Russia - General Discussion.

Ananda

The Bunker Group
I didn't say you praise the Russian government. But some do.
Then I apologize for miss understanding. Just seems lately got accusations from some members here that I'm Pro Russia and want to spin His Regime possition, just simply because I (like many in non west) choose to stay in the fences on this war and look on both sides opinions.
 
However some line that Putin Regime make, is being believe by them being crosses by other side. Nobody going to do military action and invade if none of their perceive line being cross.
That last statement is completely false. You can very well start a war without any red line being crossed. Did Saddam cross a red line when the US invaded Iraq the second time under false pretenses? No. That was a premeditated attack with the purpose of regime change, supported by flase information. No red line had been crossed, and Iraq still got invaded.

The situation with Putin’s war on Ukraine is very similar. He invaded because he thought he would win easily and change the regime. Not because of some imaginary red line that was crossed, that you can’t even spell out which it was.

Russia tried to insinuate that NATO’s expansion towards them is a red line, and then Finland joined, and it was no longer a red line. All those so called red lines are just talk in order to create justifications for unjustifiable actions and to instill fear in the weaker Western leaders.

I am still waiting to know your opinion about which was the red line that Ukraine crossed and caused the invasion.
 
I (like many in non west) choose to stay in the fences on this war and look on both sides opinions.
When you have a country invading another with the initial purpose of changeing the democratically elected regime with a puppet regime, and when the initial objective fails it moves to annexing territory, staying in the fences looks like a tacit endorsement of the aggressor. This is why many people see you as supporting Russia.

When you are neutral about a rapist and a victim (when the rape happened in public and there is no doubt about it), and you want to hear both sides, it is easy for people to see you as supporting the rapist.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
All those so called red lines are just talk in order to create justifications for unjustifiable actions and to instill fear in the weaker Western leaders.
Again it is false. You may not agree with their line but there's always lines that decision makers decide to goes to war. For Iraq, well clearly the US red line is 'Saddam's continues existence in power'. They should finish Saddam after first Gulf war, but they are not. Saddam continues existance in power then become the lines that need to be cross by some US powerbase. At least if they are finishing Saddam in first Gulf war, they can use existing pretext, and no need to fabricated new pretext for second gulf war.

Again you may not agree with their lines, but does not mean it is not there.

still waiting to know your opinion about which was the red line that Ukraine crossed and caused the invasion.
Farewell I will entertaint you this time. I don't want to discuss it before because it is pointless as you don't believe on Russian red lines.

The red lines was there even before 2014, even when creation of present Ukraine border. It is Crimea. Yeltsin agree on present Ukraine border (even Bush Sr tought Russia will demand Russian speaking Oblasts), after Ukraine basically agree for 'perpetual' Russian presences in Crimea.

Ukraine sign agreement for long term lease on Crimea Naval facilities to Russia basically close to perpetual. When some pro western Ukrainian politicians begin to talk to end that, that's the red line that drove Putin to annex Crimea.

Early this war, Russian already shown around in their media talk on reviving Imperial Taurida Oblast. Guess what, that Taurida basically Crimea, Kherson and Zaporozhye. So annexing those four Oblasts is basically securing the flanks of Crimea. Securing Sea of Azov, and also securing water supply to Crimea. Sea of Azov important to be secure not just to secure Crimea flanks, but also securing gate way of Russian Inland waterways to Black Sea.

Russia went to war in 19th century to then superpower Britain and France over Crimea. They will going to war or escalating the war if they fell Crimea threaten again. Crimea for Russia is part of their existential. Again other in West including you can disagree on that, but it is Russian believe.

Anyway I already talk this time and time again in this thread or Ukraine war thread. As you are new in here, I will entertaint this by again talk what I have wrote in both threads for some time.

you have a country invading another with the initial purpose of changeing the democratically elected regime with a puppet regime,
Right, just like West help Iranian Shah purge to destroy democratic ellected government, when US help and push Chille military to crush democratic elected left wing government, and so on and so on.

This is not first time democratic elected government being push away, so that's why many even most Non Western public opinion is not buying and increasingly see democracy excuse as Western non sense.

This is why for geopolitical reasoning many non west keep engage with Russia and stay in fences. The champion of staying in fences is India, and US and West keep continue frolicking around Modi"s administration. They should be, Modi's is the most west leaning government in Indian history. Event that they are staying in the fences on this war.

Just wondering when West destroy democratic elected government that not agree with them, is it 'rapist' ?
 
Last edited:
Again it is false. You may not agree with their line but there's always lines that decision makers decide to goes to war. For Iraq, well clearly the US red line is 'Saddam's continues existence in power'.
You are misunderstanding the meaning of crossing a red line. Maybe this is why the confusion between what you are meaning and what others understand.

Crossing a red line means someone doing something unacceptable that generates a response. Saddam’s existence in power is not crossing a red line, because Saddam existed in power for decades. Saddam didn’t cross any red line. The invasion was the result of a ruthless decision by the Bush Jr administration to finish off Saddam. No red line has been crossed. The US administration was simly discontent with the status quo and decided to change it.

When some pro western Ukrainian politicians begin to talk to end that, that's the red line that drove Putin to annex Crimea.
Yes, this sounds like a red line that was crossed and generated a response. This can very well explain the annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Early this war, Russian already shown around in their media talk on reviving Imperial Taurida Oblast. Guess what, that Taurida basically Crimea, Kherson and Zaporozhye. So annexing those four Oblasts is basically securing the flanks of Crimea. Securing Sea of Azov, and also securing water supply to Crimea. Sea of Azov important to be secure not just to secure Crimea flanks, but also securing gate way of Russian Inland waterways to Black Sea.
So this time, they decided to invade without any red line being crossed. Ukraine or the West did nothing to change the status quo, yet Putin decided to invade because he changed his mind about the situation. This has nothing to do with red lines, but with changing ambitions and objective at the Kremlin.

Just wondering when West destroy democratic elected government that not agree with them, is it 'rapist' ?
If they do it by using brute force and killing people, yes it is.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
you misunderstanding the meaning of crossing a red line.
No I'm not. Red line is just another threshold, but threshold that going to triger extreme response.

Saddam’s existence in power is not crossing a red line,
No for some in US power base, including Bush Jr administration, it is. They just need pretext to do it, as it is already in their thorn for sometime. War on teror and WMD just a thing they are fabricated for pretext on crossing that threshold.

This has nothing to do with red lines, but with changing ambitions and objective at the Kremlin.
No it is not as simple as that, It is still related to Crimea as their red line. From their perspective Ukraine and their Western backers are planning to disrupt the status quo. Minsk Accord for one thing is being hope by Russian to guarantee the status quo that they are hoping. By Providing Pro Russian forces in East Ukraine veto power, Russian hope this guarantee their buffer thus the status quo. In the end it is going to guarantee their precious Crimea flanks.

Ukraine continues try to push Crimea possition, continue hold water supply to Crimea, etc. This is not from Russian pov as effort to maintain status quo.

Asking for Ukrainian demilitarisation, neutral standing is the additional ambitions. This related to their northern offensive that prove over ambitious, as their additional ambitions.

they do it by using brute force and killing people, yes it is
Then you understand why many non western decided to stay in fences, as looking to previous Western wars in non western world, they simply would not buy this western free world strugle talks.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
You are misunderstanding the meaning of crossing a red line. Maybe this is why the confusion between what you are meaning and what others understand.

Crossing a red line means someone doing something unacceptable that generates a response. Saddam’s existence in power is not crossing a red line, because Saddam existed in power for decades. Saddam didn’t cross any red line. The invasion was the result of a ruthless decision by the Bush Jr administration to finish off Saddam. No red line has been crossed. The US administration was simly discontent with the status quo and decided to change it.
I think there may have been an element of self-deception. Bush et al wanted to get rid of Saddam, but they couldn't justify invading unless he gave them an excuse, & Saddam (being stupid in these matters, just as he had been in 1990-91) obliged, by obfuscating what had been done with his WMDs. He wanted it to be unclear whether he'd destroyed them all, thinking that would deter attacks, while making sure (by destroying them all) the inspectors didn't find any because he understood that proof that he still had some could have severe adverse consequences for him.

Unluckily for him, that obfuscation achieved the result he sought, of creating uncertainty - but that uncertainty was enough for Bush, Blair et al to convince themselves that he was hiding some, & therefore they were justified in doing what they wanted to do anyway.

I think Blair was very much the sort of person who is capable of convincing himself that facts match his wishes, & probably also Bush. He wanted there to be hidden WMDs in Iraq so convinced himself they existed. That self-deception enables him to believe that he's honest. I've seen it in others, & not only politicians. Give them an analysis that says X may be true, & if they want it to be true they'll convince themselves it is. If they want it to be false, they'll believe it's false.

BTW, Saddam's real red line was crossed in 1990, with the invasions of first Kuwait, then Saudi Arabia. After that, he was walking on eggshells, & he should have known it.
 
Bush et al wanted to get rid of Saddam, but they couldn't justify invading unless he gave them an excuse, & Saddam (being stupid in these matters, just as he had been in 1990-91) obliged, by obfuscating what had been done with his WMDs.
I wouldn’t put the blame here with Saddam, because his fate had been sealed regardless of what he did at that time. After 9.11 the mood of the American public had changed and Bush wanted to take advantage of this by finishing off Saddam. The WMD thing was just a fabricated pretext, to justify the invasion for the public. If it was not for the WMD, they would have invented something else.
 
Then you understand why many non western decided to stay in fences, as looking to previous Western wars in non western world, they simply would not buy this western free world strugle talks.
Actually I don’t understand why many non-western decided to stay on fence, because this war has nothing to do with previous wars in other parts of the world. If the US did a stupid thing 20 years ago, it doesn’t give Russia the right to do the same thing now. You can very well be against the war in Iraq and against the war in Ukraine. This is not about US vs Russia. This is about a big country invading a smaller one. Any counry that doesn’t have territorial ambitions and doesn’t plan to invade its neighbors should support Ukraine.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
many non-western decided to stay on fence, because this war has nothing to do with previous wars in other parts of the world.
Put it this way, look at pattern on UN GA assemblies resolutions on Ukraine war supports. When the resolutions talk about Invasion, Ukraine territory integrity, most of Non Western world (you can call it Global South) support the resolutions.

However when resolutions begin to talk on Russian pay the damage, or Blocking Russian Trade those Global South votes mostly goes to Abstains and some even move to support Russia. Thus put themselves not supporting Western Blocks.

This is what most Non Western stay on the fence translate on this war. They condemn Russia invasion, but they will not move to disengage Russia or stop trading with Russia. Later part on disengage Russia or economic sanctions to Russia is seen as part of Western Geopolitical positions, and most Global South will not going to follow that (at least until now).

For many Non Western publics also means take any information from both sides as equally with sceptics. See what's then translate on reality in the ground.

This in realities mostly due to sceptics toward Western intentions on Geopolitical level. You can see why many Non West wants to end of what they see Unipolar US/West lead order. Even in BRICS, despite all the animosity between China and India they are both agree to support on reducing USD in trade (some call it dedollarisation), as they see the need to increase Multipolar world order. USD lead Western currency bucket is the main assets on current Unipolar order. Put this all way back in this thread on the market mechanics behind this.

So what US and West done in past toward mostly Non Western world is matter on why they're mostly in fences on this War.
 
Last edited:

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
I already answered that. White House can say what now or more precise after invasion anything on their warnings. However not doing enough raise questions whether they're believe or not on those warnings, thus Russian intentions to Invade.
So your argument for believing that the White House was lying when they warned about a Russian attack was because they (in your opinion) had not been "doing enough"??

You are really showing your bias here. Somebody once said: "it's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future". Seems to me that if the US cannot make perfect predictions of the future, and implement the actions you expect them to do, your default is to assume they are lying. I am speechless.

US warns of ‘distinct possibility’ Russia will invade Ukraine within days | Ukraine | The Guardian
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
really showing your bias here.
It is better then your Western condescending bias, but then you are already known for that. Besides what I post is not enough action from them raise questions whether they believe or not on their own warnings. I don't know where you learn your English, that's not same with calling them lying.

Perhaps deep down you are the ones that believe they're lying. Well you also known to put your own words on other people opinion. So no surprise there.

Add:
I did say White house fabricated truth in Iraq, thus lying on Iraq for Second Gulf War. Perhaps you're also confuse on that ?
 
Last edited:

koxinga

Well-Known Member
This is about a big country invading a smaller one. Any counry that doesn’t have territorial ambitions and doesn’t plan to invade its neighbors should support Ukraine.
The divide and misunderstanding is not about that principle, but it is about the actors. Breaking it down:

1) principle = support for ukraine

2) but support for ukraine = largely western position (given the amount of support from the West)

3) and western position = untrustworthy (for a variety of reasons, real or imagined)

The non-western "sit-on-the-fence" arguments you get is largely because of 3), not 1) or basic principles, IMO.

If the US did a stupid thing 20 years ago, it doesn’t give Russia the right to do the same thing now. You can very well be against the war in Iraq and against the war in Ukraine.
You are assuming that non-western skeptics criticism of the war is condoning russian actions or accepting Russia, which isn't necessarily case.

India is a classic example; given it's on-going dispute with China over the LoC, you would assume based on the principle in 1), it should be the strong supporter for Ukraine. Other than historical and practical ties to Russia, outright support for Ukraine and the West will not sit well with the "the west is the source of our ills and global problem" segment.

Misreading this, and especially insisting to link big principles (e.g you must believe in this principle/value) like this only deepens the mistrust and reinforces the idea that among non-western skeptics.
 
The non-western "sit-on-the-fence" arguments you get is largely because of 3), not 1) or basic principles, IMO.
Yes, I know that. The problem is, by staying on the fence they look extremely hypocritical. This is compounded by the fact that Ukraine is not a historically Western country with a history of doing bad stuff (like colonialism, wars, etc.). When your principles say you should support Ukraine, but you prefer to stay on the fence (because of other reasons, like not trusting Ukraine’s allies), people start to wonder if your principles are actually real, or you just invoke them when they suit your interests.

It will be very hard to take non-Western countries who didn’t support Ukraine serious when they will complain about imperialism, colonialism etc. from now on. If you don’t care about the plight of Ukrainians, why should other people care about your plight?

Other than historical and practical ties to Russia, outright support for Ukraine and the West will not sit well with the "the west is the source of our ills and global problem" segment.
I think the leaders of important countries like India should not bow tot the “west is the source of our ills and global problem” segment. Those who have that kind of thinking should not be encouraged to continue on their wrongful path. They should be confronted by being told the truth, which no politician is willing to do, because it’s much easier to deflect the blame for all problems on foreigners. Those who believe “the west is the source of our ills and global problem” are the non-Western equivalent of racists. Politicians should not appease them, as the phenomenon will only get worse.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
people start to wonder if your principles are actually real...
This is why India's position is always about peace. It is vague and ambiguous enough to be right, most of the time without sounding hypocritical.

I think the leaders of important countries like India should not bow tot the “west is the source of our ills and global problem” segment. Those who have that kind of thinking should not be encouraged to continue on their wrongful path. They should be confronted by being told the truth, which no politician is willing to do, because it’s much easier to deflect the blame for all problems on foreigners. Those who believe “the west is the source of our ills and global problem” are the non-Western equivalent of racists. Politicians should not appease them, as the phenomenon will only get worse.
I highlighted the two lines to point out precisely why it will not succeed. The statements you wrote has a definitive dimension, which those people will question the nature and the validity of the truth, and path that you are trying to point out.

The other dimension you missed out is the local politics and religion are powerful obstacles to achieving that. Islamic parties like PAS in Malaysia basically suvives on a platform of racisim and religious extremism. Is it illegal? When a country like Malaysia enshrines a race based policy (Bumiputra/Malays as the supreme race/affirmative action on a national level) as the basis for existence, you are fighting a losing battle. Indonesia isn't any better in this regard.

It is beyond me or us to find a solution. I just hope to advance this discourse by exploring why people behave the way they behave.

edit:

to close my thoughts:

To the eastern mind, this idea of "sitting on the fence" and "which side of the fence are you on" is an obsession that doesn't make much sense. You feel is matters, many don't in the greater scheme of things.

Because I suspect for many of them, the "fence" doesn't exist. It is just a make up thing by people to make a point at a certain point in time. Another thing comes along and there is a new fence.
 
Last edited:
The other dimension you missed out is the local politics and religion are powerful obstacles to achieving that. Islamic parties like PAS in Malaysia basically suvives on a platform of racisim and religious extremism. Is it illegal? When a country like Malaysia enshrines a race based policy (Bumiputra/Malays as the supreme race/affirmative action on a national level) as the basis for existence, you are fighting a losing battle. Indonesia isn't any better in this regard.
You make valid points. The biggest problem with democracy is populism and the fact that there will always be parties that will use identity politics as a way to have a solid voter base regardless of how poorly they govern and how much they steal.

This phenomenon is not foreign even to devloped democracies, so there is no surprise it is used in younger democracies as a way to manipulate people.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Russia went to war in 19th century to then superpower Britain and France over Crimea. They will going to war or escalating the war if they fell Crimea threaten again. Crimea for Russia is part of their existential. Again other in West including you can disagree on that, but it is Russian believe.

Russia went to war in 19th century to then superpower Britain and France over Crimea. They will going to war or escalating the war if they fell Crimea threaten again. Crimea for Russia is part of their existential. Again other in West including you can disagree on that, but it is Russian believe.
@Ananda I don't believe that war was essentially over Crimea but in Crimea ,the reasons were religious and declining power of Ottoman empire
Crimean War - Wikipedia apologies for wiki
10 Reasons Crimean War 19th Century's Most Important | RealClearHistory
Crimea in the modern context of Putins Russia appears of empire building and depopulating unwanted minorities
How Crimea's Complex History With Russia Dates Back to the 19th Century
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
don't believe that war was essentially over Crimea but in Crimea ,the reasons were religious and declining power of Ottoman empire
Well that's the problem between what non Russian believe and what Russian believe, especially current thinking. One thing for sure Crimea is very ingrained on Russian psych currently and even back to 19th century Russian Imperial. It is for them now consider more or more part of their identity.

For me, how average Russian saying in telegrams or online forums, shown more evidence on how their thinking, especially their popular believe. Rather then Russian state or opposition control media.

That online forums and telegrams which make me see how Crimea is their red line. Even in Imperial time. Crimea is part of Russian believe on their rights for Black Sea access and security.
 
Last edited:
Top