Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[Geilinor]

This presumes that Russia and the West are enemies. Yet, until Russia violated the Ukraine, was this actually true?

Yes.

Like it or not, in Russia the idea of being on friendly terms with the West is utterly tainted by association with the Yeltsin years, and everything that meant. Social collapse, economic collapse, poverty, inequality, the rise of the oligarchs, organized crime and so on. It was Western economic advisers who aggressively promoted the policies that plunged Russia into the nightmare of the 1990s.

Of course, you may well argue that a bunch of right-wing free-market economists and their irresponsible policies do not represent the West as a whole, that the West-in-general bears no responsibility for the fact that the Yeltsin government was so eager to listen to those people, and so on. And you may well be right.

Those policies were pushed in Russia because they had worked in Poland fairly successfully after a small economic decline. It also worked in the Baltics.

[The South Polish Union]

Because it was specifically created to "counter" USSR.

Yeah, and? Just because the USSR doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean NATO needs to disband, it's almost like everyone wants to stay allies

but thats... AGGRESSION!!!

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yeah, and? Just because the USSR doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean NATO needs to disband, it's almost like everyone wants to stay allies

but thats... AGGRESSION!!!

Nations making decisions that are not pursuant to Russian interests are not just aggression but borderline ACTS OF WAR only excused by the grace, good nature and patience of the Russian government.

Also, Russia is always fully justified in pursuing its own interests.
Because that is just how international politics work. Can't object to it. It's only wrong when OTHER countries do it.

[The balkens]

but thats... AGGRESSION!!!

Nations making decisions that are not pursuant to Russian interests are not just aggression but borderline ACTS OF WAR only excused by the grace, good nature and patience of the Russian government.

Also, Russia is always fully justified in pursuing its own interests.
Because that is just how international politics work. Can't object to it. It's only wrong when OTHER countries do it.

Not to mention hospitality. Look how those Ukrainians live Posh lives on Russian land, Kiev especially.

[The South Polish Union]

but thats... AGGRESSION!!!

Nations making decisions that are not pursuant to Russian interests are not just aggression but borderline ACTS OF WAR only excused by the grace, good nature and patience of the Russian government.

Also, Russia is always fully justified in pursuing its own interests.
Because that is just how international politics work. Can't object to it. It's only wrong when OTHER countries do it.

true

we should all probably also start giving russia some of our country's border provinces to make up for this aggressive behaviour

[Alien Space Bats]

Like it or not, in Russia the idea of being on friendly terms with the West is utterly tainted by association with the Yeltsin years, and everything that meant. Social collapse, economic collapse, poverty, inequality, the rise of the oligarchs, organized crime and so on. It was Western economic advisers who aggressively promoted the policies that plunged Russia into the nightmare of the 1990s.

Shame on them for having fallen for such stupidity. I could have told you that a bunch of Harvard Business School graduates who'd run a Greek diner into the ground if given the chance couldn't run a God-damned country ― and indeed, a great many of us Western liberals DID.

Of course, you may well argue that a bunch of right-wing free-market economists and their irresponsible policies do not represent the West as a whole, that the West-in-general bears no responsibility for the fact that the Yeltsin government was so eager to listen to those people, and so on. And you may well be right.

I would, I did, they don't, we don't, and I am.

But, to Russian eyes, what happened in the 1990s was this: "We trusted the West and the West screwed us over." That is the perception, and it is not going to change no matter how much you insist that it's not your fault, that the West played only a minor role, or that the West never meant for the disaster of the 1990s to happen.

Too bad. They need to get over it.

Shall I be more cruelly specific? Just as it wasn't the fault of the WWI Allies that the Weimar Republic failed, it isn't the West's fault that Russia screwed up in the Yeltsin years. Seriously, sometimes people need to take responsibility for their own God-damned actions.

That is the fundamental reason why Russia and the West can't help being enemies now. The Russians do not trust you. And continually repeating "Why don't you trust us? We mean you no harm! Honest!" isn't going to persuade anyone.

Then you're basically saying that this is all Russia's fault. Fine, then; it's all Russia's fault.

Of course, that doesn't mean I'm going to cut them any more slack from hearing you say this. If Russians do indeed feel the way you say ― IOW, if they're as fucking paranoid as you say ― then we HAVE to take a hard line, because people that paranoid with that kind of sense of entitlement are going to kill us in our sleep should they ever get the chance, just because they're crazy xenophobic assholes.

<pause>

Are you SURE you REALLY want to argue that the Russians can't help from being evil cunts because they've had a bad quarter-century? Because I've just demonstrated where THAT logic leads.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Folks ... my Bullshit-o-Meter has just about hit the redline, here. I strongly advise you to knock it off before I'm forced to give y'all a time out, for behaving rather poorly. If you wish to act in a childish manner, I can certainly treat you accordingly.

[Geilinor]

Constantinopolis, I'd like to hear how Putin would have delivered the economic growth of the past 15 years if the reform hadn't happened.

[Constantinopolis]

"Defensive Alliance" against whom? First 40 years of its existince it was against USSR. USSR is gone, why not NATO?

The mere existence of it supplants and undermines UN and its job of peacekeeping.

Against anyone who could attack or be a threat.

The entire history of NATO military operations consists of pre-emptively attacking countries that have taken no action against NATO. They are attacked either because they might pose a threat to NATO at some point in the future, or simply because of internal political issues they are having (such as civil war, with NATO intervening to help one side against the others).

What kind of defensive alliance is one that never defends and only attacks?

In case you are thinking of arguing that some (or all) of those attacks were good and justified: That's not the point. They could have been the most altruistic and noble attacks in the entire history of the world. They could have all been intended to save innocent civilians from malevolent tyrants. The point remains that they were still attacks. They were operations carried out by NATO outside of its territory, against enemies which posed no military threat to its territory. NATO is an aggressive alliance, which has never actually needed to defend itself in practice. Whether it is aggressive for a good cause or a bad cause is irrelevant. Either way, it's certainly not a "defensive alliance".

Shame on them for having fallen for such stupidity. I could have told you that a bunch of Harvard Business School graduates who'd run a Greek diner into the ground if given the chance couldn't run a God-damned country ― and indeed, a great many of us Western liberals DID.

That's true, and you were right, and thank you for speaking up at the time. Unfortunately, it didn't make a difference, so here we are.

To be clear, I'm not trying to put any blame on you at all. I'm not trying to decide who bears the main responsibility for what happened in the 1990s, or who should have done more to stop it. I'm just saying that shit happened in the 1990s and now we are in this current mess because of it. Cause and effect. Not blame. Just cause and effect.

Shall I be more cruelly specific? Just as it wasn't the fault of the WWI Allies that the Weimar Republic failed, it isn't the West's fault that Russia screwed up in the Yeltsin years. Seriously, sometimes people need to take responsibility for their own God-damned actions.

That is the fundamental reason why Russia and the West can't help being enemies now. The Russians do not trust you. And continually repeating "Why don't you trust us? We mean you no harm! Honest!" isn't going to persuade anyone.

Then you're basically saying that this is all Russia's fault. Fine, then; it's all Russia's fault.

Of course, that doesn't mean I'm going to cut them any more slack from hearing you say this. If Russians do indeed feel the way you say ― IOW, if they're as fucking paranoid as you say ― then we HAVE to take a hard line, because people that paranoid with that kind of sense of entitlement are going to kill us in our sleep should they ever get the chance, just because their crazy xenophobic assholes.

Thank you for demonstrating precisely why the West and Russia are locked into being enemies.

The fact is, no matter whether you're right or wrong, the stance that you are taking here can only lead to an escalation of tensions between the West and Russia. You've said it yourself: "...we HAVE to take a hard line". Well, that's exactly what I was talking about. You have to take a hard line, and they have to take a hard line in response, so both sides are going to take hard lines, so you're going to be enemies.

Your response seems to be simply saying that it's the Russians' fault. Well, maybe, or maybe not, but why should we care whose fault it is? My point was that the West and Russia are in a situation where they are compelled to be enemies. Fault is irrelevant. It's a type of moral judgment that simply does not belong in international politics.

Those policies were pushed in Russia because they had worked in Poland fairly successfully after a small economic decline. It also worked in the Baltics.

Actually, at the time they were being pushed in Russia, they hadn't worked anywhere yet. All of Eastern Europe and the ex-USSR was still in the middle of a deep economic slump (which, in some countries, hit Great-Depression-like proportions).

Later, in the second half of the 1990s, Poland and the Baltic states were among the first countries to start recovering from this slump. Russia began to recover only in the 2000s, and some countries (like Ukraine) never recovered.

So, to be clear, the 1990s were bad everywhere in Eastern Europe and the former USSR. The "success stories" are those countries where the experience ended up being least bad. But even in Poland and the Baltic states it took 7-8 years just to get back where they started economically in 1989. In Russia it took about double that time - some 16 years.

Therefore, I wouldn't really call it a "success" anywhere. I would rank countries from those who suffered severe economic crises (i.e. Poland, the Baltics, Belarus) to those who had something like the Great Depression (i.e. Russia) to those who were hit even harder by seemingly-permanent catastrophic collapse (i.e. Ukraine).

The only real success story for a transition to capitalism isn't in Europe. It's China.

Constantinopolis, I'd like to hear how Putin would have delivered the economic growth of the past 15 years if the reform hadn't happened.

Given the fact that the economic growth of the past 15 years in Russia was based primarily on natural resource exports and unusually high natural gas prices, the reforms of the 1990s had little to do with it. Anyone willing to expand Russia's natural resource exports (and gas in particular) could have achieved something similar.

Putin didn't do anything special. He just cracked down on lawlessness, re-affirmed the authority of the state (against organized crime), and started selling vast amounts of oil and gas. The latter could have been done under any economic conditions (including under the Soviet system), while the first two were only necessary in the first place because the transition to capitalism created rampant lawlessness and organized crime.

[Geilinor]

Later, in the second half of the 1990s, Poland and the Baltic states were among the first countries to start recovering from this slump. Russia began to recover only in the 2000s, and some countries (like Ukraine) never recovered.

So, to be clear, the 1990s were bad everywhere in Eastern Europe and the former USSR. The "success stories" are those countries where the experience ended up being least bad. But even in Poland and the Baltic states it took 7-8 years just to get back where they started economically in 1989. In Russia it took about double that time - some 16 years.

Transitioning from a planned to a market economy is not magic, there are difficult transition periods. The old system was unsustainable and contributed to the fall of those states in the first place.

[Shofercia]

While swearing isn't inherently against the rules, this overly liberal use of the Anglo-Saxon copulatory exclamation in this specific context - especially in the context of an overt accusation of immaturity - looks very much like deliberate flamebaiting to me.

*** Warned for flamebaiting ***

One can lose his composure when whatever arguments you present are met by a wall of dogmatic denial. I'm not justifying blackguardism here but it's partly understandable. Lytenburgh, on the other hand, looks like a person who intentionally spreads propaganda and denies whatever claims he's presented with. I'm aware of such people being employed by governments to spread information profitable to their cause on various social networks and forums. Thus I'd like to humbly request the mods to keep an eye for such users, if possible.

Shpies! Shpies everywhere! Mods Halp!

If you believe that Putin sends spies to NSG, there's a bridge in Brooklyn that I can get for ya at a very low price...

I hope so. I've seen volunteers who post propagandist info on both sides though, just being cautious of them.

I'd say with the sheer amount of time Lyt spends on these forums arguing for the case of Putin and other Russian bureaucrats, there's a very high chance he's some sort of government or Russian embassy employee.

You'll notice he has almost no other political views what's so ever, he just praises Putin, praises Russia, and praises the general state of things. The only time he has taken time not to speak about Putin, is to post on the Slavic thread to praise Russian culture. He repeats the same points multiple times, and anyone who disagrees with him is "a foolish westerner" or "a worshipper of the USA" or "a fascist". It's been very obvious for a while now to me and others I've spoken to concerning this issue, that he's in some way hired by the Russian government. Or is at least a volunteer.

PANIC! SHPIES!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Lyt actually voted for Fair Russia, whereas Putin's Party is United Russia, so I'm not sure if that was praise, but then again, maybe all those Republican voters are just out to praise Obama.

Or maybe just expressing his views.

There's expressing your views. And then there's expressing your views on the same issue, and nothing but the same issue, over and over again for months, and at extremely disturbing rates.

Look through the posts of his current character, or the posts of his previous 2 banned characters, try and find any posts that speak of his political views outside of Putin/the Ukraine issue. He's almost like a robot.

I know, all those atheists on NSG who talk about nothing but religion are secretly funded by the atheist cabal... /sarcasm

What everyone should realize, however, is that arguments based on "historical sovereignty" over land have generally been considered laughable since... well, since the First World War. It does not matter which state happened to own which piece of land at an arbitrary time in the past. Novorossiya doesn't belong to Russia because it was part of the Russian Empire in the 19th century, and it doesn't belong to Ukraine because it was part of various Ukrainian states in the 20th. Whatever side you are on, this is not a valid argument.

Although isn't historical sovereignty basically the main argument that the Russian government used to justify preventing secession by Chechnya? If it can be used by them then it can be used against them...

Certainly. And there are stupid laws on the books, laws that thankfully haven't been used. However, the Putin Administration fought Chechnya because Chechnya turned into a hotbed of Wahhabi Radicalism on Russia's borders and invaded Dagestan, a de facto and de jure part of Russia, committing grave atrocities during the invasion. That's what started the Second Chechen War, and Putin wasn't in office for the first one.

The Baltic countries are probably the most ovbious example where the "will of the people" is completely contrary to their best interests. The Soviet Union took Europe's three most backward countries at the time and turned them into some of the most prosperous republics in the Union. And yet even now, after all that good work and after twenty years of independence (as "willed by the people") during which these countries have suffered economic ruin and exploitation at the hands of Western globalists most people there still refuse to acknowledge the benefits of Soviet rule and only complain about "oppression".

oh god, this is absolute bullshit. i think my IQ dropped just by fucking reading it.

try learning something about what the Baltic states actually are, because i think you're confusing them with, like, kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan migrated to Europe recently? Damn, I didn't realize that countries can migrate.

Relevant.

A rather offensive image that glosses over the Soviet oppression endurred by these people is relevant?

If you find that image offensive...

Except Nazi Germany.

How hypocritical.

Not really. Nazi Germany was mostly responsible for WWII, the most bloody war that humanity ever fought. Additionally, even if you take WWI into account, there Germany had arguably a plurality of the blame, (or perhaps the UK did,) not a majority. When you start the bloodiest war that mankind has ever seen, you tend to be the exception.

[Geilinor]

I know, all those atheists on NSG who talk about nothing but religion are secretly funded by the atheist cabal... /sarcasm

Most of them post on all kinds of topics. Lyt only has one.

[Constantinopolis]

Later, in the second half of the 1990s, Poland and the Baltic states were among the first countries to start recovering from this slump. Russia began to recover only in the 2000s, and some countries (like Ukraine) never recovered.

So, to be clear, the 1990s were bad everywhere in Eastern Europe and the former USSR. The "success stories" are those countries where the experience ended up being least bad. But even in Poland and the Baltic states it took 7-8 years just to get back where they started economically in 1989. In Russia it took about double that time - some 16 years.

Transitioning from a planned to a market economy is not magic, there are difficult transition periods. The old system was unsustainable and contributed to the fall of those states in the first place.

Is there any evidence that it wasn't sustainable? The simple fact that it ceased to exist doesn't mean it wasn't sustainable.

For example, I could get hit by a car tomorrow and die. That would not be evidence that my life wasn't sustainable and I was bound to die soon anyway. Accidents happen.

Many people argue that the Soviet system was brought down by a combination of American foreign policy (you know, the "Reagan brought down the Wall" theory) and Gorbachev's incompetence. If this explanation of the Soviet collapse is true, then it was essentially an accident. It wasn't bound to happen. The old system could have endured if only Reagan and Gorbachev had failed to rise to power.

I see no reason to believe that a collapse of the Soviet system was inevitable. By the 1980s it was faced with economic stagnation, yes, but countries have had economic stagnation for decades (and, in older historical times, centuries) without showing any sign of collapse. Japan is experiencing economic stagnation right now, and has been stagnating since the 1990s. Is Japan headed for inevitable collapse? Not at all. It seems to be enduring just fine.

Before Gorbachev, the USSR was not faced with any existential problems. There was no reason to believe that it couldn't simply continue indefinitely.

[The South Polish Union]

oh god, this is absolute bullshit. i think my IQ dropped just by fucking reading it.

try learning something about what the Baltic states actually are, because i think you're confusing them with, like, kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan migrated to Europe recently? Damn, I didn't realize that countries can migrate.

yeah, its pretty cool. you should talk to cartalucci about it. he thinks that kyrgyzstan moved to somewhere near the baltic sea

[Lytenburgh]

"Defensive Alliance" against whom? First 40 years of its existince it was against USSR. USSR is gone, why not NATO?

The mere existence of it supplants and undermines UN and its job of peacekeeping.

Against anyone who could attack or be a threat.

Who was gonna to attack Estonia or Poland? Finland and Belarus? Or, maybe (let's be honest!) despite the fact that Russia prostrated itself before the West under Yeltsin, apologised for this and that, the West and New Europe still didn't trust Russia and viewed ot as the Nemey against which they might dfend "poor, helpless" New Europeans?

[Lytenburgh]

Horseshit.

NATO's membership saw in the alliance a framework for maintaining European peace and security. The absence of a veto by any of its principal members made it more flexible and more capable as well.

Or, maybe, NATO has retained its original purpose(s) without changing and "adapting"? Namely - to serve as the extension of the American Hegemony and to be an alliance that still saw Russia as its potential enemy?

In the wake of the Cold War, the one place Europe did not want to go was back into its past ― a past in which petty national rivalries and territorial disputes created an endless cycle of intrigue and war. Uniting all of Europe in a single alliance (NATO) and as members of a single customs union (the EU) seemed to be the best way of keeping Frenchmen, Germans, Britons, Poles, Spaniards, and Italians from falling on each others' throats.

Yes! Because poor Europeans need USA wise guidance, or they will be at each other's throats! Oh, and they need a common enemy, yes!

And that whining you hear emanating from Moscow? Why, it's the bitching attributable to the fact that the world didn't revert to 19th Century form, allowing Russia to dominate Europe ― as Russians think they deserve to do.

Don;t project your own thoughts on others. Russia has no desire to "dominate Europe". These fine things - spheres of influence - whether you believe in them or not, preclude Russia from doing that. Yep, I understand - this totally contraditcts your Cold War era propaganda.

Russia needs to give up on the notion of having a "sphere of influence" and just get on with the business of living at peace with the rest of the world ― and its European neighbors in particular.

Only if USA surrender the entire globe as their personal sphere of influence. Only then.

[The South Polish Union]

Against anyone who could attack or be a threat.

Who was gonna to attack Estonia or Poland? Finland and Belarus? Or, maybe (let's be honest!) despite the fact that Russia prostrated itself before the West under Yeltsin, apologised for this and that, the West and New Europe still didn't trust Russia and viewed ot as the Nemey against which they might dfend "poor, helpless" New Europeans?

idk what youre trying to say here, but if youre asking why those countries joined nato, it might have been because they wanted the "mutual defense" stuff in case someone did attack them, and they needed to modernize the outdated crap that you guys gave us during warsaw pact era

[Shofercia]

Are you saying the Soviet Union didn't build schools, hospitals and libraries in its occupied territories?

Are you saying these things wouldn't have been built if the territories hadn't been occupied by the Soviet Union? Because they certainly would have in the case of the Baltic states, which means no, that wasn't an advantage of Soviet rule. You're asking them to be thankful for 50 years of political and economic repression because they got some stuff they would have got as independent states.

No, he's NOT saying that. He's saying that Soviets did bad and good things in the Baltics, which is common sense. You're engaging in "what ifs" and "whataboutisms". During the "horrible" Soviet rule, the population of Balts in the Baltics increased. During the "super-duper-nice-&-shiny" democratic rule, the population of Balts in the Baltics decreased, and the trio are in a demographic death spiral. Those are the facts.

why do russian nationalists (capitalitss and fascists alike) worship the soviet union so much? i mean, some russian guy who's fighting in donbass said that the october revolution and the murder of the romanovs was orchestrated by the jews but he also said that the dissolution of the soviet union was also orchestrated by the jews. why would they destroy something they wanted to create? it doesn't even make sense. furthermore, why would a russian nationalist nazi guy like the soviet union?

Not sure why a Nazi would like the USSR, but a nationalist would due to the stability that power projection of the USSR. Not sure what Jews have to do with anything. Only "Jewish" joke I've been making, is that a certain Jew who's funding Neo-Nazis in Ukraine isn't quite bright.

They certainly wouldn't have been as far-reaching, probably comparable to the backwaters of modern South-Africa or war-torn Yugoslavia.
I'd go as far to say that without the Soviet Union, the Baltic states would be worse off in the current day if they had not been prior occupied by Soviet Forces.
Since the entire former Soviet Union still doesn't match its economy from what it was in 1987, I can say this with ease.

Ah, typical Great Russian arrogance and failure to understand that, in fact, they aren't irreplaceable and the Jewish Banderite Fascist Gay Enablers can do things without them just as fine.

I do fucking love it.

It's like you people have a mental block on remembering that Stalin's greatest contribution to the Baltic States was not building factories, but deporting people en masse to Siberia for bullshit reasons.

And the Baltics were ruled by Stalin ever since. Khrushchev war Stalin. Brezhnev was Stalin. Gorbachev was Stalin. Everyone was Stalin. Your governments need to get the fuck over Stalin and return from the 50's to the present day, before your demographic death spiral is complete, because once that hits, no one is going to bother saving your languages.

-snip-

Whatever. The army's f*cked, the population's f*cked. What's your point? Should Ukes just commit mass suicide before Russians kill them?

My suggestion is that they shouldn't fight wars they cannot win, and should focus on rebuilding their economy instead, before more idiots like Taruta produce more Kopanki fuck ups.

(Image)

Ahhh yes, blaming Russia for economic collapse when mass Genocide was attempted against us... wow, just wow.

Jimwoy is from New Zealand.

Also - since when deporting (and not shooting on the spot, which according to the law Stalin could order) Nazi collaborators is "bullshit reason"?

Don't bullshit around. Operation Priboi was targeted at literally any Baltic farmer who had a cousin in the Forest Brothers. It was tactically designed to crush opposition to collectivisation and your occupation - it had literally nothing to do with Nazi collaborators.

Don't raise your ALL BALTIC INHABITANTS ARE FASCISTS flag, because Lithuania sabotaged recruitment to an SS legion, while Russia has the second largest amount of collaborators with the Nazis per capita in the whole bloody WW2, right after France.

Yeah, going to need a source for that one. Sounds like good old Baltic government brainwashing to me.

Why?! Russians have no desire to kill the Ukrainians. Just what made you think that?

Gee, it's not like Russia is arming the rebels and sending "volunteers" to Ukraine. That would be a Russophobic lie, Russia can do no wrong after all.

You're confusing the Russian people with the government in Moscow.

No country ever says, "Hey there neighbor, you want to form an alliance with my enemies? Sure thing, don't let me stop you, we can still be friends as if nothing happened." Yet, for some incomprehensible reason, the pro-Kiev crowd wants Russia to say precisely that.

NATO was the enemy of the USSR, but it has never been the enemy of Russia. Russia continues to act in a Cold War mentality. Even in Putin's first term, when the West tried to build relations.

By going all Boer War on Russia's ally, the Serbs, over Kosovo? By supporting one Color Revolution after another near Russia's borders? By claiming that Yeltsin's elections were democratic, whereas Putin's weren't? By supporting rapid privatization, which led to the rise of Gangster Capitalism in Russia? By supporting economic thugs like Khodorkovsky, who would've sold Russia out for profits? By helping Saakashvili attempt to destabilize the Caucasian Region shortly after the blood of thousands of Russians barely patched it up? My, my, my, what "noble" attempts.

NATO is a defensive alliance, it shouldn't scare you unless you're planning to attack someone.

I was making a Team America reference.

I got it!

[Geilinor]

Transitioning from a planned to a market economy is not magic, there are difficult transition periods. The old system was unsustainable and contributed to the fall of those states in the first place.

Is there any evidence that it wasn't sustainable? The simple fact that it ceased to exist doesn't mean it wasn't sustainable.

For example, I could get hit by a car tomorrow and die. That would not be evidence that my life wasn't sustainable and I was bound to die soon anyway. Accidents happen.

Many people argue that the Soviet system was brought down by a combination of American foreign policy (you know, the "Reagan brought down the Wall" theory) and Gorbachev's incompetence. If this explanation of the Soviet collapse is true, then it was essentially an accident. It wasn't bound to happen. The old system could have endured if only Reagan and Gorbachev had failed to rise to power.

That's ridiculous, Gorbachev rose to power as a product of the Soviet system.

[Geilinor]

By going all Boer War on Russia's ally, the Serbs, over Kosovo? By supporting one Color Revolution after another near Russia's borders? By claiming that Yeltsin's elections were democratic, whereas Putin's weren't? By supporting rapid privatization, which led to the rise of Gangster Capitalism in Russia? By supporting economic thugs like Khodorkovsky, who would've sold Russia out for profits? By helping Saakashvili attempt to destabilize the Caucasian Region shortly after the blood of thousands of Russians barely patched it up? My, my, my, what "noble" attempts.

I was making a Team America reference.

I got it!

Cut the Color Revolution nonsense out. The Orange Revolution in 2004 occurred because of a corruption scandal and unfair elections. Can Ukrainian citizens not protest? Can their Supreme Court not rule elections fraudulent?

[The South Polish Union]

Cut the Color Revolution nonsense out. The Orange Revolution in 2004 occurred because of a corruption scandal and unfair elections. Can Ukrainian citizens not protest? Can their Supreme Court not rule elections fraudulent?

of course they can! just as long as they're protesting/ruling in support of russian interests.

this isnt complicated, you know...

edit: quoted the wrong post initially

[Lytenburgh]

idk what youre trying to say here, but if youre asking why those countries joined nato, it might have been because they wanted the "mutual defense" stuff in case someone did attack them, and they needed to modernize the outdated crap that you guys gave us during warsaw pact era

Why? Can someone honestly answer me - why? Against whom in Europe did they wanted "mutual defense"? Were they threatened by someone? What, if they didn't join NATO Latvia would attack Estonia?

As for "crap" - non-member countries somehow manage to deal with that. Besides, what was the need to such urgent (1999) medernization of military capabilities if you were not threatened by anyone?

[The South Polish Union]

As for "crap" - non-member countries somehow manage to deal with that. Besides, what was the need to such urgent (1999) medernization of military capabilities if you were not threatened by anyone?

having shiny new toys tanks is fun.

[Geilinor]

idk what youre trying to say here, but if youre asking why those countries joined nato, it might have been because they wanted the "mutual defense" stuff in case someone did attack them, and they needed to modernize the outdated crap that you guys gave us during warsaw pact era

Why? Can someone honestly answer me - why? Against whom in Europe did they wanted "mutual defense"? Were they threatened by someone? What, if they didn't join NATO Latvia would attack Estonia?

As for "crap" - non-member countries somehow manage to deal with that. Besides, what was the need to such urgent (1999) medernization of military capabilities if you were not threatened by anyone?

It doesn't have to be a European attacker. The North Atlantic Treaty applied even in the case of 9/11.

[Washington Resistance Army]

idk what youre trying to say here, but if youre asking why those countries joined nato, it might have been because they wanted the "mutual defense" stuff in case someone did attack them, and they needed to modernize the outdated crap that you guys gave us during warsaw pact era

Why? Can someone honestly answer me - why? Against whom in Europe did they wanted "mutual defense"? Were they threatened by someone? What, if they didn't join NATO Latvia would attack Estonia?

As for "crap" - non-member countries somehow manage to deal with that. Besides, what was the need to such urgent (1999) medernization of military capabilities if you were not threatened by anyone?

See Lyt, you might have been able to have a point with all this if Russia didn't invade another country and start arming and sending "volunteers" to fight in another part of said country. Russia has made itself seem like a threat again, they made their bed now they get to lay in it.