Reply to The future of Russia. Any foreign policy experts want to weigh in?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "The future of Russia. Any foreign policy experts want to weigh in? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]And this is what I was referring to

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IavEOx3hUAk[/youtube]

At 1:30, incredibly based. [/quote]

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

[/quote]

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.

It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad. [/quote]

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer.  I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine.   [b]Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties.  He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced.  He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.[/b]

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

[/quote]

You know, I'm not even denying that. That's what I said earlier, Dudayev did not know how to set up a government and Chechnya would have failed in the 90s regardless. My family is half North Caucasian, I was originally referring to people who were pro-Dudayev (and continue today, like the battalion in Ukraine) because they have no actual connection or they are a generation removed from, too young to remember the Chechen Republic Ichkeria, or they grew up in Turkey, you name it. My three reasons for even fixating on this are

1. Dudayev was not the hero some people make out to be but he HAD A POINT especially about Russia and Ukraine,
2. Russian control is NOT objectively better, for example Don GonDon Kadyrov is worse, he literally tortures people
3. The whole point of this discussion of Chechnya is DIRECTLY related to the current situation in Ukraine, it is Russia taking what isn't theirs and doesn't want to be, not accepting no for an answer, and expending lives including this own and creating a humanitarian disaster, out of some imperial revanchist pipe dream. At least now the West has been involved with support, partially because Ukrainians are white and Christian but I digress. Russia is playing by 18th century rules, but it's having 21st century consequences, and I'm not going to evaluate Russia on a curve here and say that it's actions are at all justified.[/quote]

North Caucasus is a veritable patchwork of different ethnicities; I'm not aware of one that's called "North Caucasian".

In what way Russia is taking what isn't theirs in the context of Chechnya, which has been a part of the USSR/Russian empire since forever?  Was it conquered by force originally? maybe.  At that point of time in history, what wasn't? Why was it OK for Ukraine to shell the separatist parts of East Ukraine in the name of territorial integrity but not OK for Russia to shell Chechnya - who no one questions is a part of Russia, and who no one WANTS to be independent anyway?[/quote]

My mother is from Turkey her family is Circassian, with distant Karachay ancestry, at least based on family lore
I have been interested in the Caucasus region since I was a child

Why do you believe Russian Propaganda about Ukraine "shelling the separatist East Ukraine" first? It's okay that Russia sent Little Green Men to East Ukraine, to Crimea, and manipulated their so-called elections? Yeah sure, I believe 90% of Eastern Ukraine wants to be with Russia just like I believe that 106% of Chechens support Putin and Kadyrov not under duress.

Maybe the better question is why does Russia need more territory? Russia can't even function as is. And Russia HAD potential. Imagine given the choice, either try to develop an actual economy beyond oil & gas, or just steal more land that isn't yours (for more oil & gas)... Wow, let's choose the second option and become an international pariah and have brain drain instead of innovation! But yay, more Oil & Gas, drill baby drill! [/quote]

Yep - starting in 2014 when Yanukovich was overthrown (and before, as Russia was funding Yanukovich and other corrupt Ukrainian officials to try and soften Ukraine politically for takeover long before 2014) Russia sent FSB, guys like Strelkov and others into the eastern parts of Ukraine, along with Russian regulars camouflaged as civilians, Wagner mercenaries by the thousands into Donbass to create a fake "separatist" movement, bribing, assassinating or otherwise outright taking over local governments.  Billions were given by Putin to fund influence operations and other things.  This is why Russia thought "Special Military Operation" would only take 3 days, and that Russians would be welcomed with open arms.  Putin underestimated the corruption of his own guys, who stole the billions for influencing and bribing and bought themselves yachts and dachas and private planes and other things.[/quote]

That Eastern part of Ukraine was historically leaning toward Russia isn't really a matter of discussion. It's also a matter of record that they resented a switch to Ukrainian as the official language, and the squeezing of their customary Russian out of the public sphere.   No matter how the separatist movement came about, it is unquestionable that Ukraine responded with violent means to try and keep Eastern Ukraine Ukrainian, with a significant casualty count. And they were praised for it as defenders of territorial integrity. I don't think you can argue with that.

So why would Putin be reviled for defending his "territorial integrity" in Chechnya? If territorial integrity is a thing above all others, then he was justified to use violence in Chechnya, wasn't he?
The question

No matter how the separa[/quote]

Check the 1991 results, when they voted to leave Russia.  To try and claim they (and even Crimea) were somehow overwhelmingly pro-Russia is historically false.  Also, the "switch to Ukrainian as official language" didn't happen until 2017, and was a direct result of, and pushback against, Russian hostility toward Ukraine, so you are a bit out of sequence on your history there as well.  Likewise, Ukraine responded with violent means to Russian violence.  Had Russia never sent its "little green men" in 2014, had Russia never meddled in Ukrainian politics prior to that, there never would even have been any violence in eastern Ukraine.  it's all on Russia.

So yes, we CAN in fact argue it.  All of it.  Your version is revisionist spin.[/quote]

So you agree that countries are allowed to respond with violent means to any threats to their territorial integrity?[/quote]

Ukraine absolutely does have every right to use violence to repel a foreign invasion and threat to their territorial integrity.  [/quote]

Then Putin had every right to use violence in Chechnya as its desire to secede was a threat to Russia's territorial integrity.  If you disagree, you're a hypocrite.[/quote]

Do you think Putin had the right to target civilians and completely level towns and cities?[/quote]

How many civilians do you think are too many to kill in the name of preserving territorial integrity?[/quote]

What Russia did in Chechnya, Syria, and now Ukraine, have gone far beyond military engagement and deeply into the realm of war crimes and atrocities.[/quote]
I mean sure,but how can you possibly mentioned Syria and omit the U.S?[/quote]

Syria...   Are you not aware of the fact that Assad, aided by Russia, has been responsible for 95% of civilian deaths in Syria?  And that of the remaining 5% of civilian deaths, ISIS was responsible?  EVERY independent human rights organization has collected the receipts to prove this.   But sure, let's peddle the propaganda that the US is somehow the most horrible atrocity-causing power in Syria.[/quote]

Right....it's not like the US ever sent weapons to Free Syria army that oops! surprise! ended up with Al-Nusra front.

That's not surprising though, the US has a terrible record of tracking where their weapons go, and it's like they don't even try.[/quote]

Uh huh, sure.  Just look at the most frequently seen arms wielded by just about any warlord, terror group in Africa, Latin America, Asia and other corners of the world, and what are they?  American M-16s?  Nope.  They are AK-47s and Russian RPGs.  Just mysteriously teleported themselves there, I suppose. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics