You asked "And how many times has Russia been invaded in the last century, approximately?"
Yes I did. And "approximately" was the key word in that sentence.
For start, we were talking about military invasions, right?
Seems to me like they win the persecution gig no matter which way you look at it.
They were allied enough to hold joint victory parade and cooperate invading together and sign official documents (secret part of Ribbentrop-Molotov).
Does that change what I said at all?
how it is contrary to NATO's official mandate? NATO is a collective security system and main threat to its members is Russia.
Which is quite funny, because every subsequent administration from George Bush on was desperate to convince Russia that this proposition 'wasn't' true, and that they don't view them as a threat and likewise Russia shouldn't view them as a threat.
Which one? The part where they acted against Russian aggressions or part where they failed to respond?
The part where the US refuses to respect the geopolitical security concerns of other countries and is driving the expansion a hostile military alliance all the way up to the borders of Russia. If NATO refuses to respect the security concerns of Russia, don't be surprised when Russia doesn't respect theirs.
Can you tell me how many and list this cases?
Well let's see... Napoleon invaded them. Germany invaded them. Japan invaded them. The west invaded them. The US has meddled 'far' more in Russian political affairs than the reverse. Seems to me like they've got some pretty valid security concerns that demand more than NATO's "just trust me bro," sycophants in the US think Russia should be satisfied with.
I remember World War II when they were invaded by own ally, in war they started by invading Poland.
Russia and Nazi Germany had a NAP, they were never official "allies."
Maybe Soviet–Japanese border conflicts count, but not sure who invaded who.
Russia wasn't the initial aggressor.
Russia was/is a problem in its incarnations of Tzarist Russia, USSR and Russian Federation. That is basically the same problem.
Then contrary to NATO's official mandate, Russia's concerns are quite valid if this is an admission that NATO will always be opposed to Russia's geopolitical interests.
Yes, NATO exists to preventing Russia from developing it's sphere of influence.
There you go. And that's how we got where we are.
Sadly, NATO isn't a military alliance hellbent on economically strangling Russia.
Then what explains NATO's actions against them? See The Putin Interviews if you're actually looking for an answer.
Yes, but not as publicized propaganda exercises.
Point: be cynical and draw up plans against your neighbors. Just don't go public with it. It's pretty sad you're going for style over substance on this. If bad optics is the worst you can say about them, I'll happily take the concession.
Tretiak
1yr ago
In absolute terms, sure. In a shade of gray and probabilistic sense, no. Just because some data is unreliable doesn't mean it's completely unreliable. If you can't make 'any' use of it, fine.
The last time I got into a debate with this person was on reddit where he told me that being in a marriage where you are chattel to your husband was the same as having to get a job at Pizza Hut to make rent. I will read and critically judge any source I am given but I will say I have set my expectations at a certain level.
That is... uh, interesting, to say the least.
Tretiak
1yr ago
And for why Russian invasion of Poland is a security threat... Well, it happened repeatedly in the past, Russia keeps invading and being aggressive and is trying to restore its empire.
And how many times has Russia been invaded in the last century, approximately? Now tell me they have no valid security concerns of their own that should be respected.
Circassian genocide, Russian invasion of Poland etc predate NATO. NATO was created in reaction to Russia being a threat.
NATO was created as a bulwark against the USSR, not Russia. When the Cold War ended and the Warsaw Pact dissolved, the impetus for NATO should've went along with the rest of it, unless it exists for ulterior motives; and unluckily for the west, Putin isn't stupid enough to be fooled into thinking NATO isn't a military alliance hellbent on economically strangling Russia and preventing it from developing it's sphere of influence.
I am not aware of USA roleplaying nuclear attack on specific cities during their military exercises.
Let me be the first to tell you, 'all' nations run simulations and have attack plans in place for their neighbors. When it was revealed that the US had plans for an invasion of Canada, it was a surprise to everybody that 'wasn't' paying attention to geopolitics.
For comparison, in US it would mean executing 15% of adults...
This is all predicated on the assumption of you thinking that such laws won't have a deterrent effect and put a stop to a lot of that behavior. I do not think the overwhelming majority of people are so driven by sex outside of marriage that they will willingly give up their life in the face of the law to chase after it. I don't know what the rate of adultery is for societies that have such strict laws on sexual infidelity. But if one government sanctioned death of a man/woman who cheats on their spouse prevents 100 families from breaking up or otherwise being destroyed through similar actions then the rational calculation says what it says. I can't argue with that. I place greater importance and consideration on the family than the individual.
... Without putting anything into your mouth, I fail to see your "final destination" as anything other than Himalaya sized mountain of skulls...
Yes. If 15% of adults continued to commit capital offenses after the law went into effect, we would execute 15% of adults. I'm down. Keep it in your pants or in your wife.
Now show places in US with regular armed uprisings against US government with death tolls from hundreds to thousands.
You're the one who made the claim about "armed uprisings," not me.
Tretiak
1yr ago
the same for me, and also against Russian invasions (especially in my country)
Indeed. It's almost as if the Minsk Accords should've been adhered to.
Tretiak
1yr ago
Well, very large part of my lack of enthusiasm toward Russia is that Russia considers Poland as being within their rightful fence.
Yeah, I hear this too. And what's the reliable source for anticipating the inevitable Putin invasion of Europe that I'm always told about?
For me whole point of NATO is to have strong guard dog keeping Russian bear away. Yes, away from they consider their area to grab.
Ah yes. "NATO is justified to manage the security threats provoked by its own existence."
Maybe if they would not do stuff like role playing invasion of Poland and dropping nuclear weapon on Warsaw as part of their military exercises I would be liking Russian government more and would be more supportive for it.
Wait until you hear about the invasion plans the US has cooked up on the backend for its own neighbors. It's a pity we didn't have such hawkish stooges in the Kennedy administration, encouraging him to dig his heels in all the more against Khrushchev. After all, he might not have invaded Puerto Rico.
well, Russia should not have meddled in Ukraine's backyard then.
Tretiak
1yr ago
No? As evidenced by fact that I am nor trying to move there.
Except for when you criticized me for "not preferring to have been born there." A statement I never made, hinted at, or even remotely gestured toward.
I am just asking how seriously you believe your own claim that trench in Ukraine is superior to renting room in Bay Area.
And I'm saying the reason you're confused is because you missed the principle the example is meant it illustrate and took the example itself too literally and ran with it.
I think you are trolling/shitposting/lying and you do not actually believe that Russia or trench in Ukraine is superior to your life in USA. But if you are taking steps to emigrate to one of places you mentioned I could admire consistency at least.
Which wasn't the point I was making.
So the mullahs are weenies, so your plan for creating perfect trad society is more prisons, more torture and more executions. Your proposed solution is you and few hundred thousands of Revolutionary Guards (how many of them would be wiling to obey?) waging full scale war against the whole population (while Iran is indeed surrounded by enemies willing to exploit the opportunity).
You're the one using all this value-laden, disparaging language, not me. I never said anything at all about a comprehensive set of solutions, save for pointing out that apparently Iran doesn't an overall plan that works. The most I ever said if you go back to my original post, was that Iran sanctioning the death penalty for adultery was merely "a step in the right direction" to start with. And what's the serious objection to that? "I won't get married if I get the death penalty for adultery!" Well why the hell would you get married in the first place, if you plan to commit adultery? But if I can't even open my mouth without you trying to shove something in it, then there's little point for further discussion on the matter.
LOL. People willing to do this are anything but apathetic. Especially when they know they will not get slap on the wrist like BLM, when they know they can be shot or tortured to death. The Iranian government wishes the people were "apathetic".
Ah, well if we can cherry pick examples to our liking, there are plenty of places in the US that resemble third world countries.
In your opinion, should the mullahs try harder? Should they do more?
Evidently so, if current policies are ineffective. But short of applying direct force, this is a problem virtually every developed and semi-developed country on Earth doesn't have a solid proposal for. If people's own choices can't reliably produce an outcome, and coercion can't reliably produce an outcome, all that remains is to institute more crushing and draconian penalties. If you’re a policymaker for the political administration it’s going to be difficult to see a solution to encourage the birth of the next generation that isn’t going to be a painful one.
Assuming they could try harder - remember that Iran is country with massively disaffected populace, with regular riots and urprisings with death toll in the hundreds. Country more like Tsarist Russia than Stalin's one.
Your link doesn't work properly. And the same incidentally could be said of many western countries, where suicide rates are up, there's a great sense of apathy in the population, I'm told we've never been closer to fascism and wages have stagnated considerably for the past forty years. I'm sorry, but reports of America's death have been greatly exaggerated, all other problems considered. You'll forgive me if I'm not going all in on Iran, either.
Tretiak
1yr ago
Still the ratio between people coming to US and people leaving speaks for itself.
Considering it's much harder to be an economic migrant in other countries, this is unsurprising. Sounds like parasites found an easier target.
Seeing people voting with their legs is about the only objective measure of oppression that exists. Genuinely oppressed people are running away from their persecutors (if they have the opportunity, most oppressed people in history had nowhere to go).
In a country where it's significantly easier to immigrate to? This is one of the things native born Americas cite in favor of the declining QOL of this country, of which I happen to agree. It's pretty strange why I should see this as a net benefit to living in this country.
Not anymore, most Africans now live in favela style housing in mega cities. Hellish by our standards, paradisical by standards of their previous village life.
Yeah, that one went right over your head, didn't it?
And you mention conditions more suitable to your lifestyle, not just that you would prefer to be born there.
Seems more to me like you have a hard time comprehending that some people don't think the US is all it's cracked up to be. I can love my country without fetishizing it. I will always put my family and the community that raised me ahead of myself. And even so, there are categorical disagreements I have with the society that raised me on how we do things.
I will take shoebox over trench, thank you. (as described, neither is nice but it sounds to me you underestimate awfulness of war)
I'm curious, do you think most Africans still live in mud huts too?
Tretiak
1yr ago
but there is not, so there is substantial difference between USA and Russia here (and elsewhere)
Incidentally yes. In principle, no.
Russia being imperialist and neighbours preferring to not be in Russia is not West fault.
No different than the Monroe Doctrine in the US. You want people to stay out of your backyard, stay out of others backyards.
Tretiak
1yr ago
Being right in one specific case that does not mean that they are right in general.
Glad to know RT's got more going for it than CNN does.
And yes, claiming it is all (or even in part) about nazis is a lie by Russia.
Not by your own admission.
Tretiak
1yr ago
Because it works poorly as clickbait.
Facts that break the counter-narrative usually do.
I am aware of it and it does not seem to be significant in this matter.
Makes sense if you support western foreign policy. I'm fairly anti-war myself.
You initially brought up the point about conscription. Look at what it was in response to.
Speculation on what was going on in Putin's brain is "knowledge", let alone "elementary"?
Sounds like you never even read the preview.
... Russian state propaganda routinely uses "western nazis" as snarl words to legitimize its actions vs. the West whether the particular people in question wear the swastikas or not. You're doing the equivalent of pointing out that the stopped clock is right at one of the two moments when it does match real time.
Seems pretty hard to call it "state propaganda" then when they're reporting accurately.
Tretiak
1yr ago
And why does the US go at length to keep its military purely voluntary? If conscription is cheaper, then the answer can't be just "because it can", it could free up resources by grabbing more near-free manpower.
You must be having an argument with someone else, because I have no idea what half your points have to do with anything I'm saying.
I happen to think, based on data I didn't need a hundred politological books to learn, that there ain't anything the West did that "forced Russia's hand".
Yes, in fact they did, and this is elementary knowledge in geopolitical circles. Why do you think the Minsk Accords receive zero attention in the western press? (It's because western audiences that know about it, know that it completely blows up the western narrative on Russia-Ukraine)
it covers up with figleafs of "denazification"...
You mean like the Azov Battalion that explicitly defined itself as Neo-Nazi? That one?
Tretiak
1yr ago
Conscription is by definition against a person's will. The only reason why there's any pretense otherwise in the US is because we've barely been able to get by staffing the military on a purely voluntary basis. If we couldn't, there would be conscription.
Could justify it if "defending" meant "defending" as it did during WWII, but this? Hardly different from USA's "national interests securing" and "projecting influence". The only major difference is that USA's got oceans on both sides and Russia's only got one.
I really don't want to seem like I'm insulting you here because I'm honestly not trying to, but are you really this dense? Even the foremost western scholars on the matter like Richard Sakwa fault the west for Russia taking drastic measures in securing its own national security interests.
Tretiak
1yr ago
And considering the conflicts the US rampages across the world starting, it too, has little problem throwing away it's citizens for false ideals, against people who've never done a thing against them. At least Russia has the good sense to throw their people away defending their own borders.
This response is supposed to make you grasp that the most thorough effort in current times to force tradition and religion at gun point failed as thoroughly as it could fail.
This isn't true. In western society that remark is hyperbole and we all know it, because nobody here is forcing tradition and religion down people's throats at gunpoint. Do you know what kind of societies 'are' doing that? Afghanistan. Somalia. Not even Russia or China are doing what you're suggesting, and it's the latter that are facing these problems most intensely.
Where did ayatollahs go wrong? Were they too soft, were they too concerned about human rights, should they imprison, torture and kill more?
He asked what a more traditional solution sounded like. Well, I gave him one. Current trends and demographics seem to be making the case that the latter is the more attractive long-term option. The only problem with my solution isn't the content of the policy, it's that it's too piecemeal and unfortunately lacks the strength and extremism that seems necessary to reverse current trends.
This is why I've repeatedly said in this community, when nation's get caught in a death spiral like this, there's 'zero' historical evidence to suggest that they reform their way out of it. The more severe the problem becomes, the more extreme the solutions become. The more extreme the solutions become, the more unacceptable they become to the population, etc., and you end up stuck in this self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. What history suggests happens is that these nation's die off or get conquered.
Tretiak
1yr ago
Right. I'm aware of over-relying too much on such aged and inferred models. But what other data is there to trust about that timeline? It's better than trusting mine or anyone else's independent and unqualified speculation.
There's nothing "American," about being an economic migrant. Very few of the people who would work hard to get here, come for the unique American identity and experience. They're seeking a material quality of life that isn't comparable to what they currently have. Those that have it where they are, don't look with so much envy to the US.
It's seldom the case that failure of a marriage responsibly falls on only one of the parties involved. But I think a world in which marriages are at least 'partly' arranged fare better than the ones predicated entirely on the ephemeral attractions of two consenting adults.
More options
Context Copy link