Role of the Baltic States

[LUCASWILLEN05]

This video probably expresses a popular sentiment in Russia:

Я Русский Оккупант | I'm a Russian Occupant

 

(in the options you can turn on English subtitles)

 

In other words I want me empire back! Russia needs to learn that theSovie Union is gone, just as Western European nations had to accept he end of empire after WW2. Russia can be a well respected country but respectmust be earned - and that isn't the way to do it.

[Melchior]

Okay then so your whole comparison to Texas is wrong.    You have completely mis characterized the dissolution of the USSR.  If you had said that Congress had voted to dissolve the Union and that Texas had along with other states signed the document declaring that dissolution and the various states of the United States established their own institutions to replace the authority of the federal gov't that would have been a closer comparison.  Russia was a signatory to the treaty dissolving the Soviet Union.  Russians don't like that?  umm too bad.  They don't get to call a mulligan 23 years later.

 

 

Except I wasn't referencing the Civil War? Come on man you're the 2nd person in this thread to make that mistake. It's like people are intentionally ignoring what i'm saying so they can steer the discussion into a topic they understand better. 

 

Listen, this haw haw that's what Russia gets shtick that internet-denizens love to boast about is part a bigger problem. Russians don't care what the west thinks of this crisis anymore than we cared what they thought when we went Round 2 with Iraq. Ever since 1945 the west has literally never been able to find a single solitary complaint about the East that wasn't equally true against us. This is yet another round of Pot, Kettle, Cold War and it keeps happening because despite mountains of evidence and history westerners still concretely believe they are the good guys and Russians are the bad guys!!!!.

Edited March 6, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Baneman]

Except I wasn't referencing the Civil War? Come on man you're the 2nd person in this thread to make that mistake. It's like people are intentionally ignoring what i'm saying so they can steer the discussion into a topic they understand better.

No I think you could have made a bit of an effort to make it clear you weren't referencing the Civil War - an easy mistake to make as evidenced that 2 people went down that road already - I'm surprised you didn't think that would happen

... Ever since 1945 the west has literally never been able to find a single solitary complaint about the East that wasn't equally true against us. This is yet another round of Pot, Kettle, Cold War and it keeps happening because despite mountains of evidence and history westerners still concretely believe they are the good guys and Russians are the bad guys!!!!.

Well, that perception of the Russians as "bad guys" has a lot to do with the whole "liberate countries from the Nazis ... and then stay" - arguably inflicting as much repression as they saved them from.

...Russian leaders and many people in Russia do not really believe the post USSR successor states had any right to leave (or abandon if you want) Russia when the wall fell. Ukraine, as Georgia and others before it, is perceived as an internal affair. IE: It's not fair game for the west to take interest in. It's not their house.

And these "successor states" might see it as the exact opposite since many ( most ? ) believe Russia had no right to occupy them in the first place. ie for them, it's not Russia's "house" either.

And as sburke pointed out above in #122 - Russia signed up for them "leaving" according to international law ( not that Russia seems to care much for international law either these days ).

[Melchior]

I'm surprised you're going to go head and just defend an ol' strawman. 

 

 

Well, that perception of the Russians as "bad guys" has a lot to do with the whole "liberate countries from the Nazis ... and then stay" - arguably inflicting as much repression as they saved them from.

 

Which was after 20 years of the Soviet Union minding its own damn business while the west practically aided Hitler in hatching his racial conspiracy against Slavs. Until they found out he was targeting them too. Russia learned a very important lesson from this whole affair you know, "never trust the west". 

 

I digress, who started what doesn't really matter X years later. My question now is, who is going to end it?

 

 

 

And these "successor states" might see it as the exact opposite since many ( most ? ) believe Russia had no right to occupy them in the first place. ie for them, it's not Russia's "house" either.

 

And as sburke pointed out above in #122 - Russia signed up for them "leaving" according to international law ( not that Russia seems to care much for international law either these days ).

 

 

 

The same international laws the west follows all the time right? You know Ukrainians still haven't really decided if they consider their own government legitimate to begin with. Which is kind of the whole reason they're fighting a civil war over it. As for Russia well, lots of people believe even today that Yeltsin's government never had any right to exist to begin with so hmm, i'm seeing a few problems with those treaties the west claims are so important. 

 

Who knows if we're just supporting another Ngo Dinh Diem here? In yet another historic trend of major lol, the west has a history of judging the value of its allies simply by asking how much they also hate Russians! If only the west learned as quickly as Russians did maybe Hitler wouldn't have taken any of those corny pictures in front of the Eiffel Tower.

Edited March 6, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[kuri]

Lol. That video made me chuckle. Yes obviously Russia is the good guy, damn i must be blind to have missed all the "good" they brought to my country, but hey i just live here, what do i know?

[Sublime]

Hawkeye minding its own business like the finnish war, non aggression pact with germany gobbling up.half of.poland and katyn? Or the lublin government? Do tell. The fact is the west did a lot of bad ****. So did the soviets. However scale wise one could safely say the soviets were more.exploitave, ruthless, repressive, and did do things the west did not do. America never landed troops and tanks in the capitals of 3-5 Nato signatories to keep the pro US govt in power. Yes we backed questionable people in other places. In retrospect vietnam.could completely been avoided had the US in the early cold war realized communism wasmt a single borg.like entity, i.e soviet chinese rift. Vietnam, yugoslavia, etc. Ho chi minh actually read parts of the us declaraction.of.independence when vietnam.claimed independence at the end of ww2. Oss officers were present, the viet minh.actually was helping retrieve.downed us air crews. However uncle ho.s communist past made him suspect in us eyes post 45 and his overtures to the us were ignored. So he turned.to stalin.

[Sublime]

Another fun fact. Ho chi.minh travelled.the world. He lived here in boston and was a.dishwasher at a local hotel. Nyc. London. Then paris where he became a marxist. Ive always been curious how a young ho chi minh living in.paris as a french subject thru the duration.of ww1 did not get drafted

[Baneman]

... 

Which was after 20 years of the Soviet Union minding its own damn business while the west practically aided Hitler in hatching his racial conspiracy against Slavs. Until they found out he was targeting them too. ..

What ? In the first place, Hitler was against more than slavs ... and he targeted the west first ...

 

Oh and the whole appeasement thing that didn't work = "practically aided" ? One could argue that that's happening again now, except with .. ahem .. someone else in the role of aggressor.

Never mind, I see Sublime has already covered the basics better than me...

[LUCASWILLEN05]

What ? In the first place, Hitler was against more than slavs ... and he targeted the west first ...

 

Oh and the whole appeasement thing that didn't work = "practically aided" ? One could argue that that's happening again now, except with .. ahem .. someone else in the role of aggressor.

Never mind, I see Sublime has already covered the basics better than me...

 

I think the Austrians, Czechs and Poles might have something to say about that! Just as the Ukranians. Latvians, Estonians/Iithuanians and the Poles will have a few comments about the Soviet Union!

Edited March 6, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[A Canadian Cat]

Which was after 20 years of the Soviet Union minding its own damn business while the west practically aided Hitler in hatching his racial conspiracy against Slavs. Until they found out he was targeting them too. Russia learned a very important lesson from this whole affair you know, "never trust the west".

 

That ranks up there with the most bizarre and out from left field things I have ever read.

 

The problem here is the argument seems to be "I'm good because look the other guy hit me back first and btw he has done all the things you are accusing me of doing too".  That is not an argument that supports "I'm good" that argument only supports "I'm just as bad as you".  Pretty different.

[sburke]

Except I wasn't referencing the Civil War? Come on man you're the 2nd person in this thread to make that mistake. It's like people are intentionally ignoring what i'm saying so they can steer the discussion into a topic they understand better.

You weren't? Certainly sounded like it and I quote

Every time someone here in America points out Russia's moves in Ukraine as unlawful acts of wanton aggression I almost want to start laughing. We have short-term memory in this country it seems. On top of that the perspective is just wrong. Russia does not view Ukraine as a legitimate sovereign nation anymore than the Union saw the Confederacy as one. If Texas left the US right now, how would Americans feel about that? How would they feel if other powers demanded they leave Texas alone?

Again showing you actually were talking the Civil War, your analogy is wrong. United States in your analogy =USSR. Russia would be one of those states not the federal gov't. Your Texas analogy is even further off base. Russia does not equal USSR. That is the flaw in your argument. Edited March 7, 2015 by sburke

[Michael Emrys]

...the west practically aided Hitler in hatching his racial conspiracy against Slavs.

 

I'm not sure what you intend by "practically" but as written, that statement is about as bogus as they come. There were many people in the West, including people in official positions, who felt alarmed by Hitler and the Nazis as soon at they hit the news as far back as the 1920s. That alarm ramped up to out right anxiety when Hitler became Chancellor and then dictator. The problem was the inability to settle on a policy to confront and contain German Nazism. The Western governments, reflecting public sentiments as well as major practical difficulties absolutely did not want to fight yet another fratricidal war in Europe. For one thing, there was the Great Depression, which among other things meant that those governments simply did not have the wherewithal to finance major programs of rearmament. It is possible that bold action early on, at for instance the remilitarization of the Rhineland, would have brought Hitler down and prevented a war. But that wasn't known in Western capitals. It looked like the Wehrmacht was solidly behind Hitler and would fight. The West simply did not realize how shaky Hitler's hold on power was at that moment.

 

So, the West can be blamed for misjudgement and what can be seen in hindsight as excessive caution, but that does not add up to conspiracy. Was the West indifferent to the Slavs, especially the Russians? Yes, to an extent. The Slavs did not weigh too heavily in the West's calculation of its interests, although that is not equivalent to saying that they had no weight at all. The diplomatic history of that area and era is quite complicated. But Britain (along with the whole British Commonwealth and Empire) and France with its empire did go to war over Poland, after all.

 

Michael

[Melchior]

What ? In the first place, Hitler was against more than slavs ... and he targeted the west first ...

 

Oh and the whole appeasement thing that didn't work = "practically aided" ? One could argue that that's happening again now, except with .. ahem .. someone else in the role of aggressor.

Never mind, I see Sublime has already covered the basics better than me...

 

I don't care what he wrote. I was talking to you. 

 

It's ironic to me that of all the "stab in the back" myths that were going around in the 30s, the Munich Conference and Spanish Civil War were probably the only real ones. Really I don't know how anyone can argue that Czechslovakia of all events wasn't a huge betrayal. Czech leaders weren't even invited. Pretty much a given that the British and French were sending them off to a grim end. 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you intend by "practically" but as written, that statement is about as bogus as they come.

 

I do not agree. Their were certainly many men in the west who simply wanted to avoid another "Great War". Their was however, very much antisemitism and Red Scare in the circles of Allied leadership. Much of which persisted right into 1940 even, as Allied airplanes began conducting aerial reconnaissance flights over the Soviet Union... 

 

Their were people in the French government, in meetings of the Legislature, who were using accusations of "being a jew" to discredit eachother for christ sake. The history of antisemitism in France is a long one, distinct from the machinations of Nazi Germany to be sure. However, the Allies did things that aided Hitler in his early years. Whether you want to cosign this to intention or accident is up to you. 

 

But overall you write a good argument about how the complex nature of politics often forces the hand of leaders into sometimes poor or rash decisions. I wonder if in 20 years people will be making the same arguments for Russia? Probably not from here. I guess their is a sentiment in this forum though that western governments aren't corrupt, only eastern ones are. That's the conclusion i'm drawing anyway. 

Edited March 7, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Sublime]

Noone said we.re not corrupt. We just do it better.

[Sublime]

Btw hawkeye if you want to entirely.discount.my.completely relevant counterpoint to your nonsense argument by saying that you were talking to.him.then not me, PM.HIM. your on a PUBLIC FORUM.

[sburke]

I don't care what he wrote. I was talking to you. 

 

It's ironic to me that of all the "stab in the back" myths that were going around in the 30s, the Munich Conference and Spanish Civil War were probably the only real ones. Really I don't know how anyone can argue that Czechslovakia of all events wasn't a huge betrayal. Czech leaders weren't even invited. Pretty much a given that the British and French were sending them off to a grim end. 

 

 

 

 

I do not agree. Their were certainly many men in the west who simply wanted to avoid another "Great War". Their was however, very much antisemitism and Red Scare in the circles of Allied leadership. Much of which persisted right into 1940 even, as Allied airplanes began conducting aerial reconnaissance flights over the Soviet Union... 

 

Their were people in the French government, in meetings of the Legislature, who were using accusations of "being a jew" to discredit eachother for christ sake. The history of antisemitism in France is a long one, distinct from the machinations of Nazi Germany to be sure. However, the Allies did things that aided Hitler in his early years. Whether you want to cosign this to intention or accident is up to you. 

 

But overall you write a good argument about how the complex nature of politics often forces the hand of leaders into sometimes poor or rash decisions. I wonder if in 20 years people will be making the same arguments for Russia? Probably not from here. I guess their is a sentiment in this forum though that western governments aren't corrupt, only eastern ones are. That's the conclusion i'm drawing anyway. 

Anti semitism in general has been around a long time in the west and in Russia. It isn't anything new any more than racism is and it isn't going to magically disappear. As to the western view of Russia, there is no question the west viewed communist Russia as a threat. The declaration of the communist movement was that they were engaged in international class warfare In the 1920s there was civil war in the streets of Germany and naval ships were shelling towns as part of it. The Russian revolution was a huge event and in the political context of the time presented a worst case scenario to capitalism as to what the future might hold. That the entire concept was flawed from the start and the world was in a process of political change that would alter the basis of that class war was not evident at the time. So yes the west intervened immediately and continued to view Russia as a threat at the same time Russia viewed itself as the vanguard of a new world. No sooner however was that state founded than it became something completely different than what it espoused. The "communist" state was no different fundamentally than the fascist state, the exception being the fascist state was founded in collusion within the capitalist class. Both models have been rejected in the years following world war 2. The difference is the majority in the west do not look back longingly on fascism whereas what is being reported and espoused here is Russians look back longingly on the communist state. Personally I very much doubt that. I suspect rather the Russian people simply want what most people want. Stability and a sense that they have some control over their future. Their experience so far in a non authoritarian form of gov't is limited and based in periods of instability. The transition to a more democratic form of government is not going to be easy, but real stability is going to require they go through the process of founding a political and economic society that is free. Falling back on some form of crony capitalism or fascist/communist model is simply stalling and is inherently unstable. The west for all it's flaws is a far better social model than anything Russia has to offer. The weakness in the west is something that we in fact do own control over, the extent to which the populace involves themselves in the political process and fights for humanitarian ideals determines what kind of future we hold. When we fall back on stupid catch phrases, simplistic answers and cave into our fears of others we end up with knuckleheads like George Bush jr whose understanding of the world and how to function in the international community is infantile at best. However the political institutions are there and we do have a relatively free press if we make the effort to stop just listening to those who tell us what we feel comfortable hearing. Russians have that to a far more limited degree and only as far as the authoritarian state allows it.

Your attitude towards a lot of us on this forum about our perception of the west versus Russia is simply way off base. It seems you feel Russia is simply undeserving of the criticism it has earned from the nature of it's activities. There is a difference between having corruption and being fundamentally corrupt to the core. There is plenty of corruption in the west, any time you put people into authority and access to sources of political or financial power it is almost inevitable. However the difference in the west is there are mechanisms that however flawed at times allow us to pursue and punish those who cross the line. In Russia the highest political authority is itself corrupt and there is no legal mechanism to pursue or punish those individuals short of a major political upheaval.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Indeed. Nobody is completely innocent. Even prir to WW2 there was consderable distrust of the Soiet Union and, after \WW2 through failures on both sides we had almmost four decades of the Cold War and that perid continues to cast a long shadow. Russia is at lleast as deserving of criticism as the West. And ayway, this thred was suposed to be about the Baltic States' role in 2017

[Melchior]

Not that it's undeserving, merely that we should not be the ones dolling it out. 

 

Personally, I am not Russian, and i'm not living in Russia. So my ability to limit or influence Russian affairs is minimal. I don't really concern myself with what Putin is up to because it is far more remote than what my own leaders are up to right now. NATO, the UN, etc have given me and us very good cause to watch them closely and carefully. 

Edited March 7, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Baneman]

I don't care what he wrote. I was talking to you. 

... 

 

You have a very strange way of participating in a discussion.

 

I assumed you'd have read his post and my statement was to the effect that I would have made those arguments/points myself except he had already done so ( quite possibly even more lucidly that I would have ).

Would it help if I cut and pasted his comments into my response to you ?

[Michael Emrys]

Not that it's undeserving, merely that we should not be the ones dolling it out.

 

I think I understand your point. The problem is, who else is there with enough muscle to maybe make it stick? There really aren't a lot of countries with clean hands who can rightly be said to occupy any moral high ground. And if there are, who will listen to them? The US and its NATO allies, however much cynicism they might inspire, at least also command a certain amount of attention.

 

Michael 

[sburke]

Not that it's undeserving, merely that we should not be the ones dolling it out.

Personally, I am not Russian, and i'm not living in Russia. So my ability to limit or influence Russian affairs is minimal. I don't really concern myself with what Putin is up to because it is far more remote than what my own leaders are up to right now. NATO, the UN, etc have given me and us very good cause to watch them closely and carefully.

If not us, who? Putin is the one aggressively de-stabilizing Europe in a country with nuclear weapons. Isolationism is never a good strategy. Wasn't it you who brought up the west's behavior regarding Hitler, is somehow that strategy now okay when applied to Putin? Edited March 7, 2015 by sburke

[Erik Springelkamp]

If not us, who? Putin is the one aggressively de-stabilizing Europe in a country with nuclear weapons. Isolationism is never a good strategy. Wasn't it you who brought up the west's behavior regarding Hitler, is somehow that strategy now okay when applied to Putin?

 

Putin is not destabilizing Europe, he is trying to sabotage a move of the Ukraine to NATO/EU. Ukraine has always been part of the Russian sphere of influence (with only short interruptions during crises), so if anything is destabilizing Europe it is a move from Ukraine towards the West.

 

Of course there are all kind of issues regarding the way this movement has developed and about the ways Russia is trying to prevent this movement, but it was the movement that destabilised the situation.

 

But apart form the Ukraine, there is nothing wrong with the stability in Europe. (Southern Caucasus cannot be really be called Europe, if anybody can give a good definition of Europe anyway).

[kuri]

Shouldn't it be up to every country to decide for themselves what they want though? The Ukrainian people have clearly demonstrated what THEY want for their country at the Maidan and afterwards. What gives Russia the right to bar them from it? Spheres of influence be damned, Russian agression in Ukraine is completely unjustifiable.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Putin is not destabilizing Europe, he is trying to sabotage a move of the Ukraine to NATO/EU. Ukraine has always been part of the Russian sphere of influence (with only short interruptions during crises), so if anything is destabilizing Europe it is a move from Ukraine towards the West.

 

It is a bit like arguing an abused wife should stay with the husband because she's his wife.  Ukraine has gotten the really short end of the stick in being attached to Russia.  Things have changed to the degree that Ukraine has the ability to make up its own mind, and Russia disagrees.  

 

Which is ironic as outside of Putin's pet Russians in the east, it's pretty much ensured Ukrainian independence from Russia (barring invasion) for the next few decades at the least.   

 

In any event it was hardly destabilizing, or no more destabilizing (and shooting down less airliners) than the current state of affairs, with a clear end state.  Now?  Russia has given Eastern Europe cancer.  It's going to fester and damage the health of the region until it either kills the patient or someone kills the tumor.  

[DreDay]

Shouldn't it be up to every country to decide for themselves what they want though? The Ukrainian people have clearly demonstrated what THEY want for their country at the Maidan and afterwards. What gives Russia the right to bar them from it? Spheres of influence be damned, Russian agression in Ukraine is completely unjustifiable.

 

Hehe... No offense Kuri; but if you really believe what you have written here and not just trolling... you might be "a little late to the party". As I've said several times on this board - Geopolitics are not about doing what's right; but rather "what's right for you". The Russians play that game well, but they are still "small fish" compared to how we (US) embrace this notion.