• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Discussion: Relations with Russia

The moment that war ends, things will turn very bad for Russia...thats just a fact.
Nope, that's a prediction, not a fact. But, it is good of you to make non-generic, falsifiable predictions. It's an indicator that you're thinking at a coherent and higher level.

Here are my non-generic, falsifiable predictions:
- The war will end this year or next, with much or all of Ukraine absorbed as new Russian oblasts.
- The people living in those new oblasts will be as patriotic of Russia as Chechens are today.
- Russian living standards will keep rising in the near future, at a higher pace than in the NATO countries. They have not just benefited from military production, but also from western sanctions. Economists call this "import substitution".
- The economic and diplomatic losses for the West will be severe, probably strongest in France and Germany.
- High inflation will continue in the US for some time, due to the decline of the US dollar as a reserve currency, and the loss of access to Russian natural resources.
 
Misleading and lacking in context.

The US-backed coup ("Maidan") that removed the democratically elected government of Ukraine began several months prior to Russia securing Crimea, a peninsula that is ethnically and linguistically Russian and voted to be part of Russia.


I appreciate that you read and consider my posts.

And yes, Putin did make offers for peace in 2014 (Minsk was ignored by the US), in late 2021 and early 2022. Even Foreign Policy, a US establishment publication, acknowledge this, though they were two years late:


That said, it is possible that Putin realized that the West was committed to war, and that they would force Ukraine to walk away from a peace deal.
Outside of Crimea, the US backed government was the best path to self-determination for the Ukraine. Few people would prefer to be under Putin's dictatorship.

And America was not the aggressor. Putin was the one who invaded and plenty of Ukrainians did not want to surrender.
 
Outside of Crimea, the US backed government was the best path to self-determination for the Ukraine. Few people would prefer to be under Putin's dictatorship.

The Ukrainian people have consistently voted and preferred to be neutral. 73% of Ukrainians voted for Zelensky in the last Ukrainian election, who campaigned on a platform of neutrality and of ending hostilities.

But he then began to implement/continue a campaign of ethnic and cultural cleansing against East Ukraine's Russian population. That made war inevitable.

The West has not backed "self-determination" for Ukraine, because if they had they would accept the Ukrainian people's desire for neutrality.

But in the words of Lloyd Austin the purpose of this is "to weaken Russia". Disgusting. This is a moral and strategic failure by the West that will shape the century and be taught in history books in a thousand years.
 
The Ukrainian people have consistently voted and preferred to be neutral. 73% of Ukrainians voted for Zelensky in the last Ukrainian election, who campaigned on a platform of neutrality and of ending hostilities.

But he then began to implement/continue a campaign of ethnic and cultural cleansing against East Ukraine's Russian population. That made war inevitable.

The West has not backed "self-determination" for Ukraine, because if they had they would accept the Ukrainian people's desire for neutrality.

But in the words of Lloyd Austin the purpose of this is "to weaken Russia". Disgusting. This is a moral and strategic failure by the West that will shape the century and be taught in history books in a thousand years.

How the heck is Ukraine supposed to remain neutral with Russia/Putin making moves behind the scenes to take over Ukraine?
 
How the heck is Ukraine supposed to remain neutral with Russia/Putin making moves behind the scenes to take over Ukraine?

The Russian stance going back to the post cold war period is agreeable to a neutral Ukraine, which is also what the people in Ukraine wanted.
 
Outside of Crimea, the US backed government was the best path to self-determination for the Ukraine. Few people would prefer to be under Putin's dictatorship.

And America was not the aggressor. Putin was the one who invaded and plenty of Ukrainians did not want to surrender.
The problem is that the US will consistently push for profiteering and uses this to buy off those in power in other countries to accomplish the goals of profit. The conundrum is that there are apologists who will support truly authoritarian political systems and focus solely on economic "autonomy" whether or not certain basic freedoms are observed. Now, are the "freedoms" we talk about in the US absolute? No Fing way. Corporate America has infiltrated choice on every level possible and I'm not entirely convinced that if people decided they wanted another economic system, or even a drastic reorganization of the economy, that they wouldn't be met with violent opposition from the corporate class and their lackeys.

Russia/USSR always had a completely deformed political structure for its entire history. Stalin won out, coopted (most of the) the opposition (sans Trotsky), killed them, and consolidated power. Whether the US political structure (such as it is) will stand up to true economic change when tested is still a question, but things look a lot worse than they did 30 years ago (or even under Nixon). What I believe is that there is no way that the political structure in places like China and Russia will ever peacefully capitulate to a truly egalitarian system that would benefit most working people.

How the heck is Ukraine supposed to remain neutral with Russia/Putin making moves behind the scenes to take over Ukraine?

They couldn't and had no choice......they were attacked.....plain and simple. Putin has made it very clear that he wants to rebuild the USSR.....the problem is that their economic infrastructure is now as screwed up as their political structure.

No one knows how things are going to play out, but I "think" there is a progressive movement in the US that has a "chance" of making positive inroads. It's not there, but authoritarian systems that maintain power by violent responses without even the pretense of an open press, debate, and speech aren't going to turn around and say "Hey folks....we're implementing a system of democracy that's going to work for everyone. Check it out, our billionaire class is okay with sharing the wealth." Whether that same class in the US will do do it is an open question (though I consider it unlikely), but you don't see people being arrested for not saying "special military operation".
 
Last edited:
, but you don't see people being arrested for not saying "special military operation".
Different societies draw their lines in different places. Here, it can be quite dangerous to be a campus protester. You might be arrested, or worse things might happen to you such as losing your home, being denied graduation or being blacklisted by employers.

.the problem is that their economic infrastructure is now as screwed up as their political structure.
That is something that you keep repeating but it's not backed by the numbers.

Russia has a smaller gini coefficient than the USA, a lower rate of infant mortality than the USA, a higher rate of literacy, a lower rate of homicide, and higher rates of economic growth (3.6% this year). They also actually have high speed rail and universal health care, a debt to gdp ratio of 19%, and they punish people for corruption.

Your descriptions consistently and correctly describe the Yeltsin years.
 
Last edited:
Yeah.......well Russia has always had a deformed political structure. If you like authoritarian regimes, you probably like what Russia is doing. With the fall of of the USSR, it also became a less effective economic system and experienced privatization (piratization LOL) of its factories. With that came the same problems you'll see with any other privatized economic system.

What they really need is an effective opposition party; something that all dictators fear and oppress. It's held them back forever (even during the time of the USSR). They got rid of a more efficient economic structure and kept the same old repressive political system. It's a shame really......Putin was right about the fall of the USSR being a shame. He just, naturally has it backwards. What was really needed after the fall of the USSR was to cast off the repressive politics that have defined the country for virtually ever.
 
Different societies draw their lines in different places. Here, it can be quite dangerous to be a campus protester. You might be arrested, or worse things might happen to you such as losing your home, being denied graduation or being blacklisted by employers.


That is something that you keep repeating but it's not backed by the numbers.

Russia has a smaller gini coefficient than the USA, a lower rate of infant mortality than the USA, a higher rate of literacy, a lower rate of homicide, and higher rates of economic growth (3.6% this year). They also actually have high speed rail and universal health care, a debt to gdp ratio of 19%, and they punish people for corruption.

Your descriptions consistently and correctly describe the Yeltsin years.

Also jail people for being gay, which as much as many here in the US want to, not quite there yet.

Just because America=bad does not mean Russia and China are good.
 
Also jail people for being gay, which as much as many here in the US want to, not quite there yet.

Just because America=bad does not mean Russia and China are good.

There are certainly shades of gray. IMO the political structures in Russia and China, for example, are more repressive than those in the US; although some in this country seem to want to make a rapid race to the bottom. I think the difference is that there is an opposition party here that will, to an extent, protect some very fundamental freedoms.

One major problem in the US is the abnormal influence of corporate money in our "democracy". If you can control the narrative, you can, generally, control the outcome. If 60% of the people in the US decided we wanted worker control of industry, supported by the tax dollars we pay, would there be a peaceful transition? I think that's something of a coin flip, but, relatively speaking, we have a pretty advanced political system with well established rules and that's important to effectuating change.

I don't see the same possibility in, the same example, Russia and China. A fundamental question that needs to be asked is "Can the populace effect meaningful change without encountering violent opposition?" I have my doubts that any ruling class will give up their privilege without violent struggle, but my thought is that if it is possible, it will be because of a political structure that holds to democratic principles. That will stress any such system.

I could go on and there are so many nuances to what I've written above, but this just isn't the forum to expound upon them.
 
Also jail people for being gay, which as much as many here in the US want to, not quite there yet.
Homosexuality isn't actually banned in Russia, but in general the USA is better on gay rights and representation. It's one of the few things that have gone well here in the past twenty years.
 
I don't see the same possibility in, the same example, Russia and China. A fundamental question that needs to be asked is "Can the populace effect meaningful change without encountering violent opposition?" I have my doubts that any ruling class will give up their privilege without violent struggle, but my thought is that if it is possible, it will be because of a political structure that holds to democratic principles. That will stress any such system.
It's exceedingly unlikely for any ruling class to ever willingly give up substantial power just to be kind or entirely due to internal peaceful opposition. It's not clear if this has ever happened.

But treating the working class well isn't just about being kind -- it's a sound investment. Russia, for example, provides 140 days of maternity leave by law, compared to 0 in the USA. Does that only happen because of democratic opposition? No, it happens because in the long term it benefits everybody in the country. They even have some maternity leave before birth, which makes sense because women need to rest at 8 months pregnant.

In the long run even US billionaires would benefit from a stronger social safety net in the USA, but there's too much ideological and intellectual pollution for them to realize it. They'd rather ask who John Galt is then have an effective labour force.

There's no current need for violent opposition there. Putin is a Russian nationalist, so he's enthusiastically investing in the long term health of Russian society, that goes beyond maternity leave. Our Congress meanwhile is full of people who are into insider trading and the revolving door.
 
Last edited:
For people who are interested in perspectives from beyond the Western corporate media blackout, here's the perspective on recent events with retired Indian Major General G.D. Bakshi. He is predicting rapid progress by the Russian forces in the next month or two.

 

Russia says Ukraine makes 62-drone attack on Russia, oil refinery halted


Ukraine destroys all 37 drones launched by Russia overnight, air force says



Zelensky wants China at Ukraine peace talks, cites ‘influence on Russia’



 
So, finally some good news out of Ukraine. .:)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"