Where does Russias sphere of influence end?

[Zelig]

Russia's influence is global. Her sphere of dominance extends through much of the former Iron Curtain.

Well said, I've got nothing useful to add to that regarding the subject.

You overestimate China which isn't surprising.

In terms of what? He said China was large, which it is, it's the second largest country after Russia in terms of land area.

 

[Riffraff]

In terms of what? He said China was large, which it is, it's the second largest country after Russia in terms of land area.

You sure you aren't forgetting somethin here? (2 things to be precise but 1 which should be painfully obvious given your location)

 

[classical_hero]

Might be having something to do with the fact that you have no meaningufdl (historical or cultural) place to expand? Nationalism was never about having colonies, but often about getting "our" land back.

Well you should take the advise of the British Empire, they allowed former colonies to either keep there rule or allow it to break away from it. I don't see Russia doing that. Even you said that it is "ours", which is a very arrogant statement in the first place

In terms of what? He said China was large, which it is, it's the second largest country after Russia in terms of land area.

Bast is female.

 

[sourboy]

Where ever their sphere reaches, it's shrinking - considering their aggressive actions lately.

IMHO, it's not large enough to even call a sphere of influence these days. Europe and America have spheres worth noting. Russia does not.

 

[WerBackIII]

I think that real Russia died when Stalin became a Leader. And all that remained after the USSR is just one big pressured baloon. When will they realize that even a smal country with the size and population of Bulgaria is not afraid of them?

 

[TheLastOne36]

Expansion is a dream of nationalists.

10 char.

And what does that have to do with modern gremany or poland?

 

[TheLastOne36]

Might be having something to do with the fact that you have no meaningufdl (historical or cultural) place to expand? Nationalism was never about having colonies, but often about getting "our" land back.

Again, where does Germany or Poland want land? In Poland you probably mean, Minsk, Vilnuis and western Ukraine. Of course we'd like to have it, but we don't have any intention of getting it.

For Germany, where would they "want" to expand into? Gdansk and Silesia? pff tough luck now.

 

[Gelion]

Well you should take the advise of the British Empire, they allowed former colonies to either keep there rule or allow it to break away from it. I don't see Russia doing that. Even you said that it is "ours", which is a very arrogant statement in the first place

If you read my statement without anti-Russian glasses on, you would see that I am referring to nationalists in all countries. In countries with non-colonial history if you will/want to be precise.

And what does that have to do with modern gremany or poland?

It has to do with me making an example with regard to nationalists.

Again, where does Germany or Poland want land? In Poland you probably mean, Minsk, Vilnuis and western Ukraine. Of course we'd like to have it, but we don't have any intention of getting it.

For Germany, where would they "want" to expand into? Gdansk and Silesia? pff tough luck now.

I am making an example about only nationalists wanting "their" land "back". You fit right in that description "we'd like t have it". Your actual capabilities to get it do not count as far as nationalist ideas are concerned.

 

[TheLastOne36]

If you read my statement without anti-Russian glasses on, you would see that I am referring to nationalists in all countries. In countries with non-colonial history if you will/want to be precise.


It has to do with me making an example with regard to nationalists.


I am making an example about only nationalists wanting "their" land "back". You fit right in that description "we'd like t have it". Your actual capabilities to get it do not count as far as nationalist ideas are concerned.

So most humans on the planet are nationalists then? I'm sure any country would like to have more land. I bet America sure wants Panama's canal back. I guess America is Nationalist then. Ireland was northern Ireland back, Irish are nationalists? Russia wants South Ossetia, Russians are all nationalists. Germans want silesia and gdansk, the germans are nationalist? And what about the Cypriots?

sorry, doesn't make sense. Very strange definition of nationalism.

 

[Gelion]

So most humans on the planet are nationalists then? I'm sure any country would like to have more land.

Really? Don;t you have enough? I am talking about nationalists of countries that want their nation to expand at the expense of their neighbors because of some historical reason. I am sorry you fall right in there.

I bet America sure wants Panama's canal back. I guess America is Nationalist then.

You didn't read my part about colonial powers and nations did you?

Ireland was northern Ireland back, Irish are nationalists?

What would be your explanation?

Russia wants South Ossetia, Russians are all nationalists.

South Ossetia is a bad example. Russians do not want South Ossetia as a nation, nor do the nationalists because:
- South Ossetia has never been ethnically Russian
- South Ossetia does not have a deep historical reason to be with Russia (cultural reasons exist). Crimea does (as an example).

Germans want silesia and gdansk, the germans are nationalist? And what about the Cypriots?

Same as the Germans. If you are not a nationalist you sit in your borders quietly. If you wish that your nation expanded at the expense of other nations - yes you are a nationalist.

sorry, doesn't make sense. Very strange definition of nationalism.

My view is that if you want your nation to expand on "historical" grounds - you are a nationalist. If you didn't want your nation to expand you could still be a nationalist. However it is almost impossible to want your nation to expand on historical grounds and NOT be a nationalist.

I hope this clarifies all the confusion my post might have caused.

 

[red_elk]

So most humans on the planet are nationalists then? I'm sure any country would like to have more land. I bet America sure wants Panama's canal back. I guess America is Nationalist then. Ireland was northern Ireland back, Irish are nationalists? Russia wants South Ossetia, Russians are all nationalists. Germans want silesia and gdansk, the germans are nationalist? And what about the Cypriots?

sorry, doesn't make sense. Very strange definition of nationalism.

Do you want western Ukraine? I'm sure we will come to agreement

 

[TheLastOne36]

My view is that if you want your nation to expand on "historical" grounds - you are a nationalist. If you didn't want your nation to expand you could still be a nationalist. However it is almost impossible to want your nation to expand on historical grounds and NOT be a nationalist.

I hope this clarifies all the confusion my post might have caused.

Historical grounds? Most of the people living in those areas are either Russian, Jewish(mostly Jewish-Polish) or (mostly) Polish. Some even have Polish paszport! (which iirc was the reason you guys invaded south ossetia) This isn't the same as let's say, Germany wanting Kalingrad, This is similar to let's say, Cyprus wanting Northren Cyprus. (except we have no intention of taking it by any means, only if we were given it for free)

Do you want western Ukraine? I'm sure we will come to agreement

Haha, but we don't want Kiev of anything like that, we only want the western western bit, so what do we do with the remains?

 

[Zelig]

You sure you aren't forgetting somethin here? (2 things to be precise but 1 which should be painfully obvious given your location)

No, I'm not forgetting anything, Canada and the US have more total area than China, but they include a lot of water, if you're talking about land area, China is second to Russia.

Bast is female.

My "he" was referring to RRW.

 

[Gelion]

Historical grounds? Most of the people living in those areas are either Russian, Jewish(mostly Jewish-Polish) or (mostly) Polish. Some even have Polish paszport!

The difference is that I am talking about a general idea and you are pushing some agenda I cant understand (above sentences included)

(which iirc was the reason you guys invaded south ossetia)

It was an excuse but not the reason. The reason was protecting lives of people and enforcing a treaty that the Georgians broke.

This isn't the same as let's say, Germany wanting Kalingrad,

What is not the same? You have some example in your head: formulate it well. It is hard to understand what you are talking about exactly.

 

[TheLastOne36]

What is not the same? You have some example in your head: formulate it well. It is hard to understand what you are talking about exactly.

The difference is that barely any germans live in Kalingrad. The majority of people living in Western Lithuania, Ukraine, and Belarus are Polish.

 

[Gelion]

The difference is that barely any germans live in Kalingrad. The majority of people living in Western Lithuania, Ukraine, and Belarus are Polish.

What are you trying to discuss now? Specific example why Poland should get above mentioned lands?
Are you threw with your argument about different world areas? Disproving my ideas about nationalism? Discussing Russian sphere of influence? Condemning operations in South Ossetia?
What are you on about?

 

[red_elk]

Haha, but we don't want Kiev of anything like that, we only want the western western bit, so what do we do with the remains?

Don't worry about remains.
As you said, everybody want expansion, and this is not nationalism.

 

[REDY]

I think that Russian sphere of influence should end on Russian boarders but according behaviour of Russian political and military representation, they think about same spheres as Soviet Union. (maybe except Austria and Sweden).

 

[Squonk]

The difference is that barely any germans live in Kalingrad. The majority of people living in Western Lithuania, Ukraine, and Belarus are Polish.

Unfortunatelly, no.
When it comes to Lithuania, despite lithuanisation, persecution and a couple of repatriation programs, Poles, while reduced from +60% to 20% in Vilnius, still constitute a majority of population in the region immidiately around it. These Poles are lively, self-aware and going strong.

When it comes to Belarus, ethnical Poles constitute a majority in much of Grodno / Hrodna region as well as in certain areas along lithuanian border. But as Lukashenka continues to point at them as the most threatening inner danger, as these Poles lost their natural centre (Vilnius in Lithuania), and as belarusian and polish are very close to each other, the number of people declaring themselves as polish decreases steadily there. 80 years ago almost all roman catholics were Poles, and almost all orthodox were ukrainian or belarusian. Now it's much less clear I guess. In Poland, more and more of orthodox people or ruthenian (belarusian, ukrainian, russian) descent declare themselves to be polish, and in belarus more and more roman catholic people whose grandparents were polish regard themselves to be belarusian or russian.
But I can't say how would it be like without Lukashenka attacking Poland on and on, and throwing polish activists to jail.

When it comes to Ukraine, Poles there were
1) transported to inner Russia and Kazakhstan 1939-41
2) slaughtered by Germans and Ukrainians in latter part of war
3) fled from there fearing Ukrainians
4) "repatriated" from there after ww2.
Ironically, the only town where Poles continue to be a large minority is Zytomierz, so far east it wasn't part of Poland before ww2 - and that's what saved Poles there from being killed or transported west.

To sum it up: Poles are a majority in Wilno / Vilnius region, apart from Wilno itself, and much of Grodno / Hrodna region. Elsewhere - mostly not.

 

[Squonk]

What would you rather have? Herbrew? German? What other choices WERE there? Russian culture suffered the most because of this choice and you make it sound as if it was a Russian nationalist plot? I doubt it.

huh? I did not say it was not an obvious choice. Russian was an obvious choice, because communism succeeded in imperial Russia, and, no matter what it claimed, Soviet Union remained Russia & addictions, just communist Russia & adds. Therefore, opression of non-SU states by Soviet Union was in fact opression by Russia.
Actually, during first years of Soviet Russia and of Soviet Union internationalism was treated seriously - world revolution plans, supporting national minorities, even Poles (though it had propaganda reasons as well), destruction of some russian imperialism symbols, talks about setting esperanto the official language etc. But it's ended quickly.

Russia is still a world power, like it or not.

it is one of most important world countries, I have no doubts about it. So is India or China, and Russia's in decline.

Diplomacy,

Russia has no good diplomacy. Russian diplomats = spoke persons of generals.
It works sometimes, obviously, but only because of military strenght.

science

not so well these days

cultural legacy

not so well these days

People in Russia in general just want to be left alone to do their business. That involves you (foreigners) and the government. Dreams of expansion are in the heads of hard-headed nationalists like in Poland or Germany.

Somehow these hard-headed nationalists in Russia are in power and the only lively opposition against them are another, even more fringy, hard-headed nationalists.

Basically you dont want Russia to have a sphere of influence.

I don't mind it having its sphere of interest in the meaning of polish, german, french etc spheres of interest - that it places Russia has many ties with and is interested in what happens there.
But for Russia's leaders sphere of interest = vassal states.

Yes, it has shrank, but it is still there. Let me tell you another thing - this sphere of influence is the last line that even the corrupt and generally unpatriotic Russian government will hold. If you cross that line you risk a lot of trouble (for both sides).

Uh, and You agree with that?

Aren't we? I agree the policies and words are not exactly smart, but Russian government has their reasons to be paranoid. You mentioned them.

The internal ones - yes. But that can be changed by education of the society. But such educated society would be harder to control for Putin, so it's not likely.
there are no external reasons for Russia to be afraid - nor China nor anyone in Europe will ever attack it.