Ask a Russian

[Gigaz]

It's true, though for this particular thing they might rather want to blame themselves.

I see how, in some sense, Russia is being punished for things which the US would get away with, and that this seems unjust.
But Russia is not the US never will be. Russia is economically about as strong as Italy and Brazil, which is 58% of Germany, 23% of China or 12% of the US. Of corse Russia will be bullied by stronger countries if their goals are misaligned.

 

[red_elk]

I see how, in some sense, Russia is being punished for things which the US would get away with, and that this seems unjust.
But Russia is not the US never will be. Russia is economically about as strong as Italy and Brazil, which is 58% of Germany, 23% of China or 12% of the US. Of corse Russia will be bullied by stronger countries if their goals are misaligned.

You are right about the "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" part. But it's not only about economic strength, but also about being member of the "club". And Russia is not being bullied, it's being vilified. Bullied was Serbia in 1999.

 

[Gigaz]

You are right about the "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" part. But it's not only about economic strength, but also about being member of the "club". And Russia is not being bullied, it's being vilified. Bullied was Serbia in 1999.

Whether Russia is being vilified is open for debate, but either way this is not something which the West is actively pursuing because the western media can write about Russia whatever they want. If Russia would have wanted to join the "club", the Americans would have loved it. Because Russia either aligns with the US or with China, and the US really doesn't like China.

Here is the thing though: The Serbian wars caused millions of refugees to flee into western Europe. Helping Milošević to win was not an option because he was a dictator and a butcher. So if you were in charge in the US, whose side do you take? Same goes for Libya or Syria. It's not like the West is actively antagonizing Russia.

 

[red_elk]

If Russia would have wanted to join the "club", the Americans would have loved it. Because Russia either aligns with the US or with China, and the US really doesn't like China.

Russia wanted and was actively trying to join the club in 90-s and even in the first years of 00-s. The problem is that USA and Russia have quite different understanding of what this membership means. For instance, USA considered it safe to ignore Russian interests (e.g. regarding ABM treaty or NATO expansion) and treat it as defeated nation, which was a mistake. Now, willingly or not, US is actively pushing Russia to align with China. The thing which goes against American interests, as Cold War time politicians and analysts like Kissinger have been warning about.

Here is the thing though: The Serbian wars caused millions of refugees to flee into western Europe. Helping Milošević to win was not an option because he was a dictator and a butcher. So if you were in charge in the US, whose side do you take? Same goes for Libya or Syria.

USA intervenes in armed conflicts around the world not because it wants to help people get rid of dictators or promote democracy. I would not take sides in the conflict on the opposite side of the world, where I have no business to intervene.

It's not like the West is actively antagonizing Russia.

USA made a few particular steps which were perceived in Russia as antagonizing. You may argue that they were not perceived as such in the West, but it's not only West's opinion which matters.

 

[Gigaz]

Russia wanted and was actively trying to join the club in 90-s and even in the first years of 00-s. The problem is that USA and Russia have quite different understanding of what this membership means. For instance, USA considered it safe to ignore Russian interests (e.g. regarding ABM treaty or NATO expansion) and treat it as defeated nation, which was a mistake. Now, willingly or not, US is actively pushing Russia to align with China. The thing which goes against American interests, as Cold War time politicians and analysts like Kissinger have been warning about.

And what about the things which the West has done to appease Russia? Ukraine and Belorussia weren't accepted into NATO even though they really wanted to. Nukes from previously Soviet states were to sent Russia mainly due to US pressure. They let the Castros reign in Cuba to not antagonize Russia.
And the NATO expansion or the ABM treaty is at no point be in issue for Russia if Russia doesn't threaten its neighbors with military force. Do you think the Americans can ally with Poland and Russia and then let the Russians enforce their interests like that? The American alliance system is based on America protecting its allies from exactly this sort of thing.

USA intervenes in armed conflicts around the world not because it wants to help people get rid of dictators or promote democracy. I would not take sides in the conflict on the opposite side of the world, where I have no business to intervene.

Now Russia takes sides in a conflict on the opposite side of the world where it has no business to intervene. The US is smarter than to make a dictator win a civil war and I'm not saying its some moral high ground, it is mostly because they did something like that in Iran and Chile and it backfired really badly.

USA made a few particular steps which were perceived in Russia as antagonizing. You may argue that they were not perceived as such in the West, but it's not only West's opinion which matters.

No of corse not, but perceptions can be influenced and altered by reasonable discussions and presentation of facts.
I think the most important reason for Putin to antagonize the West is because a common foe distracts from domestic problems and thus secures his power. But from what I'm seeing it served so far neither the Russian state nor the Russian people.

 

[red_elk]

And what about the things which the West has done to appease Russia? Ukraine and Belorussia weren't accepted into NATO even though they really wanted to. Nukes from previously Soviet states were to sent Russia mainly due to US pressure. They let the Castros reign in Cuba to not antagonize Russia.

All of that was done for different reasons, but none of them was to "appease" Russia. Nukes were moved because it was in the US interests, to prevent proliferation. And Russia in 90-s cared about Castros much less than it cared about Serbia.

And the NATO expansion or the ABM treaty is at no point be in issue for Russia if Russia doesn't threaten its neighbors with military force.

Who was threatened by Russia in 90-s, when NATO was expanding? Russia itself was on the verge of collapsing, its army couldn't defeat even Chechen rebels back then. And ABM treaty has nothing to do with Russian neighbors at all. Withdrawing from it makes it possible for the US to reduce effectiveness of Russian nuclear forces and to destroy Cold War system of mutual deterrent.

Now Russia takes sides in a conflict on the opposite side of the world where it has no business to intervene. The US is smarter than to make a dictator win a civil war and I'm not saying its some moral high ground, it is mostly because they did something like that in Iran and Chile and it backfired really badly.

Yes, Russia does the same as US in this case - defends its geopolitical interests. Though unlike USA, it doesn't feed BS to people about protecting democracy and human rights.

I think the most important reason for Putin to antagonize the West is because a common foe distracts from domestic problems and thus secures his power. But from what I'm seeing it served so far neither the Russian state nor the Russian people.

Putin doesn't antagonize the West. At the beginning of his first term, he tried to restore good relations with USA, using 9/11 as an opportunity. Provided logistical support for US operation in Afghanistan, closed several military bases abroad, offered assistance against Taliban (support of Northern Alliance ground troops). Mr. Bush took all of that for granted. In return Putin got nothing except US withdrawing from ABM treaty and further NATO expansion, this time directly to Russian borders. It was perceived as spit in the face and not only by Putin.

 

[Groff]

Here is the thing though: The Serbian wars caused millions of refugees to flee into western Europe. Helping Milošević to win was not an option because he was a dictator and a butcher. So if you were in charge in the US, whose side do you take? Same goes for Libya or Syria. It's not like the West is actively antagonizing Russia.

Not sure if you're talking about Yugoslav or Kosovo war but I presume Kosovo war.

That's a actually a great example of US switching sides to fit their needs. Kosovo Liberation Army was labeled as a terrorist group (which they absolutely were, armed invaders coming from Albania) by the US but they changed their opinion on the KLA and allowed them to do what they did. If the US's / Western powers idea was to, as you say, stop a butcher why didn't they do anything about the KLA?

After the war ended said terrorist group was simply renamed to Kosovo Protection
Corps and left armed and in power. It is well known that the former KLA committed numerous war crimes and atrocities.

The US gained another military base, Bondsteel, also known as little Guantanamo and access and control to numerous and quite large mine and mineral deposits

Spoiler :

In regard to mineral resources, as Lydall briefly noted, Kosovo is home to “substantial deposits of lignite and non-ferrous metals. Indeed, Kosovo’s mineral possessions in the Trepca mining complex are quite substantial, and have continuously been a focus of ethnic conflict.

Describing this focus a year before the NATO intervention, New York Times columnist Chris Hedges labeled northern Kosovo’s mines, rich in “lead, zinc, cadmium, gold and silver,” as the “Kosovo war’s glittering prize.”

And of course complete control of all assets

Spoiler :

One month following the NATO intervention, the United Nations Mission in Kosovo [UNMIK] gave itself the authority to administer FRY and Serbian assets in Kosovo. A think-tank, the International Crisis Group [ICG], then published a report on Trepca stating that UNMIK should “take over the Trepca Mining Complex from the Serbs as quickly as possible and explained how this should be done.” The Trepca mines were occupied in 2000 by UN peacekeepers on the grounds that the mines posed an environmental hazard, and were turned over to the Washington Group, a large U.S. defense contractor with partners in France and Sweden.

And of course we mustn't forget that Madeleine Albright, in a bizarre turn of events, privatized and sold of numerous state owned assets and companies and pocketed the money as if she owned them. Not a single penny from the privatization went to Kosovo nor to Serbia, the country that owned most of the companies she ''privatized''.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3516/kosovo-privatization

US pursues its interests, as does any major power, and that's all there is to it. Fantasies about doing it for greater good are just that, fantasies.

 

[red_elk]

And we couldn't offer much help...
Except diplomatic support and sending VDV battalion to Prishtina just before NATO troops arrive there.


Link to video.

 

[Takhisis]

Moar questions!
What countries or peoples other than Serbia do Russians have sympathies for?

Well yeah, I would expect that public opinion in the Baltic states was strongly anti-Soviet. But I'm not sure about opinions of the USSR in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, or the Central Asian states.

Discount Moldova/Moldavija. They're Romanians whose land was ceded after WWII. The situation in Transnistria is really irksome to them.

What's so funny about Forrest Gump?

Forrest Gump is only funny if you watch it only one time.

It was expected, Putin is popular. Not least due to West's behavior in the last few years.

Yes, some people in the West have been idiotically imprudent. Not that local elites in Russia and other countries haven't been exploiting it, of course.

 

[FriendlyFire]

That's a actually a great example of US switching sides to fit their needs. Kosovo Liberation Army was labeled as a terrorist group (which they absolutely were, armed invaders coming from Albania) by the US but they changed their opinion on the KLA and allowed them to do what they did. If the US's / Western powers idea was to, as you say, stop a butcher why didn't they do anything about the KLA?

After the war ended said terrorist group was simply renamed to Kosovo Protection
Corps and left armed and in power. It is well known that the former KLA committed numerous war crimes and atrocities.
.

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

Next thing people will complain about Republicans saying that the US should ally with a brutal dictator that used WMDs on hes own people. (Syria) while using same reason to invade another country (Iraq). This is the way that the world works comrades.
Like Russia all for self determination and Freedom except for Chechenya and the threat of other Eastern providences breaking away into their own countries because Russia was so great at that time that no one wanted to remain except for Belarus and maybe Bulgaria.

 

[Takhisis]

I am not Russian, but I am, however, certain that Bulgaria was not a member state of the Soviet Union.

 

[Bootstoots]

Let's suppose that President Trump turns out to have a coherent policy towards Russia, which happens to be exactly what I think should be done. I think Kissinger agrees with most of this, and I largely cribbed it from him.

• Cease expanding NATO, but continue to remain in it and defend all current NATO members.
• Quietly drop US support for pro-Western "democratic" movements within all former Soviet countries save the Baltic States.
• Lift all sanctions on Russia on the condition that no more territory is annexed, none of the Russian-backed frozen conflict zones/unrecognized states in former Soviet countries (DPR, LPR, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh) are enlarged, and no new conflict zones are created. We'd just agree to disagree on who owns Crimea.
• Cut off all US aid for any armed groups within Syria, restricting US intervention there to air strikes against ISIS coordinated with Russia.

In sum, the US acknowledges that the former USSR minus the Baltics constitutes Russia's political "sphere of influence" and that US-aligned liberal democracies aren't likely to form there, but new Russian military operations in other post-Soviet states are not to occur except with the agreement of the international community.

Would the US and Russia have any conflict at all with each other after that? Would we be best buddies forever?

 

[FriendlyFire]

That is a Western LIE
Bulgaria has ALWAYS been part of Soviet Russia, and will always be part of Russia.

Russian MP: ‘We will buy Bulgaria, we already bought half of the coast’

A statement by a Russian parliamentarian has sent shockwaves through Bulgaria, as the country begins to realise that the many Russians who bought real estate in the country may sooner or later become a powerful political force.

The MP, who is from Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party, was asked on Bulgarian television if his country would pursue a benevolent policy towards Bulgaria, if his party won the Sunday elections (18 September). In fact, United Russia won with more than 50% of the votes.

“Of course,” Piotr Tolstoy answered, adding: “We will just buy out the entire [Bulgaria]. Half of its coastline we have already bought,” he added.

Piotr Tolstoy is a great grandson of famous writer Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy. By profession, he is a journalist and is one of the most popular personalities on Russia’s Channel 1 television station, which is considered to be the voice of the government.

“Countries are not always taken over with tanks and airplanes. Hybrid war is a serious thing. The takeover of Crimea was the result of 25 years of negligence. The Bulgarian state should reassess the right of residence to foreign citizens, based on a small sum invested, or on possessing an apartment,” Popov wrote.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu...bulgaria-we-already-bought-half-of-the-coast/

 

[Takhisis]

That is a Western LIE

I'm going to stop paying attention to the thread until you've had some coffee and start posting seriously, or a Russian posts.

Whichever happens first.

 

[caketastydelish]

Not to mention his statements are not even questions, and this is an "ask a" thread

 

[red_elk]

What countries or peoples other than Serbia do Russians have sympathies for?

This is kinda subjective. I would say Belorussia, Ukraine (most of the Ukrainians, not the ones who lost their mind), probably Cuba. In Europe it's Mediterranean countries, Greece, Italy, Spain.

Let's suppose that President Trump turns out to have a coherent policy towards Russia, which happens to be exactly what I think should be done. I think Kissinger agrees with most of this, and I largely cribbed it from him.

• Cease expanding NATO, but continue to remain in it and defend all current NATO members.
• Quietly drop US support for pro-Western "democratic" movements within all former Soviet countries save the Baltic States.
• Lift all sanctions on Russia on the condition that no more territory is annexed, none of the Russian-backed frozen conflict zones/unrecognized states in former Soviet countries (DPR, LPR, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh) are enlarged, and no new conflict zones are created. We'd just agree to disagree on who owns Crimea.
• Cut off all US aid for any armed groups within Syria, restricting US intervention there to air strikes against ISIS coordinated with Russia.

In sum, the US acknowledges that the former USSR minus the Baltics constitutes Russia's political "sphere of influence" and that US-aligned liberal democracies aren't likely to form there, but new Russian military operations in other post-Soviet states are not to occur except with the agreement of the international community.

Would the US and Russia have any conflict at all with each other after that? Would we be best buddies forever?

In general, yes, these are good terms which would help to alleviate most of the problems. Some of the points look even too much of a concession from US side (of course nobody would say this at negotiation table). For instance, I don't like this sphere of influence stuff, both countries could just agree to limit their meddling in affairs of post-Soviet states. Like you can have institutions which promote your culture, education, democratic values, stuff like that there, but not to finance and organize mass protests, for "regime change". Frozen conflicts, and especially those which are not frozen, still would require cooperation to resolve. Ukrainian crisis would remain a serious problem, it cannot be left at current stage forever.

I'm going to stop paying attention to the thread until you've had some coffee and start posting seriously, or a Russian posts.

The guy probably thinks he annoys me
Let's not disappoint him.

 

[Yeekim]

In the context of "NATO expansion to Russian borders" (i.e. Baltic States), it might be worth mentioning that from our accession in 2004 until Crimean crisis in 2014, the total extent of military presence of other NATO members in Baltic States was 4 (four) rotating fighter planes to guard the airspace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing

 

[red_elk]

Yes, as far as I understand, putting ground troops there doesn't have much sense from military point of view. Baltic states are essentially a pocket surrounded by Russian and its allies territories. Small amount of troops will be outnumbered, threatening amount will be targeted by tactical nukes.

 

[Verbose]

Yes, as far as I understand, putting ground troops there doesn't have much sense from military point of view. Baltic states are essentially a pocket surrounded by Russian and its allies territories. Small amount of troops will be outnumbered, threatening amount will be targeted by tactical nukes.

And what, if any, inferences do you think non-Russians might be permitted to draw about Russian notions of soverignity and national self-determination for the Baltic states, from the description you just made of their situation?

And "threatening amount" in relation to what? The ability to invade and conquer Russia, or just enough to actually deter the potential of a Russian invasion, should it see fit?

Hypothetically the Baltics should build national defences credible enough to deter anything but the most determined Russian invasion attempt. Clearly nothing they ever do will have the potential to actually successfully invade Russia. Should they also be targeted with tactical nukes if they do so?

If not, NATO troops in the amount of a couple of hundred thousand should also be no actual problem. It's no way NEAR enough for attacking Russia with any hope of prosecuting a successful war against it. It might be enough to deter Russia prosecuting one against these NATO member states though.

But that's not really how this is regarded in Russia, is it?

And Russia is currently talking about targetting a lot of places not currently targetted with nukes anyway, so why should we care? Are nukes a weapon that can actually be used, according to how Russians see this, or are these threats just idle, to be ignored? Because nukes are typically NOT weapons a nation can actually deploy, and certainly not in a first-strike role.

Or is that different with Russia? And what inferences should we feel permitted to make from how you just threw those nukes in there?

 

[red_elk]

And what, if any, inferences do you think non-Russians might be permitted to draw about Russian notions of soverignity and national self-determination for the Baltic states, from the description you just made of their situation?

What is the problem with my description? I live in the city which is most likely targeted by tens of thermonuclear warheads, so why would Baltic states citizens be so touchy about NATO troops and bases being also targeted on their soil? Nothing personal, it's just the world we live in.

And "threatening amount" in relation to what? The ability to invade and conquer Russia, or just enough to actually deter the potential of a Russian invasion, should it see fit?

Conquering Russia would be problematic, we ourselves have troubles with controlling all this territory.
Amount of troops enough to fend off (not deter) conventional Russian invasion would be about the same as amount of troops to pose direct military threat to St. Petersburg. So, by threatening amount I meant the amount enough to reverse balance of power in the region.