|
Katt posted:Russians hate non-Russians and there is no cultural dishonour in what you do to non-Russians. However if a country retaliates against Russia for the actions of Russia then Russia will be very indignant over this act of aggression. pretty hot take, but you forgot to include "savage viciousness of their tatar blood" and "foul kolkhoz stench" 
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:pretty hot take, but you forgot to include "savage viciousness of their tatar blood" and "foul kolkhoz stench" That poster is Russian IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:That poster is Russian IIRC.  Actually no but Russians tend to be super nationalistic. For better or worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The German court in question decided Puigdemont couldn't be convicted for what Spain wanted him in prison, since the equivalent for the Spanish charge of "rebellion" ("Hochverrat") needs a violent act. Slight correction: Spanish law already requires that there be violence. That fact seems to have slipped the minds of the fiscalia and Spanish judges though - can't imagine why.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Katt posted:Russians hate non-Russians and there is no cultural dishonour in what you do to non-Russians. However if a country retaliates against Russia for the actions of Russia then Russia will be very indignant over this act of aggression. I mean historically most invasions of Russia have actually mostly conquered Ukraine and in some cases Poland.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Altivia posted:Slight correction: Spanish law already requires that there be violence. That fact seems to have slipped the minds of the fiscalia and Spanish judges though - can't imagine why. Well, good for Puigdemont then that we Germans are obsessive legalists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Katt posted:Actually no but Russians tend to be super nationalistic. For better or worse. That is pretty ballsy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:probably, Boris blatantly lied in an interview with die welle and is now attempting to damage the credibility of Porton Down to save face. The UK government have massively overreached the circumstancial evidence and decided that the obvious is the same as the demonstrable. The UK has the dumbest loving government.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 03:15
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Cerebral Bore posted:For anybody who might be able to grasp some nuance, let me tell you why Russia is being so aggressive. So we've got the early 90s and the cold war is over and there's a lot of talk about how we all can get along and poo poo. Then the 90s happen, and Russia goes straight off the cliff and the people who drove the bus are fully backed and advised by the west. Then in the late 90s NATO expansion starts and ends with the former main enemy on Russia's doorstep. Did anyone in Russia seriously expect that ~The West~ would actually be gracious victors and let Russia into the cool kids club, because clearly the cultural victory of capitalism over the Soviets was what mattered and not disaster capitalism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
The Russian oligarchs who bled the country dry were fully backed and advised by The West?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
Altivia posted:Slight correction: Spanish law already requires that there be violence. That fact seems to have slipped the minds of the fiscalia and Spanish judges though - can't imagine why. Nah, they are very aware. That's why they have been exaggerating the incidents that exists. From what I understand, German law for high treason requires for the perpetrator to have at least the potential of bringing the Government to their knees using violence. Which, yeah, is not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:The Russian oligarchs who bled the country dry were fully backed and advised by The West? e: Obviously there is the Western/American support for Yeltsin's reelection mentioned earlier, would the communists winning have stopped this? What were they like at this point? A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Apr 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 07:33
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:The Russian oligarchs who bled the country dry were fully backed and advised by The West? On an individual level, in the sense that they were Western "assets"? No (mybe there are exceptions, I kinda doubt it). But the policies which made these oligarchs profit were proposed and lobbied for by Western advisors, and the politicians who executed such policies (and got rich off them as well) were protected from backlash by Western support. There is pretty much no reason to deny that the dismantling of the USSR was a huge gently caress up, and that Western opportunists were happy to pour oil into the fire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 07:45
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:Nah, they are very aware. That's why they have been exaggerating the incidents that exists. From what I understand, German law for high treason requires for the perpetrator to have at least the potential of bringing the Government to their knees using violence. Which, yeah, is not going to happen. German extradition law does not look at the foreign criminal law but requires the German court to autonomously check if the actual human behaviour would constitute a crime under German criminal law (With certain allowances, because the German laws themselves only sanction treason against Germany, obviously).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 08:06
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Well, good for Puigdemont then that we Germans are obsessive legalists. Truly Germany is the saviour of Catalonia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 09:48
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Truly Germany is the saviour of Catalonia. Verily! Not even the first time, remember Charlesmagne.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
The early 90s free-for-all sort of rhymes with the USSR situation of connected people living pretty nicely off the system and the habitual getting poo poo done by pulling strings and calling favors, and seems to have some continuity with the current situation of Putin / Medvedev et al vs. the current set of people like Deripaska*, although they have switched from a manic smash and grab to a more sustainable level of extraction. Also neoliberal poo poo was all the rage in the West as well during this time, Schröder and Blair etc. It's probably taking things a bit far to describe the whole mess as a nefarious ploy by the perfidious West, and awfully convenient for the current set of assholes running the country at that. *who is apparently married to the daughter of Yeltsin's son-in-law? Also when you think of Russian-Western relations you gotta remember that starting in 94 we were looking at gross rear end pics of Grozny on the nightly news which didn't much improve Russia's favorability ratings. It looked like they were just completely losing their poo poo. aphid_licker fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Apr 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:The early 90s free-for-all sort of rhymes with the USSR situation of connected people living pretty nicely off the system and the habitual getting poo poo done by pulling strings and calling favors, and seems to have some continuity with the current situation of Putin / Medvedev et al vs. the current set of people like Deripaska*, although they have switched from a manic smash and grab to a more sustainable level of extraction. Also neoliberal poo poo was all the rage in the West as well during this time, Schröder and Blair etc. It's probably taking things a bit far to describe the whole mess as a nefarious ploy by the perfidious West, and awfully convenient for the current set of assholes running the country at that. However, from a Russian perspective, this was a relatively alien addition to their political system, especially when you literally had American advisors telling your government what to do. Then you had the 1993 coup, the 1996 election interference, the loan issues in 1992/1997, multiple instances of hyperinflation and Russian society nearly collapsing on itself. Not only were the Russians (and the rest of the former Soviet Union) hit harder by shock therapy, it is something you can trace to a relatively small group of people who had Ivy league educations. It the current group is corrupt as poo poo or extractive, but they have kept society from collapsing on itself. quote:Also when you think of Russian-Western relations you gotta remember that starting in 94 we were looking at gross rear end pics of Grozny on the nightly news which didn't much improve Russia's favorability ratings. It looked like they were just completely losing their poo poo. Eh the brutality in the first war was as much against Russian soldiers themselves considering how badly it was run. Maybe you mean the Second Chechen War? The one where Grozny actually got flattened. Also, what is the point here? There was a brutal war in the country, so better let it rot?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:The early 90s free-for-all sort of rhymes with the USSR situation of connected people living pretty nicely off the system and the habitual getting poo poo done by pulling strings and calling favors, and seems to have some continuity with the current situation of Putin / Medvedev et al vs. the current set of people like Deripaska*, although they have switched from a manic smash and grab to a more sustainable level of extraction. Also neoliberal poo poo was all the rage in the West as well during this time, Schröder and Blair etc. It's probably taking things a bit far to describe the whole mess as a nefarious ploy by the perfidious West, and awfully convenient for the current set of assholes running the country at that. I didn't live through the fall of the Soviet Union, but I can imagine that there was much more hostility toward Russians back then than even now. Lots of people felt pretty raw about the whole cold war thing and probably didn't feel very enthusiastic about selflessly financing a hated enemy's economic recovery out of their own pockets. Ardennes posted:It the current group is corrupt as poo poo or extractive, but they have kept society from collapsing on itself. Not yet. Lets wait and see. Most authoritarian developing countries have been hit pretty hard by civil unrest in the last couple of years and Russia is setting up the perfect breeding ground for a Arab spring/color revolution type situation: unsustainable military spending, political& economic stagnation, crippling corruption, cultural isolationism, violent political oppression, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:However, from a Russian perspective, this was a relatively alien addition to their political system, especially when you literally had American advisors telling your government what to do. Then you had the 1993 coup, the 1996 election interference, the loan issues in 1992/1997, multiple instances of hyperinflation and Russian society nearly collapsing on itself. Not only were the Russians (and the rest of the former Soviet Union) hit harder by shock therapy, it is something you can trace to a relatively small group of people who had Ivy league educations. Ardennes posted:It the current group is corrupt as poo poo or extractive, but they have kept society from collapsing on itself. Ardennes posted:Eh the brutality in the first war was as much against Russian soldiers themselves considering how badly it was run. Maybe you mean the Second Chechen War? The one where Grozny actually got flattened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994–95) We have been talking itt about Western-Russian relations in the period and how the possibility of a new start was squandered and that definitely colored my perception. RF was not being all doe-eyed and cuddly and still getting rejected by the West, there was reason to feel a bit off about them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I didn't live through the fall of the Soviet Union, but I can imagine that there was much more hostility toward Russians back then than even now. Lots of people felt pretty raw about the whole cold war thing and probably didn't feel very enthusiastic about selflessly financing a hated enemy's economic recovery out of their own pockets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Not yet. Lets wait and see. Most authoritarian developing countries have been hit pretty hard by civil unrest in the last couple of years and Russia is setting up the perfect breeding ground for a Arab spring/color revolution type situation: unsustainable military spending, political& economic stagnation, crippling corruption, cultural isolationism, violent political oppression, etc. I will be frank, it isn't going to happen any time soon unless something dramatically changes. Here in Moscow, the opposition is isolated and if anything the "cultural isolation" and "hostility of the west" has put Russians in a more patriotic/defensive position. Growth is low, but so is inflation and unemployment. If you want to be skeptical, that is fine, but the statistics are available and to be honest, Westerns are still free to roam around here. The "second Cold War" has allowed the government to successfully transfer most of that anger externally. aphid_licker posted:Gaidar has his degree from Lomonossov, Chubais from Leningrad, Chodorkowski was a Komsomol functionary, Beresowski's Awtowaz business activities predate Perestroika. Roman Abramovich's early hustles are late USSR as gently caress. The system did not suddenly go from squinting at the West over rows of tanks to naively going sure new friends come in here and tell us how to run all our poo poo. There's continuity. Those men were in place, but what actually cracked the system? It was persuasive and sudden shock therapy that forced mass privatization all at once and was almost completely unregulated. Obviously late Soviet proto-capitalists took advantage of the situation, but it wasn't somehow accidental. They sawed the doors off the asylum and let the maniacs loose on the streets. quote:This is sort of still up in the air as we have no idea how the transition away from Putin is going to go and they are running a risky and expensive foreign policy. Also it has been almost twenty years now since collapse has been staved off and they aren't exactly making huge steps forward. How long are they going to continue lining their pockets while distracting everyone with shiny nukes and pointing at the West. Probably a while because the West is willing to play the game and Putin can score points without making an effort. Also, what is the alternative? Everyone knows the West will easily be as implicitly hostile to any future Russian government at this point, and that regime change is "rolling the dice" with a deep negative handicap. quote:First battle of Grozny was not exactly no big deal That was in 1994 after shock-therapy and the coup already happened. Pretending that the First Chechen War somehow changed anything is just scrambling to find something to throw. To be honest, is there anything Russia could have done to be "cute and cuddly" and deserving of emergency aid? A Buttery Pastry posted:If we're talking about Americans, they were really kind of okay with Russians, more than they are now apparently. Perhaps the way the Cold War ended with the USSR basically deflating over a decade had something to do with it, making the whole thing just seem kinda depressing, which at least gives people something to sympathize with. Obviously that is very very different from actually financially supporting a former enemy state though - if that's what Russia wanted, it should have capitulated entirely and let America occupy it like it Japan and Germany. You are out of your god drat mind, but thank you for being honest. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Apr 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:You are out of your god drat mind, but thank you for being honest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I think you misunderstood me. I don't think Russia should have let America occupy it - but I'm pretty sure that'd be the condition for America basically doing a Marshall Plan on Russia to get it up to speed with the West. That kind of assistance is for countries that have joined the American Empire, not countries that have the ability to tell you to gently caress off the moment they've stabilized. Eh the US didn't need to even give them a Marshall plan, but enough loans to keep their heads above water. But the point stands, I actually don't think Russians or Gorbachev ever realized how much the US really wanted the Soviet Union and its prime successor to "eat poo poo" so to speak. I think that lesson was learned, and here we are: stuck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Eh the US didn't need to even give them a Marshall plan, but enough loans to keep their heads above water. Ardennes posted:But the point stands, I actually don't think Russians or Gorbachev ever realized how much the US really wanted the Soviet Union and its prime successor to "eat poo poo" so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Eh the US didn't need to even give them a Marshall plan, but enough loans to keep their heads above water. But the point stands, I actually don't think Russians or Gorbachev ever realized how much the US really wanted the Soviet Union and its prime successor to "eat poo poo" so to speak. Is there a good book or something on how Gorbachev, Yeltsin and the Soviet public went from "NATO is the great Satan" to "why don't you want to be my frieeeeend?  " in only a couple of years? I'm still having trouble to understand how that happened exactly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
I'm kind of wondering that myself, because every Russian's response to this question seems to flip from "The West is our enemy!" to "The West didn't save us!" overnight with zero self-awareness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 09:45
|
|
|
It makes total sense when you see it as more 'We surrendered overnight to the West's way of doing things and they immediately hosed us over in every which way, gently caress em all.'
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 10:25
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:It makes total sense when you see it as more 'We surrendered overnight to the West's way of doing things and they immediately hosed us over in every which way, gently caress em all.' 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 11:15
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:It makes total sense when you see it as more 'We surrendered overnight to the West's way of doing things and they immediately hosed us over in every which way, gently caress em all.' yeah but that's harder to indignantly make fun of, in a desperate effort to delegitimise any enmity that russians might harbor, with regards to their fair and honest treatment in the magnanimous care of the western powers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:It makes total sense when you see it as more 'We surrendered overnight to the West's way of doing things and they immediately hosed us over in every which way, gently caress em all.' I wouldn't call shock therapy "the West's way of doing it". As far as I understand it, it was one of multiple competing approaches to a free market transition and a controversial one at that. Poland, the Czechs and Slovaks successfully did their own modified versions of it (IRC Poland didn't privatize state companies) and Belarus didn't do it at all and went their own way. I'm sure there were supporters of alternatives transition approaches in Russia too, they just didn't win out because the whole country was terminally hosed from decades of rot and Yeltsin managed to grab power before anyone else could. Technically, the West's way of doing things is a pluralistic society with a mixed market economy, strong rule of law, free press, separation of powers, high productivity, etc. I'm sure Russia would be down with that even today, if they just had a magic wand to could make it happen instantly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 12:52
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Is there a good book or something on how Gorbachev, Yeltsin and the Soviet public went from "NATO is the great Satan" to "why don't you want to be my frieeeeend? There are books out there, but to be honest (from a personal level) I don't think it has reached the point where you are going to find something that high quality. I mean Gorbachev's memoirs are out there if you want his take on it, otherwise, it is mostly political science. The answer is simply a change in the leadership in Moscow from the old guard (Brezhnev, Andropov, Cherenko) who had come into the party under Stalin and had held more or less the status quo from 1965 to 1985. A big issue is that this generation basically ignored many of the growing complications that were happening under the Soviet Union, and honestly really didn't want to change. Gorbachev was seen by the rest of the party as a much-needed breath of fresh air, but in all honesty, he didn't know what he was doing. Perestroika didn't work, because it simply did not address the fundamental issues facing the Soviet economy (price controls, technological obsolescence, limited exports) while Glasnost allowed pent-up unhappiness to be expressed more openly. He thought he could negotiate some type of compromise even as late as 1990/1991 where the Soviet Union would simply reform, without breaking up or experiencing the rapid changes some of his advisors like Yavlinsky (yes that Yavlinsky that is still leading the Yabloko party) wanted. Eventually, the Union just dissolves under him. (Btw Yavlinsky spend time at Harvard in 1991 while Sachs and Summers were professors there). Yeltsin (who was always more of a Russian nationalist), wanted the union destroyed and after visiting the states, pushed for a very rapid change to a market economy. Yeltsin (and his supporters) thought the US would be thrilled with both ideas, and in turn would come to support, this was not the case except politically. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Apr 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 12:56
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I will be frank, it isn't going to happen any time soon unless something dramatically changes. Here in Moscow, the opposition is isolated and if anything the "cultural isolation" and "hostility of the west" has put Russians in a more patriotic/defensive position. Growth is low, but so is inflation and unemployment. Ardennes posted:Those men were in place, but what actually cracked the system? It was persuasive and sudden shock therapy that forced mass privatization all at once and was almost completely unregulated. Obviously late Soviet proto-capitalists took advantage of the situation, but it wasn't somehow accidental. Ardennes posted:Probably a while because the West is willing to play the game and Putin can score points without making an effort. Also, what is the alternative? Everyone knows the West will easily be as implicitly hostile to any future Russian government at this point, and that regime change is "rolling the dice" with a deep negative handicap. Ardennes posted:That was in 1994 after shock-therapy and the coup already happened. Pretending that the First Chechen War somehow changed anything is just scrambling to find something to throw. To be honest, is there anything Russia could have done to be "cute and cuddly" and deserving of emergency aid?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:The people that hopefully would profit first and foremost from a better government would be the Russian people. It's not good to let yourself be backed into the corner of with your lovely government to own the West. I agree that part of the current system's support comes from material conditions having actually improved, and you probably have a better idea than me to what degree it's the false dichotomy of either current regime or anarchy and inflated foreign threat scarecrows vs. the actual felt improvements and whatever degree of ability the system has demonstrated of keeping people materially happy that's keeping things stable atm. The issue is its a relatively binary choice because how centralized the Russian economy/political system is down to the oblast level. Quite obviously there is theoretically a better solution to the current situation, but the public themselves are stuck between a rock and a hard place. quote:I think the point I was trying to add on to what you were saying was that the shock doctrine had a chance because there were interested genuine locals that found it useful and appealing, and for a lot of these people the use and appeal was material, and the ground for thinking this way had been prepared by the USSR everyday economic practice. Obviously it was and still is a toxic ideology designed to reward economic vampires and sociopaths. Most Russians were ready for a change, but lets be honest the advisors that went over there were selling ideas that had already been shown to be pretty mixed in the 1990s. It was essentially experimentation without much concern for the test subject. quote:The alternative should be local. I've read a thing about lawmakers trying to make the Duma do actual political work, and there's apparently - you again definitely know more than me about this but broad strokes - activists trying to do civil society building, holding people accountable for corruption etc. Just a slow rebuilding and renovation of society. And I think the West should probably stay out of that process, no meeting with opposition people on state visits etc. "Regime change" would obviously be catastrophic. Escalation is kinda in the interest of the regime as well, as you said, and I do think that the West has to respond somehow to aggressive acts, so it's a balance act. Pressure needs to be put on the government through organizing, but at the same time, I think there is a deep skepticism that if things go too far the US is going to try to use it as leverage. If anything fear both of the Kremlin AND the US is paralyzing civil society. quote:If we're saying 1994 is too late that leaves an awfully short window of time to come to terms with suddenly being friends with the RF and figure out how to stabilize a rather large region - EE and central Asia were also not doing great, Germany was horribly botching reunification to the tune of trillions of Marks and millions of lives derailed. A lot of capitalist looting went on there as well. You have to remember that Soviet-US relations were quite positive after 1985, so things were already supposedly trending that way for most of a decades and also, I just don't know what the Russians were suppose to do about the Chechen War considering they suffered a humilating loss in their own borders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 13:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I wouldn't call shock therapy "the West's way of doing it". I believe this is the capitalist equivalent of "that wasn't real socialism."
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
lollontee posted:yeah but that's harder to indignantly make fun of, in a desperate effort to delegitimise any enmity that russians might harbor, with regards to their fair and honest treatment in the magnanimous care of the western powers. That’s super easy to make fun of because it makes Russia into a little kitten helplessly ravaged by The Nefarious West exactly long enough for Russian posters to validate their vague and nebulous anger towards anyone but themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:That’s super easy to make fun of because it makes Russia into a little kitten helplessly ravaged by The Nefarious West exactly long enough for Russian posters to validate their vague and nebulous anger towards anyone but themselves. Oh good, so you agree then that Russia has plenty of reasons to be angry at the West?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Oh good, so you agree then that Russia has plenty of reasons to be angry at the West? No, I’m actually blatantly mocking that tendency? I thought I was pretty obvious about that. Do you want me to break it down a bit more? “Russian posters have a tendency to blame everyone but themselves to avoid personal responsibility.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Nilbop posted:Do you want me to break it down a bit more? “Russian posters have a tendency to blame everyone but themselves to avoid personal responsibility.” lol Russia's response to that crisis was to put Vladimir Putin in charge, from which he's never relinquished power this is really not the hill to stick your flag in if you're anti-Russia
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 01:38
|
|