Seeds of Contemporary Russiaphobia

Tranquillus in Exile said:
The internationally-monitored elections had no meaning in eastern Ukraine because that's where Putin fomented his uprising, supplied and directed from Russia. I was following it quite closely. There was separatist sentiment in Donbas, but the leaders of the "People's Republics" were previously unheard of - they came and went about once a month, and some who could be identified were not from Ukraine at all but from Russia.
Click to expand...
the point of this is Kyiv became expansionist into Donbas.
Yes the separatists used Russian paramilitary, but the reason ( or a reason as it's complex) is that a status referendum was denied.
I'm sure you know why -it would have easily passed,just as the Crimean referendum did.
These are Russian speaking people and Russian cultures..

Since you seem to have an understanding, can you connect the dots that the Maiden changed everything between the Uk. and Russia . Prior the "color" conflicts were internal, and reflected the east-west tensions.
The people voted,and the various back and forth winners took power.

It ALL CHANGED because of our meddling..Russia was denied the deal it had negotiated between Yanukovych and Putin

Vladimir Putin offers Ukraine financial incentives to stick with Russia
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/17/ukraine-russia-leaders-talks-kremlin-loan-deal
Ukraine's prime minister Mykola Azarov has described a $15bn aid package from Russia as a historic deal to allow the ex-Soviet republic return to economic growth, as protesters in Kiev voiced anger over a "sell-out" to Moscow.

Ukraine's president Viktor Yanukovych and Russia's Vladimir Putin announced the bailout for Kiev on Tuesday after talks in Moscow. The deal also includes lowering the price for Russian gas deliveries to Ukraine pays by about a third.
Putin said the Russian state-controlled gas monopoly, Gazprom, will cut the price that Ukraine must pay for Russian gas deliveries to $268 per 1,000 cubic metres from the current level of about $400 per 1,000 cubic metres.
Click to expand...
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Same as the 2008 war in Georgia (separatists there too, lol), the crushing of Chechnya, and the ongoing destabilization of the Baltics (numerous cyber attacks, no "People's Republics" so far).
Click to expand...
oh please.
Have you no understanding of the terrorism coming out of Chechnya? Should Putin not have gone into it?
what about Russian apartment bombings in 1999, the Moscow theater hostage crisis in 2002,the Beslan school hostage crisis in 2004, the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings and the Domodedovo International Airport bombing in 2011.

You don't source Baltics cyber-attacks, i'm unfamiliar, but i'll look into it. Thanks for that.
But the tension over the Baltics is ginned up Russiaphobia that Putin is "eyeing the Baltics" and other stupidity.
It's about an invasion,not cyberwars,and we are jumping the shark as usual.

And what is the NATO response to this so called "eyeing"?? idiotic, counter-productive build ups.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...20-11e6-971a-dadf9ab18869-20160514-story.html
Meanwhile, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is debating how most effectively to deter Russia from invading the Baltic States.
The U.S. has already proposed quadrupling the budget of the so-called European Reassurance Initiative, to $3.4 billion in 2017.
A billion dollars of that sum is to add another armored brigade combat team, 4,000 to 5,000 strong, to the 35,000 U.S. troops already present in Europe. Another $1.9 billion is earmarked for additional war-fighting equipment. Still, many U.S. analysts still believe that may not be enough for deterrence.

Increased budgets, more toys, more opportunities to hold exercises in various geographies are always attractive to generals. Strategically, however, they won't help to resolve any real-world problem. Russia has no reason to mount a massive invasion of the Baltics
Click to expand...

Tranquillus in Exile said:
Milne, Corbyn and Co. are NOT friends of America. They are friends of Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, you name it - because those folks are progressive and (same thing) anti-western.

But I think you know this. For some reason you have chosen to peddle their (and Putin's) propaganda.
Click to expand...
if you want to find out what's going on, you have to view both sides of an equation.
The western press is only capable of demonizing Putin -it is not an honest broker, anymore the RT/Sputnik is.
I appreciate the discussion, but I'm not satisfied with a one way view - it's bound to be propaganda
 
Last edited:
Russia presses EU to pay up for rebuilding Syria - Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/21483e5c-f22a-11e7-b220-857e26d1aca4

Jan 9, 2018 - Russia presses EU to pay up for rebuilding Syria. Brussels ... “The EU wants to see political transition first, but in the meantime people are suffering,” he said. ... Mr Chizhov also conceded that Russia would need to offer finance for rebuilding Syria, although he said Moscow had not yet suggested a figure.

Russia asks world powers to pay for Syria reconstruction

https://www.ft.com/content/47933554-f847-11e6-9516-2d969e0d3b65

Feb 22, 2017 - Funds from EU and Gulf states reliant on peace settlement. ... “They [Russia] go in, they mess it all up, they break everything and want everyone to pay for it,” said a European diplomat. ... Federica Mogherini, the EU's foreign policy chief, plans to host an international conference on Syria's future in April.

Syrian Reconstruction Spells Juicy Contracts for Russian, Iranian ...

foreignpolicy.com/.../syrian-reconstruction-spells-juicy-contracts-for-russian-iranian-f...

Oct 20, 2017 - Reconstruction contracts are likely to go largely to firms linked to Russia and Iran, which support Assad, though China and Brazil also aim to throw their ... Aid groups are worried that the rush to rebuild the loyalist core of postwar Syria will only cement the same kinds of divisions and abuses that have been ...
 
Re-starting the Cold War

Vladi*mir Putin was elected in 2000 and initially followed a pro-Western orientation. When terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, he was the first foreign leader to call and offer support. He cooperated with the United States when it invaded Afghanistan, and he voluntarily removed Russian bases from Cuba and Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam.

What did he get in return? Some meaningless praise from President George W. Bush, who then delivered the diplomatic equivalent of swift kicks to the groin:
further expansion of NATO in the Baltics and the Balkans, and plans for American bases there;
withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty;
invasion of Iraq without U.N. Security Council approval;
overt participation in the “color revolutions” in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan;
and then, probing some of the firmest red lines any Russian leader would draw,
talk of taking Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.

Americans, heritors of the Monroe Doctrine, should have understood that Russia would be hypersensitive to foreign-dominated military alliances approaching or touching its borders.

President Obama famously attempted a “reset” of relations with Russia, with some success:
The New START treaty was an important achievement, and there was increased quiet cooperation on a number of regional issues.
But then Congress’s penchant for minding other people’s business when it cannot cope with its own began to take its toll.
The Magnitsky Act , which singled out Russia for human rights violations as if there were none of comparable gravity elsewhere, infuriated Russia’s rulers and confirmed with the broader public the image of the United States as an implacable enemy.

The sad fact is that the cycle of dismissive actions by the United States met by overreactions by Russia has so poisoned the relationship that the sort of quiet diplomacy used to end the Cold War was impossible when the crisis in Ukraine burst upon the world’s consciousness.
It’s why 43 percent of Russians are ready to believe that Western actions are behind the crisis and that Russia is under siege.

Putin’s military occupation of Crimea has exacerbated the situation. If it leads to the incorporation of Crimea in the Russian Federation , it may well result in a period of mutual recrimination and economic sanctions reminiscent of the Cold War.
In that scenario, there would be no winners, only losers: most of all Ukraine itself, which may not survive in its present form, and Russia, which would become more isolated. Russia may also see a rise in terrorist acts from anti-Russian extremists on its periphery and more resistance from neighboring governments to membership in the economic union it is promoting.

Meanwhile, the United States and Europe would lose to the extent that a resentful Russia would make it even more difficult to address global and regional issues such as the Iranian nuclear program, North Korea and the Syrian civil war, to name a few.
Russian policy in these areas has not always been all the United States desired, but it has been more helpful than many Americans realize. And encouraging a more obstructive Russia is not in anyone’s interest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e7295b6851c_story.html?utm_term=.2bd480ed5181

Baker lied when he said there would be no NATO expansion past the old GDR
 
kudzu said:
Russia didn't get involved in Syria until 2014.. Now they want the Europeans to pay to rebuild Syria.. and they didn't take in any Syrian refugees.

We sure have a lot of pro-Russian posters on here.
Click to expand...

I prefer to think of them as pro-Kremlin, because I am as pro-Russian as they come.

I also think you are going to see a lot of amnesia in the next few years --- e.g., die hard Trumpettes belatedly claiming they never supported the Orange Hog, or bowed down to kiss Putin's feet.
 
Cypress said:
I prefer to think of them as pro-Kremlin, because I am as pro-Russian as they come.

I also think you are going to see a lot of amnesia in the next few years --- e.g., die hard Trumpettes belatedly claiming they never supported the Orange Hog, or bowed down to kiss Putin's feet.
Click to expand...

That's a straight tribalism answer. Annatta voted for Trump but he's not a right-winger. He also supported Bernie and voted for Obama. Not everyone who votes for a person shares the same beliefs. He obviously has strong feelings and support for Putin. They aren't beliefs I share but at least he argues his position and attempts to back it up with evidence, articles etc. He also doesn't name call when he does it.

Like I said I don't agree with him but it makes for an interesting and informative discussion. And it's so much better than the usual right/left tribalism
 
cawacko said:
That's a straight tribalism answer. Annatta voted for Trump but he's not a right-winger. He also supported Bernie and voted for Obama. Not everyone who votes for a person shares the same beliefs. He obviously has strong feelings and support for Putin. They aren't beliefs I share but at least he argues his position and attempts to back it up with evidence, articles etc. He also doesn't name call when he does it.

Like I said I don't agree with him but it makes for an interesting and informative discussion. And it's so much better than the usual right/left tribalism
Click to expand...

I think there is value in pointing out that Russia boogeyman is a card that has been played since WW2, and the threat from Russia was always exaggerated by the American political establishment acting on behalf of their masters in the military industrial complex. Russia was never a threat like Nazi Germany, it was never akin to imperialist Japan.

It takes integrity to try to see both the Russian perspective and the American perspective. But what I have seen from Trump and his message board surrogates, is that they will never, ever, under any circumstances offer even tepid criticism of Putin and the Kremlin. That is not integrity. That is propaganda, on behalf of defending and providing cover for an Orange Hog.
 
Cypress said:
I think there is value in pointing out that Russia boogeyman is a card that has been played since WW2, and the threat from Russia was always exaggerated by the American political establishment acting on behalf of their masters in the military industrial complex. Russia was never a threat like Nazi Germany, it was never akin to imperialist Japan.

It takes integrity to try to see both the Russian perspective and the American perspective. But what I have seen from Trump and his message board surrogates, is that they will never, ever, under any circumstances offer even tepid criticism of Putin and the Kremlin. That is not integrity. That is propaganda, on behalf of defending and providing cover for an Orange Hog.
Click to expand...

No one else on this board writes anything close to what annatta does regarding Russia. We all have different areas of politics that excite us most and clearly foreign policy/Russia is one for him because he can get into the weeds on it. Like I said, he's writing on a different level than normal right/left tribalism.
 
cawacko said:
No one else on this board writes anything close to what annatta does regarding Russia. We all have different areas of politics that excite us most and clearly foreign policy/Russia is one for him because he can get into the weeds on it. Like I said, he's writing on a different level than normal right/left tribalism.
Click to expand...

Ha, good point, and nice reality check.

I thought there even might be a remote chance he is from the Saint Petersburg troll farm, but I have a sixth sense at sniffing out Russians, and I don't detect even a faint whiff of East Slav in him!
 
Cypress said:
I think there is value in pointing out that Russia boogeyman is a card that has been played since WW2, and the threat from Russia was always exaggerated by the American political establishment acting on behalf of their masters in the military industrial complex. Russia was never a threat like Nazi Germany, it was never akin to imperialist Japan.

It takes integrity to try to see both the Russian perspective and the American perspective. But what I have seen from Trump and his message board surrogates, is that they will never, ever, under any circumstances offer even tepid criticism of Putin and the Kremlin. That is not integrity. That is propaganda, on behalf of defending and providing cover for an Orange Hog.
Click to expand...

Um, nope, the threat from Russia was always severe and menacing. You leftists always were quite the ball-and-chain in that conflict.
 
Cypress said:
I prefer to think of them as pro-Kremlin, because I am as pro-Russian as they come.

I also think you are going to see a lot of amnesia in the next few years --- e.g., die hard Trumpettes belatedly claiming they never supported the Orange Hog, or bowed down to kiss Putin's feet.
Click to expand...

you probably found Brezhnev's feet to be preferable.
 
cawacko said:
That's a straight tribalism answer. Annatta voted for Trump but he's not a right-winger. He also supported Bernie and voted for Obama. Not everyone who votes for a person shares the same beliefs. He obviously has strong feelings and support for Putin. They aren't beliefs I share but at least he argues his position and attempts to back it up with evidence, articles etc. He also doesn't name call when he does it.

Like I said I don't agree with him but it makes for an interesting and informative discussion. And it's so much better than the usual right/left tribalism
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words and recognition. I try to bring interesting and compelling topics for discussion.
Right back at you on your economics - and general ability to keep up wide ranging discussions.

I'm sure I do not present everything fair and balanced; I'm trying to bring Russian/Putin perspective -
we all get plenty of VOA type coverage. Do your own fair and balanced-widely available

To be clear I admire some of Putin's skills - but what really is important he has made Russia a world player after the days of Gobachev's wimpering end of the Soviet Union,and Yeltsin's drunken indifference of office.
Putin was needed for Russia - KGB background notwithstanding.

He's won some big gambits, but might have wounded his opportunity for a promised rapproachment with Trump. And that's a big loss for Russia, coupled with sanctions
 
Cypress said:
I think there is value in pointing out that Russia boogeyman is a card that has been played since WW2, and the threat from Russia was always exaggerated by the American political establishment acting on behalf of their masters in the military industrial complex. Russia was never a threat like Nazi Germany, it was never akin to imperialist Japan.

It takes integrity to try to see both the Russian perspective and the American perspective. But what I have seen from Trump and his message board surrogates, is that they will never, ever, under any circumstances offer even tepid criticism of Putin and the Kremlin. That is not integrity. That is propaganda, on behalf of defending and providing cover for an Orange Hog.
Click to expand...

You had my finger hovering over the like button until the last paragraph.

It takes realism, to see Putin for what he is as opposed to the boogeyman of political establishment and the media. Putin is Putin. He’s not the NK madman. He arguably better than Saddam but way worse than Merkel.

But in today’s political climate, if you don’t put Putin on par with Hitler you’re a Russian troll lol.

But your first paragraph was a home run: The threat from Russia has been exaggerated. We have more reason to fear China, IMO. And way more reason to fear NK.
 
Darth Omar said:
You had my finger hovering over the like button until the last paragraph.

It takes realism, to see Putin for what he is as opposed to the boogeyman of political establishment and the media. Putin is Putin. He’s not the NK madman. He arguably better than Saddam but way worse than Merkel.

But in today’s political climate, if you don’t put Putin on par with Hitler you’re a Russian troll lol.

But your first paragraph was a home run: The threat from Russia has been exaggerated. We have more reason to fear China, IMO. And way more reason to fear NK.
Click to expand...
lot's of reasons for the demonization.
It's cheap political points to holler "Russian interference" and it's a salve/balm applied to the Hillary loss.

Cuz you just KNOW she would have won, except for them damn Ruskies!

It takes realism, to see Putin for what he
Click to expand...
realpolitik : it never lies.
 
Russia's got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise

After the Berlin Wall fell, Europe's regional order hinged on the question of whether a reunified Germany would be aligned with the United States (and NATO), the Soviet Union (and the Warsaw Pact) or neither. Policymakers in the George H.W. Bush administration decided in early 1990 that NATO should include the reconstituted German republic.

In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make "iron-clad guarantees" that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward."
Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany's western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO's expansion.

Nevertheless, great powers rarely tie their own hands. In internal memorandums and notes, U.S. policymakers soon realized that ruling out NATO's expansion might not be in the best interests of the United States. By late February, Bush and his advisers had decided to leave the door open.

After discussing the issue with West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl on February 24-25, the U.S. gave the former East Germany "special military status," limiting what NATO forces could be stationed there in deference to the Soviet Union. Beyond that, however, talk of proscribing NATO's reach dropped out of the diplomatic conversation. Indeed, by March 1990, State Department officials were advising Baker that NATO could help organize Eastern Europe in the U.S. orbit; by October, U.S. policymakers were contemplating whether and when (as a National Security Council memo put it) to "signal to the new democracies of Eastern Europe NATO's readiness to contemplate their future membership."

At the same time, however, it appears the Americans still were trying to convince the Russians that their concerns about NATO would be respected. Baker pledged in Moscow on May 18, 1990, that the United States would cooperate with the Soviet Union in the "development of a new Europe." And in June, per talking points prepared by the NSC, Bush was telling Soviet leaders that the United States sought "a new, inclusive Europe."

It's therefore not surprising that Russia was incensed when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and others were ushered into NATO membership starting in the mid-1990s. Boris Yeltsin, Dmitry Medvedev and Gorbachev himself protested through both public and private channels that U.S. leaders had violated the non-expansion arrangement.
As NATO began looking even further eastward, to Ukraine and Georgia, protests turned to outright aggression and saber-rattling.

NATO'S widening umbrella doesn't justify Putin's bellicosity or his incursions in Ukraine or Georgia. Still, the evidence suggests that Russia's protests have merit and that U.S. policy has contributed to current tensions in Europe.

In less than two months, Western heads of state will gather in Warsaw for a NATO summit. Discussions will undoubtedly focus on efforts to contain and deter Russian adventurism — including increasing NATO deployments in Eastern Europe and deepening NATO's ties to Ukraine and Georgia. Such moves, however, will only reinforce the Russian narrative of U.S. duplicity. Instead, addressing a major source of Russian anxieties by taking future NATO expansion off the table could help dampen Russia-Western hostilities.

Just as a pledge not to expand NATO in 1990 helped end the Cold War, so too may a pledge today help resuscitate the U.S.-Russian relationship.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
 
Cypress said:
My aunt's husband and my great uncle were sent to the Gulag by Soviet regime....and my grandmother and aunt were terrorized by Soviet state security services.
Click to expand...

History has shown that Soviet apologists were fairly forgiving people. It's all about creating a better world, after all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top