[RD] Surrender Summit

[Wastl]

Putin, as I said before, is a bandit chief. He's running a kleptocratic gangster state. Whatever flirtation with far-right ideology he does is purely instrumental to the real goal of kleptocracy.

This isn't good, but it means that Putin is fundamentally trying to maintain the status quo - he and his cronies robbing the Russian people and state blind. And that is why I say his strategic posture is defensive. All the 'offensive' stuff you listed is defensive in the sense that it is a response to (actual or perceived) encroachment by the West.

Really the Cold War was the same thing. The USSR's fundamental posture was defensive, not offensive, despite its various aggressive actions around the world. It couldn't have been otherwise given the vast power disparity between the US and the USSR. But for various reasons, most of them having to do with domestic politics, the political establishment in the US and the rest of the West portrayed the USSR as an immediate menace, a credible threat to the security of the West, bent on subverting and destroying the "free world."

Meh, while I agree with you general stance on what Putin is, you are basically mixing his actual behaviour with his claimed behaviour, which isn't really the same. Just because someone feels that he is acting defensively and needs a buffer to properly defend himself, doesn't mean that he is actually defensive in his behaviour. A paranoid stance that is afraid of outsiders coming to get you, which leads to an aggressive behaviour towards others, isn't really defensive. Otherwise you could proclaim basically everything to be defensive. US involvement in Vietnam, clearly defensive, to guard against the spreading of communism. Stalin taking over the baltic states, parts of Finland, etc. all defensive, because it works as a buffer against the Nazis. Heck, even the Nazis proclaimed to be defensive, in that they were protecting German minorities elsewhere or trying to take down the "judeo-bolshevik world-conspiracy" which in their view was trying to subjugate the world. Almost everyone tries to pretend that he is fighting for freedom or in defense against a threat to the own existance. Even those who fight aggressive wars of expansion proclaim those to be about defensive needs or for security.

Beyond robbing the own nation, I think Putin can be described by two things, paranoia and opportunism. In that way he is kind of like Stalin. There isn't a particular aggressiveness towards conquering for the sake of conquering, but there is an aggressiveness in the approach to "defense". There is nothing defensive about taking from others so that you feel more secure, so describing the whole approach as defensive isn't really fitting. It isn't offensive in the way of "taking more and more" either. It's a mix of these things.

 

[red_elk]

Your endless nationalism is tiresome, but letting it extend into this farcical "mighty Russia holds the big sword" area does at least add some humor.

Don't remember where I said anything about big swords here, in literal or figurative sense. "Crushing somebody like a bug" is usually a rhetoric of your kind. Good luck with that too, BTW.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Meh, while I agree with you general stance on what Putin is, you are basically mixing his actual behaviour with his claimed behaviour, which isn't really the same. Just because someone feels that he is acting defensively and needs a buffer to properly defend himself, doesn't mean that he is actually defensive in his behaviour. A paranoid stance that is afraid of outsiders coming to get you, which leads to an aggressive behaviour towards others, isn't really defensive. Otherwise you could proclaim basically everything to be defensive. US involvement in Vietnam, clearly defensive, to guard against the spreading of communism. Stalin taking over the baltic states, parts of Finland, etc. all defensive, because it works as a buffer against the Nazis. Heck, even the Nazis proclaimed to be defensive, in that they were protecting German minorities elsewhere or trying to take down the "judeo-bolshevik world-conspiracy" which in their view was trying to subjugate the world. Almost everyone tries to pretend that he is fighting for freedom or in defense against a threat to the own existance. Even those who fight aggressive wars of expansion proclaim those to be about defensive needs or for security.

Beyond robbing the own nation, I think Putin can be described by two things, paranoia and opportunism. In that way he is kind of like Stalin. There isn't a particular aggressiveness towards conquering for the sake of conquering, but there is an aggressiveness in the approach to "defense". There is nothing defensive about taking from others so that you feel more secure, so describing the whole approach as defensive isn't really fitting. It isn't offensive in the way of "taking more and more" either. It's a mix of these things.

Theres also misunderstanding of others viewpoints at times.
The USSR invaded Afghanistan to maintain its sphere of influence and regarded Western support for the Mujahadeen as aggressive.
The West saw the Russian invasion of Afghanistan as an aggressive act threatening its allies.

Atm Russia sees the eastward expansion of NATO as threatening. Bad enough from their point of view that Poland, the Baltic States etc are part of it. It was foolish for NATO to consider Ukraine for membership. That doesn't excuse Russia's actions but they were predictable and avoidable if the West had acted more cautiously.

 

[Verbose]

Theres also misunderstanding of others viewpoints at times.
The USSR invaded Afghanistan to maintain its sphere of influence and regarded Western support for the Mujahadeen as aggressive.
The West saw the Russian invasion of Afghanistan as an aggressive act threatening its allies.

Atm Russia sees the eastward expansion of NATO as threatening. Bad enough from their point of view that Poland, the Baltic States etc are part of it. It was foolish for NATO to consider Ukraine for membership. That doesn't excuse Russia's actions but they were predictable and avoidable if the West had acted more cautiously.

Yes, well, NATO wasn't considering Ukranian NATO membership until Russia started throwing bombs in Ukraine. Certainly not before 2014 and for the longest time not after 2014 either. It was upgraded on its own request to be accepted as an "aspiring" future member only this year. Now it needs an action plan for how that might happen, but there isn't one yet.

This after the Russian annexation of Crimea, the aborted uprisings against the Ukranian state in most of eastern and southern Ukraine, and the successful one in the Donbas, all of which supported and orchestrated by Russia to varying degrees.

In Ukraine there tends to be this idea that they have been, and continue to be, under attack from Russia. Which seemingly proceeds with plans to annex the Donbas to itself as well.

What's unacceptable behavior for Russia here (is there any), and what is rather responses to Russian aggression?

This started over an anodyne association agreement between Ukraine and the EU, which had been 20 years in preparation, so it's not as if Russia was blindsided by the EU's swift footwork. The problem with it was that it was hugely popular with the Ukranian public, so when Putin could be seen buying off the Ukranian president to stop it, people reacted and took to the streets. Something that apparently will never happen in Russia, but Putin's government still fears.

If anything the Russian actions, beginning with that attempted buy-off, has been invariably short-sighted and mid-to-long-term counterproductive. The most consistent aspect of it has been the denial of actual political agency for the Ukranian public. As a consequence Putin has lost Ukraine for the forseeable future, the bits he will not take by force at least.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yes, well, NATO wasn't considering Ukranian NATO membership until Russia started throwing bombs in Ukraine. Certainly not before 2014 and for the longest time not after 2014 either. It was upgraded on its own request to be accepted as an "aspiring" future member only this year. Now it needs an action plan for how that might happen, but there isn't one yet.

This after the Russian annexation of Crimea, the aborted uprisings against the Ukranian state in most of eastern and southern Ukraine, and the successful one in the Donbas, all of which supported and orchestrated by Russia to varying degrees.

In Ukraine there tends to be this idea that they have been, and continue to be, under attack from Russia. Which seemingly proceeds with plans to annex the Donbas to itself as well.

What's unacceptable behavior for Russia here (is there any), and what is rather responses to Russian aggression?

This started over an anodyne association agreement between Ukraine and the EU, which had been 20 years in preparation, so it's not as if Russia was blindsided by the EU's swift footwork. The problem with it was that it was hugely popular with the Ukranian public, so when Putin could be seen buying off the Ukranian president to stop it, people reacted and took to the streets. Something that apparently will never happen in Russia, but Putin's government still fears.

If anything the Russian actions, beginning with that attempted buy-off, has been invariably short-sighted and mid-to-long-term counterproductive. The most consistent aspect of it has been the denial of actual political agency for the Ukranian public. As a consequence Putin has lost Ukraine for the forseeable future, the bits he will not take by force at least.

Ukraine first applied to join the NATO Membership Action Plan in 2008. In reply to Russian hostility to the idea NATO said its doors remained open. They were shelved under Yanukovych. I didn't say Russia's actions were acceptable, just that they were predictable and avoidable.

 

[Lexicus]

Stalin taking over the baltic states, parts of Finland, etc. all defensive

This is actually true though? Like, this is actually a matter of historical fact proved by archival evidence. We know the USSR didn't start conquering eastern Europe until the Nazis started making them nervous by rearming.

Beyond robbing the own nation, I think Putin can be described by two things, paranoia and opportunism. In that way he is kind of like Stalin. There isn't a particular aggressiveness towards conquering for the sake of conquering, but there is an aggressiveness in the approach to "defense". There is nothing defensive about taking from others so that you feel more secure, so describing the whole approach as defensive isn't really fitting. It isn't offensive in the way of "taking more and more" either. It's a mix of these things.

Well I certainly don't mean to say that his actions are justified merely because they are defensive. I don't believe the Soviet conquest of central Europe was justified just because it was a countermove to defend against the Nazis.

Lest I be accused of being a Russophile:

Okay, then the solution is for Russia to withdraw entirely and restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

 

[Cheetah]

This is actually true though? Like, this is actually a matter of historical fact proved by archival evidence. We know the USSR didn't start conquering eastern Europe until the Nazis started making them nervous by rearming.

I'll admit that from the point of view of the great powers, I can certainly see how it's just "strategic defensiveness". But from the point of view of smaller states, it's hard to claim that invasion, ethnic cleansing and occupation is "defensive". In the Winter War, there wasn't simply two nations trying to defend themselves. There was Russia aggressively invading Finland, and Finland trying to defend itself.

It's just the callousness of calling it defensive that's so jarring. Some of the posters here live in the countries which has have the misfortune of being in the way of Stalin's "defenses". Many others of us here in Europe have friends and loved ones in countries that still aren't comfortable with Russia going on about "having to defend itself".

In theory the US is the security guarantor against Russian "defensive action", but with Trump... This week he asked why he should fight for Montenegro. Next month, will he ask why he should fight for Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania?

 

[Lexicus]

I'll admit that from the point of view of the great powers, I can certainly see how it's just "strategic defensiveness". But from the point of view of smaller states, it's hard to claim that invasion, ethnic cleansing and occupation is "defensive". In the Winter War, there wasn't simply two nations trying to defend themselves. There was Russia aggressively invading Finland, and Finland trying to defend itself.

It's just the callousness of calling it defensive that's so jarring. Some of the posters here live in the countries which has have the misfortune of being in the way of Stalin's "defenses". Many others of us here in Europe have friends and loved ones in countries that still aren't comfortable with Russia going on about "having to defend itself".

In theory the US is the security guarantor against Russian "defensive action", but with Trump... This week he asked why he should fight for Montenegro. Next month, will he ask why he should fight for Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania?

Once again the context of me saying this is "defensive" is to explain why Putin isn't Hitler.

 

[Cheetah]

Once again the context of me saying this is "defensive" is to explain why Putin isn't Hitler.

Would you also say that there's a difference between Putin and Hitler anno 1933-1938?

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think Putin is doing anything that can really be compared to German rearmament.

 

[Dachs]

This is actually true though? Like, this is actually a matter of historical fact proved by archival evidence. We know the USSR didn't start conquering eastern Europe until the Nazis started making them nervous by rearming.

you kinda memory-holed 1920 there a bit

 

[Lexicus]

you kinda memory-holed 1920 there a bit

Fair. Still, the point stands - the Soviet campaigns starting in the late 30s were to counter Hitler.

Frankly, if we want to make comparisons with Hitler it's worth pointing out that the last "pro-Western" government in Kiev was called the Reichskomissariat Ukraine...

 

[Hrothbern]

Jip
Looking at the map of 1900 is helpfull
WW1 and the 1917 revolution were as disastrous as the collapse of the Sovjet-Union
(for the size of the territory and the population)

 

[Cheetah]

I don't think Putin is doing anything that can really be compared to German rearmament.

With a continuously growing military budget, deploying new tanks and submarines, developing a nuclear powered cruise missile, constantly encroaching on Georgian territory, annexing Crimea, invading eastern Ukraine, talking of defending ethnic Russians in other countries, still keeping a division in Transnistria, deploying new missile systems in Kalinigrad, and aiding a fellow tyrant in a terrible civil war where he gets to test new military technologies, I think there's enough in total to make the comparison valid, or at least not ridiculous.

Add to that the jailing and assassination of opponents, his dealings with the church, and hosting an Olympic event, if you like.

 

[Lexicus]

With a continuously growing military budget, deploying new tanks and submarines, developing a nuclear powered cruise missile, constantly encroaching on Georgian territory, annexing Crimea, invading eastern Ukraine, talking of defending ethnic Russians in other countries, still keeping a division in Transnistria, and deploying new missile systems in Kalinigrad, I think there's enough in total to make the comparison valid, or at least not ridiculous.

Is the military budget growing markedly as a percentage of GDP?

 

[Hrothbern]

Is the military budget growing markedly as a percentage of GDP?

GDP of Russia crashed with the oil price down
Absolute numbers describe better

 

[Lexicus]

GDP of Russia crashed with the oil price down
Absolute numbers describe better

I think we need context because I don't think there are many countries in the world where the military budget isn't continuously increasing in absolute terms.

Add to that the jailing and assassination of opponents, his dealings with the church, and hosting an Olympic event, if you like.

Let's say you're right and Putin is secretly preparing a genocidal apocalyptic race war to test the Russian race in the fires of conflict or whatever.

What do you propose to do about it? He has enough nukes to destroy Europe and the US many times over.

 

[Cheetah]

Is the military budget growing markedly as a percentage of GDP?

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

IHS Inc. estimated the 2013 Russian military budget as being US$68.9 billion, US$78 billion in 2014, and predict a rise to US$98 billion in 2016.[5] IHS described this as a rapid increase in spending which will result in the defence budget increasing from 15.7 percent of federal expenditure in 2013 to 20.6 percent by 2016.

I'd say so, yes.

 

[Berzerker]

that was with Obama in office during the Ukraine separation

 

[innonimatu]

Ukraine first applied to join the NATO Membership Action Plan in 2008. In reply to Russian hostility to the idea NATO said its doors remained open. They were shelved under Yanukovych. I didn't say Russia's actions were acceptable, just that they were predictable and avoidable.

And Yanukovych was overthrown in a coup supported by the US, if not entirely planned and carried out by its agents. It had been the same playbook since Iran 1953. Of course the russians would be pissed.

I mean, last time the russians (soviets back then) had an ally leading a country near the US, that country got embargoed and invaded, and the portion up north that the us grabbed "on lease" in a prior invasion remains occupied against the will of the island's government.

Funny how Russia and the US were and remain so much mirror images of each other.