Anyone who thinks Russia is in danger of being unilaterally invaded by Britain or an EU force is living in cloud cuckooland.All this is doing is pushing Russia to spend more on their own defense to be on their guard from you (and the others that have arrayed themselves against them).
Easy citizenship for rich people is as old as the hills.Well yeah, a visa that basically did the same thing, but with actual albeit somewhat vague conditions, already existed. EB-5 or something. Invest $1M, create 10 jobs, you're in.
Even if it does happen, nobody who actually needs the money will get it.
who said anything about unilaterally?Anyone who thinks Russia is in danger of being unilaterally invaded by Britain or an EU force is living in cloud cuckooland.
Sure the security dilemma is a real and very interesting trick. But it’s Russia which fell into that trap. If Russia didn’t have illegitimate desire for the land of their neighbors, and if they hadn’t repeatedly murdered western citizens we’d not be in this situation.All this is doing is pushing Russia to spend more on their own defense to be on their guard from you (and the others that have arrayed themselves against them).
Security dilemma - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Any look at Russia's treatment of its neighbours would reinforce that argument.Sure the security dilemma is a real and very interesting trick. But it’s Russia which fell into that trap. If Russia didn’t have illegitimate desire for the land of their neighbors, and if they hadn’t repeatedly murdered western citizens we’d not be in this situation.
The suggestion, at present, is for a small European force to be present in Ukraine to deter future invasion. European countries are bolstering defence spending precisely because the US has indicated it cannot be relied upon to honour past commitments or defend the continent.who said anything about unilaterally?
The United States would be threatening and encircling Russia, and provoking responses no matter how Russia would have reacted.Sure the security dilemma is a real and very interesting trick. But it’s Russia which fell into that trap. If Russia didn’t have illegitimate desire for the land of their neighbors, and if they hadn’t repeatedly murdered western citizens we’d not be in this situation.
kind of like the refusal by the US and other NATO countries to engage diplomatically to resolve Russian security concerns over NATO expansion gave Russia insecurity and reasonable motivation to lash out - which was of course the United States of America's (ruling class and government's) intent.As a much smaller country, what this lack of resolution actually gave Ukraine was insecurity and dependence - which was of course Russia's intent.
It is genuinely astonishing to hear anyone proposing that Russia has to protect itself from Europe given that none of Russia, Ukraine, the USA or Europe itself believe that Europe is currently capable of guaranteeing Ukraine's security, never mind threatening Russia itself.The suggestion, at present, is for a small European force to be present in Ukraine to deter future invasion. European countries are bolstering defence spending precisely because the US has indicated it cannot be relied upon to honour past commitments or defend the continent.
That's the context: In-house European defence, unreliant on the US. So if you want to cook up scenarios in which Russia is threatened by this increased European spending (despite never having been attacked or credibly threatened at home), that's the material you're working with.
because of course Russia is going to be evaluating the threat from Europe as if it isn't in addition to the threat posed by the United States. Maybe instead of being astonished you should rethink your interpretation.It is genuinely astonishing to hear anyone proposing that Russia has to protect itself from Europe given that none of Russia, Ukraine, the USA or Europe itself believe that Europe is currently capable of guaranteeing Ukraine's security, never mind threatening Russia itself.
But Russia has no legitimate concerns to address. Their whole problem boils down to thinking they still own or ought to own eastern and Central Europe, and that NATO makes it harder for Russia to violently impose its will on their former victims.kind of like the refusal by the US and other NATO countries to engage diplomatically to resolve Russian security concerns over NATO expansion gave Russia insecurity and reasonable motivation to lash out - which was of course the United States of America's (ruling class and government's) intent.
Not really. Sweden Finland and yes, even Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO until Russia made clear there wasn’t any other option. And had Russia not made it a national hobby to destroy Poland then Poland wouldn’t have been desperate to join either. The recurring factor for NATO expansion is Russia, not the US.The United States would be threatening and encircling Russia, and provoking responses no matter how Russia would have reacted.
OK, so we have the Russian perspective: the potential for a future joint attack by America and Europe on Russia. Which has never happened or been credibly threatened, but fine, we can consider it as a feared outcome.because of course Russia is going to be evaluating the threat from Europe as if it isn't in addition to the threat posed by the United States. Maybe instead of being astonished you should rethink your interpretation.
Imperialism is all right unless it's the US doing it. Or the US possibly doing it. Or the US having done it in the past, therefore justifying any and all future imperialistic actions.OK, so we have the Russian perspective: the potential for a future joint attack by America and Europe on Russia. Which has never happened or been credibly threatened, but fine, we can consider it as a feared outcome.
And then we have the European perspective: the potential for an attack by Russia on Europe. Which has already happened over and over and over again. And now there is no security guarantee from America, so they look to bolstering their own capabilities for defence. There's no alternative that will guarantee security, and the threat is far more real-- it's actually happened and is happening now.
What do you propose, exactly? That we must respect Russia's fears of some speculative future attack, and allow it to pre-emptively occupy other countries to mitigate that fear (!!!) ....but we simultaneously cannot respect Europe's need to defend against invasion-- even when it's happening? The double standard is so transparent, how you will afford some states the right of independent action and self-determination, but will not afford those same rights to others-- and are even happy to see the former ride roughshod over the latter. This is imperialism.
The Ukraine war exposed how much of a joke the Russian army is, they aren't invading Europe...And then we have the European perspective: the potential for an attack by Russia on Europe. Which has already happened over and over and over again. And now there is no security guarantee from America, so they look to bolstering their own capabilities for defence. There's no alternative that will guarantee security, and the threat is far more real-- it's actually happened and is happening now.