|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| I'm not prepared to challenge your assertions in your last paragraph. Maybe someone else will take it up. I am content that you've agreed that the West backed a coup. Note that the new regime took up the IMF on an agreement with the worst terms. |
I didn't say it was a coup, I said that I accept that the West has been backing up and supporting the anti-Russian forces in Ukraine. I also accept that the West has used the conflict to further it's own agenda.
However, considering Russia has been exercising far greater imperial control in Kiev over the last 25 odd years, it seems pretty clear who is the imperialist and interloper in this instance.
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Everyone has intervened in Syria. Russia's "invasion" of Georgia would have been justified if it weren't disproportionate because it went beyond its reasonable right of self-defense. South Ossetia is Russian sovereign territory, so I won't even bother with that. |
The US doesn't have a base in Syria and the Russian intervention has been far more direct. It is also not the point as you said Russia only cares about it's regional neighbours, however, it clearly has global ambitions.
Also South Ossetia is only Russian by force of arms and that does not justify ethnic cleansing.
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| I disagree. Russia is trying to regain its former prestige and power by reasserting its regional dominance over its immediate neighbors. It has neither the power or the present ambition to "make moves all over the world," possibly because it recognizes that such a strategy would be desperate and ineffective. I do see CNN and Fox saber-rattling and giving time to former administration officials to denounce Russia. |
If that were the case it wouldn't be getting so heavily involved in opposing the West in the MENA or indeed the Pacific.
Also if that regional dominance includes EU members such as the Baltic states and the rest of EE then that should be strongly opposed. Russia can prop up dictators in broken down hell holes like Belarus or human rights black holes like Azerbaijan, but if it starts trying to reassert control over the rest of the 'Inner Empire' again, force will be the only response.
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| I do not recall you alleging that the Baltic States, which are actually NATO members, have been harassed by Russia. As for the EU, its clear that their overreaching invitation to the Ukraine has torn it apart. The situation with Georgia is very analogous, in this case the EU precipitated the conflict, but Russia's response has been disproportionate. |
So a desire to join the EU is enough of a justification to rip apart two neighbouring countries?? How is that anything other than a outright apology for Russian imperialism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| You sound like John Kerry. And you're the biggest supporter of 'naked military aggression' on this board. |
I am the biggest supporter of the West and western global hegemony. However, I am not the one making excuses for Russian imperialism and harping on about stability as Russian tanks roll into Ukraine.
| bigverne wrote: |
| The future stability of Europe, and the world, depends heavily on forging a non-antagonistic relationship with the Russians. That is endangered by the kind of neo-con, crusading interventionism you champion. |
No one is calling for an invasion of Russia or indeed western forces to march into Ukraine.
In fact I have made it very clear that I do not regard Russia as posing anything like the threat they did when they headed up their Soviet empire during the Cold War.
The only belligerent thing I have said is that we should be robust and committed to defending our allies in EE militarily and Ukraine economically/politically/diplomatically. I also said we should do everything we can to reduce the power and influence of Russian moves in the MENA
Please don't use words that you don't understand.
A neo-con is a very specific sort of interventionist and one that doesn't really share my world view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Nothing personal meant. My apologies if you were offended. Just reacting to the points. |
Fair enough, no offence taken.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
Gorbachev advised Honecker to allow free travel between east and west germany. East germans chanted his name when he visited. He was the architect of the fall of the wall.
That is partly why Russia and germany have been busy building a strong relationship with close economic ties- particularly in terms of energy. germany is not a US protege and does not want a part of the current US persecution of Russia. |
As I have said Gorbachev was pragmatic and realistic about the weakness of the Soviet Union. That doesn't mean he was the 'architect' and that statement seems to run counter to the historical record. The movement to oust the Politburo in the GDR was nothing to do with Gorbachev, he simply made sure that SU forces would not stand in the way.
The test for your thesis is that when Gorbachev embarked on his reforms was his goal the fall of the wall, the reunification of Germany, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the independence of all the Soviet republics?
I think it is clear that those events were unintended consequences and as such Gorbachev can only be given credit for realizing that the Soviet Union was doomed and not ending the world.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| It was only nominally communist. Authoritarian, yes. Very. but it could better be called state capitalism. |
.
I agree that the SU was really communist.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Gorbachev voluntarily instituted reforms |
This doesn't make sense, the SU was clearly on its last legs and so Gorbachev needed to do something drastic to get it back on track. You can see that in the years following the death of Brez. the Soviet system was looking more and more unstable.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| It had problems due to massive military spending -but so did the US economy |
The US economy was twice the size of the SU and defence spending represented just over 5%, yet the smaller Soviet economy spent between a fifth and third of GDP on defence alone.
Even today the US economy is huge and so even a modest proportion of GDP (4-5%) can support a huge military.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Its not like the US won the cold war and russia bowed at the feet of the glorious cowboy because we're so much better than them. |
The US didn't beat the SU in a conventional sense, they didn't lauch any particular policy that by itself brough the SU down.
That being said, it is quite clear that the collapse of the SU, Warsaw Pact and then CIS represented a huge defeat and was catastrophic for Russia. There really is no other word to describe what Russia went through during those times as anyting other than a defeat and a humiliation.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
This exactly the kind of triumphalist attitude that has caused serious conflict and will cause a new cold war, and has already put the US in greater danger than it was in the previous cold war.
Its the sort of arrogance that assumes Russia is on its knees with only a 'ragtag conscript army' (your words), that it can be dictated to, that its own security concerns do not need to be recognized, that it can be taken advantage of and demonized to fit the western gameplan. |
Acknowledging the fact that Russia was powerless to stop the loss of her former empire to the EU and NATO is not triumphalism. It was one of the greatest moments in living memory that the formerly subject peoples of the Soviet space were free to make their own decisions independent of Moscow's diktats.
Also Russia is not in any position militarily or economically to mount any serious threat to global western hegemony and so there will be no new Cold War. Russia will simply be contained until such time that the money men see an advantage in bringing her back into the fold.
I mean all the Russians have won is useless broken down wastelands from South Ossetia to Donetsk and the emnity of all but a handful of neighbours.
Maybe if they dropped their pretensions to global superpower status, we could once again bring peace to Europe.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| The United States had and has spheres of influence. We had the Monroe Doctrine in Latin America and tacitly cling to it even today. More to the point, the expansion of NATO is, of course, an expansion of the American sphere of influence, which brings America’s military, political, and economic might to new member countries. Certainly, this has been the case since the 1990s, as NATO expanded across the former Soviet bloc, from Germany to the Baltic nations. All of these countries are now part of the U.S. sphere of influence, though Washington doesn’t openly use this expression. |
The problem is that the Russians are far less nuanced in their approach to their so-called SoI. They mean to take control by overwhelming their neighbours militarily and economically, using military might everytime they don't get their way. The SU went so far as to try and Russify the subject peoples of their empire.
The US is certainly the most important western actor and dominates the current global order, but you are mistaken if you think this is a simple US-Russia issue. The Europeans are every bit as opposed to Russian moves in Europe and the MENA. They are joined by many other western orientated allies throughout the world.
I specifically refer to the West and not just the US because though the US is huge and stands as the bedrock of western power, it does not stand alone in maintaining the global order or in opposing Russia.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| So American policy is this: The United States can have spheres of influence but Russia cannot, not even in its own security neighborhood. Moscow understands this, and has reacted predictably. |
No, Russia is not entitled to the same power as the US when it is far, far smaller and weaker. No country is entitled to a SoI, they are won by power and strength, so if you can't keep up...tough. Are we supposed to get teary eyed because Japan no longer controls Korea?
Russia doesn't have a god given right to rule Kiev, the Baltics states or the Caucasuses. If the peoples of those countries decide to move towards the West, then we should embrace them and protect them from Russian land grabs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| I do not recall you alleging that the Baltic States, which are actually NATO members, have been harassed by Russia. As for the EU, its clear that their overreaching invitation to the Ukraine has torn it apart. The situation with Georgia is very analogous, in this case the EU precipitated the conflict, but Russia's response has been disproportionate. |
So a desire to join the EU is enough of a justification to rip apart two neighbouring countries?? How is that anything other than a outright apology for Russian imperialism? |
I bolded the part that might help you answer these questions.
No, calling Russia's response disproportionate does not make it an outright apology for Russian imperialism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| I do not recall you alleging that the Baltic States, which are actually NATO members, have been harassed by Russia. As for the EU, its clear that their overreaching invitation to the Ukraine has torn it apart. The situation with Georgia is very analogous, in this case the EU precipitated the conflict, but Russia's response has been disproportionate. |
So a desire to join the EU is enough of a justification to rip apart two neighbouring countries?? How is that anything other than a outright apology for Russian imperialism? |
I bolded the part that might help you answer these questions.
No, calling Russia's response disproportionate does not make it an outright apology for Russian imperialism. |
Invasion, annexation and ethnic cleansing are not a disproportionate response, they are the actions of a violent imperial power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| So American policy is this: The United States can have spheres of influence but Russia cannot, not even in its own security neighborhood. Moscow understands this, and has reacted predictably. |
No, Russia is not entitled to the same power as the US when it is far, far smaller and weaker. No country is entitled to a SoI, they are won by power and strength, so if you can't keep up...tough. Are we supposed to get teary eyed because Japan no longer controls Korea? |
If might is right- as you claim- then why are you getting teary-eyed that Russian tanks are rolling into east Ukraine?
| Quote: |
| we should embrace them and protect them from Russian land grabs. |
Who's going to protect them from you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| If might is right- as you claim- then why are you getting teary-eyed that Russian tanks are rolling into east Ukraine? |
I am not saying might is right, I am saying Russia should respect the overwhelming power of the West and the benefits it brings to countries and peoples who play by its rules.
The only tears I shed when I see Russian tanks moving into Ukraine is for the Russian tax payer who will be saddled with yet another desperately poor region to fund.
The Russians have lost Kiev, their SoI is getting smaller by the day.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Who's going to protect them from you? |
Look at the Eastern European countries that joined the EU, the people of Ukraine want that sort of prosperity. They don't want to continue to be an appendage of the Russian empire. If the minority of Russians in Ukraine don't like that, they should move to Russia, there is plenty of room. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| Also Russia is not in any position militarily.. to mount any serious threat |
You think nuclear war is now impossible?
What- aside from your triumphalist delusions- makes you think you are safer exactly?
The greatest threat to American national security still resides in Russia in the form of nuclear, chemical and biological devices.
If anything, Washingtons re-militarization of relations with Russia has helped to make things more dangerous.
Bush jnr. junked decades of self-guarding agreements with Moscow. There is no longer even any nuclear control reduction agreement with the Russians, as there was through the cold war.
The soviet state kept a tight control over its nuclear and related arsenals. But since dissolution of the USSR, the former soviet territories became a market of dirty material, know-how and technology. If terrorists explode a dirty bomb in the US, the material used is likely to come from the former soviet union.
| Quote: |
| I am not saying might is right, I am saying Russia should respect the overwhelming power of the West and the benefits it brings to countries and peoples who play by its rules. |
Its all about control now then is it? The western gameplan?
What happened to democracy?
If the US truly wanted to advance democracy in russia they would get off their confrontation course and stop demonizing Russia for all the things they are themself (imperialistic, agressive, autocratic).
Everytime the US makes sly moves to expand Nato, everytime they threaten, they simply help the hardliners in Moscow. Putins election was a reaction to western agression. The conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine are a response to western threat and agression. The return of Crimea to Russia was a response to western meddling.
Gorbachev wanted to introduce democracy to the USSR. He could only do so though because the US president at the time- Reagan- was seen to meet him half-way. A special relationship of respect allowed much progress to be made quickly. But those gains have quickly been lost because of Washingtons hostile policy over the past 15-20 years.
| Quote: |
| Look at the Eastern European countries that joined the EU, the people of Ukraine want that sort of prosperity. |
The EU prosperous? Like Greece, ireland, and portugal you mean? Are you out of your mind?
| Quote: |
| If the minority of Russians in Ukraine don't like that, they should move to Russia, there is plenty of room. |
Why should they leave an area that has always been russian?
If you actually respected democracy (instead of simply trying to force western imperialism on the world) then you might have noticed that east ukraine had a referendum, they do not want to be a part of Ukraine. Who are you to deny them?
And perhaps the biggest current western hypocrisy - their support for the indiscriminate Ukranian shelling of civilian areas, killing thousands and causing a massive refugee problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| You think nuclear war is now impossible? |
Relax, the Russian leadership is stupid and bigoted I grant you, but they are not insane.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| What- aside from your triumphalist delusions- makes you think you are safer exactly? |
Nukes prevent the West from attacking Russia's rust bucket military, but they do not pose a serious threat.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| The greatest threat to American national security still resides in Russia in the form of nuclear, chemical and biological devices. |
Not even close. As always the greatest threat comes from within, I would say the incredible complacency of the US and Euorpean peoples are the greatest danger.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| If anything, Washingtons re-militarization of relations with Russia has helped to make things more dangerous. |
Tanks into Georgia and Ukraine would suggest that the Russians are the ones re-militarizing relations.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| The soviet state kept a tight control over its nuclear and related arsenals. But since dissolution of the USSR, the former soviet territories became a market of dirty material, know-how and technology. If terrorists explode a dirty bomb in the US, the material used is likely to come from the former soviet union. |
The Russian leadership is developing the Iranian nuclear programme in a tit for tat with the West. They are irresponsible and care little for international stability. This is obvious as they have the most to gain from disrupting the western made global order.
Also dirty bombs are of no threat to anyone. I think you have swallowed a bit of neo-con propoganda.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
Its all about control now then is it? The western gameplan?
What happened to democracy? |
A bonus, but not a necessity.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| If the US truly wanted to advance democracy in russia they would get off their confrontation course and stop demonizing Russia for all the things they are themself (imperialistic, agressive, autocratic). |
The Russian desire to be a superpower again and reclaim their old empire is not the desire of Putin alone.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Everytime the US makes sly moves to expand Nato, everytime they threaten, they simply help the hardliners in Moscow. Putins election was a reaction to western agression. The conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine are a response to western threat and agression. The return of Crimea to Russia was a response to western meddling. |
Adding EU members to NATO was not sly, it was inevitable.
Ethnic cleasing of Georgians in South Ossetia, the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine is a reaction to Ukraine and Georgia wishing to sign association agreements with the EU and NATO. Russian sovereignity was not violated at any time.
The West didn't take control of the majority of Ukrainian and Georgian peoples minds and make them orietate to the West.
Are you really going to argue that the hatred of Russia in Georgia and Ukraine is not real?
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| The EU prosperous? Like Greece, ireland, and portugal you mean? Are you out of your mind? |
Are you?
For all their problems the reason they are going through tough times is because their advanced first world lifestyles are under threat. They are still miles ahead of Russia and have you seen how poor Ukraine is?
The GDP per capita of all those nations mentioned are better off than Russia. If you calculate the figures by nominal GDP per capita, the difference is even more stark.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
Why should they leave an area that has always been russian?
If you actually respected democracy (instead of simply trying to force western imperialism on the world) then you might have noticed that east ukraine had a referendum, they do not want to be a part of Ukraine. Who are you to deny them? |
Like the one they had in Crimea? With armed men controlling the ballot boxes.
That area is not anywhere close to being 100% Russian speaking and Russian ethnicity. It is a mismash of Ukrianian and Russian speakers and ethnic Russian and Ukrianians. That is why the meagre Ukrianian army made such progress against the rebels and why so many foreign Russian volunteers from Russia were needed. They now need the Russian military in the open cos the people of that region are not all singing from the same hymn sheet.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| And perhaps the biggest current western hypocrisy - their support for the indiscriminate Ukranian shelling of civilian areas, killing thousands and causing a massive refugee problem. |
The rebels caused the war.
If they want to live in Russia, they are right next door. They should not start redrawing European borders that were agreed upon internationally and launch a campaign to murder, silence and force out Ukrianians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dude your basic ignorance of history and inability to view things even a fraction differently from the official western media line that you've been spoonfed .....is pretty disturbing.
Your one-sided western arrogance is also quite repulsive.
So there's probably not much point continuing trying to educate you... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Russia's move seems like less and less a good idea everyday. The West looks ineffectual. China gets cheaper oil from Russia than before. China is an actual strategic concern for both Russia and the U.S. Central Asia certainly does not want to be dominated by Russia and is moving closer to China. So far China is "winning" by not doing anything.
Poor Gorbachev, he really didn't mean to end the Soviet Union, but he had a bad hand. The world is a better place because he didn't take the Tiananmen option. The idea that the U.S. is responsible for this situation is silly, and it takes agency away from the Ukrainian and Russian people. The previous Ukrainian President was incompetent, stupid, and literally a gangster, as in having the criminal record to prove it. I'm not sure why the west has to "respect" Russia- it is a highly corrupt gangster state (as in organized crime is extremely politically influential), but it is geopolitically important and should be treated seriously.
Russia has been doing this separatist stuff from the very beginning, regardless of the west and NATO- Transnistria has been around since 1990, and supported/kept alive by Russia since then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
Dude your basic ignorance of history and inability to view things even a fraction differently from the official western media line that you've been spoonfed .....is pretty disturbing.
Your one-sided western arrogance is also quite repulsive.
So there's probably not much point continuing trying to educate you... |
Putin is a right wing leader who stands opposed to all the principles of liberal social equality that you so despise in whatever western country you come from and that is what is driving your Russia love.
It is clear that you think people who disagree with you are all sheeple and in need of education.
That is what I call arrogance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Please don't use words that you don't understand. |
The policies you advocate--confronting the Ruskies and bombing the middle east in the name of 'democracy' and 'human rights'--look remarkably similar to those put forward by Wolfowitz et al. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Russia's move seems like less and less a good idea everyday. The West looks ineffectual. China gets cheaper oil from Russia than before. China is an actual strategic concern for both Russia and the U.S. Central Asia certainly does not want to be dominated by Russia and is moving closer to China. So far China is "winning" by not doing anything. |
China would have received that oil at low cost already, that deal was many years in the making. After all, China demands oil and Russia has a supply, they're right next to each other, the whole arrangement has almost nothing to do with what is going on in the Ukraine.
Yes, Russia appears to have overplayed its hand. I said before it should have been content with Crimea. Now it is involved in a bloody insurgency on its border. The West may look ineffectual, but the IMF has secured its onerous "rescue" contract on Western Ukraine.
Its a terrible situation, but I oppose demonizing Putin. This axis of evil characterization doesn't lead to peaceful resolution, its something politicians say to leverage domestic support in exchange for rhetoric which can only harm diplomatic relations further and possibly even lead to more conflict. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
