I suppose. Of course, I guess there's a little bit of socialist in all of us to some degree or another. Anyone who uses a public road is part socialist.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the US interest in Ukraine?
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
I suppose. Of course, I guess there's a little bit of socialist in all of us to some degree or another. Anyone who uses a public road is part socialist.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Number 1 would be a pleasant benefit when Putin loses his war. 2 through 4 and the leading statement are nonsense.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Evidence of the socialist part.
exchemist
Veteran Member
A few points:Even assuming that it was Putin's intention, are we clear on the reasons why? Is it just to reconstitute the USSR, just because? Is that the West's contention here? Putin isn't communist anymore or even a socialist, so how does anyone believe that he's going to reinstate a communist government in Russia? A big supporter of the Russian Orthodox Church, it doesn't seem likely that he'll make everyone become atheists again.
If he's comparing himself to Peter the Great (which that article you posted said he was, but from reading what he actually said, it was clear he had a different meaning), that would hearken back to the days of the old Russian Empire, not the USSR. There's a distinct difference which should be noted, even if Westerners obstinately refuse to make that distinction.
Russia is also part of Europe. And there are valid historical reasons why Russia would have reason to feel encroached upon and threatened. It's not just because they wouldn't like it. You seem to be painting Russia as some impulsive nation which does things frivolously and based on whimsy.
What if Mexico decided to align itself with China? What if they opened up their territory to Chinese bases and troops? What if China placed nuclear weapons in Mexico, aimed at the United States? How do you think the U.S. government should or would respond to that? Should we tell them they can't do that because we don't like it? We came close to a similar situation during the Cold War with Cuba, and later on to a lesser extent, with Nicaragua.
As an American, I can understand how protective Americans are of their own territory and can become alarmed at any hint of political instability or possible outside threats close to our own homeland. It's because of this that I can understand that the Russians might feel the same way.
No, I was thinking of the Allied interventionism on the side of the Whites in the Russian Civil War.
Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
- Communism is obviously not an issue in anyone's thinking, neither Russian nor Western, so let's dispense with that.
- Nobody, apart from Ukraine itself, has suggested Ukraine join NATO, let alone putting NATO nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil. NATO has throughout been well aware that would be a red rag to a bull. So let's get that out of the way too.
Putin made it clear he does not believe Ukraine has a separate identity or history from Russia and, as we can see, has decided to try to take it - the whole country - by force. The US has never proposed to absorb Mexico - or Cuba - by force into the USA.
- I don't see much difference between trying to reconstitute the USSR vs the Russian Empire, given that communism is a red herring. Why do you think the difference is important?
The whole argument about spheres or influence, western "encroachment" etc rests on a basic assumption of an adversarial relationship beteen Russia and the West. After the fall of communism and the USSR, there were great hopes, encouraged by Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their western counterparts, that that was over. The former Warsaw Pact colonies of Russia therefore made their own way and became integrated with their western neighbours, one by one even joining the EU. There is no reason why this should have been seen as a threat to Russia, as it too seemed to be following along the same road.
It was the arrival of Putin, a career silovik, that caused Russia to turn its back on that rapprochement, and to see these developments instead as a threat and a humiliation of the former imperial power of Russia. (The turning point actually may have been what struck me at the time as a very ill-advised sneer by Obama, describing Russia as a "regional power". I think we can trace much of Russia's renewed revanchism to that, actually). It is that fateful turn by Putin that has led to the calls to expand NATO. Naturally, E European states with a border with Russia (Poland, the Baltic States), having been invaded and brutally mistreated by Russia before, got very nervous and wanted to sign up to protect themselves.
In the post-dictionary age, when "socialism" is fire breathing
capitalism fueling the taxes used for public roads, but not
the means of production, anything goes.
I'm even a Marxist per recent re-definitions on RF.
But is there a term anymore for some old school classifications?
- The people own the means of production, but there
is still private property. This was once "socialism".
- The people own all property in common. This was
once "communism".
"The people", represented by their freely elected leader,
Vlad Putin, maintains tight control over all industries.
If any don't do his bidding, they're defenstrated, & their
companies are nationalized. Hence the "part" in "part socialist".
I accept that it may not be your concern, although I've seen plenty of comparisons to the USSR in this and other threads. Obviously it's an issue in some people's thinking.
I was asking hypothetically, since it is a distinct possibility. Obviously, NATO doesn't care much about waving red rags to bulls, so maybe we can dispense with trying to paint NATO as some kind of paragon of virtue.
I was referring to their geographic proximity, and it's not entirely true that no one in the US has ever proposed annexing Mexico or Cuba. Cuba was a virtual US colony until 1959, and Mexico has also been under the thumb of the US as well. After the revolution in Cuba, there were plenty of Americans who wanted to invade that country. The US has had "special military operations" in Latin America numerous times for well over the past century. Whenever our government gets nervous about political instability or the possibility of a communist government down there, they send troops. Believe me, if Mexico even hinted at joining forces with China, we'd be on that country like a pack of wolves on a three-legged cat.
As for the statement about Ukraine's identity, all I can say is that the history you're addressing is complicated.
But ultimately, that's up to the Ukrainians and Russians to settle between themselves. That's their dispute, and there's absolutely no reason it should involve the West or anyone else - unless the West wants to get involved, which they clearly do. Just as the US never intervened in the issues between Britain and Ireland, I see no reason to interfere in this case. They'll work it out for themselves, if only we'd let them.
It is important. It forms the basis of Western perceptions of Russia, Eastern Europe, and the situation we're facing. Europe obviously didn't have much fear of Russia at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, when, at the Congress of Vienna, Russia was given control over Poland, the Baltics, and (later) Finland. Their control of Ukraine (aka "Little Russia") and White Russia was also recognized by the powers of Europe at the time. Russia was a willing participant in the Metternich System. This situation was perfectly fine to the other powers of Europe. Only Britain had a problem with Russian expansionism in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Far East, but even they didn't really challenge the European order at that time, since that also worked to their benefit.
In other words, the Russian Empire, despite its autocratic government and despite its expansionism, was acceptable to the West and even considered an asset to Western European interests, especially by 1914. That was clearly not a problem for the West in any way, shape, or form.
That all changed in 1917, when a completely different group of people with a different ruling philosophy took over. The threat they posed was not a direct military threat, but an ideological threat, and that ideology was communism. When AG Palmer and his minion J. Edgar Hoover went around arresting suspected communists, they weren't at all worried by a military attack from Russia. They were worried about the spread of what they saw as an ideological disease. Without that, there's absolutely no dispute between the U.S. and Russia.
That's why the difference is important. All during the Cold War, Western leaders tried to associate anyone expressing support for a communist or socialist ideology with the Soviet Union. So it was all about ideology, not nationality.
I can't say that I agree with this characterization of what actually happened. I think the big problem was when the Kremlin hardliners set up that ill-fated coup which forced Gorbachev out of power. That's really what set off the chain of events which led to the complete breakup of the USSR. Legally, the Soviet Republics had the right to secede from the USSR at any time. That was written into their Constitution. So, when the Baltic Republics tried to do just that, Gorbachev had to allow it, or else he'd be violating his own Constitution. This didn't set well with the hardliners.
Yeltsin's drunken leadership was a period of immense chaos and lawlessness in the former SU. Meanwhile, the US was taking full advantage of Russia's impotence and became even more militaristic and aggressive throughout the world, mainly in the Middle East and Africa, leading up to 9/11 and a new phase of US militarism. This also coincided with the expansion of NATO, which really didn't have any relevant reason to exist anymore. Russia was in tatters, dominated by criminals and carpetbaggers, with their women turning into prostitutes and their children being sold to Western adoption agencies.
So, yes, they do have their reasons for being a wee bit pissed off at us, and it's not because of any desire to reconstitute the USSR. It's because of what has happened since the fall of the Soviet Union.
I know that there are many Westerners who think that the Western liberal democracies are always the "good guys" and that we would never do anything aggressive or hostile towards another nation, but sometimes, we have to step outside ourselves and try to imagine how others in the world might see us. Even here on RF, I do take note of opinions of America by people from other lands. If that's how they see Americans, it stands to reason that other people also see us that way, including the Russians and the Chinese. They are quite intelligent and they've been studying us for a very long time. They know us. They know who we are and what we are. On the other hand, we don't really know them as well as many Americans think they do.
So, if they don't trust our leaders or their possible intentions, what do you think they see that we don't see?
What is NATO?
An introduction to NATO that provides basic information on what NATO is, member countries, the Alliance's key activities and how it functions. NATO's general evolution is shown in video and links to more in-depth information are provided throughout.
BELGIUM (1949)
CANADA (1949)
DENMARK (1949)
FRANCE (1949)
ICELAND (1949)
ITALY (1949)
LUXEMBOURG (1949)
NETHERLANDS (1949)
NORWAY (1949)
PORTUGAL (1949)
THE UNITED KINGDOM (1949)
THE UNITED STATES (1949)
GREECE (1952)
TÜRKIYE (1952)
GERMANY (1955)
SPAIN (1982)
CZECHIA (1999)
HUNGARY (1999)
POLAND (1999)
BULGARIA (2004)
ESTONIA (2004)
LATVIA (2004)
LITHUANIA (2004)
ROMANIA (2004)
SLOVAKIA (2004)
SLOVENIA (2004)
ALBANIA (2009)
CROATIA (2009)
MONTENEGRO (2017)
NORTH MACEDONIA (2020)
As we can see, most of the new members from Eastern Europe joined between 1999 and 2004, long before the invasion of Crimea and before Russia had made any aggressive actions. It was before Putin had really consolidated any real hold on power. Meanwhile, it was the US launching invasions of Afghanistan in 2002, and Iraq in 2003, in order to find non-existent WMDs. We were the ones acting aggressively, while they weren't really doing anything at the time.
You make an interesting point about Obama's snarky remark and how Russia might have been insulted by that. It probably goes back to my point about how they've been studying US politics. Even most Americans can see our politicians and other officials can often come off as insufferable jerks and hypocrites, so the Russians see it, too. I keep hearing the phrase from US pundits and politicians about "showing weakness." "We can't show weakness in front of the Russians," but they already know our weaknesses anyway. But I think we'd be better off trying to show them that we're not so ignorant or stupid as our politicians display on a regular basis. Our government's stupidity is our greatest weakness, and that's something they couldn't hide even if they tried.
So, I think we could have done better; we could have avoided much of this if we played things differently during the 90s and early 2000s. But it's all spilled milk now, and we're now in a renewed phase of the old Cold War.
Regardless of how it all started and what led up to this, we're stuck in it now, and the question still stands: What are we prepared to do? How far are we prepared to go, and do Americans really have the strength and the stomach for it?
We're in somewhat of a shambles over here ourselves. It's been a bit of a mess. Maybe even the Russians are causing some of it, with all the right-wing nationalist BS going on. So, I can assure you I'm not blind to those kinds of threats, but if we're in that kind of battle, then I would still say that we'd have to think more strategically. I think it would be a mistake to look at this as the same old Cold War or rely solely on historical imagery like the USSR or Peter the Great to try to speculate as to what they might do. This is a different kind of war, probably one we've never really faced before. I just hope that we don't embrace a losing strategy. Just because Putin is a madman doesn't mean that we have to become that.
It is very well documented that Russia plans to conquer and dominate Eastern Europe and Soviet Asia, and like China economic domination beyond this as in the Middle East. He has stated his intent to take these countries one at a time, and it is a fact that he has done this for some of the independent countries,
China has openly declared its intent to dominate the economy of the Pacific and actually beyond, China has established bases in Africa and elsewhere,
My comparison with Chamberlain is RUGHT ON. The world has not changed since Hitler had the same plans for domination of Europe as Putin does today.
I believe the answer to your question of what should we do? is show a united effort ny the allies to stop this, which is the intent of the NATO alliance. This is in progress.
Your response appears ambiguous and wishy washy, and you fail to acknowledge the openly stated goals of Russia and China, nir have you presented an alternative plan of response, to Russian aggression against independent countries. This has been the goal since Czarist Russia and has religious roots in the Russian Orthodox Church.
You need to present a coherent alternative!
One key difference I've often seen noted between "socialism" and "communism" is that socialism is often perceived as evolutionary, democratic, and mostly non-violent, whereas communism is perceived as revolutionary, authoritarian, and violent. The difference may not be in the defintion of what they are, but how they are achieved.
The way I perceive it, it is mostly a combination of a reasonably solid claim of opposing military imperialism (which is very much what Putin has been pursuing) and a genuine interest in supporting fairly functional diplomatic values.
Yes, the USA has its own militarism and it is shameful. But I just don't see how that makes the interest in Ukraine any less legit.
Yes, the USA has its own militarism and it is shameful. But I just don't see how that makes the interest in Ukraine any less legit.
Sure, I can do that, but first, I'd like to know where you get your information from, regarding China, Russia, and their plans for world domination. My guess it's from the same sources of information that Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover were using.
The world is not some comic book melodrama with archvillains and superheroes. It's not some story about Jedi Knights fighting the "evil empire." If you want to reduce geopolitics and all its complexities down to some cheesy story of heroes and villains, then I'm not sure what else to say at this point.
And sure, I agree with the need to show unity, but how much unity do we really have? How much unity is there within America itself? How much unity are you encouraging by calling people "pacifist," "wishy-washy," "Chamberlain"? Is this your method of how to win friends and influence people? Is this how you promote unity?
Come on now. Putin is a militaristic imperialist. It is necessary to stop him.
The international community failed to do that back in 2014. Now it is ready.
No amount of fantasy will change those basic facts.
That's true, but the antipathy towards Putin was there even before 2014.
Even before 2010.
And guess what? It turns out to be well justified and ultimately irrelevant. Just to limit ourselves to actual military engagements, there were two serious conflicts with Chechnya and one with Georgia between the 1990s and 2010.
I don't really understand why you even bring it up. It almost sounds like you want to praise NATO for rising up to the task.
Frankly, it would make more sense to ask why it took this long for a firm challenge to Russian imperialism to take form.
Last edited:
There always has to be one anal grammarian to comment on proper English. Please just respond to the intent of the post.
I fail to see why you quoted me there. Was it a mistake of yours?
Sure you Can?!?!?! Since the beginning of the thread you have NOT presented an alternative. Still waiting . . .
World domination is to kinds physical and economic. The stated gains of China is extending State Mercantile Economic goals to the world by controlling resources as their efforts in Africa and dominating the export and technology market. There territorial goals are specifically dominating the Pacific and the economics of surrounding Asian countries.
Your splitting frog hairs as to what world dominion means, and ignoring the actual statements and policies of Russia and China on the ground and in economics. and not responding to the bottom line on who and how are we to bell the cat.'
Chamberlain used the same words as you have used in this thread to take the non0involvement actions he did against Hitler. Russias present course of action is exactly the same as Hitler domination of Europe.
Still waiting . . .
By definition, they're both about owning property.
Communism eschews private property.
Socialism has "the people" owning the means of production.
What people expect from each speaks only to origins of the
words, & how people feel about them.
Consider...
We use the word "press" in the context of freedom to
refer to all communication. But if we limited it to the
word's origin, it would mean only printed material.
Words mean what they mean, despite the fact that
some have a rich history.
Actually, I was criticizing the common artful use of
the word as a tool to avoid addressing existence
of whatever it was under discussion.
This is the offending part of your post...
"In reality the existence of a truly Communist or Socialist economy or government is an urban myth..."
Now, stop engaging in such mischief, & recognize
that labels such as "socialist" & "capitalist" can be
used, despite no system being "pure" or "truly".
I'll give you a cookie if you behave.
