Anyone who thinks Russia is in danger of being unilaterally invaded by Britain or an EU force is living in cloud cuckooland.
Only one state in the region has invaded and occupied its neighbours here. 3 times in the last 16 years. Just one.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Only one state in the region has invaded and occupied its neighbours here. 3 times in the last 16 years. Just one.
Easy citizenship for rich people is as old as the hills.
Even when society is - superficially - in a massive panic about immigration, drilling down into the data usually reveals that healthy majorities are quite relaxed about immigrants as long as the immigrants are believed to be doing a productive job.
Also, importantly, you have to remember the class solidarity of the rich: they have bonds that transcend borders, shared principles such as that being rich means being able to buy yourself to the front of the queue, etc.
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.
For instance, Russia stripped Moldova of a chunk of territory immediately after the breakup of the USSR, which still has a Russian military presence to this day. Ukraine has repeatedly attempted to confirm a whole series of agreement with Russia, including for instance issues relevant to sovereignty including establishing agreed borders. Russia repeatedly failed to engage and settle many of these issues. As a much smaller country, what this lack of resolution actually gave Ukraine was insecurity and dependence - which was of course Russia's intent. Then there was Russia's invasion of Georgia. Russia has deliberately and consistently used its military might to intimidate and threaten other ex-Soviet states.
This is why the Baltic states are so uncompromising about the threat of Russia: Russia now is little changed from the USSR and Russian Empire before it, and Russia's leaders are steeped in that tradition, where imposing authority with violence is never far away.
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.
The United States would be threatening and encircling Russia, and provoking responses no matter how Russia would have reacted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And Russia’s solution go this “problem” is to insist their former victims surrender their sovereignty and give Russia the final say about who they can ally and trade with.
Russia’s stance is illegitimate and its “solutions” are incomparable with the idea of their neighbors as sovereign states.
Besides you blame the west for not pretending Russia’s concerns are legitimate, but what has Russia ever done to alleviate the fears of their victims? Pretty much all of Russia’s suggestions to negotiate involve said victims either surrender land or sovereignty to the Kremlin.
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.
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.
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.
The Ukraine war exposed how much of a joke the Russian army is, they aren't invading Europe...
A Trump $250 Bill? GOP Lawmaker Wants 'Most Valuable President' On Cash | DETAILS
US Rep. Joe Wilson proposes a $250 bill featuring Donald Trump, calling it a solution to inflation and a tribute to the "most valuable President.", US News News - Times Now
www.timesnownews.com
At least the half that has been repeatedly terrorized by Russia. Most if not all “justifications” Russia gives for why it HAD to invade Ukraine also applies to all those countries.
All used to be occupied and brutalized by Russia which Putin considers reasons as to why Russia should still own them. All have sizable Russian minorities, have “betrayed” Russia by seeking closer ties to the west and like Ukraine they got so many Nazi’s as to fill zero seats in parliament.
Yes. Putin made the claim that the Special Military Intervention was motivated by freeing Russian minorities in Ukraine; 20 % of Estonia is Russian-speakers.
Russia has invaded European countries three times in the last two decades, and has a military occupying force in another.