It pains me that so many people will eat this shit up like candy. They talk so often about Orwell and don't realize that the same tools of totalitarianism pictured in his writing, such as always presenting an "enemy of the state" for people to froth at is the same shit they eat up hand over hand. Just like they forget that muthafucka was a socialist.
Is anyone concerned at just how much the MSM has been ramping up this anti-Russia hype? I am no fan of Putin and he's a totalitarian himself, but at this point it's to the point where a celebrity will leak a pussy pic and blame it on Russians and people will believe them.
'nato encroachment' is bullshit though, I know NATO is a porky america alliance but Russia doesn't have the right to dictate what their neighbours can do, they should have been less shitty neighbours if they didnt want other countries to join a defensive alliance.
Jaxon Brooks
Jingoists gonna Jingo.
Gavin Green
It's almost like classcucks didn't learn anything from WWI…
Kevin Long
Let's go back a bit further than, to when the Cold War ended. Let's go over one facet of the end of the rivalry, and the so called myth that "Russia lost, America won". Jack Matlock and other experts who were around at the time have said that America had promised to help the new Russian state and work with them. One of the bigger aspects of the end of the Soviet Union was the expectation that the conflict would end and the new Russian state would be welcomed back into the world community with Western investment and partnership.
Instead, what happened? There were many things that went on, but let me bring your focus on just one thing: the continued existence of NATO. One of the bigger things promised according to Matlock for example was the cessation of continued expansion of NATO. After all, think about why NATO was formed. It was a response to the Warsaw Pact, a clear defensive alliance against one thread which was the Soviet Union. The problem here is that NATO continued to exist despite the threat being gone now, and even up to today it is still acting as the USSR still exists in the form of the Russin Federation. Ever since the fall of the USSR, the new Russian state which was promised non-antagonizing partnership and investment to bring Russia into the future never received any of this treatment. Instead it was treated as some Western colony to produce petrol and not much else. The West reneged on its promises and left the former USSR to devolve into the oligarchical beast that it is today.
So on NATO expansion, I'll say this. You can't have Russia inviting Mexico, Guatemala and Colombia for example into the CIS. How do you think America would react to an exclusively hostile foreign military alliance on its backdoor? Think in terms of geopolitics, you cannot allow that to happen as a modern state attempting to retain its position in the world, especially one as large or influential as America, China or Russia. I mean, again, I have to stress that they were promised that this weapon devised against them (NATO) was not going to expand further into their realm of influence. I mean, America has the Monroe Doctrine and still abides by it. And Russia is just supposed to roll over in comparison?
Again, let me stress I'm no fan of Russia. But as communists we can see that a lot of problems in this world are caused by capitalists doing what they do, and then later when the consequences come back to bite them they pin the problems in the victims themselves. Russia is a shitty state, but if the West had held up their end of the bargain (Gorbachev was promised certain things and that's why he helped bring an end to the USSR) the current state of events wouldn't happen. And here we all are talking about Russian belligerence when the West put them there in the first goddamn place.
Blake Morgan
I wouldn't say Russia isn't entirely blameless here. However, that's small potatoes compared to everything the US has done in the past decade and a half.
The US (at least under Pres. Obama), however, isn't dumb. They know they're the keystone in the world's largest sovereign power bloc, and they've always been swift to ensure the preservation of that status. This includes everything from their alliance of convenience with the Saudis, to their utter hypocrisy regarding Russia's aggression.
Add to that its abundant resources, gigantic size, and the fact that it's bordered by two oceans; and you've got an empire that's incredibly tough to crack from the outside. Their enemies' best hope is to undermine its foundations; which may or may not occur depending on how the Trump presidency goes.
It's called Realpolitik. Russia is the only state large enough and advanced enough to compete on an equal footing with the US, so it makes darn good sense to cripple them when their guard is down.
Liam Russell
Great post. You're exactly right, MSM will harp on those Russian actions like some of them aren't actions that can be traced back to the fucking Russian Empire (Russia fucking with Chechens is a centuries old affair, as is Georgia).
But America has no historical precedent to its imperialism even, and it has the gall to call this stuff out. But not like any CNN anchor will ever point this out.
And youre completely right about realpolitik in that sense. It just pains me that no one else can really put this shit together, and instead the narrative becomes "Russia is a bad guy, rally behind the good guys [while we drone bomb more innocents and fuck you economically]!".
Easton Gonzalez
The worst thing is not how they fall to their government's propaganda, which is kind of expected, but the fact that if you start posting there and start trying to wake them up to the possibility that their country can be the aggressor, they will probably get really angry at you and even increase the tone of their nationalism as a response.
You can't deconstruct the political narratives people believe in.
Ethan Garcia
We need a bad guy, as does Russia. It's a mutually beneficial relationship where no party is under real threat but there is an external boogeyman to rally against so class divisions aren't at the forefront.
Blake Edwards
...
Julian Lopez
And where did I imply that? Your second line was exactly my end point, and the good poster above also said it.
There are no good or bad guys, only Russian and American bourgeois expanding their influence and keeping class conflict in the background.
Nathan Evans
It's not just the social psychology of it though. The US is the country most dependent of its military and its ties to industry for employment and the economy. It might not make it worth it to start a war with a large power, but zones of influence and proxy wars are other thing.
Mason Nelson
russia is just as imperialist as the US, they're just weaker
Nathan Ortiz
Mate you don't even have to leave this board. The anti-Russia narrative is getting pushed everywhere. Something's definitely up, and it's probably war. Western capital maybe wants to conquer and centralize some more to prepare for a later battle with China.
Tyler Powell
sorry im retarded
Kevin Hall
Yeah, but I'd say proxy wars are just more theater and not a real threat. Like sending off troops to some island or stretch of sand isn't going to deeply injure Russia or the US.
Jonathan Scott
it's saudi arabia-lite but with nukes/
Isaiah Garcia
Actually, they have the opposite problem of the Saudis: They have a stealth fighter, a state-of-the-art tank, and even made a (shitty) supercar; not to mention their space program.
Problem is, despite having proven their technical acumen, their economy is dogshit.
Aaron Cook
By that I mean that they're ultimately reliant on natural resource extraction for money, and use religion to control society. In Russia it is Orthodox Christianity combined with nationalism, instead of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Sebastian Adams
Also, no country is a serious military threat to the US, provided that the US is going to fight a full-on war and is not just doing a regime change or occupying someone.
Hunter Watson
...
Jordan Rodriguez
Fucking saved
Jacob Hughes
...
Jordan Lewis
Both of you have a point but you're oversimplifying. The US military is geared toward a "traditional war", like the world wars. It's not suited to fighting guerillas, insurgents, etc. If the US were to go to war with a nation they would curb stomp. In recent times they've been fighting a different kind of enemy that's not vulnerable to massive military force that takes forever to move in, weighed down by bureaucracy and support systems. The ruling class learned this in Vietnam, but at the same time realized that the US's "traditional army" vs. local skirmishers is a sort of conflict that can continue indefinitely. Because they make profit by selling hardware to the government (regardless of whom it's used to kill), this kind of war is irresistible to military contractors.
On the plus side, this means that the US military would be unprepared to quash an internal revolution, even assuming the troops stayed loyal to the government. To succeed would require a fundamental restructuring that would if anything push many soldiers (suddenly out of a job and with particular skills) to turn.
Ayden Gutierrez
lmao wat
Russia's just an opportunist which takes bites out of areas around it while the US is bogged down in some other fight.
If there was an actual non-nuclear war the US could easily steamroll them. No country can compete with them militarily at this time.
Austin Barnes
They said this during Vietnam…..
Elijah Davis
What is the People's Republic of China?
Isaiah Hall
Waging a counter-insurgency is very different to a conventional war, in COIN your military strength alone isn't going to bring victory. In Vietnam the US came out on top of almost all major engagements, it was just a grueling war of attrition that was very unpopular at home.
If you want a close analogue of what an actual modern conventional war would look like, look to Iraq 2003 or Georgia 2008 - when Russia couldn't even gain air superiority lmao
Ethan Long
...
Brandon Gomez
How are these two even comparable? Iraq was a full invasion, with boots on the ground, devouring trillions of budget.
South Ossetia were merely a bunch of separatists that got Russian support here and there which was enough to hold Georgia off. The Russian operations in Georgia and Donbass are not open invasions; only the US is allowed to full scale invade a country and get away with it - Russia would have faced massive international sanctions for such an operation.
So what the Russians do is they send some FSB and military agitators, equip the separatists, send some mercenaries/ex-Spetsnaz types to support them and then, if it's ultimately necessary, some official Russian army forces to secure decisive landmarks. On the contrary to your statement, one could argue that this minimal effort was enough to entirely shut down Georgia and Ukraine military, while the latter was heavily supported by NATO mercenaries, US military advisors and Nazi militias funded by Neocon lobbies and NGOs. I'd say the Russian military is still the second most powerful in the World behind the US even though China is catching up.
Brayden Young
They are the two most recent instances in which national armies engaged in conventional warfare against one other. Their scale is different sure, but the fighting would be the similar. Georgia would be probably be more representative as it's an example of two countries with relativity equal military technology coming to blows.
The Georgia War was a large scale invasion and involved a significant elements of the Russian Armed Forces, primarily the 58th Army and several other detachments of paratroopers, naval infantry, the FSB, etc. they mobilized almost 80,000 soldiers - I doubt most of them saw action but it's pretty clear they weren't playing around. There was even a naval engagement and a marine invasion ffs
I didn't even mention Ukraine, but yeah, there is no direct Russian involvement. Although it would be a significant challenge for them to actually invade Ukraine as world require them to mobilize an ungodly amount of soldiers and would quickly tap their pool active personel (only just over 200k, less than half the size of the US Army)
The point I'm trying to make is that Russia is opportunistic and is only engaged in a few theaters, primarily it's immediate neighborhood. This allows them to seem much more powerful than they actually are (although, just because their strength is more illusion than reality doesn't mean they aren't a threat to American dominance). In contrast the US, in trying to maintain it's global hegemony, is engaged and spread thin across the entire world.
Like the whole point of Obama's entire foreign policy plan has been to stabilize the MENA so their troops tied up there could focus on their actual strategic threats like Russia and China. Thanks to the Arab Spring and the multiple civil wars that have sprung up across the region this hasn't and won't be possible for a while.
