NationStates

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:53 am**

Constantinopolis wrote:
Baltenstein wrote:"Unfortunately"? Last time Russia had a purely statist model, it eventually imploded.

Yes, it eventually imploded... as a direct result of pro-market reforms.

Before said reforms, it was stagnating, which - although not great - is still a hell of a lot better than collapse.

And before that stagnation, it was growing at an impressive rate. And it could have kept growing - maybe not at the same unprecedented speed, but at a respectable speed at least - if not for a series of policy mistakes made by the government.

In any case, I think promoting state ownership over the means of production is pretty much the most important political goal in the world at the present time.

The state - aka hordes of crony bureaucrats and pencil-pushers - has proven how capable it is of fucking things up and bringing thriving enterprizes to a standstill again and again. What we should have instead should be autonomous ownership and flat hierarchies - the people working in a particular company should have the most say about where its headed.

[/offtopic]

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:33 am**

Baltenstein wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:Yes, it eventually imploded... as a direct result of pro-market reforms.

Before said reforms, it was stagnating, which - although not great - is still a hell of a lot better than collapse.

And before that stagnation, it was growing at an impressive rate. And it could have kept growing - maybe not at the same unprecedented speed, but at a respectable speed at least - if not for a series of policy mistakes made by the government.

In any case, I think promoting state ownership over the means of production is pretty much the most important political goal in the world at the present time.

The state - aka hordes of crony bureaucrats and pencil-pushers - has proven how capable it is of fucking things up and bringing thriving enterprizes to a standstill again and again. What we should have instead should be autonomous ownership and flat hierarchies - the people working in a particular company should have the most say about where its headed.

[/offtopic]

What do you mean, "instead" ?

If you really want the people working in a particular company to have the most say about where its headed, that means you oppose a market economy driven by the profit motive. And the alternative to a market economy driven by the profit motive is an economy based on public ownership.

The question of how to manage publicly-owned companies - whether they should be run by workers' councils or by professional bureaucrats or whatever - is a very important one, and I actually agree with you that worker-run enterprises are far better than bureaucrat-run enterprises, but we need public ownership in the first place before we can even begin to ask this question.

Public ownership is key. It is fundamental. It is the essential condition that must be satisfied before we can begin talking about any other aspect of a progressive society.

Fighting against private capitalists is step 1. It comes first. Everything else comes afterwards. That doesn't mean everything else is any less important, it just means that we need to do things in order. Regardless of which step is the most important, step 1 comes first.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:33 am**

Constantinopolis wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:Rosneft is asking the Russian government for $49 billion.

Whoops.

Not only Rosneft, but lots of privately-owned companies as well.

This could be a golden opportunity for the Russian government to re-nationalize large swathes of the economy. And Putin could finally rid himself of his oligarch rivals once and for all.

If he had any desire to restructure the Russian economy on a more statist basis. Which, unfortunately, he does not. Sigh.

Statism will not solve the problems of the Russian economy. Outside the sanctions, Russia has been hit by a prolonged drop in oil prices as well as drops in other export commodity prices.

The solution would simply be to take the Russian economy off its dependence on oil, gas and raw resource exports and diversify it. Agriculture, manufacturing and tourism all have promise to make just as much money with some reforms and improvements.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:40 am**

Costa Fierro wrote:Rosneft is asking the Russian government for $49 billion.

Whoops.

It gets better (or worse depending on your perspective). Rosneft are asking for these funds to be taken from the State Pension Fund. I actually came across that story when reading about how Russians are pulling billions from Russian banks as the ruble continues to tumble due to sanctions and journalists have fled the country due to pressure from the Kremlin.

In other news (more directly related to Ukraine) a team of reporters from reuters have come across the burnt out remains ofRussian tanks. It is fairly obvious now that Russia is directly supporting the separatists with "volunteers" and equipment in order to prevent their self-claimed independent republics from collapsing entirely.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:39 am**

Shofercia wrote:

this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples

Russia founded: 850-862 AD
First Russian city founded: 862 AD, Great Novgorod

Why those nomadic city-dwellers...

And this counters his arguments... how exactly?

The early Russian state has been invaded by Mongols and Turks. I guess Kennan has been to refeered to them and the connquest of Siberia.

for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries

Yeah, Alexander Nevsky totally couldn't stand up to Westerners, nor could St. Olga of Pskov... except for their reforms predating Western Reforms by a few centuries, but other than that, and a bunch of other facts...

That all happened 1000+ years when the Russian etnicity did not existed yet. If you look to the Tsars like Nicholas II of Ivan the Terrible that could be indeed valid.

For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within.

A superb description of the exact opposite of what was done by Csar Peter the Great's delegation, but hey, Russophobic books aren't known for facts. They're not known for anything other than pointless bullshit, which, ironically benefits the Kremlin, since it's really easy to call pricks like Kennan - bullshitters, because they are, and then said bullshitters are used to discredit nonbullshitters.

Peter the Great was not an etnich Russian by the way and neither was Catherine II. Also if you have read the whole text you would not know he is refering the whole time to the Russian rulers and not ordinary Russians for whom he has only good words. Instead you are prejudice towards him

Thus Soviet leaders are driven [by?] necessities of their own past and present position

Things like the rest of the World invading Russia while Russia was in the midst of a Civil War, followed by Hitler's Genocidal Invasion a few decades later are whose fault? Right, according to Kennan, that of the Russian leadership.

Wellm he is righ about the Soviet government. It was like a frightened beast. Also, the World did not invade Russia, they were invited by the legitime Russian government.

Is this the joke that you take seriously, Buse?

Well the US government took it seriously as Kennan was the American ambasador to Moscow and his Telegram was not intended to be propaganda but a secret document of a diplomat. It was declassified only decades later.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:53 am**

Malgrave wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:Rosneft is asking the Russian government for $49 billion.

Whoops.

It gets better (or worse depending on your perspective). Rosneft are asking for these funds to be taken from the State Pension Fund. I actually came across that story when reading about how Russians are pulling billions from Russian banks as the ruble continues to tumble due to sanctions and journalists have fled the country due to pressure from the Kremlin.

In other news (more directly related to Ukraine) a team of reporters from reuters have come across the burnt out remains ofRussian tanks. It is fairly obvious now that Russia is directly supporting the separatists with "volunteers" and equipment in order to prevent their self-claimed independent republics from collapsing entirely.

This has been obvious from the beginning of the conflict, at least to some of us. There are just some people who base their entire world view around Russia incapable of doing wrong, and the predatory West being out to do nothing but discredit it at every turn.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:57 am**

Lemanrussland wrote:This has been obvious from the beginning of the conflict, at least to some of us. There are just some people who base their entire world view around Russia incapable of doing wrong, and the predatory West being out to do nothing but discredit it at every turn.

Eh? Is there anyone on NSG actually denying the fact that Russia is supporting the rebels? Not that I know of.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd support a full-scale Russian invasion to depose the Kiev regime if necessary. I'm not pro-Russian because I think Russia is sweet and innocent and playing by the rules. I'm pro-Russian because I think Russia is doing what needs to be done. And with regard to Putin, the phrase "he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch" comes to mind.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:12 pm**

Constantinopolis wrote:
Lemanrussland wrote:This has been obvious from the beginning of the conflict, at least to some of us. There are just some people who base their entire world view around Russia incapable of doing wrong, and the predatory West being out to do nothing but discredit it at every turn.

Eh? Is there anyone on NSG actually denying the fact that Russia is supporting the rebels? Not that I know of.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd support a full-scale Russian invasion to depose the Kiev regime if necessary. I'm not pro-Russian because I think Russia is sweet and innocent and playing by the rules. I'm pro-Russian because I think Russia is doing what needs to be done. And with regard to Putin, the phrase "he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch" comes to mind.

Right, because that wont escalate into a war Russia couldn't hope to win.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:13 pm**

Constantinopolis wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd support a full-scale Russian invasion to depose the Kiev regime if necessary. I'm not pro-Russian because I think Russia is sweet and innocent and playing by the rules. I'm pro-Russian because I think Russia is doing what needs to be done.

Would you care to explain why you feel that Russia invading Ukraine is "what needs to be done"? Russia has gotten Crimea back, so they should be happy with that and not try to destabilize Ukraine any further.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:18 pm**

Constantinopolis wrote:
Baltenstein wrote:The state - aka hordes of crony bureaucrats and pencil-pushers - has proven how capable it is of fucking things up and bringing thriving enterprizes to a standstill again and again. What we should have instead should be autonomous ownership and flat hierarchies - the people working in a particular company should have the most say about where its headed.

[/offtopic]

What do you mean, "instead" ?

If you really want the people working in a particular company to have the most say about where its headed, that means you oppose a market economy driven by the profit motive. And the alternative to a market economy driven by the profit motive is an economy based on public ownership.

The question of how to manage publicly-owned companies - whether they should be run by workers' councils or by professional bureaucrats or whatever - is a very important one, and I actually agree with you that worker-run enterprises are far better than bureaucrat-run enterprises, but we need public ownership in the first place before we can even begin to ask this question.

Public ownership is key. It is fundamental. It is the essential condition that must be satisfied before we can begin talking about any other aspect of a progressive society.

Fighting against private capitalists is step 1. It comes first. Everything else comes afterwards. That doesn't mean everything else is any less important, it just means that we need to do things in order. Regardless of which step is the most important, step 1 comes first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:36 pm**

Dejanic wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:What do you mean, "instead" ?

If you really want the people working in a particular company to have the most say about where its headed, that means you oppose a market economy driven by the profit motive. And the alternative to a market economy driven by the profit motive is an economy based on public ownership.

The question of how to manage publicly-owned companies - whether they should be run by workers' councils or by professional bureaucrats or whatever - is a very important one, and I actually agree with you that worker-run enterprises are far better than bureaucrat-run enterprises, but we need public ownership in the first place before we can even begin to ask this question.

Public ownership is key. It is fundamental. It is the essential condition that must be satisfied before we can begin talking about any other aspect of a progressive society.

Fighting against private capitalists is step 1. It comes first. Everything else comes afterwards. That doesn't mean everything else is any less important, it just means that we need to do things in order. Regardless of which step is the most important, step 1 comes first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

...is an entirely nonsensical concept, which in practice always ends up looking very much like capitalism. If you have an economy based on profit-seeking firms operating in a market, with the only "socialist" element being the fact that these firms are owned by their workers, then (a) this economy will continue to have all the same macroeconomic features as capitalism, including inequality, unemployment, inflation, periodic crises, etc., and (b) those worker co-ops will inevitably have to treat their workers in more or less the same way that capitalism treats workers, whether they like it or not, because market forces will compel them to do so. Plus, the historical experience of successful worker co-ops like Mondragon shows that once they grow to a certain size they always end up adopting a "two-tier" employment system where some of their workers are co-owners and others are just plain employees. In other words, they basically turn into capitalist corporations with an especially large number of shareholders.

I have a very long and detailed critique of "market socialism", but that would be going too far off-topic in this thread. If you wish, we can talk by telegram.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:17 pm**

Oaledonia wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:Eh? Is there anyone on NSG actually denying the fact that Russia is supporting the rebels? Not that I know of.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd support a full-scale Russian invasion to depose the Kiev regime if necessary. I'm not pro-Russian because I think Russia is sweet and innocent and playing by the rules. I'm pro-Russian because I think Russia is doing what needs to be done. And with regard to Putin, the phrase "he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch" comes to mind.

Right, because that wont escalate into a war Russia couldn't hope to win.

It wouldn't. I doubt any country loves the Kiev regime so much that they're willing to go to war against Russia for its sake. If Russia played its cards right, found a plausible casus belli, and made it absolutely clear that it has no intention to do anything beyond the borders of Ukraine (i.e. no more funny antics around the Baltic Sea, no more feeding Estonian paranoia, etc.), then the worst that could happen from an invasion of Ukraine would be a complete Western embargo. Which would be very bad, but (possibly) less bad than allowing the situation in Ukraine to degenerate further.

The fact is, Russia's future depends on the Eurasian project, and the Eurasian project largely depends on getting Ukraine on board. If Ukraine joins the EU, Russia is finished anyway. So they don't have much left to lose at this point. They should go all out.

Saiwania wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd support a full-scale Russian invasion to depose the Kiev regime if necessary. I'm not pro-Russian because I think Russia is sweet and innocent and playing by the rules. I'm pro-Russian because I think Russia is doing what needs to be done.

Would you care to explain why you feel that Russia invading Ukraine is "what needs to be done"? Russia has gotten Crimea back, so they should be happy with that and not try to destabilize Ukraine any further.

Ok, here's the list of reasons:

1. Ukraine currently has one of the most hardline right-wing governments in Europe, at least on par with Hungary, and it's set to shift even further to the right. Nationalist and fascist gangs control the streets in many cities, they can commit violence with impunity, and they can successfully pressure the government to do what they want. Furthermore, I am personally convinced that they will attempt to take power by force some time in 2015 and 2016, and may well succeed. In brief, Ukraine is facing a Weimar-Republic-style situation. This is extraordinarily dangerous not just for Ukraine but for the entire European continent, and military intervention is justified.

2. If Ukraine joins the EU or NATO - and remember, NATO has had far-right dictatorships among its members before, so a fascist takeover would not be a problem for Ukraine's membership - that would enormously strengthen an already-too-powerful US-dominated alliance. If you are concerned about excessive American power in the world (which you should be), and especially if you don't want the US controlling Europe even more than it already does, it is imperative to prevent Ukraine joining NATO. Oh, and as for the EU, if Ukraine joins - with its very large and very right-wing electorate - you can kiss any hope of a liberal/center-left/social-democratic EU goodbye. Ukrainian EU membership would ensure solid right-wing control of EU institutions for decades at the very least.

3. The Kiev regime has adopted an extremely neoliberal austerity agenda that will impose massive suffering on the Ukrainian people, especially the working class. It will be even worse than Greece, if nothing is done to stop it.

4. There is a witch hunt atmosphere in Ukraine right now directed against leftists of all stripes, from the center-left to communists like myself. Communists have been violently attacked, threatened, intimidated, kidnapped, and in a few cases even murdered. And it's getting worse. Foreign intervention seems to be the only thing that can end this, so I support it out of solidarity with my comrades, because I want them to be safe and I want those who attacked them to be punished.

5. The long-term survival of Russia as an independent country (i.e. not an appendage of the future European Federation that will grow out of the EU) depends on Russia being able to stop the eastward expansion of the EU and create an alternative to it - something like the proposed "Eurasian Union". And in order for Russia to do this, it is absolutely essential to get Ukraine on board. In fact, ironically, even Ukrainian culture has a greater chance of survival as part of an Eurasian bloc than as part of the EU. The prospects are rather bleak either way, but the EU certainly means long-term annihilation for separate national cultures; that much is certain. Now, I don't particularly care about national cultures, but I can understand people who do.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:00 pm**

You missed the best reason of all:

6. An outright invasion of Ukraine would almost certainly result in a war that would cripple Russia militarily and economically in ways that they West could only dream of in the absence of war.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:13 pm**

Russia and NATO wouldn't go to war unless the Baltics, Finland, or Poland were under threat.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:36 pm**

Constantinopolis wrote:The fact is, Russia's future depends on the Eurasian project, and the Eurasian project largely depends on getting Ukraine on board. If Ukraine joins the EU, Russia is finished anyway. So they don't have much left to lose at this point. They should go all out.

Why does Russia's future depend on a "Eurasian Union"? It is like each answer I'm seeing just brings forth more questions. Russia is already recognized as the second greatest current military power, so I'm not sure what would cause Russia to cease to exist. I think that China in the long term could end up eclipsing both Russia and the US in terms of military might, which it has on the economic front.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:50 pm**

Korva wrote:You missed the best reason of all:

6. An outright invasion of Ukraine would almost certainly result in a war that would cripple Russia militarily and economically in ways that they West could only dream of in the absence of war.

I just don't understand the sheer arrogance they have. The ruble is down 20% this year and that is extremely scary for any economy.

But it's the circle of Russian life, I guess.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:53 pm**

Respawn wrote:
Korva wrote:You missed the best reason of all:

6. An outright invasion of Ukraine would almost certainly result in a war that would cripple Russia militarily and economically in ways that they West could only dream of in the absence of war.

I just don't understand the sheer arrogance they have. The ruble is down 20% this year and that is extremely scary for any economy.

But it's the circle of Russian life, I guess.

I think it got the eighties and nineties mixed up. The 2000's is when Russia was getting back on its feet.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:59 pm**

United Marxist Nations wrote:
Respawn wrote:I just don't understand the sheer arrogance they have. The ruble is down 20% this year and that is extremely scary for any economy.

But it's the circle of Russian life, I guess.

I think it got the eighties and nineties mixed up. The 2000's is when Russia was getting back on its feet.

And that comic showed Russia getting back on its feet in the 2000s.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:02 pm**

Respawn wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:I think it got the eighties and nineties mixed up. The 2000's is when Russia was getting back on its feet.

And that comic showed Russia getting back on its feet in the 2000s.

I use the worst phrasing.

But that it shows Russia rebuilding in the '90's is way off.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:20 pm**

Constantinopolis wrote:1. Ukraine currently has one of the most hardline right-wing governments in Europe, at least on par with Hungary, and it's set to shift even further to the right. Nationalist and fascist gangs control the streets in many cities, they can commit violence with impunity, and they can successfully pressure the government to do what they want. Furthermore, I am personally convinced that they will attempt to take power by force some time in 2015 and 2016, and may well succeed. In brief, Ukraine is facing a Weimar-Republic-style situation. This is extraordinarily dangerous not just for Ukraine but for the entire European continent, and military intervention is justified.

I live In hungary.
I can tell you Our goverment, even our most right-wing parties are nowhere near the ukranians in right-wing-ness. They are anti-EU thought, so they often get bad publicity in western media.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:23 pm**

Constantinopolis wrote:Ukraine currently has one of the most hardline right-wing governments in Europe, at least on par with Hungary, and it's set to shift even further to the right.

No it doesn't. The President is an independent and the party he has support from (albeit run by Tymoshenko) is a center right party. Yes, it's populist but it is not as right wing as Jobbik or the parties that currently control the government. The idea that the government is controlled by hardliners is utter bullshit.

Nationalist and fascist gangs control the streets in many cities, they can commit violence with impunity, and they can successfully pressure the government to do what they want.

Unless you're talking about Russian nationalists and fascists, then no they do not. The police still has nominal control, violence has largely curtailed and right wing groups do not have any control over the government whatsoever.

Furthermore, I am personally convinced that they will attempt to take power by force some time in 2015 and 2016, and may well succeed.

They had the opportunity to seize power when Yanukovych was ousted and this hasn't happened. They also lack popular support, especially given that their candidates garnered little more than 2% in presidential elections and only slightly more votes than the Ukrainian Communist Party in parliamentary elections.

In brief, Ukraine is facing a Weimar-Republic-style situation. This is extraordinarily dangerous not just for Ukraine but for the entire European continent, and military intervention is justified.

Ukraine isn't facing any Weimar style situation. It is facing a civil war, but it should be resolved when and if the government can sort out a peace agreement with the Russian nationalists in the east. As for "a threat to Europe", how is it a threat to Europe? Ukraine could not possibly invade any countries around it. Most of them to the West are NATO members and those that aren't are Belarus and Russia, both of whom are more than capable of dealing with any Ukrainian military escapades.

If Ukraine joins the EU or NATO

Yes, if.

And remember, NATO has had far-right dictatorships among its members before

Because Ukraine is totally a dictatorship. Also, Spain and Portugal were dictatorships decades before NATO was formed.

If you are concerned about excessive American power in the world (which you should be), and especially if you don't want the US controlling Europe even more than it already does, it is imperative to prevent Ukraine joining NATO.

And why should we be supporting this and concerned about "excessive American power"?

The Kiev regime has adopted an extremely neoliberal austerity agenda that will impose massive suffering on the Ukrainian people, especially the working class. It will be even worse than Greece, if nothing is done to stop it.

Ukrainians are used to this kind of "suffering". Their economy has been shit for the last few decades and given that the Russian economy is starting to go down the proverbial crapper rather quickly, I'd be more concerned with how Russia is going to deal with economic recession rather than Ukraine. A Russia that is hurt will likely be less predictable and less able to reason with than an Russia when it's healthy.

There is a witch hunt atmosphere in Ukraine right now directed against leftists of all stripes, from the center-left to communists like myself.

One or two random attacks is not a witch-hunt. We've established this already.

And it's getting worse. Foreign intervention seems to be the only thing that can end this, so I support it out of solidarity with my comrades, because I want them to be safe and I want those who attacked them to be punished.

You mean "killed".

The long-term survival of Russia as an independent country

Russia's sovereignty is not the one that is being threatened. Ukraine's is. The long term survival of Ukraine as a sovereign state is at stake here. Not Russia. It's not about Russia. It is about Ukraine. Russia is one of the ones that is pulling the strings of its varied marionettes and it's not about to have strings attached.

So cut the bullshit about "Russia is under threat" because it isn't. Russia was never under threat. It never will be under threat. In fact, Russia was the one that was doing the threatening in the first place. And how exactly can a victim be the aggressor?

Now, I don't particularly care about national cultures, but I can understand people who do.

You mean the fascists, right? Those seeking to separate Russians from Ukrainians and vice versa?

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:42 pm**

Costa Fierro wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:Ukraine currently has one of the most hardline right-wing governments in Europe, at least on par with Hungary, and it's set to shift even further to the right.

No it doesn't. The President is an independent and the party he has support from (albeit run by Tymoshenko) is a center right party. Yes, it's populist but it is not as right wing as Jobbik or the parties that currently control the government. The idea that the government is controlled by hardliners is utter bullshit.

Ukranian president is... wait for it... a selfish Industrialist...
Can you get any more right-wing then that (at least, in economic policy.)? Ukranian Government is literally run by businessman... and they let the right sector shoot whomever they wish. Ukranian Deserters, East-Ukranian Civilians, anything goes.

None of that happens in Hungary. Jobbik and Fidesz is more to the left in Economic and some social policies than the Pro-EU Socialist parites, who happen to get their funding from Western, "Pro-Democracy funds". They are actually fake Socialist parties with a pro-western-business agenda, but their cover was blown so now nobody votes for them outside a sheepified minority.
Politics here is a funny thing, really. Take this for instance. If you turn on Commercial TV, +50% of the "News" is anti-fidesz propaganda (I'm 100% serious. Every second report is about fidesz Cheating in elections, Passing evil communist and/or Fascist laws, Supressing Free speech... and so on). If you turn on state-funded TV, You get +50% anti-EU-West, Pro-Fidesz Propaganda. Its really amusing to watch them both.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:22 pm**

Buse wrote:
Shofercia wrote:

this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples

Russia founded: 850-862 AD
First Russian city founded: 862 AD, Great Novgorod

Why those nomadic city-dwellers...

And this counters his arguments... how exactly?

By providing facts to counter his bullshit. Facts have a tendency to triumph over bullshit.

Buse wrote:The early Russian state has been invaded by Mongols and Turks. I guess Kennan has been to refeered to them and the connquest of Siberia.

Which makes absolutely no sense.

Buse wrote:
Shofercia wrote:for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries

Yeah, Alexander Nevsky totally couldn't stand up to Westerners, nor could St. Olga of Pskov... except for their reforms predating Western Reforms by a few centuries, but other than that, and a bunch of other facts...

That all happened 1000+ years when the Russian etnicity did not existed yet. If you look to the Tsars like Nicholas II of Ivan the Terrible that could be indeed valid.

Russian ethnicity = Russes + Slavs, who provided numerous births in Novgorod in 862 AD. This is a historically accepted fact, with primary sources provided in Karamzin's account, created in the early 1800s. Way before Communism, Russia vs West, and all that stuff. As for Csar Ivan the Terrible, he was a decent Csar until some idiot boyars killed his wife, which drove him insane. Csar Nicolas the II was incompetent and reactionary and doesn't represent all of Russian Csars. Claiming so is as foolish as claiming that Dubya represents all American presidents and that Washington was as bad as Dubya.

Buse wrote:
Shofercia wrote:For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within.

A superb description of the exact opposite of what was done by Csar Peter the Great's delegation, but hey, Russophobic books aren't known for facts. They're not known for anything other than pointless bullshit, which, ironically benefits the Kremlin, since it's really easy to call pricks like Kennan - bullshitters, because they are, and then said bullshitters are used to discredit nonbullshitters.

Peter the Great was not an etnich Russian by the way and neither was Catherine II. Also if you have read the whole text you would not know he is refering the whole time to the Russian rulers and not ordinary Russians for whom he has only good words. Instead you are prejudice towards him

Uhh, yeah he was. Peter the Great is an ethnic Russian. That's a fact. Look up his genealogy.

Buse wrote:
Shofercia wrote:Thus Soviet leaders are driven [by?] necessities of their own past and present position

Things like the rest of the World invading Russia while Russia was in the midst of a Civil War, followed by Hitler's Genocidal Invasion a few decades later are whose fault? Right, according to Kennan, that of the Russian leadership.

Wellm he is righ about the Soviet government. It was like a frightened beast. Also, the World did not invade Russia, they were invited by the legitime Russian government.

A government against which the Russian repeatedly revolted? That's not a legitimate government. And yeah, they invaded. You also omit Hitler's Genocidal Invasion. Even so, all of that was gone by the Khrushchev Era, so no, he's wrong again.

Buse wrote:
Shofercia wrote:Is this the joke that you take seriously, Buse?

Well the US government took it seriously as Kennan was the American ambasador to Moscow and his Telegram was not intended to be propaganda but a secret document of a diplomat. It was declassified only decades later.

Kennan was busy writing up propaganda for his idea of containment to be enforced. People like him, as well as his Soviet equivalents, are a part of the reason that the US and USSR didn't stabilize the World when there was a chance. That's hardly something to admire.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:32 pm**

Korva wrote:You missed the best reason of all:

6. An outright invasion of Ukraine would almost certainly result in a war that would cripple Russia militarily and economically in ways that they West could only dream of in the absence of war.

Not really. The war would be over in two weeks. The question would than be - "what to do with Kiev and Western Ukraine?" Thing is, while it's comfy for Western Media to pretend that Yanukovich is "oh so totes responsible", Ukraine's been looted for decades but their inept Oligarchs, irrespective of whether those were pro-Western or pro-Russian. The economy of Ukraine is in such a fucked up state, especially in the West, that no one really wants Western Ukraine. The Russians even have a joke on the subject:

How to fight like Lvov:
1. Start a war with Russia
2. Surrender
3. Tell Russia to rebuild everything

The recent gas deal fell through because the EU refused to guarantee Ukraine's ability to pay: http://www.talkvietnam.com/2014/10/euro ... en-winter/

At the talks, European Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak and Ukrainian Energy Minister Yuri Prodan has discussed gas prices, Kiev’s ability to pay and Moscow’s gas supplies. They reached consensus on gas prices and supplies, but remained at odds about Ukraine’s ability to pay its gas debt to Russia. Kiev wanted Russia to advance the gas on credit, but Moscow refused and asked the EU to guarantee Ukraine’s debts. The EU, however, has not decided how much to help Kiev because it is facing its own financial difficulties. The impasse has many in Europe worrying about a possible very cold winter. Two previous price disputes between Russia and Ukraine in 2006 and 2009 reduced the gas supply to the EU to uncomfortable level.

It's so bad that Ukraine cannot even pay for gas at market prices, and the EU knows it, which is why the EU isn't guaranteeing the payment. On top of everything, the infrastructure, which hasn't been maintained for decades, is beginning to break down.

Respawn wrote:
Korva wrote:You missed the best reason of all:

6. An outright invasion of Ukraine would almost certainly result in a war that would cripple Russia militarily and economically in ways that they West could only dream of in the absence of war.

I just don't understand the sheer arrogance they have. The ruble is down 20% this year and that is extremely scary for any economy.

But it's the circle of Russian life, I guess.

Yeah, because Stalin was "totally" responsible for Hitler's Genocidal Invasion which led to the economic hardship of the 1940's /sarcasm

Posted: **Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:50 am**

Harkback Union wrote:Ukranian president is... wait for it... a selfish Industrialist...

Well fuck me backwards with a telegraph pole! A businessperson in politics? Fuck me! What a fucking travesty. I mean, it's one thing for those bloodsucking leaches called lawyers to be politicians but fucking businessmen (and women, because it's an all opportunities ability to fuck everyone over)? Holy shit!

Can you get any more right-wing then that (at least, in economic policy.)?

Ooh yes we can. See, the person with whom my displeasure was directed at refers to the "hard line right-wing government" as a euphemism for "fascists". Blatantly put, the person whom I was replying to was calling the government fascist because they somehow forgot that (most) of the extreme right were kicked out of the big seats when Poroshenko took over.

In short, they claim that right wing fascist parties control the government. Of course, this is a load of bullshit. And I was pointing it out that it was a load of bullshit.

NationStates

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