|
I can attest that the belief that the Japanese think that Russia dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan (whew, did you get all that?) is indeed prevalent in Russia. It originated on the Russian internet sometime around 2010, although I never really investigated where or how exactly the myth started. For example, http://vragi-naroda.net/?p=205 refers to some uncited "latest sociological research of Japanese youth". This may not have been the original source of the myth, but I do recommend you read the whole article though. From such humble origins, this "revelation" spread on the Russian internet, progressively getting more distorted as the story was re-copied and re-told. So, for example, by 2013, in http://pikabu.ru/story/vot_yeto_uzhe_realno_grustno_1038536, someone could un-ironically claim that their colleague has conducted a sociological survey on more than 10,000 [!!!] Japanese youth during a 3-year stay in Japan as a hobby [!!!], and claim that 80% [!!!] of those surveyed said that the atom bombs were dropped by the USSR. This myth was even picked up by official Russia TV in the April 2014 program "War Secrets" (Военная Тайна), where the narrator in sinister tones blames the Soros Foundation [!!!] for intentionally brainwashing the aforementioned Japanese youth to blame the USSR for the bombings with the intent of turning them against Russia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiLFt8pphZM tl;dr: utjkju is not a gimmic account. And if you somehow think that a well-off woman from Tomsk that knows several languages and traveled abroad is from the most likely demographic to be a Russian freeper, rather than the least likely demographic, then boy are you in for a loving shock of your life when you talk to the rest of Russian society. Horns of Hattin fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Sep 24, 2014 |
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
eigenstate posted:I can attest that the belief that the Japanese think that Russia dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan (whew, did you get all that?) is indeed prevalent in Russia. It originated on the Russian internet sometime around 2010, although I never really investigated where or how exactly the myth started. For example, http://vragi-naroda.net/?p=205 refers to some uncited "latest sociological research of Japanese youth". This may not have been the original source of the myth, but I do recommend you read the whole article though. http://translate.google.ru/translat...266%26bih%3D598 http://translate.google.ru/translat...266%26bih%3D555 These are links to the Japanese sites. My cousin learns Japanese. In Japanese textbooks of history it isn't written about the one who dropped bombs on Hirasima and Nagasaki. In textbooks it is written that began with the USSR war with Japan, and bombs were dropped then. People draw a conclusion that the USSR dropped bombs. Though on the Japanese Internet there is information that it was did by the USA utjkju fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
utjkju posted:It is heavy to me to believe that there are people who think that Russia is at war in Donbass. And what? Then how did these Russian soldiers die? And why are there no names on their tombstones? And why are there thugs beating up journalists who look at graveyards? And why was the association of mothers of soldiers declared a "foreign agent" after they started asking how the soldiers died exactly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
As an American who taught and lived in Japan for three years I can say that many many many Japanese people know the American dropped the bomb on them. Oh Japanese people don't like Russia, over mostly the Sakhalin Islands. No the atomic bomb's are definitely attributed to America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Then how did these Russian soldiers die? And why are there no names on their tombstones? And why are there thugs beating up journalists who look at graveyards? And why was the association of mothers of soldiers declared a "foreign agent" after they started asking how the soldiers died exactly? You will be able to distinguish the Russian man from the Rostov region from the man from Donetsk? You won't be able. Language identical, in appearance of sharp distinctions isn't present (an example: the European - the Chinese). In Ukraine precisely there are Russian mercenaries. But mercenaries can it is employed any country or the organization. France can employ the Russian mercenaries? Can. Germany can employ the Russian mercenaries? Oligarchs can employ the Russian mercenaries? Can. On Donbass many soldiers in the field decay because there are military operations. Anybody plainly doesn't bury victims. Well here how many people were missing in World War II? Where these people got to? Bodies of these people weren't found. Soldiers' mothers are a strange organization. They often tell about how kill soldiers in the Russian army to take away their internal for the medical purposes. Certainly, they have no confirmations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Ferdinand the Bull posted:As an American who taught and lived in Japan for three years I can say that many many many Japanese people know the American dropped the bomb on them. Oh Japanese people don't like Russia, over mostly the Sakhalin Islands. All Japanese or many Japanese? As I understood, the wrong information on a bomb is a problem of students, young people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, okay, maybe, but I think you see my point: if the US wants North Korea to get rid of its nuclear weapons program and/or stop acting like a horse's rear end in general, it's going to want Russia's help. Mightypeon posted:Concerning Russian interest in East Asia, paradoxically, the fact that East Asia is not that important [to Russia] gives the Russian actors a lot more freedom of action than they have in Europe and the middle east. In addition, having written off the DPRK (there was a "deal", Russia "gets" Belarus, China "gets" the DPRK. I think Russia got the by far better end of that deal), they arent shackled to the Kim regime and can exploit South Korean/Japanese conflicts with much more abandon. I wish MP would expand on this claim. As far as I know, Russia is still pursuing close ties with North Korea, and Belarus is still looking to expand trade with China. What levers does Russia have in Pyongyang that China doesn't? I can't imagine they have much leeway to either help/hurt the US, since whatever choice they make must be constrained by China's preferences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
utjkju posted:All Japanese or many Japanese? As I understood, the wrong information on a bomb is a problem of students, young people. I would say elementary school students don't really know about the atomic bombs, but that's mostly from adults wanting to protect young children from horrible horrible thoughts, to preserve their innocence. However, The Americans dropping bombs over Japan, especially the atomic bombs, factors heavily into the modern Japanese psyche. They definitely talk about it a lot. It's not forgotten history, nor is it vague history. They know who did it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Ferdinand the Bull posted:I would say elementary school students don't really know about the atomic bombs, but that's mostly from adults wanting to protect young children from horrible horrible thoughts, to preserve their innocence. However, The Americans dropping bombs over Japan, especially the atomic bombs, factors heavily into the modern Japanese psyche.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
utjkju posted:Soldiers' mothers are a strange organization. They often tell about how kill soldiers in the Russian army to take away their internal for the medical purposes. Certainly, they have no confirmations. e: Obviously you would have to use different soldiers for the purging on an individual basis, although perhaps you will get the occasional volunteer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:I wish MP would expand on this claim. As far as I know, Russia is still pursuing close ties with North Korea, and Belarus is still looking to expand trade with China. What levers does Russia have in Pyongyang that China doesn't? I can't imagine they have much leeway to either help/hurt the US, since whatever choice they make must be constrained by China's preferences. Russia can do whatever in North Korea and it won't hurt the US anymore than any other developed country. North Korea is primarily a South Korean and Chinese problem. The US cares to the extend that North Korea going nuts would hurt the world economy which would hurt the US and everybody else. In a lot of ways it would be practical to remove the troops from SK and just let China deal with it on their own. It's not like they can make it worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Nessus posted:They sound like fifth columnists. Perhaps you should purge them. Of course, the matter could be complicated, but it would perhaps be a small price to pay for the sake of making Russia stronger, more independent. Some people say they need to be purged, some people say they don't. How can you tell the truth? Facts and truth are arbitrary, then Russia took Paris and now I'm talking gibberish and so say need to be purged. qed (i'm so glad people here finally get to talk to some real non-goon russians, hope it puts things in perspective. enjoy your ride!)
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Ferdinand the Bull posted:I would say elementary school students don't really know about the atomic bombs, but that's mostly from adults wanting to protect young children from horrible horrible thoughts, to preserve their innocence. However, The Americans dropping bombs over Japan, especially the atomic bombs, factors heavily into the modern Japanese psyche. poo poo, whats more, US interests are that they know who did it. Theres no organized and concerted effort to blame USSR for the atomic bomb drops. There may be some historiologies writing of the pressures and calculus used to drop the bombs, and blaming USSR's rapid success in Korea and fear of partitioning Japan as a factor in the bomb drop. Either way, Truman nuked some folks. Any good President in his position would. In other considerations, I wonder the most efficient means to provoke Siberian separatism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Some people say they need to be purged, some people say they don't. How can you tell the truth? Facts and truth are arbitrary, then Russia took Paris and now I'm talking gibberish and so say need to be purged. qed
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Russia can do whatever in North Korea and it won't hurt the US anymore than any other developed country. Except for the fact that two of the US' closest allies in the region, South Korea and Japan, would really like it if North Korea didn't receive any more assistance on developing its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program. Anosmoman, I know you really, really want to believe that Russia can't do anything to mess with the US' interests, and that it's not a powerful state, but everything you're posting to this effect is wishful thinking. I think it's about time you acknowledged it. Dilkington posted:I wish MP would expand on this claim. As far as I know, Russia is still pursuing close ties with North Korea, and Belarus is still looking to expand trade with China. What levers does Russia have in Pyongyang that China doesn't? I can't imagine they have much leeway to either help/hurt the US, since whatever choice they make must be constrained by China's preferences. Yeah, I don't know what MP is talking about there, but it doesn't jive with what I'm seeing and reading. North Korea depends on Russian aid for things like oil, natural gas, and especially grain. Russia and China are the major parties involved in the negotiations over North Korea's nuclear program that tend to drag their feet the most. And, of course, both have permanent Security Council vetoes, so they can easily gum up the works anytime the US wants the UN to do something about North Korea. Russia also has a surprising amount of economic investment in North Korea, which the Kims allowed because Russia forgave 90% of their debt. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Anosmoman, I know you really, really want to believe that Russia can't do anything to mess with the US' interests, and that it's not a powerful state, but everything you're posting to this effect is wishful thinking. I think it's about time you acknowledged it. Its in the US's interest to keep troops in Japan and SK indefinitely, a bellicose North Korea helps with that. Same thing with a bellicose Russia in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Its in the US's interest to keep troops in Japan and SK indefinitely, a bellicose North Korea helps with that. Same thing with a bellicose Russia in Europe. I don't think it's in the US' interests to do that - maybe defense contractors and neoconservatives, but not the US in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think it's in the US' interests to do that - maybe defense contractors and neoconservatives, but not the US in general. Its in US interests to keep troops in the region for rapid reaction and deployment when the needs arise. Where precisely, is more a matter of debate; a deep water base with independent support infrastructure is good enough, and that is what Japan provides. The bases in Korea serve more as a deterrance, in that any attack on South Korea would result in direct war against US forces. Certainly won't see an Ukranian occurance due to that fact alone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted: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. quote: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. quote: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. I also never used the words "annex", "invade" or "conquer". I explicitly only used the word "dominate" several times because there are different ways one country could dominate another. Russia might seek to dominate Moldova militarily, but Poland - economically and Latvia - politically. It's only in your own narrowest reading that you took what I said were "Russian interests" to mean outright annexation of half the world. quote: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: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. quote: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. On the other hand, threatening Putin that he could be seen as a weak leader through steadily increasing military build-up and maneuvers is something that the Russian leadership will quickly understand, because all of Putin's public support rests on being seen as the strong leader.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Except for the fact that two of the US' closest allies in the region, South Korea and Japan, would really like it if North Korea didn't receive any more assistance on developing its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program. No, Russia can absolutely impact US interests in a number of ways. However it would chiefly harm other countries including Russia itself. Trade war with the EU would mostly harm Russia and to a lesser extend the EU. North Korea with (more?) nukes would mostly be an issue for South Korea and China. The thing about North Korea is that it's conveniently contained between two stronger countries that really don't want a war there. China's rise is an issue for the US but it comes with the silver lining that the US don't need to act as the local police. China really, really don't want a conflict there and that's wonderfully in sync with the US's objectives. There's a reason why China haven't just given NK nukes - they don't want them to have them. so if Russia gives it to them it will be in direct conflict with the wishes of China and... well the rest of the world. You're saying Russia can harm US interests by harming the security interests of the second and third largest economies in the world. Yes, that would be bad. For everybody. For the US and Nigeria and Mongolia and Russia, I mean really? You're going to directly impact the security of South Korea, Japan and China just to stick it to the US because they prefer stability in that region? Whatever multipolar world Russia is planning on constructing it will have to be in a direct adversarial relationship with those countries. But hey the US will be unhappy so therefore... yeah good luck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Its in US interests to keep troops in the region for rapid reaction and deployment when the needs arise. Where precisely, is more a matter of debate; a deep water base with independent support infrastructure is good enough, and that is what Japan provides. The large number of overseas US bases is one of the pillars of US power projection. If something bad happens somewhere that requires US firepower its easier to launch A/C from forward airbases rather than launch A/C from airbases in the US or negotiate for the US A/C to be deployed to overseas airbases with local governments. Edit: Oh hey My Imaginary GF, just realized it was you I was quoting, I'm a big fan of your posts in a number of threads in D&D. Do you have a blog, twitter, or website that I could read? And if not, you should start one!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:I just told you what the primary issue is. Yes, forums poster eigenstate told me that the main impetus behind Putin's invasion of Ukraine has to do with the Eurasian Union, but didn't include any convincing evidence that this is the case. When it comes to weighing convincing arguments made in articles drafted by experts versus the uncorroborated opinion of forums poster eigenstate, I am probably going to side with the former. If you want to continue this discussion, you're going to have to back up your claims with evidence. Just posting articles that say, "Hey! Something called the Eurasian Union exists!" isn't going to suffice. Baloogan posted:The large number of overseas US bases is one of the pillars of US power projection. If something bad happens somewhere that requires US firepower its easier to launch A/C from forward airbases rather than launch A/C from airbases in the US or negotiate for the US A/C to be deployed to overseas airbases with local governments. Sure, but the US also wants to keep South Korea and Japan in its coalition. That becomes more difficult if those countries fear that the US isn't going to defend them from a nuclear North Korea, and instead start looking to themselves for their defense. Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
I don't know man, the Eurasian Union seemed like a pretty big issue. Without a cooperative Ukraine it doesn't really work, not that it was going to work anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:No, Russia can absolutely impact US interests in a number of ways. However it would chiefly harm other countries including Russia itself. That's not the case across the board, though. Russia has shown that it can pretty much make or break the US' policy towards Syria (and now, thanks to IS, you can include Iraq in that mix). Moscow was able to assist Iran in building its nuclear program with relative impunity. And, once again, it was that permanent veto. quote:Trade war with the EU would mostly harm Russia and to a lesser extend the EU. I doubt an energy policy war would hurt Russia more than the EU, and even if it did, it would likely be a hit that the Russian electorate would be more willing to take than German or French voters. quote:North Korea with (more?) nukes would mostly be an issue for South Korea and China. A, South Korea is a close ally of the US, so a nuclear threat to them is a nuclear threat to our interests. B, once again, it would be a proliferation risk. quote:There's a reason why China haven't just given NK nukes - they don't want them to have them. so if Russia gives it to them it will be in direct conflict with the wishes of China and... well the rest of the world. I think you overestimate how much say China would have in the matter. Given that the US couldn't stop Russia from aiding Iran's nuclear program, I doubt China would be able to stop them from aiding North Korea. As we've seen in the not-too-distant past, smuggling nuclear material and technology into North Korea is not terribly difficult. Regardless, it's a possibility that Western leaders do not want to risk. quote:You're saying Russia can harm US interests by harming the security interests of the second and third largest economies in the world. Yes, that would be bad. For everybody. For the US and Nigeria and Mongolia and Russia, I mean really? You're going to directly impact the security of South Korea, Japan and China just to stick it to the US because they prefer stability in that region? As I've said, these are all possible moves for Russia to make if we start a new Cold War with them. Berke Negri posted:I don't know man, the Eurasian Union seemed like a pretty big issue. Without a cooperative Ukraine it doesn't really work, not that it was going to work anyways. I agree that it was probably part of Putin's calculus. But that it's the main issue? And his claim that NATO expansion is not the primary issue? All expert testimony on the issue indicates that this is not the case. e: Logically, it doesn't make sense as the primary impetus anyway. The only way that invading Ukraine could possibly lead to it staying in the Eurasian Economic Union would be if Putin managed to capture Kiev and prop up a new puppet dictator. That was clearly never on the table for Russia, though, so if getting Ukraine to join the EEU as a full member was the primary objective, invading Ukraine would have been a self-defeating strategy from the start. Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:I wish MP would expand on this claim. As far as I know, Russia is still pursuing close ties with North Korea, and Belarus is still looking to expand trade with China. What levers does Russia have in Pyongyang that China doesn't? I can't imagine they have much leeway to either help/hurt the US, since whatever choice they make must be constrained by China's preferences. There are things that Russia does to help (or cooperate with for mutual benefit,) that it could cease to do. The most obvious one is that the North Koreans have self-contained, legal logging camps in Siberia that give an economic benefit to both nations. Its a drop in the bucket to Russia but NK's finances are pretty awful and have been for a decade so any little bit helps them. Other than that they can, and sometimes do, give North Korea an option beyond just China. Having Russia not go along with the US/ROK/Japan side in the six party talks muddies the waters on issues of importance to the North Koreans and likewise on UN resolutions. That point is all about giving the North options. At the same time having a hostile to North Korea Russia would do one thing that could really annoy the Norks. That is turning the current 2000 mile long Harbin to Thailand underground railroad into a 500 mile one to Vladivostok. North Korea really, really, really does not like illegal emigration and with the South Korean border a deathtrap people are forced to head north through China. Thats a negative inducement the Russians can make but China cannot (unless they want a flood of refugees going into their country and staying there, which they don't.) Finally any switch away from SWIFT towards a ruble-based banking system would allow North Koreans to avoid Banco Delta styled Treasury Department action (China's moving in the direction too, which is a shame as thats probably the most powerful non-military weapon we have left.) Of course its like I said before, merely restarting the talks while North Korea remains committed to maintaining nuclear force means that any restart to talks will be a failure for the US. Since North Korea in its current style of government will never give up nuclear weapons the only possible result of the talks (other than another collapse) is a weakening of very real US economic sanctions in exchange for North Korean future promises that will never arrive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not the case across the board, though. Russia has shown that it can pretty much make or break the US' policy towards Syria (and now, thanks to IS, you can include Iraq in that mix). Moscow was able to assist Iran in building its nuclear program with relative impunity. And, once again, it was that permanent veto. What individuals in semi-democratic and parliamentarian states often confuse in their analysis of non-elected leadership is that the main issue is, and always will be, power for the sake of itself. Without power, in these systems, one is dead. Death may come slow; it is sure to come. Putin's primary impetus behind his foreign policy actions is power for Putin's sake. That is the danger and difference I attempted to referrence with Kennan earlier in this thread: Putin is enacting populist foreign policy to placate his domestic base. It is acceptable when democracies and other elected leadership do so because there is a system in place to peacably remove them should their populist foreign policies prove themselves quagmires. There is no mechanism in place in Russia to achieve the same ends should Putin's foreign policies prove themselves quagmires, except the defenestration of Putin and his clique.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:What individuals in semi-democratic and parliamentarian states often confuse in their analysis of non-elected leadership is that the main issue is, and always will be, power for the sake of itself. I understand what you're saying here, and you may be completely right. But here's the thing: even if Putin's only motivation is to ensure his domestic political survival, he's still acting as a cipher for the will of the majority of the voting public. Ultimately, whether he's actually sincere or just pretending really hard to be sincere doesn't make much difference in terms of how his foreign policy looks. He is still going to behave like a true believer either way, and the US and its allies are still going to have to treat with his government like they are true believers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I understand what you're saying here, and you may be completely right. But here's the thing: even if Putin's only motivation is to ensure his domestic political survival, he's still acting as a cipher for the will of the majority of the voting public. Ultimately, whether he's actually sincere or just pretending really hard to be sincere doesn't make much difference in terms of how his foreign policy looks. He is still going to behave like a true believer either way, and the US and its allies are still going to have to treat with his government like they are true believers. He's acting as a cipher for a small circle of interests in Russia. When that will of the small circle becomes the will of a citizen's majority, there is an accurate term to describe the ideological framework of such actions: fascism. And that is the true danger of Putin's Ukranian adventure. Had it stopped in Crimea, it would mean Putin was still in control from top-down; as it has expanded, he is enacting policy from the bottom-up and must be contained at any cost to avoid future, and worse, conflict. You are correct that his sincerity in policy pursuit does not matter to US interests; what matters is that he is pursuing them. E: Putin's policies cross into direct democracy. Direct democracy is an extreme danger to global institutional stability when not filtered through systemic safeguards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Majorian, your entire argument seems to revolve around the rest of the world outside of The West being willing to side with these bizarre Russian plans to destabilze the entire planet just to stick it to the US. Do you seriously think China wouldn't have any problems with Russia supplying nukes to North Korea? They're already grumbling about them as it is. Also, your energy argument is nothing more than the old Russian Über-slavs that can withstand any hardship vs The Decadent West that crumbles at any inconvenience. Hint: One of the reasons Putin is so popular is because he's seen as having brought some sort of economic stability and certainty. Broken Cog fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A, South Korea is a close ally of the US, so a nuclear threat to them is a nuclear threat to our interests. B, once again, it would be a proliferation risk. I don't think this is really a hill worth dying on. I generally agree with your other assessments Re: Russia throwing a monkey wrench in our foreign policy just because. But North Korea is one that just doesn't make that much sense. It's needlessly antagonistic to China by changing the power calculus in the region drastically to their disfavor. Suddenly North Korea goes from China's noisy little attack dog to getting a seat at the big boy's table. China may not be able to stop Russia from doing it, but then again wouldn't it be tragic if that new oil pipeline and economic deals suddenly had to be reviewed because of a policy change and so forth. Not to mention the other countries in the region that would otherwise be neutral or favorable to Russia and crushing that perception. It'd be the foreign policy equivalent of going to an insane asylum, finding the most dangerous sociopath around and handing them an assault rifle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:He's acting as a cipher for a small circle of interests in Russia. When that will of the small circle becomes the will of a citizen's majority, there is an accurate term to describe the ideological framework of such actions: fascism. I dunno, I think it goes too far to call it fascism, since Putin's system isn't utopian or totalitarian. But it certainly is dangerous, I'll agree with you there. Broken Cog posted:Majorian, your entire argument seems to revolve around the rest of the world outside of The West being willing to side with these bizarre Russian plans to destabilze the entire planet just to stick it to the US. Do you seriously think China wouldn't have any problems with Russia supplying nukes to North Korea? They're already grumbling about them as it is. Well, first of all, I don't think I'd consider China to be "The West." Secondly, like I said earlier, what is China likely to do if Russia sends North Korea dual use technology? Especially if it's smuggled in without China's knowledge. As the AQ Khan network demonstrated, that's not a terribly difficult thing to do. ProfessorCurly is probably right that it's not the strategy Russia would take to undermine the US' interests if we were in Cold War II, but it's just one possible example out of many. quote:Also, your energy argument is nothing more than the old Russian Über-slavs that can withstand any hardship vs The Decadent West that crumbles at any inconvenience. No, it has more to do with the fact that Putin has a high enough approval rating that he can weather the political storm to a degree that Merkel or Hollande probably aren't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I dunno, I think it goes too far to call it fascism, since Putin's system isn't utopian or totalitarian. But it certainly is dangerous, I'll agree with you there. I'll let someone else detail whether and to what extent modern slavic life in Russia is totalitarian. I cannot say what China would do, I can tell you a range of reaction options depending who heads power cliques in the central committee: Nuclear proliferation to anti-Russian interests to organized coup over Siberia to limit Russian pacific power projection. Whatever the reaction, it will have dangerous and deadly results.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, first of all, I don't think I'd consider China to be "The West." Majorian posted:Secondly, like I said earlier, what is China likely to do if Russia sends North Korea dual use technology? Especially if it's smuggled in without China's knowledge. As the AQ Khan network demonstrated, that's not a terribly difficult thing to do. ProfessorCurly is probably right that it's not the strategy Russia would take to undermine the US' interests if we were in Cold War II, but it's just one possible example out of many. Majorian posted:No, it has more to do with the fact that Putin has a high enough approval rating that he can weather the political storm to a degree that Merkel or Hollande probably aren't. If Russia decides to isolate itself and cut the flow of oil and gas, you can be damned sure that the political and popular climate is gonna change in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if politicans that promised to "Stick it to the Russians" by refusing their demands and focusing on finding alternative energy sources or trade partners would boom in popularity, it might even unite people from across the spectrum. All of this is hypothetical of course, since the Russian decisionmakers aren't suicidal. Broken Cog fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Ferdinand the Bull posted:I would say elementary school students don't really know about the atomic bombs, but that's mostly from adults wanting to protect young children from horrible horrible thoughts, to preserve their innocence. However, The Americans dropping bombs over Japan, especially the atomic bombs, factors heavily into the modern Japanese psyche. Strange. You want to tell, that according to links which I gave small children write?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:Yeah, uh, that was my point. Ah, I misread your post. quote:You don't think they have oversight over their neighbouring state that owes their entire existance to Chinese financial and material aid? Well, first of all, Cliff Racer already pointed out that North Korea relies a lot upon Russia as well. And as I pointed out, the AQ Khan network managed to smuggle nuclear technology into North Korea without China finding out. quote:If Russia decides to isolate itself and cut the flow of oil and gas, you can be damned sure that the political and popular climate is gonna change in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if politicans that promised to "Stick it to the Russians" by refusing their demands and focusing on finding alternative energy sources or trade partners would boom in popularity, it might even unite people from across the spectrum. I'm sure it would - and like I've said multiple times, Russia would probably lose that Cold War. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the world wouldn't lose out on it as well. It's something that I think most people would like to avoid. My Imaginary GF posted:I'll let someone else detail whether and to what extent modern slavic life in Russia is totalitarian. Authoritarian, certainly. But it has a long way to go to be totalitarian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Nessus posted:They sound like fifth columnists. Perhaps you should purge them. Of course, the matter could be complicated, but it would perhaps be a small price to pay for the sake of making Russia stronger, more independent. I understood your sarcasm. But it not the 5th group, is group of elderly women who very much love gruesome stories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki seems pretty much like the closest analogue to Operation Barbarossa, in terms of the magnitude of the cultural impact, even if the result was very different. (Japan being occupied probably helped make sure of the latter.) Basicall utjkju, what you're suggesting is essentially the equivalent of many Russian students believing the Great Patriotic War was fought primarily against Italy. We have people who claim that besieged Leningrad wasn't. They in general "change" all World War II. My Imaginary GF posted:In other considerations, I wonder the most efficient means to provoke Siberian separatism. There are no bases for the Siberian separatism. These are only your dreams. utjkju fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
utjkju posted:We have people who claim that besieged Leningrad wasn't. Most Russians think Leningrad was besieged by America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Most Russians think Leningrad was besieged by America. ridiculously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
utjkju posted:There are no bases for the Siberian separatism. These are only your dreams. Bases? Mongolia, Canada, Alaska, Kamchatka, I can think of some other, specific locations for bases to support Siberian separstism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:29
|
|