How would Russia react to EU economic blockade?

[Reno]

Remind me please, the years when slavery and racial segregation was cancelled in the US. What was the situation with similar rights in Europe and "amoral" Russia at the same time?

Maybe not slavery exactly, but serfdom was abolished in Russia only in 1861 (as opposed to earlier in the rest of Europe) and even then at rather unfavourable terms to the peasantry. (Serfdom in Russia)

 

[Richard Cribb]

WTF? The US has been a significant (and at times the single most significant) force in the global push for national self-determination, democratic government, the establishment of and respect for international law, free trade, civil liberties, and yes, human rights. The US was pushing for most of these things a generation before Europe was ready to take it seriously. And the US was amongst the earliest to champion the rest of them that didn't make it in Wilson's 'initial cut'.

Not so.
Any country where the people dared to stand up against the glorious capital became the enemy of the USA (With a couple of exceptions like Saddam pre the invasion of Kuwait and Pol Pot post the vietnamese intervention in Kampuchea). Heck, your country is still punishing a small, poor and powerless island because its people had the audacity to get rid of Batista's cleptocracy. I could mention a lot of other instances.
Regarding human rights, it is not clear what you mean here. Do you include social and economic rights here? Those are pretty important for the majority of the population on Earth and your country is hardly a paragon here, not even domestically.

That doesn't mean we haven't selfishly pursued our own interests at times to the detriment of other peoples. But we have almost always advocated these things in rhetoric, and sometimes even in deed. (though certainly not always) When was the last time Russia or China spoke loudly and boldly about human rights for any reason other than to distract from their own violations or to justify some primarily self-interested action of their own? The US understands that these are virtues to be pursued for their own sake and they speak as if that is the case. You may say action trumps words and that probably is the case, but words keeps them front and center. Words help to enshrine this mentality as law and fact.

So what you basically are saying is that it is better to pay lip service to cherished values and then act contrary than just act in such a way? Long live hypocrisy.
Perhaps Russia and China don't do this sanctimonious routine because they are more mature societies?

I'd prefer we move beyond words to deed and in many cases we have. In many others we've let self-interest trump, often unjustifiably. But in the sum total of our actions over the last 100 years, America has been a positive force and influence in the world. I can't really say the same for Russia or China.

I can.
This little thing called the Russian Revolution was not only a progressive event in itself, but it had a great impact for the poor masses in the rest of the world and that in a positive way.
I really can't say the same about the USA with the exception of your labour movement, which admittedly when it was a major influence, was impressive.
However, I don't expect this to be taught in American schools.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Remind me please, the years when slavery and racial segregation was cancelled in the US. What was the situation with similar rights in Europe and "amoral" Russia at the same time?

Yes, we had segregation and disenfranchisement of minorities at the same time Russia was slaughtering 20-30 million of her own citizens. Moral equivalents indeed! Western Europe barely had any ethnic minorities during the same time period. But if you're gonna bring up slavery, I think the pogroms and NAZI's are more than fair game, no? Or some of the more grotesque colonial abuses and/or negligence during the 19th century?

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Not so.
Any country where the people dared to stand up against the glorious capital became the enemy of the USA (With a couple of exceptions like Saddam pre the invasion of Kuwait and Pol Pot post the vietnamese intervention in Kampuchea). Heck, your country is still punishing a small, poor and powerless island because its people had the audacity to get rid of Batista's cleptocracy. I could mention a lot of other instances.
Regarding human rights, it is not clear what you mean here. Do you include social and economic rights here? Those are pretty important for the majority of the population on Earth and your country is hardly a paragon here, not even domestically.

Pol Pot was never propped up by the US. He was however armed, funded, and supported by China. As for human rights, freedom from unjust persecution. Free speech, belief, expression, and press. The right to democratically choose ones own government. Reasonably impartial justice and due process of law. Equal status under the law for all citizens. The right to organize and peacefully protest. Freedom from torture and abuse. And a whole host of others. I don't believe that an equitable share of the economic pie is part of any widespread concept of human rights.

So what you basically are saying is that it is better to pay lip service to cherished values and then act contrary than just act in such a way? Long live hypocrisy.
Perhaps Russia and China don't do this sanctimonious routine because they are more mature societies?

No, Russia and China behave the way they do because such 'cherished values' are not even a marginal concern for them. Obviously action is better than lip service, but one is better than none.

I can.
This little thing called the Russian Revolution was not only a progressive event in itself, but it had a great impact for the poor masses in the rest of the world and that in a positive way.
I really can't say the same about the USA with the exception of your labour movement, which admittedly when it was a major influence, was impressive.
However, I don't expect this to be taught in American schools.

Wha what? The only fathomable way the Russian Revolution and what came from it could be considered progressive and positive event is in comparison to the repressive and abusive Tsars that preceded it. They were still brutal autocratic thugs post-revolution compared to most of the West and comparing them favorably to the Tsars might even be stretching things. The poor masses inside the Soviet Union didn't benefit nor did the poor masses in the states they sponsored. The SU exported autocracy, brutality, and the AK-47. Not much else.

 

[Yeekim]

I can.
This little thing called the Russian Revolution was not only a progressive event in itself, but it had a great impact for the poor masses in the rest of the world and that in a positive way.

Brought out the important part for you.

The SU exported autocracy, brutality, and the AK-47. Not much else.

Hey, don't be a whiner, poor masses in the rest of the world were happy to take free AK-47 over free fishing rod each day a week!

 

[red_elk]

Yes, we had segregation and disenfranchisement of minorities at the same time Russia was slaughtering 20-30 million of her own citizens. Moral equivalents indeed! Western Europe barely had any ethnic minorities during the same time period. But if you're gonna bring up slavery, I think the pogroms and NAZI's are more than fair game, no? Or some of the more grotesque colonial abuses and/or negligence during the 19th century?

So how it's possible that your beacon of democracy and human rights banned slavery later than amoral Russia got rid of serfdom?

 

[Yeekim]

So how it's possible that your beacon of democracy and human rights banned slavery later than amoral Russia got rid of serfdom?

That was merely temporary. I believe you successfully reinstated it in 1932.

 

[RedRalph]

Well Russia has pretty much decided to ignore Democracy and rule of law.

the US has done both of these things, internaitonal law moreso than US law, but this is nothing the US isnt guilty of.

Its suppressed the free press,

True

persecuted political dissidents,

True enough

and outright bullied half the nations near it while wielding its natural gas and oil reserves as a tool of economic extortion.

Oh and the US hasnt? its actually invanded and taken over nations, as opposed to Russian actions in response to a Georgian attack and in Chechnya in response to an illegal attempt a secession. I wonder how the US would react if alaska decided she was leaving the Union.

Oh yeah, than Chechnya...and Georgia.

See above. Yes, Chechnya was extremely hevy handed, and I dont support the methods used, but its only on a par with Iraq (Or for that matter Israelis behavior which the uS supports). Georgia started the war in 08.

And all throughout this recent history they have not once advocated human rights primarily for its own sake. They have not sought international cooperation as anything other than a means to their own ends. They've played UN road block to several just and necessary international interventions. Outside of resources and economics, I can't point to any positive contribution they've made to the world in the last couple decades.

China or Russia?

No, the US at her worst is not in their class. These are thug states.

Please, spare me the BS. the US supports the most evil goverments on Earth, such as the Saudi one, because it suits them, and then plays all moralistic when it comes to DPRK. there is no admirable motivations to US behavior, they are at least as bad as Russia or china, but they are rich and powerful so dont get as basd a rep in the west (although frankly there isnt much in it).

 

[RedRalph]

Pol Pot was never propped up by the US

Yeah, he was, and the US wouldnt recognise the government that replaced him for a long time afterwards because they didnt want to annoy the Chinese.

 

[red_elk]

That was merely temporary. I believe you successfully reinstated it in 1932.

... and had the same rights for all people regardless of their race and nationality generation before the US?

 

[red_elk]

On topic:
Winner, you could write a book of hypothetical scenarios, something like
"Winner's wildest dreams or 1000 ways how EU could defeat Russia"

 

[Abaddon]

I don't know. Ask #fiftychat

 

[Yeekim]

... and had the same rights for all people regardless of their race and nationality generation before the US?

You mean all of them became serfs? That is not entirely correct...

On December 27, 1932 the USSR Central Executive Committee and Sovnarkom issued a decree About establishment of the Unified Passport System within the USSR and the Obligatory Propiska of Passports. The declared purposes were the improvement of population bookkeeping in various urban settlements and "the removal of persons not engaged in industrial of other socially-useful work from towns and cleansing of towns from hiding kulaks, criminals and other antisocial elements. "Hiding kulaks" was an indication at fugitive peasants who tried to run away from the collectivization. "Removal" usually resulted in some form of forced labour. Passports were introduced for urban residents, sovkhozniks and workers of novostroykas (новостройка, a major construction site of a new town, plant, railway station, etc.). Kolkhozniks and individual peasants did not have passports and could not move into towns without permission. Repeated violation of the passport regime was a criminal offence.

 

[red_elk]

You mean all of them became serfs? That is not entirely correct...

No, I mean people in the USSR had the similar rights regardless of their race and nationality. Unlike in the United States who is teaching us morality.

BTW, you are more authoritarian than me according to your signature, glad to know

 

[BrendanM]

Russia would just shut off the flow of gas and other fuels.

Use their Navy and Air force to strike at tankers, oil rigs, and other fuel depots.

Let the war of attrition begin.

Russia wins, 16-13, with a last second field goal in overtime to prevent a tie, unlike the Bengals-Eagles 13-13 fiasco.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Pol Pot was never propped up by the US.

He was, after 1979.

He was however armed, funded, and supported by China.

True, but that is not the issue since it is not China that is claiming to be the beacon of humanity and moral.

As for human rights, freedom from unjust persecution. Free speech, belief, expression, and press. The right to democratically choose ones own government. Reasonably impartial justice and due process of law. Equal status under the law for all citizens. The right to organize and peacefully protest. Freedom from torture and abuse. And a whole host of others. I don't believe that an equitable share of the economic pie is part of any widespread concept of human rights.

From your litany of rights I find it doubtful that for instance Shah Mohammad Reza, general Augusto Pinochet or general Efrain Rios Montt had such tremendous respect for those. And that was people brought to power and protected by your country. I could mention a lot more. It is not a thing of the past either.
As for your last sentence, here is an article from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

No, Russia and China behave the way they do because such 'cherished values' are not even a marginal concern for them. Obviously action is better than lip service, but one is better than none.

Back to square one then. Russia doesn't care, China doesn't care, the USA doesn't care, but only the latter pretends to do so.
I leave it to the audience to decide whether vile action + hypocrisy beats vile action or not.

Wha what? The only fathomable way the Russian Revolution and what came from it could be considered progressive and positive event is in comparison to the repressive and abusive Tsars that preceded it. They were still brutal autocratic thugs post-revolution compared to most of the West and comparing them favorably to the Tsars might even be stretching things. The poor masses inside the Soviet Union didn't benefit nor did the poor masses in the states they sponsored. The SU exported autocracy, brutality, and the AK-47. Not much else.

Umm no.
First of all, even doubting that said revolution did not lead to improvements, even substantial improvement for the majority is not something that betrays any deeper knowledge of the topic to say the least.
Apart from the inspiration this event gave the international labour movement - that it actually was possible to successfully revolt against the traditional ruling classes, it also made the capitalists in other countries realize that it would be better for them to engage in compromises with the working class to avoid similar things to happen to them. One can reflect over whether it was Hitler or Stalin who saved capitalism.
In any case, ine can assume that without the russian example, the implementation of welfare states would have been more difficult.
In that context it is worth noting that the real assault on many of those welfare states started only after the Eastern Bloc disappeared. This is hardly coincindental.
Your last sentences are just unworthy of any comment, and I regret to say that I find your whole post to be abit too much on the ignorant part. So unfortunately I can only give you a bonus point for emotional content.

Brought out the important part for you.

Hey, don't be a whiner, poor masses in the rest of the world were happy to take free AK-47 over free fishing rod each day a week!

Please improve your troling.
This is just pathetic.

 

[REDY]

Well there is clear that perceivation of morality is various. (I am not saying that morality is various).
You should see morality in christian ethics, in social justice, in liberalism and democratic progress and so on. Anyway I perceive Russia and China as failed states there because they doesnt fit to any morality than own national one.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I am unclear what Russia actually imports from the EU that it could not obtain from other sources.

And any attempt to blockade Russia by force would likely result in a military confrontation at Russia's ports and Russia could probably concentrate enough air and naval power to win there.

And the legality of Denmark and Sweden in assuming that the extension of their territorial waters for the purposes of fishing, natural resource extraction and safety etc overrides the rights of peaceful international shipping to enter and exit the Baltic as has been established over centuries is extremely dubious.

 

[GoodGame]

I am unclear what Russia actually imports from the EU that it could not obtain from other sources.

I think it's more a matter of getting good prices on what it exports (but I do believe Russia benefits from grain imports). The more open the markets and the pathways for those markets, the better the profit on what it exports (fossil fuel). Another variable on this thought experiment is what's the assumed value for fossil fuels. The current situation has fossil fuel prices kind of under control, while maybe a year and a half ago the affects of fossil fuel prices might have an affect on national responses to their treaties, especially if the bad boy is a major supplier of it. If oil was $300+ a barrel (assuming the dollar was the international currency ), what would be the responses?

 

[Gogf]

Well there is clear that perceivation of morality is various. (I am not saying that morality is various).
You should see morality in christian ethics, in social justice, in liberalism and democratic progress and so on. Anyway I perceive Russia and China as failed states there because they doesnt fit to any morality than own national one.

Russia and China are failed states because they're crappy places to live in, not because of their morality.