|
Majorian posted:That's not clear at all. Back up your claims, please. So, explain Crimea then. If it was legitimate claim to Russia security, why the need to remove unit patches and come in under the guise of 'support' instead of actually upholding claims that it was to maintain Russian security against a growing NATO threat? Same with Ukraine, why the need to cover his rear end, if he has legitimate claims that Ukraine is creating an insecure situation for Russia, why pretend he is not actually involved? This facade of deniability makes no sense in the claims you are making. It makes more sense if placed back into the Soviet idea of puppet states and vassals as MeLKoR mentions. That is also upheld by the way it is portrayed in the Russian media and propaganda as a holy war against Western acceptance of homosexuality and fascism, which his population is all to eager to gobble up even the face of economic despair and violent put down of opponents and vocal critics. Majorian posted:All evidence suggests that Putin isn't just a kleptocrat, though - he's a megalomaniac who's obsessed with securing his legacy as a new groznyi tsar. He likes money, but more than anything, he wants to be remembered as Russia's George Washington. Right, so what driving force does a Megalomaniac need? None. He's a megalomaniac, chances are we could've taken the path advocated by the people you cite and he STILL would be doing this. Because he's a megalomaniac, not a reactive diplomat and patriot. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Mar 10, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
Majorian posted:And a rebuttal signed by 19 former ambassadors, senior government analysts, and State and DoD officials. And an open letter from 50 former ambassadors, senior government analysts, and State and DoD officials. Also, Kennan was not senile by 1998. quote:I read it the first time you posted it. Then why did you post blatant falsehoods, and chalking the incident up to "misunderstanding"? quote:It's not a convincing argument. I've told you why already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Your attempt to equate the people that disagree with you with climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers is pretty disingenuous appeal to authority because there isn't any "scientific consensus" that if NATO hadn't expanded none of this would have happened. What I've said is that it was a bad idea. What I've got are people who understand Russia better than the people in this thread saying that it was a bad idea. It's an appeal to authority, but given the gulf in expertise between them and those who are arguing against their position here, it's an entirely warranted one. quote:Why do you not think this? That is what puzzles me. The problem with your argument here is that Putin has a lot of public support, a lot of which isn't due to the lies and propaganda of his regime. I don't buy that he would have undertaken this gamble without that support. So the trick here is to make clear to the Russian public that we are not a threat to them, and that aggression towards their neighbors is unnecessary and counterproductive. quote:and yet you somehow think that if only NATO had done this one thing differently 20 years ago then none of this would have happened. When have I said it was just one thing that NATO did wrong? It was a whole series of things that both NATO and Russia did wrong. CommieGIR posted:So, explain Crimea then. If it was legitimate claim to Russia security, why the need to remove unit patches and come in under the guise of 'support' instead of actually upholding claims that it was to maintain Russian security against a growing NATO threat? They didn't want to risk a broader war, why else? quote:Right, so what driving force does a Megalomaniac need? Given that Putin is not an actual monarch (yet), continued public support is a big driving force that he needs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They didn't want to risk a broader war, why else? And yet they did it anyways, and are actively both materially and manpower wise supporting a conflict in another country that is wholly independent from them. For a country not wanting to risk a broader war, they sure do like walking a thin line. Majorian posted:Given that Putin is not an actual monarch (yet), continued public support is a big driving force that he needs. One of his loudest critics was just shot dead. Russian media is practically controlled by the state. Critics in the media are almost entirely non-existent due to threats/control. C'mon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And yet they did it anyways, Right, because they correctly judged that the US and NATO would not intervene directly. quote:One of his loudest critics was just shot dead. Russian media is practically controlled by the state. Critics in the media are almost entirely non-existent due to threats/control. C'mon. How does any of this contradict his need for popular support?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Right, because they correctly judged that the US and NATO would not intervene directly. .....and? So what pressure and threat does NATO actually present?  "Oh no, I'm being oppressed so I must lash out at my neighbors without fear of reprisal." It kind of speaks volumes about your claims when they don't seem to actually come true.Majorian posted:How does any of this contradict his need for popular support? Because when you actively silence your critics, you should that popular support is something you don't actually seek or need. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:.....and? So what pressure and threat does NATO actually present? I've already detailed why Russia views NATO's eastward expansion as threatening multiple times; see if you can't find it somewhere else in this thread. Or better yet, read the two articles that I posted. quote:Because when you actively silence your critics, you should that popular support is something you don't actually seek or need. That's ridiculous. There are plenty of strongmen who enjoy a lot of popular support, stay in power because of popular support, and still silence dissent brutally. Putin is a dictator, but he's also an exponent of the Russian political mentality as it currently exists. If you want the Russian government to stop overreacting to Western actions, you're going to have to change the way that the Russian public views the West.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because when you actively silence your critics, you should that popular support is something you don't actually seek or need.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I've already detailed why Russia views NATO's eastward expansion as threatening multiple times; see if you can't find it somewhere else in this thread. Or better yet, read the two articles that I posted. It'd be nice if that claim actually carried some weight in the face of what Putin and Russia is willing to do to get their way. A sort of stand and deliver on the threats of NATO expansionism. Majorian posted:That's ridiculous. There are plenty of strongmen who enjoy a lot of popular support, stay in power because of popular support, and still silence dissent brutally. Putin is a dictator, but he's also an exponent of the Russian political mentality as it currently exists. If you want the Russian government to stop overreacting to Western actions, you're going to have to change the way that the Russian public views the West. And they loved Stalin too. A Buttery Pastry posted:If you're a bad enough dude maybe, but silencing critics and controlling the media can also be a way to ensure popular support. Like making up flimsy excuses to invade your neighbors to polish your image as a defender of your subjects. For many countries, yes, even a dictator needs some sort of support. But we're talking about Russia. They are rather unique in the way dictators get their popular support while at the same time not even needing it to retain overall control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It'd be nice if that claim actually carried some weight in the face of what Putin and Russia is willing to do to get their way. It's how the Russian public perceives things. If you want them to stop being so aggressive towards their neighbors, you're going to have to either change their viewpoint, or else go to war with them. quote:And they loved Stalin too. Stalin wormed his way to the head of a totalitarian system that didn't need public support to stay in power, though. Putin, while he is an authoritarian ruler, still depends upon the will of the Russian public to keep him in power. quote:For many countries, yes, even a dictator needs some sort of support. But we're talking about Russia. They are rather unique in the way dictators get their popular support while at the same time not even needing it to retain overall control. Ah, so I assume you have some evidence or data that confirms that Putin does not need popular support to remain in power, and that you're not just talking out of your rear end again. I look forward to seeing this evidence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
I'm reposting this part because I edited it in in my previous post and I'm not sure you saw it before the page changed.Majorian posted:I obviously don't believe there are homo-fascists anywhere, nor do I think that the West truly intends any harm to Russia. But this is a game of perceptions, not intentions.  Majorian posted:
All evidence suggests that Putin isn't just a kleptocrat, though - he's a megalomaniac who's obsessed with securing his legacy as a new groznyi tsar. He likes money, but more than anything, he wants to be remembered as Russia's George Washington. Now, to the new post. Majorian posted:What I've said is that it was a bad idea. What I've got are people who understand Russia better than the people in this thread saying that it was a bad idea. It's an appeal to authority, but given the gulf in expertise between them and those who are arguing against their position here, it's an entirely warranted one. quote:The problem with your argument here is that Putin has a lot of public support, a lot of which isn't due to the lies and propaganda of his regime. I don't buy that he would have undertaken this gamble without that support. So the trick here is to make clear to the Russian public that we are not a threat to them, and that aggression towards their neighbors is unnecessary and counterproductive. He has the means to create that public support and that was exactly what he did. Even with no NATO expansion he could have ran the exact same script about "a NATO backed coup in Ukraine to genocide peaceful russians and station NATO nukes there" and the public would have bought it all the same. "Oh but they would never believe such a lie if there had been no NATO expansion" you'll say, "it would be too preposterous". Let me remind you that the russian people believes NATO mercenaries in Ukraine are filling up mass graves with russian babushkas. quote:When have I said it was just one thing that NATO did wrong? It was a whole series of things that both NATO and Russia did wrong. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's how the Russian public perceives things. If you want them to stop being so aggressive towards their neighbors, you're going to have to either change their viewpoint, or else go to war with them. How the Russian public perceives things and how they are in reality is often two different things, a problem for many countries by especially exasperated by the Russian public's experiences during the Cold War and the resulting USSR collapse. Things are better than they've ever been, even with the economic crisis. So, the option really is, from your standpoint, go to war with them. Majorian posted:Stalin wormed his way to the head of a totalitarian system that didn't need public support to stay in power, though. Putin, while he is an authoritarian ruler, still depends upon the will of the Russian public to keep him in power. And how has Putin done any different? Even when they voted a different president in, Putin was literally the puppet master in the background, and I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. The idea that his position of power is in any way dependent upon public support is laughable, the only people who could reign him in is the oligarchs, and they have shown no real intention of doing so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Then what? Everybody did things wrong in the past, great! Point remains, even without NATO expansion Putin would still be - in your words - a megalomaniac obsessed with securing his legacy as a new groznyi tsar. Unless you are arguing that NATO expansion drove Putin literally mad and that he would otherwise have been Gandhi I don't get the point of this. A megalomaniac will do megalomaniac things if given the power, appeasing him and giving him assurances of safety isn't going to do poo poo. He's not acting because he's scared, he's acting because he's a megalomaniac. Putin doesn't have to be a megalomaniac to keep harping on military security. Russia is not even in the same league as it's competitors economically, and economics is how power is projected in 2015. But he does have a military force more powerful than many competitors. He can either flex his military muscle to get what he wants, or not get what he wants. The US, EU, and probably China would all rather Russia had less military, but what can we offer to reduce it? Just pay them to disarm and convince them that this will turn them into an economic powerhouse?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
And this loving obsession with "what the russian public believes" is driving me nuts. First of all the russian people believes what they are told, second the german people believed jews were responsible for WW2, so what? "Maybe if we give Germany some lebensraum Hitler will stop telling the german people that jews are to blame for everything, Germany really got a lovely deal in Versailles you know". I'm sorry to godwin but really... Our concerns with what other people truly-honest-to-god-cross-my-fingers-and-hope-to-die believe only goes as far as those people don't start loving up their neighbors. Beyond that it stops mattering what they "believe" and it becomes a matter of containing them, doubly so if - as is the case - they are being manipulated by their government into believing all sorts of insane rubbish. Infinite Karma posted:Putin doesn't have to be a megalomaniac to keep harping on military security. Russia is not even in the same league as it's competitors economically, and economics is how power is projected in 2015. But he does have a military force more powerful than many competitors. He can either flex his military muscle to get what he wants, or not get what he wants. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
NATO governments didn't orchestrate the Maidan, but we eagerly associated ourselves with and encouraged it, our agents were caught discussing how the post-Maidan governments should be arranged, and so on. If Putin has no respect for Ukrainian sovereignty then it doesn't matter why Ukraine is aligning West, just that it is and we are welcoming it. A better approach would have been to just wait it out, since the new government would have also been rubbish and the EU was never going to offer Ukraine anything like the goodies the Kremlin was, so a new less overtly venal pro-Moscow ruler could take over when the pendulum swung back again. But instead he panicked. Unfortunately there's no way to stop Russia short of a direct intervention, which isn't going to happen, and that's the fundamental basis of the de-escalation position: there's no way to achieve a Ukraine independent of Russia in the short term at a price we are willing to pay, so so instead we should act to limit the damage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Yes and those perceptions are being created by Putin from whole cloth with no basis in NATO's real actions. But that's obviously untrue, because as I've shown you, the trend began well before Putin came to power. He didn't even take a vocally nationalistic tone until the mid-2000's. I mean, I would respond to the rest of your post, but it's so completely based on this incorrect assumption on your part that it's not really worth it. CommieGIR posted:How the Russian public perceives things and how they are in reality is often two different things, a problem for many countries by especially exasperated by the Russian public's experiences during the Cold War and the resulting USSR collapse. Things are better than they've ever been, even with the economic crisis. What does this word soup even mean? How are things "better than they've ever been"? For whom? quote:And how has Putin done any different? Well, he came to power on a wave of popular support, so that in and of itself is a pretty fundamental difference. quote:Even when they voted a different president in, Putin was literally the puppet master in the background, A move that had the public's support. quote:and I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. The idea that his position of power is in any way dependent upon public support is laughable Great. Post evidence of this. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:And this loving obsession with "what the russian public believes" is driving me nuts. Too loving bad. Russian public perceptions are a big part of this crisis, and unless we want to go to war, they're what we have to change. Now stop whining.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Just pay them to disarm and convince them that this will turn them into an economic powerhouse? Considering some of the recent propaganda coming out of the Russian equivalent of Facebook, they literally promote Russian occupation as a key to economic success. Peel posted:NATO governments didn't orchestrate the Maidan, but we eagerly associated ourselves with and encouraged it, our agents were caught discussing how the post-Maidan governments should be arranged, and so on. If Putin has no respect for Ukrainian sovereignty then it doesn't matter why Ukraine is aligning West, just that it is and we are welcoming it. True, but the idea that Maidan's upbringing had anything to do with NATO in the first place doesn't hold water, despite Putin's insistence. Ironically, Maidan was that 'popular support' that Majorian keeps harping on becoming nill and a president that did not do what the majority wanted being removed from power by fleeing to the country that was basically paying him to get their way. Majorian posted:Too loving bad. Russian public perceptions are a big part of this crisis, and unless we want to go to war, they're what we have to change. Yeeeeeaaaaahhhhh. That was never happening even before this crisis. You are arguing that we must change the unchangeable. What do you suggest, we drop leaflets or something? Majorian posted:What does this word soup even mean? How are things "better than they've ever been"? For whom? Remember that 'perception' thing you were talking about? People are feeling the economic crisis, but this is really nothing new for the majority of Russians, they went from one economic crisis to the next, and the public will likely not flinch on supporting Putin despite the crisis, because they've been raised to prepare for the hard times because of the sort of issues their parents and grandparents faced in the USSR. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:True, but the idea that Maidan's upbringing had anything to do with NATO in the first place doesn't hold water, despite Putin's insistence. Ironically, Maidan was that 'popular support' that Majorian keeps harping on becoming nill and a president that did not do what the majority wanted being removed from power by fleeing to the country that was basically paying him to get their way. That's nice and all, but right now, Russia is the country with the power to either keep this crisis going, or end it. The determining factor in this is whether or not the Russian public's mind is changed about the perceived threat that the West poses to them. CommieGIR posted:Yeeeeeaaaaahhhhh. That was never happening even before this crisis. Explain why you are so sure of this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, I would respond to the rest of your post, but it's so completely based on this incorrect assumption on your part that it's not really worth it. In that case my apologies, I'll stop making GBS threads up your thread with huge blocks of care posts and instead defer to the universal consensus that NATO baaaad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
No, keep posting. This thread is squeezing out purestrain crazy from the Russia supporters and it's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:In that case my apologies, I'll stop making GBS threads up your thread with huge blocks of care posts and instead defer to the universal consensus that NATO baaaad. Or you could stop being childish, acknowledge that I'm right on that count, and adjust your argument accordingly. -Troika- posted:No, keep posting. This thread is squeezing out purestrain crazy from the Russia supporters and it's hilarious. There aren't any Russia supporters here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's nice and all, but right now, Russia is the country with the power to either keep this crisis going, or end it. The determining factor in this is whether or not the Russian public's mind is changed about the perceived threat that the West poses to them. So, we need to drop leaflets to let them know that we're not killing civilians with NATO troops in Ukraine right now? The NATO threat is a boogeyman that the Russian's have created and Putin has kept in place. The greatest part is you continue to perpetuate it despite all evidence to the contrary and then bemoan that very same threat that WE present. Majorian posted:Or you could stop being childish, acknowledge that I'm right on that count, and adjust your argument accordingly.  You're upset he doesn't share your viewpoint, that doesn't make him childish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/09/how-not-to-save-ukraine-arming-kiev-is-a-bad-idea/ I want to use a theoretical concept from this article to help frame the debate in this thread. quote:Those who favor arming Ukraine are also applying “deterrence model” remedies to what is almost certainly a “spiral model” situation. In his classic book Perception and Misperception in International Politics, political scientist Robert Jervis pointed out that states may undertake what appear to be threatening actions for two very different reasons. I think this is a fair description of the fundamental disagreement between MeLKoR and Majorian, and between the two views on how to approach Russia more generally - Melkor (et al) thinks the idea that Russia is being threatened by NATO is so absurd that no informed person (as we take Putin to be) could believe it, so it must be a rhetorical mask for imperialism. Majorian (et al) thinks Putin is genuinely concerned to restrain/deter NATO and is acting on that basis. And as the above lays out, the two produce contradictory policy recommendations. What worries me is that I think it's possible both parties believe themselves to be acting defensively, in which case the spiral would apply to both of them, which leads to worrying places. Luckily there's a safety valve in that we (hopefully) aren't willing to directly intervene in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So, we need to drop leaflets to let them know that we're not killing people with NATO troops in Ukraine right now? No, we need to back off and stop appearing like a bogeyman, regardless of whether or not that's how we're intending to look. quote:despite all evidence to the contrary What evidence is that? quote:
No, he was objectively wrong in his statement, and now he's whining. That's childish. Peel posted:What worries me is that I think it's possible both parties believe themselves to be acting defensively, in which case the spiral would apply to both of them, which leads to worrying places. Well-put. It wouldn't be the first time an empire has expanded due to perceptions of vulnerability from the outside. If you asked the Romans, they would have said that they never fought an offensive war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Peel posted:http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/09/how-not-to-save-ukraine-arming-kiev-is-a-bad-idea/ Its a very good point, but it doesn't really recognize the sort of issue we already know is happening in Russia's support of both the annexation of Crimea and in their military support of the Ukraine crisis. It'd be one thing if Maidan had crossed borders into Russian territory and started urging uprising, its quite another when Cossack units from states loyal to Russian just suddenly show up in Ukraine using Russian equipment and with Russian support for fight against the 'encroachment of NATO and the west'. Someone has a bad narrative already going in, and while Maidan has a bunch of shitheads, they are not making up stories like Putin seems inclined to do. Majorian posted:No, we need to back off and stop appearing like a bogeyman, regardless of whether or not that's how we're intending to look. Once again, what do you suggest? Leaflets? Heartfelt apologies? An informative documentary? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its a very good point, but it doesn't really recognize the sort of issue we already know is happening in Russia's support of both the annexation of Crimea and in their military support of the Ukraine crisis. It'd be one thing if Maidan had crossed borders into Russian territory and started urging uprising, its quite another when Cossack units from states loyal to Russian just suddenly show up in Ukraine using Russian equipment and with Russian support for fight against the 'encroachment of NATO and the west'. You're missing the article's point. The Russian public believes that they have behaved defensively in this instance. e: To whit - quote:Yet the evidence in this case suggests the spiral model is far more applicable. Russia is not an ambitious rising power like Nazi Germany or contemporary China; it is an aging, depopulating, and declining great power trying to cling to whatever international influence it still possesses and preserve a modest sphere of influence near its borders, so that stronger states — and especially the United States — cannot take advantage of its growing vulnerabilities. Putin & Co. are also genuinely worried about America’s efforts to promote “regime change” around the world — including Ukraine — a policy that could eventually threaten their own positions. It is lingering fear, rather than relentless ambition, that underpins Russia’s response in Ukraine. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Probably naive question, if I might intrude. There's a thesis that the Russian public was frightened by NATO expansion, and that this reaction was independent of any government propaganda to that effect. My question is: how did the Russian people at large learn about the expansion and what there was to fear? My sense of that time is that Russia did not enjoy a really diverse media environment, so who was telling the "NATO is coming" story? Wouldn't they have to overcome the pro-Western stance of Yeltsin's government?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's how the Russian public perceives things. If you want them to stop being so aggressive towards their neighbors, you're going to have to either change their viewpoint, or else go to war with them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Probably naive question, if I might intrude. Please! I'm happy to have a fresh point of view on this.  quote:There's a thesis that the Russian public was frightened by NATO expansion, and that this reaction was independent of any government propaganda to that effect. It's a complicated question, but during the early Yeltsin era, there were already, understandably, preexisting suspicions of NATO and its intentions. After all, NATO had been Russia's enemy for decades. Nationalists like Zhirinovsky and irredentist Communists like Zyuganov played up these suspicions for support, but Yeltsin also faced a lot of pressure from the military to take an anti-NATO expansion stance. His public position obviously grew louder over time, as his government grew more and more desperate for public support. A Buttery Pastry posted:How does one change the viewpoint of a people whose media is heavily controlled by people who helped foment that viewpoint in the first place? Doing things like lifting the sanctions, signaling our benign intentions through arms control agreements, promising an indefinite moratorium to NATO expansion, etc, would all be good starts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're missing the article's point. The Russian public believes that they have behaved defensively in this instance.  They BELIEVE that because THAT is what they are TOLD!Their media is entirely controlled and filtered by the Russian Government. Once again, you have this weird idea that its all about the perception of NATO when there is really no realistic way to change that perception because there is no way Putin would allow that sort of perception to be passed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Except that they were already well on the road to believing this before Putin came to power. You keep refusing to admit this, but it is unfortunately true. Do yourself a favor: read the Walt article that Peel posted recently. It will help you gain a better grasp of the actual timeline of events and trends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Except that they were already well on the road to believing this before Putin came to power. You keep refusing to admit this, but it is unfortunately true. Again, what is your brilliant suggestion to counter this? A rousing documentary? Leaflets? A total dissolution of NATO? Majorian posted:Do yourself a favor: read the Walt article that Peel posted recently. It will help you gain a better grasp of the actual timeline of events and trends. Holy crap, it DOESN'T MATTER. At all. The timeline could be completely reversed and we'd still be sitting here discussing how to improve the West's image in Russia. You have this really unreasonable idea that its entirely the West's fault, the West is the aggressor, the West screwed it all up, and the West needs to improve their image when NATO could be passing out phamplets in Moscow and begging forgiveness and there'd still be a massive distrust of NATO. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Again, what is your brilliant suggestion to counter this? A rousing documentary? Leaflets? A total dissolution of NATO? I've posted it several times over the last couple pages, and throughout this thread. See if you can find it yourself. (because I don't think you're even reading most of what I'm writing at this point) quote:Holy crap, it DOESN'T MATTER. At all. The timeline could be completely reversed and we'd still be sitting here discussing how to improve the West's image in Russia. LOL, you just really, really, really don't want me to be right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Except that they were already well on the road to believing this before Putin came to power. You keep refusing to admit this, but it is unfortunately true. Majorian posted:I've posted it several times over the last couple pages, and throughout this thread. See if you can find it yourself. (because I don't think you're even reading most of what I'm writing at this point)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:LOL, you just really, really, really don't want me to be right. You're right. Its all NATO's fault. Thanks for making this wonderful fun filled thread to convince us that the enemy was us all along. The annexation of Crimea and the crisis in Ukraine was just punishment for our crimes. A Buttery Pastry posted:Which is not particularly relevant to the question of how you change public perceptions in a state in which the media is controlled by people with the opposite agenda. What solution? I'm still waiting for his solution. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Which is not particularly relevant to the question of how you change public perceptions in a state in which the media is controlled by people with the opposite agenda. You're overestimating the depth of government control over the media. While the Russian media is mostly pro-Putin, it is not a one-for-one mouthpiece of the Kremlin's agenda. quote:You've posted suggestions which might work if Russia had free media, or the Russian government was interested in deescalation. You really should read Walt's blog post. It demonstrates why the Russian government really is interested in deescalation. CommieGIR posted:You're right. Its all NATO's fault. Thanks for making this wonderful fun filled thread to convince us that the enemy was us all along. Hey, don't blame me for being able to back up my claims with evidence and expert testimony. quote:What solution? I'm still waiting for his solution. I've posted it a bunch of times already. Read my posts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Hey, don't blame me for being able to back up my claims with evidence and expert testimony. Oh please. Majorian posted:I've posted it a bunch of times already. Read my posts. You think they are being encircled by NATO and are just responding to military pressure. We have no reason to believe that.Majorian posted:You're overestimating the depth of government control over the media. While the Russian media is mostly pro-Putin, it is not a one-for-one mouthpiece of the Kremlin's agenda. http://en.rsf.org/russia.html https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/russia CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
I've actually posted a lot of evidence indicating that this is precisely what the Russian public believes. You're the one whose argument effectively adds up to you plugging your ears and shouting "Lalalala I can't hear you!" This doesn't exactly undermine my claim that you and A Buttery Pastry are overestimating the depth of the State's control of the media.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
Majorian posted:This doesn't exactly undermine my claim that you and A Buttery Pastry are overestimating the depth of the State's control of the media. quote:The authorities exert significant influence over the information landscape through a vast state-owned media empire. The state owns, either directly or through proxies—including Gazprom Media, an arm of the state-owned energy giant Gazprom; and National Media Group, owned by Yuriy Kovalchuk, a close ally of Putin and board chairman of Rossiya Bank, one of the largest banks in Russia—all five of the major national television networks, as well as national radio networks, important national newspapers, and national news agencies. It also controls more than 60 percent of the country’s estimated 45,000 regional and local newspapers and periodicals. State-run television is the main news source for most Russians and generally serves as a propaganda tool of the government, while the newspapers and radio stations with the largest audiences largely focus on entertainment content. The government also owns RT, an international, multilingual satellite news network, which generally seeks to promote the Kremlin’s take on global events. Surely, we'll be able to improve NATO/The West's image in this environment. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:16
|
|