esteban wrote:
In fact, US has made/supported quite a long list of military coups in order to stop the communists/left-wingers that were elected into power.
That’s what we call here, “What about ism”. Just become someone else did something wrong doesn’t mean the it’s ok for Russia to do it. Wrong is wrong.
Changing borders by force is not right, and isn’t conducive to a long term solution.
I see that in my own country where the UK has occupied the whole country for centuries and continues to occupy part of it today. However nothing will change by force. That’s been tried by both sides.
The only way borders change with peace and stability is when the populations there (not implanted populations or remainders of populations who have been evicted) want it to change, by a large majority, and that that opinion of the population is consistent long term.
There is little chance of Russia winning this war either in the short term or the long term. Their military has been shown to be far less competent than the world thought and will be far less of a deterrent in the future. The Ukrainians will never give up. Russia would do well to attempt to try to start making peaceful friends all around it, for its own future security. Instead it’s driving everyone into the arm of NATO.
dublinpilot wrote:
That’s what we call here, “What about ism”. Just become someone else did something wrong doesn’t mean the it’s ok for Russia to do it. Wrong is wrong.
Nobody claimed anything different. It was just a simple reply to claim of inherited violent expansionism of communism which per se simply doesn’t hold. The imperialism is simply inherited feature of empires: Russia, Great Britain, USA, France and in the past Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany, Austro-Hungarian, Japan and China. I’m sorry if I missed any country that seriously fu..ed up their neighbours and small countries/peoples around the world during recent history.
One needs to see the world as it is right now, UN-recognised, not as it was immediately post-WW2, or centuries ago, or whatever.
Today’s expansion threats are not what they were 100 years ago.
We had a reasonable status quo – at least in the parts of the world which matter most to overall stability – and Putin terminated that. That’s what matters now.
I stand by my view on expension incentives of capitalism v. “Russian communism”. They are fundamentally different. The insecurities which are driving foreign policy are fundamentally different.
One needs to see the world as it is right now, UN-recognised, not as it was immediately post-WW2, or centuries ago, or whatever.
1973 was pretty much recent (as it was 1991 when Yugoslavia wars started), the countries were UN-recognized, colonial rule was ended, so I’m not talking about post-WW2 period or centuries ago.
I stand by my view on expension incentives of capitalism v. “Russian communism”. They are fundamentally different. The insecurities which are driving foreign policy are fundamentally different.
It’s an opinion flavored with personal experience which is fair enough (all our standpoints are influenced by personal experiences) but in essence these expansionisms are the same.
Like 99% of Czechs, I would rather be colonised by the Great Satan than by the Kremlin 
One has to admire Zelensky – like Churchill in WW2, a class act
Like 99% of Czechs, I would rather be colonised by the Great Satan than by the Kremlin.
No doubt about that the problem with countries like Chile was that they were not colonized by USA but left to local fascists after overthrowing legally elected government. Chile after military coup wasn’t much different than Hitler’s Germany, so your doubt above is not the right one.
Well, yes, but Chile didn’t invade Ukraine, and we can’t fix the whole world.
It takes at least a couple of beers and a very good fish to do that.
Peter wrote:
Esteban – read the Guidelines.
The ‘ideological bullshit’ was a statement about the message, not about its author.
Still, this is internet, with all the easy misinterpretation, so I should have worded that better.
I apologize for any offense caused, it was not intended.
I greatly value the civilized discourse here and I am really grateful for this forum.
I don’t really remember the other deleted parts, but basically the same applies.
LeSving wrote:
It’s not clear what Putin has against the West, other than it’s “not Russia”.
You know, one can actually do a groundbreaking thing and actually listen to the (Putin) guy. (And then use critical thinking, of course)
But no, it is the same as with Bin Laden:
(1) “He hates US because he hates our freedom!”
Meanwhile what Bin Laden actually said:
(2) I hate you because you
- kill our innocent civilians
- have military bases in our holy land
- support corrupt governments in middle east
- support Israel’s oppression of Palestinians
You know, you don’t have to believe everything (or even majority of) what Putin says, but there is enough meat in his statements and speeches (over many years, starting at least from 2006-8).
Or you can listen to almost any country in the world that is not in the ‘west’.
The two topmost answers would be:
a) don’t meddle in my house, mind your own business
b) don’t use your military and economic power to impoverish me
esteban wrote:
You know, one can actually do a groundbreaking thing and actually listen to the (Putin) guy. (And then use critical thinking, of course)
Well for me, I don’t need to listen to Putin.
1. Because it’s now very obvious to me that most of what he says is so obviously lies and propaganda. (I never followed him previously so never realised how much crap he speaks).
2. No matter what your grievances are, or how much you dislike someone else, invading a peaceful, UN recognised, sovereign, independent country with a democratically elected government, is never acceptable.
All your complaints seem to be against the USA. If that’s the case, why didn’t he invade the USA instead of Ukraine?
