|
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 |
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| I know that it isn't reasonable to always compare Russian behavior with American behavior. It is even obnoxious to me when I point out Iraq when you reference Georgia. However it is an either/or between the American empire of Gaga and Russia. What Russia is doing in the region is nothing compared to the actions of the Empire. |
I don't care. You know that I know these things. It's akin to the Soviet policy of 'lookoverthereism.' It is really a simple concept. I can criticize Russian foreign policy without endorsing American policy, I can criticize American policy without endorsing Russian policy. Russia's policy of creating frozen conflicts is destabilizing- regardless of the U.S. or NATO or whatever, and transitria has been around since before the expansion of NATO, and I have a hard time believing Russian involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh is the results of U.S. actions. |
This is a uniquely Soviet policy how?
You know that the creation of frozen conflicts is a Russian policy because...?
Do you post here because Dave's is full of such chumps that nobody challenges you on the crap you post? |
1) I never said it was unique to the Soviets
2) Because they have engaged in a clear and consistent pattern over time- i.e. in transnistria, the nagorno-karabakh, the breakaway provinces in Georgia, and currently Ukraine. This started in the early 1990s and the latest case happened this year. It is a bit much for it to be a coincidence.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141210/jeffrey-mankoff/russias-latest-land-grab
3) If this is what constitutes a challenge, then I guess so |
Good dodge, but you do identify this as being Soviet rather than a general feature of politics. Why is that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| I know that it isn't reasonable to always compare Russian behavior with American behavior. It is even obnoxious to me when I point out Iraq when you reference Georgia. However it is an either/or between the American empire of Gaga and Russia. What Russia is doing in the region is nothing compared to the actions of the Empire. |
I don't care. You know that I know these things. It's akin to the Soviet policy of 'lookoverthereism.' It is really a simple concept. I can criticize Russian foreign policy without endorsing American policy, I can criticize American policy without endorsing Russian policy. Russia's policy of creating frozen conflicts is destabilizing- regardless of the U.S. or NATO or whatever, and transitria has been around since before the expansion of NATO, and I have a hard time believing Russian involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh is the results of U.S. actions. |
This is a uniquely Soviet policy how?
You know that the creation of frozen conflicts is a Russian policy because...?
Do you post here because Dave's is full of such chumps that nobody challenges you on the crap you post? |
1) I never said it was unique to the Soviets
2) Because they have engaged in a clear and consistent pattern over time- i.e. in transnistria, the nagorno-karabakh, the breakaway provinces in Georgia, and currently Ukraine. This started in the early 1990s and the latest case happened this year. It is a bit much for it to be a coincidence.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141210/jeffrey-mankoff/russias-latest-land-grab
3) If this is what constitutes a challenge, then I guess so |
Good dodge, but you do identify this as being Soviet rather than a general feature of politics. Why is that? |
Because we are discussing Russia, and empire, so I was going with the theme. Plus, I was thinking about this lately because of this article- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/25/russia-fascinated-by-ferguson-riots-again/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| I know that it isn't reasonable to always compare Russian behavior with American behavior. It is even obnoxious to me when I point out Iraq when you reference Georgia. However it is an either/or between the American empire of Gaga and Russia. What Russia is doing in the region is nothing compared to the actions of the Empire. |
I don't care. You know that I know these things. It's akin to the Soviet policy of 'lookoverthereism.' It is really a simple concept. I can criticize Russian foreign policy without endorsing American policy, I can criticize American policy without endorsing Russian policy. Russia's policy of creating frozen conflicts is destabilizing- regardless of the U.S. or NATO or whatever, and transitria has been around since before the expansion of NATO, and I have a hard time believing Russian involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh is the results of U.S. actions. |
This is a uniquely Soviet policy how?
You know that the creation of frozen conflicts is a Russian policy because...?
Do you post here because Dave's is full of such chumps that nobody challenges you on the crap you post? |
1) I never said it was unique to the Soviets
2) Because they have engaged in a clear and consistent pattern over time- i.e. in transnistria, the nagorno-karabakh, the breakaway provinces in Georgia, and currently Ukraine. This started in the early 1990s and the latest case happened this year. It is a bit much for it to be a coincidence.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141210/jeffrey-mankoff/russias-latest-land-grab
3) If this is what constitutes a challenge, then I guess so |
Good dodge, but you do identify this as being Soviet rather than a general feature of politics. Why is that? |
Leon manages to persuade this board "full of such chumps" because he is well-mannered and patient in argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
What do you find noteworthy in that story? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
What do you find noteworthy in that story? |
Nothing in particular. It just reminded me of a lecture where a professor was talking about the Soviet lookoverthereism thing in regards to American race relations in the 50s or 60s. Just funny how some things stay the same. That's not a criticism of Russia, by the way, just a response to chellovek's suspicions that I was posting crap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://rt.com/news/210883-ukraine-foreigners-government-poroshenko/
| Quote: |
The natives of the US, Georgia and Lithuania were hastily granted Ukrainian citizenship in order to become key ministers in the new government of Ukraine, which was approved by the country’s parliament on Tuesday.
President Poroshenko has also announced he will sign a decree to grant citizenship to foreigners fighting on Kiev’s side in the east of the country.
Natalie Jaresko of the US, who currently heads the Kiev-based Horizon Capital investment fund, will take reigns at the Ukrainian Finance Ministry.
In 1992-1995, Jaresko served as the first Chief of the Economic Section of the US Embassy in Ukraine.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
You know that the creation of frozen conflicts is a Russian policy because...?
..This started in the early 1990s |
Ahh...the roaring early 90's.
When the Clinton administration began the winner-take-all exploitation of Russia's post-1991 weakness. Along with all the broken promises and demands for unilateral concessions.
This same general disastrous Russia policy is what has led to the polarized situation today.
lets take a quick look at your charming US foreign policy since the early 90's:
A) growing military encirclement of Russia by US and NATO bases
B) US denial that Russia has any legitimate security concerns outside its own territory (unlike the US of course)
C) a belief that Russia does not have full sovereignty within its own borders
D) the idea that putin be overthrown by color-revolution or US-backed regime-change
E) The idea that Washington has the right to reject Russia's future elections and its leaders as illegitimate
F) Double standards condemning Russia for doing what the US does (seeking allies and military bases in former Soviet republics), using its assets (eg oil and gas) as aid to friendly governments. When NATO expanded to Russia's front and back doorsteps, gobbling up former soviet-bloc territories, it was "fighting terrorism". When Russia did so, it is called "neo-imperialism".
etc... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
You know that the creation of frozen conflicts is a Russian policy because...?
..This started in the early 1990s |
Ahh...the roaring early 90's.
When the Clinton administration began the winner-take-all exploitation of Russia's post-1991 weakness. Along with all the broken promises and demands for unilateral concessions.
This same general disastrous Russia policy is what has led to the polarized situation today.
lets take a quick look at your charming US foreign policy since the early 90's:
A) growing military encirclement of Russia by US and NATO bases
B) US denial that Russia has any legitimate security concerns outside its own territory (unlike the US of course)
C) a belief that Russia does not have full sovereignty within its own borders
D) the idea that putin be overthrown by color-revolution or US-backed regime-change
E) The idea that Washington has the right to reject Russia's future elections and its leaders as illegitimate
F) Double standards condemning Russia for doing what the US does (seeking allies and military bases in former Soviet republics), using its assets (eg oil and gas) as aid to friendly governments. When NATO expanded to Russia's front and back doorsteps, gobbling up former soviet-bloc territories, it was "fighting terrorism". When Russia did so, it is called "neo-imperialism".
etc... |
You brought up an almost year old thread just to engage in a bout of 'lookoverthereism'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
You brought up an almost year old thread just to engage in a bout of 'lookoverthereism'? |
come back when you get a basic working knowledge of the topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
You brought up an almost year old thread just to engage in a bout of 'lookoverthereism'? |
come back when you get a basic working knowledge of the topic. |
Of Clintion's foreign policy, of post-cold war Russia? I've written about and researched both. However, I must be ignorant because I don't agree with your opinions on the subject, obviously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I must be ignorant because I don't agree with your opinions on the subject, obviously. |
I don't really get how you think American land-grabbing expansionism and putting US bases all around Russia would result in anything but a new cold war.
But don't worry I do understand you are quite brainwashed by one-sided western media. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I must be ignorant because I don't agree with your opinions on the subject, obviously. |
I don't really get how you think American land-grabbing expansionism and putting US bases all around Russia would result in anything but a new cold war.
But don't worry I do understand you are quite brainwashed by one-sided western media. |
Considering how all of those countries invited the U.S. in, many because they had already experienced how terrible being under Russian control was, I don't think it quite qualifies as land-grabbing expansionism, and for it to be a new Cold War, it would require roughly equal sides, but at best Russia is China's sidekick. I realize that you are sensitive about this, and that many Russians are sensitive about this, and that Putin is especially sensitive about this, but I don't realize what it has to do with the original point I made that you replied to.
Really, you are aiming at wrong targets anyways. Russia is not strong enough to maintain its pretensions to imperialism, and attempts to regain the territory of the USSR will simply not work. This is not due to NATO or the U.S., but due to Russian economic weakness, and has been the case since the end of the USSR. In this case, Russians should primarily blame Yeltsin and the old Nomenklatura class for robbing the country blind, but there is some room to blame U.S. economic advisers like Jeffery Sach and the like for helping rob the country blind. Russia is not a global power, but does happen to be very large and strategically placed with a lot of nukes and a large military, pretending otherwise is counterproductive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
Considering how all of those countries invited the U.S. in, many because they had already experienced how terrible being under Russian control was,
|
I hardly think so, it was a case of American meddling in their domestic politics and installing puppet governments. When that didn't work, they used force - bombing Serbia, imposing sanctions against Belarus.
Those republics never wanted the USSR to break up, neither did they vote to leave the soviet union. There was no peoples revolution, the republics were signed away illegally by Yeltsin without any form of popular consent.
"The US" did not bring a better time. On the contrary it was the sudden release of market controls and other democratic measures that spurred untold poverty and economic disaster.
Earlier Russia wanted to be a strategic US ally- including Putin- but the fact is that the US betrayed a lot of their promises and their reforms did not lead to democracy- rather they were aimed at weakening the state and increasing American hegemony. The US helped give the nations wealth to a few sympathetic oligarchs.
| Quote: |
| I don't think it quite qualifies as land-grabbing expansionism, and for it to be a new Cold War, it would require roughly equal sides, |
Since when has any war necessarily involved equal sides? I never claimed Russia was on a par with the US.
You are delusional however if you think Russia cannot act to protect itself or seriously damage western ambitions.
| Quote: |
| Russia is not strong enough to maintain its pretensions to imperialism, and attempts to regain the territory of the USSR will simply not work. |
There are no pretensions to imperialism, there never were any attempts to regain the territory of the USSR except in the minds of western journalists. if Russia was imperialist they would have taken Kiev in their lunch break. The only imperialists I see is the US and their agent Nato. In exchange for doing nothing and allowing the berlin wall down, Gorbachev was promised- by Bush - that Nato would not be expanded one inch eastwards. He should've gotten that in writing I guess.
| Quote: |
| Russia is not a global power |
Define "global power". They certainly have the power to turn the US into glass overnight (more than enough warheads and devices to defeat any missile shield). It can shut the US out of multi-billion dollar deals in Russia, it has essential markets and energy pipelines in the republics. The US lost its military base in Uzbekistan. Georgia's security and stability now depend on Moscow. Kazakhstan has re-alligned itself with Moscow.
The stupidity is that Russia did originally want a partnership with the US. Putin helped the US in Afghanistan- creating the northern alliance, giving the US flyover rights. Both the US and the USSR gave up the cold war, it was a mutual agreement. Nobody was forced into it, it sprung entirely from the political will of Gorbachev and Reagan. There was no "winner". But the US subsequently messed up their foreign policy- treating Russia as a vanquished enemy, akin to post-war Gemany. That triumphalist line of policy- started by Clinton - has led us to the conflict and impasse we are now at. When Russia opted out of the humiliating tutelage that the west had mapped out for it, then they decided to demonize Putin and punish Russia for not doing everything that they wanted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I must be ignorant because I don't agree with your opinions on the subject, obviously. |
I don't really get how you think American land-grabbing expansionism and putting US bases all around Russia would result in anything but a new cold war.
But don't worry I do understand you are quite brainwashed by one-sided western media. |
Considering how all of those countries invited the U.S. in, many because they had already experienced how terrible being under Russian control was, I don't think it quite qualifies as land-grabbing expansionism, and for it to be a new Cold War, it would require roughly equal sides, but at best Russia is China's sidekick. I realize that you are sensitive about this, and that many Russians are sensitive about this, and that Putin is especially sensitive about this, but I don't realize what it has to do with the original point I made that you replied to.
Really, you are aiming at wrong targets anyways. Russia is not strong enough to maintain its pretensions to imperialism, and attempts to regain the territory of the USSR will simply not work. This is not due to NATO or the U.S., but due to Russian economic weakness, and has been the case since the end of the USSR. In this case, Russians should primarily blame Yeltsin and the old Nomenklatura class for robbing the country blind, but there is some room to blame U.S. economic advisers like Jeffery Sach and the like for helping rob the country blind. Russia is not a global power, but does happen to be very large and strategically placed with a lot of nukes and a large military, pretending otherwise is counterproductive. |
Come on, man. If I recall right (correct me if I'm wrong), you're a fellow academic and presumably a fellow PhD holder. How you can let that simplistic shit fly I don't know.
Edit: I'm not going to wrestle with this forum with citations (it's getting late here) as if this place is an academic journal and the chimps on here are peer reviewers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I must be ignorant because I don't agree with your opinions on the subject, obviously. |
I don't really get how you think American land-grabbing expansionism and putting US bases all around Russia would result in anything but a new cold war.
But don't worry I do understand you are quite brainwashed by one-sided western media. |
Considering how all of those countries invited the U.S. in, many because they had already experienced how terrible being under Russian control was, I don't think it quite qualifies as land-grabbing expansionism, and for it to be a new Cold War, it would require roughly equal sides, but at best Russia is China's sidekick. I realize that you are sensitive about this, and that many Russians are sensitive about this, and that Putin is especially sensitive about this, but I don't realize what it has to do with the original point I made that you replied to.
Really, you are aiming at wrong targets anyways. Russia is not strong enough to maintain its pretensions to imperialism, and attempts to regain the territory of the USSR will simply not work. This is not due to NATO or the U.S., but due to Russian economic weakness, and has been the case since the end of the USSR. In this case, Russians should primarily blame Yeltsin and the old Nomenklatura class for robbing the country blind, but there is some room to blame U.S. economic advisers like Jeffery Sach and the like for helping rob the country blind. Russia is not a global power, but does happen to be very large and strategically placed with a lot of nukes and a large military, pretending otherwise is counterproductive. |
Come on, man. If I recall right (correct me if I'm wrong), you're a fellow academic and presumably a fellow PhD holder. How you can let that simplistic shit fly I don't know.
Edit: I'm not going to wrestle with this forum with citations (it's getting late here) as if this place is an academic journal and the chimps on here are peer reviewers. |
I finished my masters a month ago, not PhD. There is probably a more nuanced argument, but it would be wasted on this conversation, and if anything Putin apologists bring out the worst in me, I guess. |
|
| 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
