The New Legacy: What will people think of Russia soon?

[Shofercia]

Gotta love it when Orientalists conveniently forget the 200 years of American Imperialism specifically, and the 600 years of Western Imperialism in general - both of which are still claiming lives and destroying nations to this very day - whenever singling out eastern countries for having a "history" of violence, war, tyranny, genocide, etc.

When did I say that America isn't imperialist? There are plenty of examples of American imperialism, but they aren't in Eastern Europe.

So the whole Intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1918 was to promote milk and cookie distribution? Because prior to America intervening in Russia's Civil War, the duo had an amicable relationship.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

Calling Russia totalitarian is a bit much.

That word has a meaning, and that meaning isn’t just being a synonym to “unfree” or “dictatorship”.

[Big Bad Blue]

-snip-

Calling Russia totalitarian is a bit much.

That word has a meaning, and that meaning isn’t just being a synonym to “unfree” or “dictatorship”.

One psychopath exercising complete power fits the bill for me.

[Pangurstan]

When did I say that America isn't imperialist? There are plenty of examples of American imperialism, but they aren't in Eastern Europe.

So the whole Intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1918 was to promote milk and cookie distribution? Because prior to America intervening in Russia's Civil War, the duo had an amicable relationship.

Invading other countries isn't always imperialist

[Katganistan]

What do you mean, "soon"? I think it already.

[Angevin Territories]

So the whole Intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1918 was to promote milk and cookie distribution? Because prior to America intervening in Russia's Civil War, the duo had an amicable relationship.

Invading other countries isn't always imperialist

When isn't it? It's pretty much the definition of imperialism.

[Angevin Territories]

-snip-

Calling Russia totalitarian is a bit much.

That word has a meaning, and that meaning isn’t just being a synonym to “unfree” or “dictatorship”.

Exactly. If they have a civil society, they might be authoritarian, but hardly totalitarian.

I'm a stickler for the proper and correct use and meaning of words.

[Broader Confederate States]

Russia will be thought of the same way it is now, only moreso. If someone already dislikes Russia, they'll dislike it more, vice versa, and those who already don't care will grow to resent any mention of it. Same goes for governments and history-book-makers. Ukraine is just Russia being Russia, albiet an escalation thereof.

[Pangurstan]

Invading other countries isn't always imperialist

When isn't it? It's pretty much the definition of imperialism.

The allies invading nazi germany to liberate europe wasn't imperialist

[Giovenith]

I have never supported Russian imperialism, and have in fact condemned it multiple times.

But by all means keep making a fool of yourself.

You really don't get it, do you? Nations do not just apply to join NATO and suddenly, BAM, they're in just like that. There's a process; members vote on whether to accept them, and the vote has to be unanimous. The key point here is that no NATO member is under any obligation to say 'yes' - NATO doesn't have to accept new members. The key bit of context here that is often excluded by the pro-NATO crowd in this argument is that NATO leaders (literally every head of state of a NATO member, every single one) assured Gorbachev and his administration that NATO would not accept new memberships from former Warsaw Pact members and ex-Soviet Republics. The USSR hadn't even formerly dissolved yet before NATO broke this promise by telling the Visegrad Group they could join if they became capitalist liberal democracies in November of 1991, one whole month before the USSR dissolved. The U.S. itself weighed the issue of enlargement of NATO and by 1992 decided that expanding "Euro-American Hegemony" was more important than upholding the promise NATO made to Moscow not to expand into Eastern Europe in 1990. The Clinton Administration even made it a vital part of their foreign policy in 1996. Frankly I'm disappointed that the Russians showed as much restraint in response to such a blatant betrayal even after trying to improve relations with the West and America in particular. Because quite honestly they had every right to raise Hell over it.

You are a Russian shill. End of story.

*** Warned for Flaming ***

[Luziyca]

Russia's legacy will be like Germany's legacy. They will be remembered for the action of a terrible dictator but as time goes on they will be a part of the international community while having addressed the issues that said dictator left behind.

Maybe. Depends on if the current regime survives the war or not. If it does not, then I'm inclined to agree with you.

If the current Putinist regime does survive the war, I think most people in the western world will be hostile to Russia in the short-to-medium-term, save for those who see Russia as a "viable" alternative to American hegemony, even though to say that Russia is a viable alternative to American hegemony now is like saying that India or Nigeria are viable alternatives to American hegemony. Perhaps European governments may, when the war ends, be more than willing to get that gas back, but I'm not sure if the average European will be friendly to Russia for the forseeable future.

I do think that Ukrainians and those in the Baltics would be much more hostile to Russia and to Russians in general, whether or not the Putinist regime stays or not. Hell, if the Putinist regime stays in power after the war, it would not surprise me if they treated their ethnic Russian populations like how various central European states treated their German minorities in the aftermath of the Second World War to prevent giving Putin/whoever replaces him from having a base of support in their countries should he (either Putin or his successor) try to invade them again.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Following the Ukraine war, which started with Russian attention, I have had a question in the back of my mind for a while. This of course, is somewhat important for future geopolitics such as future US politicians or politicians from countries creating stereotypes against Russia or Russians for political gain or securing national interests? And especially with increasing rhetoric against Russia and Russians, calling them aggressors and fascists and especially a fascist dictatorship. This is only winning the popularity war which does not help anything but rally support for sending supplies and aid. Moving onto the main point of this thread based off of several questions I have had:
For how long will Russia be thought of as communist?
In the future will Russia be thought of as Fascist, Communist, or nationalistic communist?
Is Russia doomed to forever economic damnation to keep it weak?
Now that Russia has been sanctioned and the EU pledging to no longer use Russian oil which is a large source of energy from the EU, will there be a faster conversion to "clean energy" sources?
Is Russia causing a larger cause for unification of the European Continent?
(For example, the time Russia violated Irish national waters for a naval exercise)

Honestly, it depends on the background of people that one asked.
Russia has been seen as a negative force by much of the West, it's not new. I can see that particular opinion getting solidified.
In the rest of the world, particularly in the developing nations? Afaik the majority of people there don't really view Russia in a bad light, and I doubt the invasion of Ukraine would do much to change people's opinion.

[Independent Cossack Ukraine]

It will take a while to live it down, even if they reform.
Russia's reputation for the next 80 years

Agreed. Putin has done a lot of damage and he will be viewed very badly once he dies.

Also that video

[Sordhau]

Gotta love it when Orientalists conveniently forget the 200 years of American Imperialism specifically, and the 600 years of Western Imperialism in general - both of which are still claiming lives and destroying nations to this very day - whenever singling out eastern countries for having a "history" of violence, war, tyranny, genocide, etc.

When did I say that America isn't imperialist? There are plenty of examples of American imperialism, but they aren't in Eastern Europe.

Apparently the Yugoslav Wars were a figment of my imagination.

[Shofercia]

So the whole Intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1918 was to promote milk and cookie distribution? Because prior to America intervening in Russia's Civil War, the duo had an amicable relationship.

Invading other countries isn't always imperialist

Invading a country during a civil war to get a share of its natural resources most certainly is.

When did I say that America isn't imperialist? There are plenty of examples of American imperialism, but they aren't in Eastern Europe.

Apparently the Yugoslav Wars were a figment of my imagination.

Indeed

[PhilTech]

The real question is: What will people think of Putin after the war? Win or lose?

[Ifreann]

No they didn't.

https://thehill.com/policy/internationa ... l%20waters.

The naval exercises didn't violate our national waters. They took place in our exclusive economic zone, which the Russians are allowed to do.

Despite the concerns, Coveney acknowledged that states are entitled to carry out naval exercises in other states’ EEZs under international law and said Ireland had been notified of the exercises through standard procedures.

[Samrif]

I don't know why but I always find people who tend to be communists or part of other leftist ideologies love supporting any nation on earth as long as it goes against the West(US and western Europe). While I myself have no love lost for the West it boggles my mind seeing people who claim to be leftists support a state which is definitely right leaning. I mean Russia isn't communist anymore - it's like they are stuck in the 20th century.

[Vavlar]

Note: Reminder to keep things civil, some of the posts seem a little flamy. (Not a mod). Also it would be best to provide sources to help your position but also check the validity of your sources and their reputation.

Good advice about sources.

Let's see how that works out...

https://thehill.com/policy/internationa ... l%20waters.

Russian naval exercises are expected to begin in early February near Ireland’s EEZ, roughly 150 miles off of the country’s southwest coast, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs. While the area in question is part of Ireland’s EEZ, it is not part of its territorial waters.

Despite the concerns, Coveney acknowledged that states are entitled to carry out naval exercises in other states’ EEZs under international law and said Ireland had been notified of the exercises through standard procedures.

Nothing about Russia violating Irish national waters. Quite the opposite.

It's nice of you to provide a source to debunk your own claim.

Sorry, my bad. I skimmed the source.

Following the Ukraine war, which started with Russian attention, I have had a question in the back of my mind for a while. This of course, is somewhat important for future geopolitics such as future US politicians or politicians from countries creating stereotypes against Russia or Russians for political gain or securing national interests? And especially with increasing rhetoric against Russia and Russians, calling them aggressors and fascists and especially a fascist dictatorship. This is only winning the popularity war which does not help anything but rally support for sending supplies and aid. Moving onto the main point of this thread based off of several questions I have had:
For how long will Russia be thought of as communist?
In the future will Russia be thought of as Fascist, Communist, or nationalistic communist?
Is Russia doomed to forever economic damnation to keep it weak?
Now that Russia has been sanctioned and the EU pledging to no longer use Russian oil which is a large source of energy from the EU, will there be a faster conversion to "clean energy" sources?
Is Russia causing a larger cause for unification of the European Continent?
(For example, the time Russia violated Irish national waters for a naval exercise)

What is soon? A week? Two weeks? A month? A year? Soon in geopolitical terms needs to be defined. Russia is neither communist nor fascist, and those who define Russia as such don't understand what the terms actually mean. Russia's economy is being surprisingly resilient, and Europe as a customer can be replaced with customers in Asia, a region that's developing and needing raw resources. Russia didn't violate Irish waters, either.

Anywhere from a month to a year. Just your opinion and what you predict.

Following the Ukraine war, which started with Russian attention, I have had a question in the back of my mind for a while. This of course, is somewhat important for future geopolitics such as future US politicians or politicians from countries creating stereotypes against Russia or Russians for political gain or securing national interests? And especially with increasing rhetoric against Russia and Russians, calling them aggressors and fascists and especially a fascist dictatorship. This is only winning the popularity war which does not help anything but rally support for sending supplies and aid. Moving onto the main point of this thread based off of several questions I have had:
For how long will Russia be thought of as communist?
In the future will Russia be thought of as Fascist, Communist, or nationalistic communist?
Is Russia doomed to forever economic damnation to keep it weak?
Now that Russia has been sanctioned and the EU pledging to no longer use Russian oil which is a large source of energy from the EU, will there be a faster conversion to "clean energy" sources?
Is Russia causing a larger cause for unification of the European Continent?
(For example, the time Russia violated Irish national waters for a naval exercise)

Honestly, it depends on the background of people that one asked.
Russia has been seen as a negative force by much of the West, it's not new. I can see that particular opinion getting solidified.
In the rest of the world, particularly in the developing nations? Afaik the majority of people there don't really view Russia in a bad light, and I doubt the invasion of Ukraine would do much to change people's opinion.

They included Greece, Kenya, Turkey, China, Israel, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, South Africa, Vietnam, Algeria, the Philippines, Hungary, Mexico, Thailand, Morocco, Malaysia, Peru, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. Colombians were evenly split.

Interesting. Especially with NATO countries (But Greece due to a shared disliking of Turkey and having similar religion). India is surprisingly not on this list even though last time I remember, they were playing both sides.

[The Holy Therns]

They'll think of it as the usual. A topic you can bring up occasionally so the usual crowd can get the "BUT THE WEST!" out of their system.

[Pangurstan]

When did I say that America isn't imperialist? There are plenty of examples of American imperialism, but they aren't in Eastern Europe.

Apparently the Yugoslav Wars were a figment of my imagination.

The Yugoslav wars weren't imperialist, because NATO intervened to stop a genocide. If they overthrew the Serbian government to gain access to its natural resources, then it would be imperialist.

Invading other countries isn't always imperialist

Invading a country during a civil war to get a share of its natural resources most certainly is.

Apparently the Yugoslav Wars were a figment of my imagination.

Indeed

The US government intervened in the Russian civil wars to attempt to spread democracy to Russia, which is also not imperialist.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

What people will think about Russia in the future and about the current period depends on which ideology will be dominant in the world.
1. If the Western bloc wins, the condemnation of Russia as aggressively imperialist will prevail, while inconvenient things will be hidden, such as ultra-right parties in pro-Western small countries, the banning of left-wing parties there, language discrimination, ignoring the will of the population of Russian-speaking regions for autonomy.
2. If Russia wins, the imperialism of the Western bloc, its support for ultra-right radicals in the allied countries will be emphasized and condemned. And the mercenary motives of Russian monopolies, the presence of Russian imperialism, the connection of Russian ideology with ultra-right fanatics like Ivan Ilyin, leaders of the Black Hundred and reactionary clergy, neo-fascists like Dugin are hushed up.
3. If the true left wins, both imperialisms will be condemned, and the conflict itself will be assessed as the First World War - as a clash of predatory monopolies and bourgeois state apparatuses for profits and zones of influence, covered with patriotic or nationalist demagogy. The deep economic causes of the conflict will be revealed, for which culture, law and religion serve only as a wrapper.

[The Emerald Legion]

Russia is one of the few countries left that can effectively counterbalance the forces of American imperialism.

They're getting their asses kicked fighting a country that literally shares a land border with them. If America and Russia got into a war it ends one of two ways.

1.) American Conquest of Russia.

2.) Nuclear Armageddon. Rocks fall, everyone dies.

[Chan Island]

A zombie nation that in a previous era would have been destroyed but is held up by nuclear weapons. A nation of vast potential, an intelligent people and beautiful culture squandered by evil dictators and corrupt governance.

[Antipatros]

I think it's hardened existing attitudes about Russia.

One thing it's definitely done is put to bed the notion of "change through trade" that was bandied about in Western circles, at least when it comes to this particular nation. It's also prompting Western Europe to spend more on defense after years of minimal investment.