list. How much democratic West still pressures other countries? Several months ago there were elections in Serbia. You couldn't open a newspaper or turn on TV and not see Solana, Kuchner, Rehn, Rice or some other western politician saying which government in Serbia is acceptable, which politicians are appropriate, which are going to get "help" from the West, which are democratic and so on. Every single day during the campaign. And I mean every. You know what the Russians said? One statement by Putin saying that they will cooperate in the same way with any government Serbia democratically elects. And you know what they said when pro-NATO government was elected, not their favourites certainly? They congratulated Serbian citizens on fair and democratic elections and reiterated that they will cooperate with the government Serbs democratically elected. Although democratically elected is a bad choice of words since this government was more or less forced on Serbia by EU. Some Serbian politicians don't even hide it. Vuk Draskovic, whose party is one of many in the government, publicly stated on national television that this government was formed in Brussels.
Is that how west supports democracy? By picking governments of countries instead of citizens of those countries? The fact that it's done indirectly doesn't make it any less wrong. Or does it?
I don't understand. How did the "West" "pressure" Serbia? As far as I'm aware the "West" doesn't control the Serbian media. Nor did it control the government (Who would then control the national media). The media wasn't obliged to publish what Barroso, Rice, Bush, Socrates or the Pope says.
And how is Russia undemocratic? Ah, the term democracy has been raped so much in the last several decades that it has lost all meaning. For example in the case of Russia government and politicians that received most of votes at the election aren't democratic. In other cases governments that are formed through outside pressure are democratic. It seems that the term can change its meaning depending on the situation.
Even better it can not only be applied to election system but to individuals, groups of people, ideology, ethnic groups or even entire nations.
I see two very different things. In one (Serbia), at least in a foreign (European) way (The I accompanied Serbian elections), the Pro-Westerns recieved as much attention as the Nationalists did, and the media wasn't state owned/controlled.
In the second case (Russia), there was clearly blatant disparities when it came to media air time, with Putin's protegé recieving all the air time in the world. And I won't even mention the arrest of a famous presidential candidate (Former Chess Master, Kasparov). I'm not sure international observers were allowed to monitor the elections in Russia.
And in the end, yes, I can agree with you that Soviet regime was terribly oppressive. But it's not like it was oppressive to some. It's not like Russians were living in luxury while all others were living in misery. No, Russians were oppressed just the same as Poles, Czechs or Georgians. That's not irrelevant. It separates that system from other oppressive systems like western European colonialism where people in the colonies were most often at gun point forced to work for pittance or no wages so that someone in western Europe could grow fat on profits. Or how African Americans were treated in the democratic US. Long after WW2 they were treated in some instances as second class citizens. Not to mention WW2 time period or before. It wasn't until 1948 that democratic US' military forces were desegregated. When Pentagon was built, separate bathrooms for "whites" and "coloured" were built. In the symbol of American military might. Ironic in a way... So it took black people almost 200 years to achieve to be treated as human being with full human rights in the country that's always been considered democratic. If fact, you could probably find some areas in the US where even today black people are treated as second class citizens sometimes.
Let me see if I get this straight. You're saying because the Soviet regime actually hunted down and opressed everyone, is actually better than a regime who exploited only a part of it's population (In favor of it's national population)? The way I see it both are bad, and if I had to choose between both, I wouldn't certainly blindly choose the Soviet regime.
Now, after all this text, it will be hard for anyone to believe that I don't hate America, but I really don't. Change is sometimes difficult to achieve. It takes time. That's why I don't understand when people don't see it in the case of Russia or China. True, there are human rights issues in China, especially in Tibet but it's improving and it's been improving for quite some time. It can't happen overnight. So maybe focusing on that when dealing with China would be more beneficial. Instead of threat and accusations.
It's clear that China is flooding Tibet with it's own major ethnical people (Han), who for all purposes have different histories (Until the latter country was invaded by a warmongering and expanding Manchu-Chinese Empire) and cultures, the final purpose of the said scheme is to replace the ethnical Tibetans in their own territory with their own people, therefore nullifying any chance of rebellion from the start due to the hostility of the majority of the future population. And it is clear that is not, and will not improve. Unfortunatly, unless an armed intervention is done to save Tibet, which won't happen, I think Tibet as a separate identity from China is pretty much lost.
To conclude: I'm well aware of how Soviet Union was an oppressive regime but I am also well aware of many instances where Russians shined as champions of the oppressed. I am aware of how US saved a lot countries from that oppressive regime, when in intervened to stop an injustice but I am also aware of times when US installed oppressive regime, when it financed revolutions that resulted in oppressive regimes, when it supported terrorist or dictators, when it invaded countries on false premises and so on. So, don't ask of me to get into a cold war frame of mind of "us" and "them". Maybe it's non-aligned legacy, but I just can't do that.
Concluding as well, I think that neither the USA nor Russia (Or any other country, with rare examples, which should exist, out of the benevolence of absolutist leaders) ever shined as champions of the opressed, rather working really to the benefit their own interests.
As far as the news goes, Russia is just trying to send a message to the world, saying not to mess with Mother Russia, because in Mother Russia (And surrounding areas), Mother Russia messes with YOU!
Adrian II
08-18-2008, 09:20
Change is sometimes difficult to achieve. It takes time. That's why I don't understand when people don't see it in the case of Russia or China.As fas as I am concerned there has been very little positive change in China, which is going from a Communist to a Fascist state. Russia has blown its chance at democracy - again - and this after an endless history of bloody internal oppression and foreign involvements. The U.S. is by far the lesser of evils in any international equation.
Heaven knows I have been critical enough of American policies in this forum, of its stupidity, rudeness, arrogance and indifference on various issues. But this comes with the territory of being a big country; big countries make big mistakes. It's the fundamentals that count, and in the case of the U.S. the fundamentals are sound, in the case of the others they are not. This, too, has been a consistent point in my posts.
My, Adrian, amidst all the tragically confused nonsense you've been posting lately, a flash of logic and insight from you that I can fully agree with.After all the jokes I didn't get lately, this one I do get. Um, I think. https://img56.imageshack.us/img56/1947/puzzledlf4.gif (https://imageshack.us)
Unless of course you seriously think I posted nonsense, in which case I would seriously like to hear your views in this Georgian thing. :bow:
True.
Wait, what? Europeans wanting to keep the Ottoman Empire? That's not true. If anything, the European powers wished for the full and complete partition and division of the Ottoman Empire into colonies and spheres of influence: "London Pact", "Sykes Picot Agreement", "Maurienne Agreement", etc.
Britain wanted to preserve the Ottoman Empire as a way of keeping Russia et-al's hands off it. [Robert K. Massie: Dreadnought]
Louis VI the Fat
08-18-2008, 13:20
Unless of course you seriously think I posted nonsense, in which case I would seriously like to hear your views in this Georgian thing. :bow:Oh, dear. What is an acceptable taunt in a bar after a few drinks, is awfully rude in writing. My apologies. :embarassed:
No, my disagreements were in some recent threads. I suddenly remember that I was too lazy too actually write those posts about Hirsi Ali, social codes of conduct and the wisdom of trying to judge the character of an electable politician through his public persona. About all of which I have strongly diverging opinions from yours. Had I engaged in debate a bit more, my post above would've made more sense. :shame:
I do agree with your take on the Georgian conflict. Saakashvilli overplayed his hand, Russia's reaction was pre-meditated, this Russian aggression can not be tolerated, Russia has no business meddling in the affairs of its former satellite states, etc.
Adrian II
08-18-2008, 13:50
Oh, dear. What is an acceptable taunt in a bar after a few drinks, is awfully rude in writing. My apologies. :embarassed:
No, my disagreements were in some recent threads. I suddenly remember that I was too lazy too actually write those posts about Hirsi Ali, social codes of conduct and the wisdom of trying to judge the character of an electable politician through his public persona. About all of which I have strongly diverging opinions from yours. Had I engaged in debate a bit more, my post above would've made more sense. :shame:
I do agree with your take on the Georgian conflict. Saakashvilli overplayed his hand, Russia's reaction was pre-meditated, this Russian aggression can not be tolerated, Russia has no business meddling in the affairs of its former satellite states, etc.Thank heavens we're still on the same continent, figuratively speaking. As long as this is the case, we can happily bash in each other's brains over minor issues.
Sarmatian
08-18-2008, 14:51
As fas as I am concerned there has been very little positive change in China,
What time frame are you looking at? Yesterday? Last week? Last month? Expand it a bit. Let's say 1945-2008. Do you really not see any improvement?
The U.S. is by far the lesser of evils in any international equation.
This is a position I can understand. But your earlier posts sounded more like US a shining beacon of freedom and democracy while Russia is tyrannical, evil despotic empire/oligarchy/communist country bent on enslaving entire world. I may have misunderstood them, but that's how they sounded to me.
Heaven knows I have been critical enough of American policies in this forum, of its stupidity, rudeness, arrogance and indifference on various issues. But this comes with the territory of being a big country; big countries make big mistakes. It's the fundamentals that count, and in the case of the U.S. the fundamentals are sound, in the case of the others they are not. This, too, has been a consistent point in my posts.
Yes, you have. I've read your posts on those issues with great interest, admiring your ability to look at the broader picture and at the details at the same time. And that's why I was surprised by your one-sided and narrow view of this issue...
And when you say big countries make big mistakes, don't forget that US is not the only big country in the world. Russia is a big country, China is a big country, India is a big country... There's quite a few of them in the world...
Adrian II
08-18-2008, 15:03
What time frame are you looking at? Yesterday? Last week? Last month? Expand it a bit. Let's say 1945-2008. Do you really not see any improvement? My time frame is 247 BC - 2008 AD. The argument of unification of the country still justifies mass slavery and totalitarian policies (i.e. policies that do not just suppress peoples' own initiative and views, but enforce their active support and compliance with the state even in their most personal, intimate choices).
Sarmatian
08-18-2008, 20:48
My time frame is 247 BC - 2008 AD. The argument of unification of the country still justifies mass slavery and totalitarian policies (i.e. policies that do not just suppress peoples' own initiative and views, but enforce their active support and compliance with the state even in their most personal, intimate choices).
As the argument "protecting our way of life" still justifies military interventions and occupations of sovereign countries. Paradox on its own - protecting ones way of life justifies hurting others way of life...
Britain wanted to preserve the Ottoman Empire as a way of keeping Russia et-al's hands off it. [Robert K. Massie: Dreadnought]
This is really off-topic, but what the hell. I suppose what that author meant by the "preservation" of the Ottoman Empire, it would be the Ottoman's Black Sea possessions, being the primary claims the Imperial Russian Government made before the war started (While Britain wanted to preserve Turkey, on the other hand, France supported these Russian claims). I say this because it is throughly known that Britain promised to/divided with France/Italy/Greece, all the possessions of the Ottoman Empire, except Central, Eastern and Northern Anatolia. France made promises to Armenians and Russians on those parts.
This is really off-topic, but what the hell. I suppose what that author meant by the "preservation" of the Ottoman Empire, it would be the Ottoman's Black Sea possessions, being the primary claims the Imperial Russian Government made before the war started (While Britain wanted to preserve Turkey, on the other hand, France supported these Russian claims). I say this because it is throughly known that Britain promised to/divided with France/Italy/Greece, all the possessions of the Ottoman Empire, except Central, Eastern and Northern Anatolia. France made promises to Armenians and Russians on those parts.
Apologies for OT'iness.
To quote from the book:
"As for London, it was a long established British policy to prop up the Ottoman Empire. At stake was Britain's India lifeline, which ran through the Sultan's domains. Especially the Capital, Constantinople, must not be allowed tocome under the influence of another Great Power."
But i guess you are right, apparently Salisbury believed that much trouble came from British statemen using maps on too small a scale.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.