Belarus

[glenn239]

On 7/30/2021 at 2:24 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Thanks, I meant to post this up earlier.

The consensus online is that this is already a done deal, and the Russians will stay past Zapad.

Interesting development, but hardly surprising.    

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

GrossРоссия

[R011]

Российская Империя (Rossiyskaya Imperiya)

[Stuart Galbraith]

You know, it does make me reflect. We spend nearly 50 years of Cold War trying to dismantle the Soviet Union. Then spent the next 30 years showing complete indifference to their trying to rebuild it. I increasingly wonder what the hell it was all for.

[glenn239]

The West spent 50 years trying to contain the Soviet Union, which was possible because the Soviets had crested at a highwater mark in Europe by April 1945, making a stop line natural.  Had Hitler won the war in the East and the Americans attempted to contain Stalin's expansion west from the Urals after the war, they'd have experienced the same troubles as today in that within the Russian heartland, Russia is strongest. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Have you read 'The man in the High Castle'? Much as I admire 'Fatherland', I think PK Dick nailed what a lost WW2 would have been like. The Soviets were  different from the Nazi's. They believed they could make any man a perfect man by equipping him with the right ideology, and with prodigious amounts of violence to purge the population of anyone that might disagree with that mindset.

The Nazis believed that there was only perfect man, they were it, and they would reinforce that by killing anyone else that wasnt. There couldnt have been a cold war with that mindset. They would just have kept on purging. When Dick talked about the Nazi's purging Africa of all Blacks, he really wasnt being frivolous.

Not that I want to derail the Belarus thread with going on about Nazi eurgenics. OTOH, look at any news account of Belarus and you will see the Soviet ideal alive and well. It might be shorn of its ideological basis, but truncheon wielders never got that worked up about that kind of thing.

Its kinda like PK Dicks short story, 'The Gun', where the mechanisms keep working, long after the people they were meant to protect have gone. Thats Lukashenko and Putin in a nutshell. Homo Soveticus outlasted the Soviet, so no wonder they want to bring it back.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[ex2cav]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You know, it does make me reflect. We spend nearly 50 years of Cold War trying to dismantle the Soviet Union. Then spent the next 30 years showing complete indifference to their trying to rebuild it. I increasingly wonder what the hell it was all for.

We were fighting socialism/communism.

[glenn239]

2 minutes ago, ex2cav said:

We were fighting socialism/communism.

Stuart appears to be suggesting that getting into it with Putin over Belarus or Ukraine is the continuation of a longstanding western defense doctrine, but it's not.  During the Cold War the Soviets routinely wiped out resistance movements (Hungary, Czech, Ukrainian) and the West did nothing because interfering in Soviet internal affairs was too risky to contemplate.  We just held the line in Germany and waited out the decades.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Have you read 'The man in the High Castle'? Much as I admire 'Fatherland', I think PK Dick nailed what a lost WW2 would have been like. The Soviets were  different from the Nazi's. They believed they could make any man a perfect man by equipping him with the right ideology, and with prodigious amounts of violence to purge the population of anyone that might disagree with that mindset.

I simply meant to suggest that the closer one gets to Moscow, the further into the heart of Russian power one is, the harder it gets to dictate terms to the Russians.  There is some point, some line, some equilibrium, at some distance from Moscow where things equalize and we can put up the border stakes.  Minsk and Belarus are sure as hell not at that point.

[ex2cav]

8 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I simply meant to suggest that the closer one gets to Moscow, the further into the heart of Russian power one is, the harder it gets to dictate terms to the Russians.  There is some point, some line, some equilibrium, at some distance from Moscow where things equalize and we can put up the border stakes.  Minsk and Belarus are sure as hell not at that point.

I didn't realize there was a book about the high castle. I tried watching the show on the boob tube. I couldn't get into it. It seemed so silly to me. I understand and appreciate the creation of worlds within literature that requires you to close an eye, but I would have to close both eyes for it to make any sense. 

[ex2cav]

13 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Stuart appears to be suggesting that getting into it with Putin over Belarus or Ukraine is the continuation of a longstanding western defense doctrine, but it's not.  During the Cold War the Soviets routinely wiped out resistance movements (Hungary, Czech, Ukrainian) and the West did nothing because interfering in Soviet internal affairs was too risky to contemplate.  We just held the line in Germany and waited out the decades.

History does rhyme. However, the idea that certain persons "want the soviet union back" isn't helpful. Methinks that there are those in the west who would like to see some form of it recreated for their own foreign policy and defense spending justifications.

[urbanoid]

46 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I simply meant to suggest that the closer one gets to Moscow, the further into the heart of Russian power one is, the harder it gets to dictate terms to the Russians.  There is some point, some line, some equilibrium, at some distance from Moscow where things equalize and we can put up the border stakes.  Minsk and Belarus are sure as hell not at that point.

It's not just about geography. You won't have border stakes in Belarus for... a lot of reasons, but you can have them in the Baltic states and somewhere in Ukraine. Maybe even next to the border stakes of Donbabwe and Luganda. Both the Ukrainian government and most of the population would be rather glad. And while Lukashenka's legitimacy took a big hit recently, he's still in charge and significant part of the population is still quite pro-Russian. 

[glenn239]

57 minutes ago, ex2cav said:

History does rhyme. However, the idea that certain persons "want the soviet union back" isn't helpful. Methinks that there are those in the west who would like to see some form of it recreated for their own foreign policy and defense spending justifications.

To me, Russia is like the tide; if they're rising now, they'll be falling later.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, ex2cav said:

We were fighting socialism/communism.

 

It wasnt the fact that we were fighting Communists, because we were friends with the PRC and Yugoslavia. Its not that they were Socialists, because many countries in NATO were.

We were fighting what was an explicit danger to our society. That threat has not gone away, just because the Soviet flag got hauled down and the USSR went away.

Here is the thing. Russia today is ruled by exactly the same kind of narrow minded clique the USSR was. Yet we view it as different. Why? Its still got nuclear weapons. It still kills opponents. Whats changed?

[ex2cav]

11 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

It wasnt the fact that we were fighting Communists, because we were friends with the PRC and Yugoslavia. Its not that they were Socialists, because many countries in NATO were.

We were fighting what was an explicit danger to our society. That threat has not gone away, just because the Soviet flag got hauled down and the USSR went away.

Here is the thing. Russia today is ruled by exactly the same kind of narrow minded clique the USSR was. Yet we view it as different. Why? Its still got nuclear weapons. It still kills opponents. Whats changed?

We were "fighting" socialism and and communism, and resisting the spread of. I don't think we were friends with the PRC and the Yugos, we were friendly with them. In any case "friends" is a subjective term in foreign policy sense.

It appears you just don't like Russians, so be it. I would argue their borders were far more westward in the 90's than now. That had to do with enforcing a political system rooted in socialism/communism. The commies have died away.

Today, "our" borders have crept east. Some of us are still seeing the bear in the same way. Saying it only has changed the color of its fur. I don't think that this helpful to look at it that way.  Doing so puts blinders on their behavior and ours. 

I don't know the mindset of those that rule Russia.  I am sure there are hardliners there. As to them killing their opposition I agree that is barbaric. However, I don't see how that fits in having a rational policy--other than justifying any action you take with "Well, we can do this, they are worse."

As to them having nuclear weapons, yup...They do. A lot of them.....As do the PRC, the Norks, and with the whiz bang diplomacy of the western diplomats, the Iranians will too. Of all of them I am most worried about the Iranians....But then again, we can keep poking the bear and see what happens.

[JasonJ]

"our borders 'crept' east because they wanted to join. We even invited Russia to join. It's not that I hate Russia, I like the people and a lot of their military kit has my respect, look at UK army procurement mess. It's Putin and his gang that I take issue with since they want to restore old SU and go so far as using chemical warfare in other countries."

Something like that in 3, 2, 1..

 

Not to completely disagree, just making a prediction based on past reading of these debates over and over. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by JasonJ

[Stuart Galbraith]

37 minutes ago, ex2cav said:

We were "fighting" socialism and and communism, and resisting the spread of. I don't think we were friends with the PRC and the Yugos, we were friendly with them. In any case "friends" is a subjective term in foreign policy sense.

It appears you just don't like Russians, so be it. I would argue their borders were far more westward in the 90's than now. That had to do with enforcing a political system rooted in socialism/communism. The commies have died away.

Today, "our" borders have crept east. Some of us are still seeing the bear in the same way. Saying it only has changed the color of its fur. I don't think that this helpful to look at it that way.  Doing so puts blinders on their behavior and ours. 

I don't know the mindset of those that rule Russia.  I am sure there are hardliners there. As to them killing their opposition I agree that is barbaric. However, I don't see how that fits in having a rational policy--other than justifying any action you take with "Well, we can do this, they are worse."

As to them having nuclear weapons, yup...They do. A lot of them.....As do the PRC, the Norks, and with the whiz bang diplomacy of the western diplomats, the Iranians will too. Of all of them I am most worried about the Iranians....But then again, we can keep poking the bear and see what happens.

Too simplistic. We were allied with Communists in places. We even had good relations with Romania for a long while. As for Socialist, Britain was Socialist most of the latter half of the 20th Century. So was Italy and Sweden. Was America at war with them too?

I love Russians. I love their culture, I love their humour, I love their literature, I even love their Army. I dont love their disdain for Democracy, their disdain for the respect of human life. I would even tolerate all that quite happily, if they didnt feel so desperately the need to export it, just as they once avidly did with Communism.

But we kicked this rock around the mulberry bush before. America has the charming idea the Cold War ended when the US Planted a McDonalds in Moscow. Even by that yardstick, we are in deep trouble.

https://newspunch.com/russia-closing-mcdonalds-restaurants/

You dont know the mindset of those that rule Russia. Yeah, im picking up on that very strongly. Try reading Livinenko's 'Mafia State'. Its always a good place to start.

[Stuart Galbraith]

44 minutes ago, JasonJ said:

"our borders 'crept' east because they wanted to join. We even invited Russia to join. It's not that I hate Russia, I like the people and a lot of their military kit has my respect, look at UK army procurement mess. It's Putin and his gang that I take issue with since they want to restore old SU and go so far as using chemical warfare in other countries."

Something like that in 3, 2, 1..

 

Not to completely disagree, just making a prediction based on past reading of these debates over and over. 

 I  wised up that no matter how many times I say it, there are people predisposed to not listen. What is it they say, you can lead a horse to water?

I could make a long readlist of all the books that have created the views I have, and stand by. But who would read it? People today are more interested in what they pick up on facebook rather than actually reading something like a book and trying to seriously inform themselves.

Here is one, Robert Service's 'The End of the Cold War'. Specifically the bit at the back about the failed Union treaty.The belief Yeltsin had that 20 years later all these states that abandoned the Union would return when the Russian economy improved. Its nearly 30 years now, and realization and a certain desperation are starting to set in.

Any of you going to read it? Of course not. How ridiculous of me to think you will might challenge your entrenched positions in such a way.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[JasonJ]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 I  wised up that no matter how many times I say it, there are people predisposed to not listen. What is it they say, you can lead a horse to water?

I could make a long readlist of all the books that have created the views I have, and stand by. But who would read it? People today are more interested in what they pick up on facebook rather than actually reading something like a book and trying to seriously inform themselves.

Here is one, Robert Service's 'The End of the Cold War'. Specifically the bit at the back about the failed Union treaty.The belief Yeltsin had that 20 years later all these states that abandoned the Union would return when the Russian economy improved. Its nearly 30 years now, and realization and a certain desperation are starting to set in.

Any of you going to read it? Of course not. How ridiculous of me to think you will might challenge your entrenched positions in such a way.

Well yeah, I should be more clear as I know very well that sentiment of not getting stated recognition for rather important points so on this matter I'll do so. I agree with you much more than not. There's the creep into Georgia, vacationers into Ukraine, to add onto the other things already mentioned. To which others would post in a way to suggest they would be perfectly willing to throw not just the Ukraine but even the Baltics states under the bus on the basis of "Russia's sphere". Gregory as well had posted much about this stuff that would go entirely unnoted had he not. Of course Russia's opposition (US, UK, etc) are not perfect either, so that does dampen a bit my own sentiment towards those Russia related matters. But I do see where you're coming from. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by JasonJ

[JasonJ]

As for books, yeah, but it's because I've got a full plate of books (English and Japanese) so for that Russian angle, I have to rely on TN (as a particpant or as a lurker should it be) and other internet places.

[sunday]

5 minutes ago, JasonJ said:

I  wised up that no matter how many times I say it, there are people predisposed to not listen.

🤣🤣🤣

[JasonJ]

25 minutes ago, sunday said:

🤣🤣🤣

Yeah, even though I didn't say that quote, I had concluded that to myself before ┐(´д｀)┌

[sunday]

9 minutes ago, JasonJ said:

Yeah, even though I didn't say that quote, I had concluded that to myself before ┐(´д｀)┌

Frankly, someone that does not find anything weird in considering that a speed of one knot is equal to a nautical mile traveled in one day could be considered, as much, as hilarious. Especially when that someone proceeds to base a naval strategy argument on a result obtained from that.

Edited September 28, 2021 by sunday

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, JasonJ said:

As for books, yeah, but it's because I've got a full plate of books (English and Japanese) so for that Russian angle, I have to rely on TN (as a particpant or as a lurker should it be) and other internet places.

Dont. Dont even take my word for it, though unlike others here, Ive put the time in to read up on it.

Here is a few books I recommend.

Black Wind, White snow by Charles Clover. How the Russian Far Right infiltrated Russian politics. Or looked at another way, how the KGB infiltrated far right politics, became infatuated with it, and used it as a backstop to Putins rule.  The similarity to the things Russia is doing on the world stage to ideas Dugin comes up with is fairly disconcerting.

It draws inspiration from a man called Alexander Dugin who wrote a book called 'The Foundation of Geopolitics'.  I cant source an English copy, but the Wiki summation is terrifying enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

Blowing_Up_Russia by Alexander Livinenko. The one who died from Polonium tea, which strongly indicates he was probably onto something. Litvinenko delineates how the Russian mafia and the security service effectively merged, not unlike what the CIA was doing in the 1960's. He describes how the Russian security service used its position to enhance organized crime, to the point where it was not clear what was national security and mob related violence. The ambush on Hermitage owned by Bill Browder is a case in point. He also goes into some detail about the Moscow Apparetment bombings, and makes a convincing case that it was in fact true.

Nothing is true and everything is possible, by Peter Pomorantsev. I think this was the one (Ive read so much on the subject the seem to overlap now) where he was discussing how the Kremlin took on the Oligarchs to gain control of the media, and then used the media to remain in power.

 

If anyone is interested in a list on books ive read on recent Russian history and politics, I can put a full thread up. Might take me a while to get some of it out of storage though. Ive got so man damn books on various subjects they are kinda overlowing in two garden sheds at the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith
Alexander Litvinenko wrote blowing up Russia. Mafia state was of course by Guardian Journalist Luke Harding.