Winner
Diverse in Unity
Right, I think we should have a talk about this and the threads about Ukraine are not the right place for it. What comes up in all such debates, repeatedly, is a set of arguments which could be summarized as follows (I'll be as objective as I can):
Now, what I want to do in this thread is to discuss these issues and try to find out, whether there is something to these arguments, or not. I expect CIVIL DISCUSSION adhering to the rules of politeness and good faith. If you want to simply score points and dish up propaganda slogans, please go elsewhere. Also, Ukraine has been discussed to death and new developments are talked about in other threads. You may mention it here, but only to support your arguments concerning the three main points listed above.
For those interested, here's a documentary about Putin and the system he's created in Russia. Very revealing:
Link to video.
1) Following the Cold War, Russia has undergone a major economic collapse/contraction and the West did nothing to help - OR- it made the situation worse by imposing on Russia economic policies that were disastrous and led to the widespread collapse of social services and living standards, as well as to "oligarchism" and "wild east capitalism". The core of the argument is that the West is at fault here, either because it was not active enough, or because it caused the situation.
2) After the collapse of the USSR, the West has exploited the collapse of Russian power and influence to aggressively expand into the Russian "neighbourhood", which was (the argument goes) an aggressive geopolitical move against Russia. This argument views the expansion of NATO/EU as a form of Western expansionism aimed at hurting Russia. In this line of argumentation, the Western interventions in the Balkans and against Serbia in 1999 were also aimed at diminishing Russian influence over a traditionally pro-Russian area. Other issues (anti-ballistic defences, Western bases expansion during the war on terror, etc.) are likewise seen through the lens of Russian security interests; the Western motivation is always construed as being anti-Russian.
3) Russia is an "exceptional state" in the sense that its security needs are quantitatively and qualitatively different from anybody else's, based on its unique geostrategic and cultural position. For this reason, the West should give Russia a special preferential treatment, which includes (among other things) recognition of its "sphere of influence" which should be off limits to Western influence. This line of reasoning incorporates the rejection of Western "universalism" in all its forms; in simpler terms, Russia does not believe that when institutions like the EU say that they just want to expand economic co-operation and promote human rights, it is not just a cover for power-political expansionism. This fundamental misunderstanding (party due to Russia's projecting of its own modus operandi onto the Western way of approaching international relations) then leads to very deep suspiciousness in Russia concerning the Western motives.
Now, what I want to do in this thread is to discuss these issues and try to find out, whether there is something to these arguments, or not. I expect CIVIL DISCUSSION adhering to the rules of politeness and good faith. If you want to simply score points and dish up propaganda slogans, please go elsewhere. Also, Ukraine has been discussed to death and new developments are talked about in other threads. You may mention it here, but only to support your arguments concerning the three main points listed above.
For those interested, here's a documentary about Putin and the system he's created in Russia. Very revealing:
Link to video.