1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Russia: A State of Extreme Paranoia?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by amadeus, Jun 3, 2007.

  1. scy12

    scy12 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181


    I don't understand this " It's Americas fault " Ofcourse it is their fault , they are your " enemies " and will act accordingly to their interests , what do you say about your side , how are you going to protect your country's interests? If i was Russian i would be angry if they asked a Politician , " What are you going to do " . And answered "It is their fault". Yes , it is everyones " Fault" but what are YOU going to do ?

    I am speaking about Gorbachef , i think it's pathetic for a Leader or for an ex Leader to accuse his enemies for the destruction , defeat. That is , it's obvious that an " enemy " will act like that but as a Leader it is your responsibility not to let them.

    It's like two footbal teams play and one wins and the coach of one team accuses the other team of being too strong , immoral ,ruthless , Clever etc. Indeed , Captain Obvious , but what did YOU do to protect YOUR County's interests ? Leaders should accept the responsibility of commanding a country .

    Now , regarding the issue , i think there is nothing we can say. If Russia's territories are targeted by Missiles in European territory , it is to be expected that the Russians will also target European territories. But nothing will happen. Russia's biggest problem is Organized Crime and that is what a Good Russian Leader should try to fight.
     
  2. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    And how, prey tell, should C. and E. European countries ensure their sefety if not by joining the most powerfull and successful military alliance this planet has ever seen?

    In other words, let them down when they need help. How clever. What happened was in the best interest of both the old West and the newly liberated countries. The West has provided them with investments necessary to transform and modernize their economies and become modern, stable and democratic societies.

    If the West hadn't done this, it would have caused instability, economic downturn and chaos. This is what Russia likes, this is what Russia wants: such conditions allow Russia to expand its influence.

    Monroe doctrine was protective and it was welcomed by Latin American countries, who were afraid of European intervention and re-colonization.

    You accidentaly gave me a good comparison to the current situation:

    Latin America => Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism
    Monroe doctrine => the actions of the West, which decided to shelter these countries from any Russian attempts to "recolonize" them, to include them into it's zone of control (not just influence) again.

    As for Russia, it doesn't have any "Monroe doctrine", it has only the Brezhnev doctrine, which says "any unwanted development in our zone of control will be stopped by force".
     
  3. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    You seem to have the United States Army confused with the Salvation Army.

    Its absolutely is not a valid comparison. The Monroe doctrine was a declaration that the western Hemesphere was an American Sphere of Interest. It was not taken on behalf of Latin America, but taken on behalf of America, to ensure no foreign power can have a foothold to use against America, this was used against unwilling latin American countries whether willing or not, as Cuba and Nicaragua show.
     
  4. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    Did I say anything about the US army? No.


    Yes it is, thanks for the inspiration.

    Again:

    Of course it was also in the interest of the US, but it contributed to the security of Latin America.

    What West did in Central and parts of Eastern Europe is very similar to this: it helped these countries to get rid of Russian control and provided ensurance that Russia won't be able to re-estabilish it's zone of control.

    Is this bad? Only to someone who thinks that Russia has a right to control C. and E. Europe against its own free will. Do you think it has?
     
  5. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    Oh so you want to Join NATO, but don't expect the other members to have to come to your defense? Good, then I guess that we've reached a good compromise :lol:

    How was destabalizing nations in Latin America for dealing with European powers contributing to their security?

    But we have no need to provide for their security. We have a whole ocean to keep Russia out, that was the entire point of the Monroe doctrine. To set up a buffer zone.

    I think there are no rights in international politics. You think that Central and Eastern Europe have a right to potection. Do you think it has?

    You might want to rethink that Winston Churchill quote in your signature, its tragically Ironic coming from you.
     
  6. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    Take a deep breath and read this thread again, will you?

    What? Jesus, you're obviously talking about some other Universe. The US did not destabilize Latin America, in fact, it didn't care about it for a long time. Monroe doctrine was not about meddling into their affairs, it was more about preventing Europe from doing so.

    Who is we? Seriously, are you that ignorant to think that NATO = the US and Canada?

    Western Europe would lose most if the Central Europe collapsed into chaotic states. It was in the best interest of everyone (except Russia) to ensure Central Europe would become prosperous.

    No, it has not. But it is the right thing to provide the protection and it is also in the interest of both Central and Eastern Europe and the old West.

    Now answer my question. You seem to be quite comfortable with the idea of leaving C. and E. Europe to Russia.

    I am afraid you didn't get it - again :p
    The quote is related to pre-WW2 appeasement, when certain people advocated leaving Central and Eastern Europe to the Nazis. People like Chamberlain didn't care, they were willing to sacrifice them in order to live in peace a little while longer. It didn't work :p

    If the West had done this again, it would have backfired again.
     
  7. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    You misunderstand my position completely, I am not a Chamberlain, I'm a Laval.
     
  8. nc-1701

    nc-1701 bombombedum

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    4,025
    Location:
    America
    Ok Winner your missing something... In international politics things like 'morals', and 'rights' don't exist. No nation has any right to anything, the only way a nation can make it's self heard, or make it's self matter is by being important. So quite bluntly East Europe will always be somebodys plaything. However currently East Europe is trying to jump under NATO's umbrella rather than Russia's. Russia of course has no reason at all to give a damn what these countries want, and needs/wants it's own buffer zone.

    So while as an American I find it annoying that other countries are willing to challenge my own, if I were to put myself in Russia's shoes I can tell you I wouldn't, and shouldn't do anything differently.
     
  9. bathsheba666

    bathsheba666 Fast 'n Bulbous

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    10,012
    Location:
    London
    US has treaties in place to stop spiralling weapons and counter measure systems.

    US wins cold war, thinks, hey, let's abrogate all these treaties.
    (After all, what are they going to do about it?)

    Starts developing new systems.

    Feigns bemusement when co signatories of abrogated treaties point this out.

    Clearly this is Russian paranoia...
    ..and nothing to do with customary american fy policies.
     
  10. amadeus

    amadeus めっちゃしんどい

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    32,508
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    The ABM Treaty was a silly relic of an era that died long ago.
     
  11. Gelion

    Gelion Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Messages:
    11,258
    Location:
    Earth Dome
    As is NATO
     
  12. bathsheba666

    bathsheba666 Fast 'n Bulbous

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    10,012
    Location:
    London
    Oh, it was silly. Clearly ok to abrogate, then. :lol:
     
  13. amadeus

    amadeus めっちゃしんどい

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    32,508
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    In another story from the world of delusions...

    The more things change for Russia, the more they stay the same.
     
  14. Babbler

    Babbler Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    5,399
    Re: Monroe Doctrine

    The US didn't have navel capacity to enforce it until the 20th century. It was mostly the Royal Navy that kept all European empires (expect Britain herself, of course) out of Latin America.
     
  15. Kozmos

    Kozmos Jew Detective

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    13,123
    Location:
    Sitka District
    After further review, if they say they have info that the ABM sites are not completely benevolent I believe them. They can easily be retooled into launching hostile ballistic missiles.

    The Russians have no reason to trust us and there is no reason for us to trust them. It's the way it's always gonna be.
     
  16. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    BTW, these are excerpts from George Kennan's "Long Telegram". It is not very suprising that Russian outlook hasn't changed at all after the end of cold war.

    ...
    George Kennan, 861.00/2 - 2246: Telegram
     
  17. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    Perhaps we should judge your country by diplomatic memos from 50 years ago and racism? Ironic that you're trying to argue with a realist by quoting realists. You could have searched for what Kennan had to say on Russia today, and on Nato Expansion in Particular.


     
  18. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    What I quoted describes the long-term Russian posture. It is not something what died with the Soviet Union, Russia had been like that before Communism took hold there and it continues to remain in their mentality even after the end of Cold war.

    The fact I disagree with the conclusions doesn't mean that the premises are wrong.
     
  19. Xenocrates

    Xenocrates Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,378
    Location:
    Liverpool
    The problem, from Russia's point of view, is that having a shield (if it works) is going to allow the West to attack it without fear of retaliation - breaking the principle of MAD. It's as good as a million MOAB's to them. Besides which, the US will have to defend it against 'terrorists', which means more military bases etc.


    Boris Berezovsky has admitted that he's trying to overthrow the Russian government from London: http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2056321,00.html

    He's also tied in with the Litvinenko poisoning case.
     
  20. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    Like I said, what would be the fate of your country if we were to apply the same standards you have to the russians (50 old diplomatic memorandums and racism)
     

Share This Page