|
quote:The current Russian leadership got into their collective heads the concept of the "multipolar world" they keep advocating. I've been saying from the start that I think that this is the root cause of both Russia and China suddenly acting more aggressive over the past couple of years. They've bought into the myth of the BRICS in the same way that Western media has, and it's especially bizarre in Russia's case because I don't see how a country with 0% population growth, in economic recession, and with a GDP smaller than Germany, France, or the United Kingdom could constitute a "pole" in a similar vein as the US or the EU. For China I can at least understand why they believe that they constitute a new "pole" but Russia is currently a second-rate power only taken seriously due to its nuke stockpile.
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Well for one thing it's much closer to Russia. Russia also has historically held the Crimea (this does not justify the recent events, of course), so there would be a psychological difference. Yes, but is that distance militarily meaningful? The whole peninsula is in SAM range from the other side of the Kerch strait.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:Yes, but is that distance militarily meaningful? The whole peninsula is in SAM range from the other side of the Kerch strait. Besides which, even if it was not important now, in ten years there might be an improved weapons system. I imagine Russia thinks, with probably decent reason, that the US/NATO goal is literally to encircle them with military bases. This is probably worrisome for a country whose history has included a lot of major invasions. What if some crazed American president in twelve years decided to kickstart Armageddon by "destroying Magog" with a first strike?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't know, but I suspect Russians are not hyper-rational autonomous assessors of the precise military potential of modern SAM systems, and would instead see "NATO building a base on land that was historically ours, for Christ's sake!!" Because this is the Clancy thread... Sub launched missiles from the Black Sea or land based missiles from Turkey or Romania are likely more effective since it's easier to shoot down ballistic missiles during their ascent stage. I guess that discounts tactical nukes from artillery, but if we're talking Armageddon, a light dusting of 20 kiloton warheads will be the least of their concerns. I do agree with you on the emotional component though, but that's what I was trying to emphasize. I don't think there is a reasonable strategic reason to worry about NATO in Crimea (so long as NATO is in Turkey or Romania), though I do think concern about being encircled and the lack of a good port on the Black Sea are both rational concerns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I've been saying from the start that I think that this is the root cause of both Russia and China suddenly acting more aggressive over the past couple of years. They've bought into the myth of the BRICS in the same way that Western media has, and it's especially bizarre in Russia's case because I don't see how a country with 0% population growth, in economic recession, and with a GDP smaller than Germany, France, or the United Kingdom could constitute a "pole" in a similar vein as the US or the EU. More reason for it to get Ukraine, I suppose? Besides, different blocks can excel at different things. China can be populous and EU can be rich, but Russia can have the most nukes and energy resources. quote:For China I can at least understand why they believe that they constitute a new "pole" but Russia is currently a second-rate power only taken seriously due to its nuke stockpile. Here I have to challenge the prevailing assumption that Russia somehow is and will continue to act rationally. The nationalistic psychosis that's afflicting Russia right now is inherently irrational. We're already being demonstrated with an example above, talking about how Russia would be 99% self-sufficient economically with sanctions. Why? Just because Russians are simply better, of course, and it's only the evil West that's holding them back. Why did Russia need Crimea back so badly? Just because it's a part of Great Russia, of course, and should rightfully belong to Russia. Why will Russia prevail? Because it's the greatest country on Earth full of the greatest people on Earth (excluding the 5th columnists) that have the greatest morals and culture on Earth being led by the greatest leader on Earth. Meanwhile Europe is full of the decadent eurogays and the US is led by the Zio-Nazis Russia already defeated once in 1945 and are already falling back under Russia's might. That's why it would be an incredibly dangerous mistake to assume that Russia will act or negotiate as a rational actor. Especially after a few more successes and concessions from the West nationalist euphoria will completely cloud good judgement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:More reason for it to get Ukraine, I suppose? A one-note power isn't a power at all. That's why the US is still unmatched on the world stage; because it's populous, rich, militarily powerful, technologically advanced, and will soon be energy independent. None of the BRICS even come close to that kind of position and won't for a long time yet. Even the EU is still struggling in the military and energy parts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:"NATO building a base on land that was historically ours, for Christ's sake!!" Too late 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I've been saying from the start that I think that this is the root cause of both Russia and China suddenly acting more aggressive over the past couple of years. They've bought into the myth of the BRICS in the same way that Western media has, and it's especially bizarre in Russia's case because I don't see how a country with 0% population growth, in economic recession, and with a GDP smaller than Germany, France, or the United Kingdom could constitute a "pole" in a similar vein as the US or the EU. For China I can at least understand why they believe that they constitute a new "pole" but Russia is currently a second-rate power only taken seriously due to its nuke stockpile. This really can't be restated enough. Russia got the GDP of Italy except with a more dysfunctional government, an economy relying substantially on resource extraction and needing the West to supply the technology to extract those resources. The CIS controls less than 4% of world GDP - the EU/US controls 47% and that's not counting Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. In addition Japan and South Korea are kinda antsy about China so they like their alliance with the US and Japan is further unimpressed with the Russian position on the Kurils. Europe got close ties with a lot of African nations to boot. You got nothing. If Russia thinks of itself as a pole or counterweight to anything they are absurdly delusional. The West is not doing anything largely because the electorates west of Poland only consider Russia a nuisance or bizarre curiosity and we have other fish to fry domestically. If you go into a French cafe, an English pub or German bar and ask if they heard the latest news from Ukraine you'll be met with a room full of blank stares and I wonder if the Russian people realize this. You are not big enough to worry us but we would appreciate it if you would Stop Being a Dick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
utjkju posted:We don't need bases of NATO in the Crimea. So you're fine with Germany sending soldiers in to start riots in Russia?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:No, you're still talking about Ukraine in NATO as if that was the primary issue. That is not the case. Actually, it is, because all the evidence points towards it being the primary issue, or at least one of the primary issues. You simply plugging your ears and repeating "no it isn't no it isn't no it isn't" doesn't make it so. Now, your hypothesis regarding a Eurasian Union that requires Russia to annex the industrialized parts of Ukraine (or, for that matter, all of Ukraine) is an interesting one, but at this point it's lacking in evidence. Where is your proof that this is a part of Russia's short-to-medium-term strategizing? Because at this point I can't see it as more than a remote aspiration in the minds of Russian nationalists. quote:Listen, does your diplomatic solution even include Crimea, or is that long forgotten and buried? Ukraine's not getting Crimea back. Russia obtained it illegally, but we'd have to pry it from their cold, dead hands, and even if we managed to do that, the ethnic Russians living there would create such a shitstorm that Kiev wouldn't want it back anyway. quote:This isn't a matter of being meticulous enough, it's the issue of any contract needing penalties for breaking it. You can't form a contract or have laws in society if one side is completely unpunishable. You can't be serious about forcing the West going straight to war over Ukraine, when you're too afraid that further sanctions will marginalize Russia. LOL, you say I'm "too afraid that further sanctions will marginalize Russia" like that's an established fact. Where have I said that? Seriously, you're just outright telling untruths at this point. The West has more than enough economic leverage over Russia to enforce a treaty that recognizes Ukrainian neutrality. The fact that the relatively light sanctions that we've placed on them have been so effective is proof enough of this. quote:Of course not now, but I'm looking 5, 10, 20 years in the future. You yourself have compared Russia's actions as a return to its 19th century role. But Imperial Russia had no self-imposed limits to expansion. It only stopped because it ran into equally powerful Germany in the west, Japan in the east and British possessions in the south. If it hadn't dramatically lost to two of those powers in quick succession and collapsed, there is no reason to believe it would have just stopped. This theory assumes that the only leverage the West has over Russia is military superiority, which is simply not true. Russia is unlikely to continue expanding westward because it knows that it will suffer economic consequences that will make any potential gains in Ukraine not worthwhile. The sanctions it has faced so far have been onerous enough. Putin won't completely wreck his economy just to annex Kharkiv or Luhansk. quote:Literally poo poo-that-didn't-happen even in Russia's darkest days in the 90s. You're wrong. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:This really can't be restated enough. Russia got the GDP of Italy except with a more dysfunctional government, an economy relying substantially on resource extraction and needing the West to supply the technology to extract those resources. The CIS controls less than 4% of world GDP - the EU/US controls 47% and that's not counting Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. In addition Japan and South Korea are kinda antsy about China so they like their alliance with the US and Japan is further unimpressed with the Russian position on the Kurils. Europe got close ties with a lot of African nations to boot. You can have 1/10 the GDP of Italy and still 1000x its influence, things are really more complicated than GDP. Russia will always be very important in the world for the sole reason that it has a permanent SC seat and veto powers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:You can have 1/10 the GDP of Italy and still 1000x its influence, things are really more complicated than GDP. Russia will always be very important in the world for the sole reason that it has a permanent SC seat and veto powers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:You can have 1/10 the GDP of Italy and still 1000x its influence, things are really more complicated than GDP. Russia will always be very important in the world for the sole reason that it has a permanent SC seat and veto powers. Nessus posted:"Strategic nuclear weapons" are also a factor here, I expect. These, plus an enormous land mass that gives it relatively close proximity to a lot of regions of interest (and trouble spots) for the US and its European allies. Any claim that Russia isn't a major world power is just wishful thinking. Economic strength is obviously a determinant of a state's overall power, but it's far from the only factor. e: Oh, and there's obviously the whole energy thing too. Western Europe may be working on making itself energy-independent from Russia, but that's a long-term goal. For the foreseeable future, Russia will be able to exert considerable influence over Europe through that leverage. Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Now, your hypothesis regarding a Eurasian Union that requires Russia to annex the industrialized parts of Ukraine (or, for that matter, all of Ukraine) is an interesting one, but at this point it's lacking in evidence. Where is your proof that this is a part of Russia's short-to-medium-term strategizing? Because at this point I can't see it as more than a remote aspiration in the minds of Russian nationalists. I'll probably get to the other points tomorrow, but to make sure I didn't sound like a complete loon that makes poo poo up, I'll present these two articles from the top of the google search I just did: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/29/us-ukraine-eu-putin-idUSBRE9AS0F320131129 http://www.khas.edu.tr/cms/cies/dosyalar/files/NeighbourhoodPolicyPaper(04).pdf Putin's Eurasian Union strategy was freely discussed for several years pre-Maidan (2011-2013). It's just difficult to find them now among the extensive coverage of the 2014 Ukraine crisis. Don't take the word "annexation" too literally (I've never used the word), it is only meant to allude to a Russia-Belarus and Russia-Kazakhstan type of relationship that Russia sought for Ukraine. You also keep completely ignoring that it was Ukraine's failure to sign the economic union agreement late last year was the primary reason for Russia's reaction, not some hypothetical NATO membership concern at an indeterminate point in the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:This really can't be restated enough. Russia got the GDP of Italy except with a more dysfunctional government, an economy relying substantially on resource extraction and needing the West to supply the technology to extract those resources. The CIS controls less than 4% of world GDP - the EU/US controls 47% and that's not counting Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. In addition Japan and South Korea are kinda antsy about China so they like their alliance with the US and Japan is further unimpressed with the Russian position on the Kurils. Europe got close ties with a lot of African nations to boot. I'm actually surprised Italy has a higher GDP than Canada
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:You can have 1/10 the GDP of Italy and still 1000x its influence, things are really more complicated than GDP. Russia will always be very important in the world for the sole reason that it has a permanent SC seat and veto powers. The problem is that in term of great power politics (which is what all of this is fundamentally about) you are basically just being what Italy or Austria-Hungry or Japan was in the 1900s: a second/third tier Great Power trying to act as a first tier power. It sort works until a first tier power (i.e US/Germany/USSR) calls your bluff and your house of cards tumbles down. If you want to see a country that has 1/10 GDP of Italy and follows Russia's strategy you basically have North Korea. Typo fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Typo posted:I'm actually surprised Italy has a higher GDP than Canada Canada's GDP is neck and neck with India's and 4 or 5 times South Africa's, two of the BRICS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:I'll probably get to the other points tomorrow, but to make sure I didn't sound like a complete loon that makes poo poo up, I'll present these two articles from the top of the google search I just did: First of all, all the articles you posted here do is prove that there is a Eurasian Union, and that Putin wanted Ukraine to be part of it. Neither of these points are in dispute. Secondly, you were the one who made the comparison between Germany's relationship with Austria in the late 1930's on the one hand, and Putin's relationship with Ukraine on the other. Such a comparison implies that you believe Russia will try to annex all of Ukraine at some point in the near future. So don't try to wiggle your way out of that one; you made the suggestion that annexing Ukraine is part of Putin's near-to-medium-strategy. Now back it up with evidence, please. e: Also, come on - you can't backpedal and say, "Well, I never actually said the word 'annexation'..." when you say poo poo like this: quote:Likewise, after Russia has digested Ukraine, it can simply march further. Moldova looks to be next on the list, but do you know how many other interests it has in the Balkans, Caucasus, with Poland, the Baltics, in central Asia, the Middle East? Yeah, sure, there's no WAY you're claiming that Russia is on the verge of a conquering rampage! quote:You also keep completely ignoring that it was Ukraine's failure to sign the economic union agreement late last year was the primary reason for Russia's reaction, not some hypothetical NATO membership concern at an indeterminate point in the future. I actually haven't ignored it - just yesterday, I described it as "the straw that broke the camel's back, after a couple decades of built-up tensions between the West and Russia." Typo posted:The problem is that in term of great power politics (which is what all of this is fundamentally about) you are basically just being what Italy or Austria-Hungry or Japan was in the 1900s Neither Austria-Hungary or Japan had the ability to literally wipe out all of humanity in one fell swoop, nor did they have much of Western Europe by the balls over energy policy, so I don't think your comparison is terribly apt. quote:It sort works until a first tier power (i.e US/Germany/USSR) calls your bluff and your house of cards tumbles down. It seems to me that for a state to be a second-tier power, those first-tier powers have to be willing to call your bluff. So far Russia has been able to act with relatively few repercussions. That, to me, is evidence of a world power. You're doing some serious mental gymnastics trying to convince people that Russia isn't a powerful state, but your argument isn't terribly persuasive, because your only criterion seems to be economic strength. I can't think of a single political scientist who would define "power" so narrowly. quote:If you want to see a country that has 1/10 GDP of Italy and follows Russia's strategy you basically have North Korea. If this were true, then North Korea would be a serious player in neighboring countries' energy markets. And would, you know. Not be a hermit state. It would also be able to present a serious challenge to the interests of first-tier world powers like the US, but it's not able to do that either. The only way it could seriously cause damage to anywhere in the world at this point would be to detonate a nuclear weapon, and then what would happen? Its deterrence would effectively vanish. Pyongyang would be vaporized. So it can't really take that course of action and hope to survive. Russia, in the meantime, can seriously hamper US and Western European interests worldwide, and do so with relative ease. That's part of why the Western powers haven't taken a hard line towards Russia during this whole crisis: because the West needs Russia's cooperation to pursue its interests. It does not need North Korea at all. Majorian fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
quote:Neither Austria-Hungary or Japan had the ability to literally wipe out all of humanity in one fell swoop, nor did they have much of Western Europe by the balls over energy policy, so I don't think your comparison is terribly apt. Oil/Gas....sure, but that really cuts both ways, if Russia ever pisses the EU off enough that they are willing to take a hit in terms of more expense energy to get back at Russia, at which point Russia is going to hurt a lot more than the EU. quote:Russia, in the meantime, can seriously hamper US and Western European interests worldwide, and do so with relative ease. That's part of why the Western powers haven't taken a hard line towards Russia during this whole crisis: because the West needs Russia's cooperation to pursue its interests. It does not need North Korea at all. I mean, there's Syria and ex-Soviet Union obviously, but where else is Russia terribly influential in?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Typo posted:Nuclear weapons have deterrence value in ensuring nobody ever invades you (and I don't think anyone is going to invade Russia anyway), but other than that it's not terribly useful for geopolitics otherwise. Except A, that deterrent value is pretty huge (something neither Austria-Hungary nor Japan had), and B, you also have the ability to give weapons or weapons technology to states that your geopolitical adversary doesn't like. quote:Oil/Gas....sure, but that really cuts both ways, if Russia ever pisses the EU off enough that they are willing to take a hit in terms of more expense energy to get back at Russia, at which point Russia is going to hurt a lot more than the EU. That's not likely to happen anytime soon, though. quote:Worldwide meaning...where. Russia can easily (and seriously) hamper our efforts vis-a-vis Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Afghanistan, for starters. Those are pretty much our biggest problem areas at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
The point is less "Russia isn't a power" so much as "Russia is not a pole." The world currently has at the most, two "poles." The United States and the European Union, though the former is the dominant partner owing to its unsurpassed military, relative energy independence, and political unity. The idea of a multipolar world presumes the existence of spheres of influence acknowledged by other great powers, and what I've gotten from this whole episode is that Russia does not have a sphere of influence recognized by other powers. Even operating literally within a few hundred kilometers of their own borders has brought retaliation that has melted its economy, and contrary to what Russian Freeper has said they do not have anywhere else to turn to balance out their falling out with the West. Yeah, Russia is definitely a power, maybe even a "great power" but it's an ailing, one note great power whose sole reason for wielding the influence it does is that it was among the victorious allies 69 years ago and has a giant nuke stockpile. Not because of its wealth, or political influence, or scientific/technological prowess, or cultural attractiveness. All it has is its guns and the fact that its the successor state to the USSR and hence inherited its political privileges and bloated military. The ability to gently caress poo poo up if you so choose, or rather, the ability to frighten people does not a polar power make.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The point is less "Russia isn't a power" so much as "Russia is not a pole." It's also very, very locked in place. Russia can pick on Ukraine because Ukraine is weak. Ukraine offers nothing to the West, and while it's nice they saw the writing on the wall and wanted to join the EU, nobody wants to go to war to defend Ukraine. Because of this, Russia is having it's moment to shine as a petty bully, picking on the kid nobody can help out. Russia can't do much else besides that though. It can't mess with China, because China could easily crush Russia without the Wests aid. It can mess with the Middle East, but that's currently it's only real mulligan, so they don't want to waste it. It can't mess with the Baltics/Poland because that'd draw it into a war with NATO/EU. And yes, despite goons trying to be sensationalist, if Russia attacked the Baltics, it'd result in a war. This is why Putin won't attack the Baltics, because he wouldn't win a war with NATO/EU ( clancychat style armageddon is also not winning fyi. ) Russia isn't a major power. It's a regional power that's doing it's damnedest to stay a regional power, even as everything slips away from it. Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus are basically the only areas in Europe Russia can exert power over, and it's trying to keep that, because it doesn't just want to become that crazy old man in the east that only gets a say in things due to nukes ( it's arguably already at that point, but that's not the point. ). While Russia does have some sway in the Middle East, it's been shown in the past that their sway is unreliable/not quite absolute, so I'm not sure it gives them major power status. They'd like to think so I'm sure, but even if it does, it's a status that is quickly drying up. Rookersh fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I don't see how a country with 0% population growth On what planet you live? Since 2011 we have an increase in population. ) eigenstate posted:
Russia needs production of Ukraine? What production? The East of Ukraine is destroyed. It is necessary to spend a lot of money for restoration of East Ukraine. For what to destroy East Ukraine if production is necessary? Ukraine was included never to BRICS or SCO countries. It isn't necessary there. In Ukraine too low standard of living. The Crimea was necessary to Russia.The southeast of Ukraine of Russia isn't necessary. Nessus posted:I don't understand your first point, can you elaborate? Because it sounds as if it gives an easy and unanswerable way to silence anyone who says "gently caress Putin" or "gently caress the current oligarch" or even just "I want to vote for the other guy." "Shut up, you aren't really Russian, you're a fifth columnist." This is a line the Republican Party here in America likes to push, and it helps nobody, except rabble-rousers in the short term. People from the 5th group can freely express the opinion. But also other people as freely express the opinion into the account of the 5th group. It is normal. But after attempt to arrange revolution in Russia because of the presidential elections, many Russian people very strongly don't love the 5th group. Ardennes posted:Well maybe you don't personally but certainly many other people do, a lot of people are struggling and trying just to live, get their medicine and enough food for the week. Certainly, in Western countries this happens too, but in Russia it can be very common. It is heavy to live in Russia to lazy people and alcoholics. If you want to live well, it is necessary to study and work. Many who speaks about difficulties in Russia are idlers. They constantly speak as them heavy to live. But when you offer work , the idler refuses work and continues to ache.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Rookersh posted:Russia isn't a major power. It's a regional power that's doing it's damnedest to stay a regional power, even as everything slips away from it. "Russia – only the regional power" Barack Obama, told on March 26, 2014 To us not in the first to hear similar statements, we will remember results of these statements: "Russia - the dwarf, I will force it to the knees. " Karl the 12th, XVIII century. Sweden forever lost the status of the great power. "I will subdue backward Russia. " Friedrich, middle of the XVIII century. In 1759 the Russian army entered Berlin. "Russia - a colossus on clay feet. " Napoleon, XIX century. In 1814 the Russian army took Paris. "I will win the USSR by the end of the year. " Hitler, XX century. in 1945 committed suicide when the Soviet army entered Berlin
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Special snowflake Russia, only regional power to ever win a war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Vietnam: Notable Great Power and world pole for defeating the Mongols, Chinese, and Americans in armed conflict. Afghanistan defeated the British and the Soviets; so by victors rights they are now a Eurasian superpower right? Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Russia is not a superpower anymore, live with it and join the rest of the modern world. Also nobody wants to invade Russia, almost every nation in the west would prefer that Russia just sit in their own corner and sell them cheap gas and oil, there's literally nobody outside of crazy clancychat sites and people who're writing a book/a game that even talks about it. And lol seriously, you guys are still salty about the Swedes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Gas. Gazprom reduced supply of gas to Poland so that there was no opportunity to do a reverse to Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Is it still fun talking with utjkju about the same stuff you've been talking with them about pages and pages ago? I doubt they're going to say anything interesting. Sucks they seems to be the only Russian voice right now, because it's just an echo chamber. You can't have a discussion without at first addressing the other side in a direct manner, not deflecting absolutely everything you don't want to talk about. Where is that other Russian, so we can get some actually interesting counterpoints to the conversation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Rookersh posted:Russia isn't a major power. It's a regional power that's doing it's damnedest to stay a regional power, even as everything slips away from it. Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus are basically the only areas in Europe Russia can exert power over, and it's trying to keep that, because it doesn't just want to become that crazy old man in the east that only gets a say in things due to nukes ( it's arguably already at that point, but that's not the point. ). While Russia does have some sway in the Middle East, it's been shown in the past that their sway is unreliable/not quite absolute, so I'm not sure it gives them major power status. They'd like to think so I'm sure, but even if it does, it's a status that is quickly drying up. I think you're glossing over the nukes issue a little too quickly there - the fact that nobody can invade them without getting nuked is a pretty huge asset. Their conventional military may not be as strong as it once was, but it's still pretty massive and is only improving in terms of quality. Also, again, they do have a lot of leverage in terms of energy resources. Fojar38 is right that they're no longer one of the two poles in a bilpolar world, but you're going too far in saying that they're not a major power anymore. By most standards, they are still a major power, and probably will be for the next several years. utjkju is obviously overstating Russia's prospects as an enduring great power, but it's inaccurate to go to the opposite extreme. e: And keep in mind, Russia doesn't need to have much sway over the Middle East to royally gently caress up Western interests there. Russia and Iran aren't the absolute best of friends, but the fact that Russia has assisted Iran with its nuclear program has caused the US no shortage of migraines. Their veto power on the Security Council has made dealing with Syria much more difficult than it would otherwise be. And unfortunately, the best ways to airlift our troops out of Afghanistan are through Russian airspace. These problems would only become more difficult if a new Cold War started up. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
utjkju posted:"Russia – only the regional power" Barack Obama, told on March 26, 2014 Will you be leading Russian soldiers in the invasion of Washington DC?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:utjkju is obviously overstating Russia's prospects as an enduring great power, but it's inaccurate to go to the opposite extreme. Strange you think. People don't set as the purpose to make Russia the indestructible power. Here such logic: you are strong, but always there is that is stronger than you. Not proud of force, constantly develop. Simply Russia changes under the influence of external forces. People support these changes. Opportunities about which I wrote is a reality. Really to increase production of products, to change commercial relations, to refuse dollar. These changes happen quickly. And the more pressure of the West upon Russia, the quicker Russia will change. I didn't write that Russia - the strongest. I wrote that Russia changes, creates safety in the economic plan and military.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:33
|
|
utjkju posted:"Russia – only the regional power" Barack Obama, told on March 26, 2014 So, I wasn't confident about those quotes, so I googled them. Interestingly, the exact same post, word for word, appears in a youtube comment by Alex F on youtube at this address, 5 months ago. And again, by another user, here. And another user, on a conspiracy theory forum, here, and...gosh, there are a lot of these, all during the same recent time window. Where did you copy it from, utjkju? If you'd like evidence of Russia as a regional power, look to its GDP. It's roughly equivalent to that of Italy.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:So, I wasn't confident about those quotes, so I googled them. Interestingly, the exact same post, word for word, appears in a youtube comment by Alex F on youtube at this address, 5 months ago. And again, by another user, here. And another user, on a conspiracy theory forum, here, and...gosh, there are a lot of these, all during the same recent time window. Where did you copy it from, utjkju? The Internet - force.))) You observe solidarity of Russians. Our people quickly distribute information. This record is at all city forums, on many sites, etc. Unity of thought))))
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
utjkju posted:The Internet - force.))) The ability to emptyquote each other is nothing to be proud of, otherwise GBS is the pinnacle of internet culture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
So, he's not saying where he got it.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
utjkju posted:The Internet - force.))) All right, knock it off, please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Russia can easily (and seriously) hamper our efforts vis-a-vis Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Afghanistan, for starters. Those are pretty much our biggest problem areas at the moment. Can Russia do anything meaningful with North Korea? It's been projected that, in the event of Korean unification, China would condition their humanitarian assistance on the withdrawal of US troops from the peninsula. Who wins and who loses with the DPRK is something I struggle with even without considering Russia. Fojar38 posted:The idea of a multipolar world presumes the existence of spheres of influence acknowledged by other great powers Why? Your definition seems to rule out a multipolar world defined by instability, where spheres of influence are hotly contested flashpoints, which might actually be the most likely consequence of multipolarity. utjkju posted:"Russia – only the regional power" Barack Obama, told on March 26, 2014 Dilkington fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:The ability to emptyquote each other is nothing to be proud of, otherwise GBS is the pinnacle of internet culture. And at what here pride? Simply very many people have an Internet, and there is an opportunity to share information with people. We normally developed Internet space. On the Internet there are many purchases, communication with the government, banks, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:So, he's not saying where he got it. Obama's words can be taken in news. All the rest in history textbooks. It is well-known information. This national creativity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:51
|
|