American Politics Discussion Thread

[civac2]

As a sovereign nation, it is within Cuba's right  to allow an ally to station intermediate range nuclear missiles on their territory.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is of course hardly a fair comparison to Ukraine; the former involved a nation hostile to the United States having another adversary install weapons capable of annihilating tens of millions of people, while the latter simply aspires to apply for membership in a defensive alliance with numerous other countries (which sober analysis shows they are nowhere near ready to join regardless). 

That said, it certainly was Cuba's right to attempt to get away with allowing the Soviet Union to establish missile silos targeting the U.S., and the U.S. was absolutely throwing its weight around as a global superpower.  I'm not sure though why you seem to believe America's saber-rattling with Cuba around sixty years ago justifies contemporary Russia invading and forcibly annexing parts of Ukraine.

No, the parallels are very close. A lot of what Russia wants is the dissolution if US missile bases in Poland  and Romania. Similarly, a lot of their misgivings about Nato membership of Ukraine seems to be about the possibility of even closer missile launchers.

[Rusten]

Russia/Soviet Union was given assurances that NATO (missile launches etc as civac is referring to) wouldn't expand beyond a certain point, and the Russian equivalent (Warzaw Pact) was dissolved.
If you're going to ally with eastern european countries and include them into a European alliance that's reasonable to me, and the countries should be able to decide on their own, but don't do it under the flag of NATO. That organization has grown from a defensive alliance into an imperialistic force and despite being from a country that benefits from its existance I would prefer we drop out.

At least personally I became more sympathetic to the Russian point of view after studying eastern european politics in uni and spending a year in Russia for studies.

[darrelljs]

That organization has grown from a defensive alliance into an imperialistic force

You can't make that statement unless members are being forced to join against their will. Instead, Russia's neighbors are scared shitless they might be next, and would (mostly) love to join an historically successfully deterrent to military adventurism against its members. The fact that people are able to look at Russia's actions with any level of sympathy shows just how horribly the US has fucked up relations with our (now tenuous) allies.

Darrell

[Mjmd]

I think sympathy is the wrong word, at least I would assume for most people. I understand why Russia doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO, but again its not like NATO is trying to force them (or anyone else) in by I don't know invading, just to give a random example.

You can not like NATO / decisions it makes, but most countries clearly see it as the lesser of two evils at the very worst descriptor.

I'm not sure what Russia should do diplomatically / have done. Trying to tightly control their sphere of influence has mostly backfired. Threatening countries with a stick has mostly caused them to just want to hide behind NATOs shield instead of being under said stick. So does Russia double down and use the stick against remaining targets and at the very least shoot themselves in the leg economically? They probably should have tried more economic politics like China, but their economy just isn't strong enough although oil/gas gives them some of a leg there. Although again people trust Russia even less than the US or China, which is a feat in and of itself.

[mackoti]

Russia/Soviet Union was given assurances that NATO (missile launches etc as civac is referring to) wouldn't expand beyond a certain point, and the Russian equivalent (Warzaw Pact) was dissolved.
If you're going to ally with eastern european countries and include them into a European alliance that's reasonable to me, and the countries should be able to decide on their own, but don't do it under the flag of NATO. That organization has grown from a defensive alliance into an imperialistic force and despite being from a country that benefits from its existance I would prefer we drop out.

At least personally I became more sympathetic to the Russian point of view after studying eastern european politics in uni and spending a year in Russia for studies.

Well I realy hope not many people get sympathetic to Russian point of view.Actualy even romanian got fooled by russian propaganda, many times in history and looks like some are falling for same tricks again.

After WW2 Russia took all the resources from Romania, everithing letting people here to starve and forced  us the beautifull comunism with theyr tanks after they killed and deported in Syberia 90% of our officers.

Now they are looking for looting again, if you studie easter european politics you can see Russia and whatever were his names in the past is doing this from time to time, not carring  about anyone.

Well actuay Rusten you are using thyer points, and who to defend those countries? Huge army of germany and france or even UK?

Man i realy wish sometimes(God please forgive me) people wich agree Russian point of view or belite Nato  to live under russian boots how Romania lived  near 140 year.

I can tell here in Romania we are prety scared about this and having our hope only in Bidden is making even worse as I remember some time ago big politicians decide to let us to Russia and could happen again. 

So please if you can influnce anyone on sustainig the poor countries in the est do it, we cant dfend ourselves we dont have the power and  Russia knows that.

[Rusten]

I want to make it clear that I don't condone what Russia did. All I'm saying is that after researching the subject for years I can now understand their point of view better and why they are feeling threatened, encroached and betrayed (broken promises). How to resolve that I don't know, but clearly military action and annexing is not it.

[mackoti]

That organization has grown from a defensive alliance into an imperialistic force

You can't make that statement unless members are being forced to join against their will.  Instead, Russia's neighbors are scared shitless they might be next, and would (mostly) love to join an historically successfully deterrent to military adventurism against its members.  The fact that people are able to look at Russia's actions with any level of sympathy shows just how horribly the US has fucked up relations with our (now tenuous) allies.

Darrell

Some people are so used to be so well that they become spoiled my friend. Remember there were  English people joining Isis and all kind of this stuff, becasue you know USA and UK are bad    

I am realy happy USA builded base in Romania and when Trump was president he promised will get more from Germany towards Poland and Romania. Here we have some antiamericans and prorusians as well but are very few and most of them are young(what means not living in comunism and having a good life), you strat to belive what Putin is doing is the right thing...

[mackoti]

I want to make it clear that I don't condone what Russia did. All I'm saying is that after researching the subject for years I can now understand their point of view better and why they are feeling threatened, encroached and betrayed (broken promises). How to resolve that I don't know, but clearly military action and annexing is not it.

Well I invite you in Romania for some time to see our point of view and see if you can be sympathetic with theyrs anymore. They are modern barbarians, my granmother is still alive can tell you some stories which you will not belive first...

[Gustaran]

All I'm saying is that after researching the subject for years I can now understand their point of view better and why they are feeling threatened, encroached and betrayed (broken promises). How to resolve that I don't know, but clearly military action and annexing is not it.

You fail to understand that the greatest danger for Putin's reign is not military in nature. All this nonsense about NATO troops and feeling threatened is just a narrative to distract the population and deliver an excuse for western countries to keep doing business with Russia.

Who exactly would want to invade Russia? For what reason? And most important: How is anyone supposed to successfully attack Russia without risking nuclear retaliation? Putin is certainly not losing any sleep over this possibility. Sometimes the Putin apologists make it sound like the maximum range of a nuclear missile is 500 kilometers and NATO membership of the Ukraine would spell the end of Russian security.

The true danger for Putin is the emergence of successful democratic pro-western governments in the neighbouring states that subscribe to most of the values we associate with a democracy. The Russian people could become dissatisfied and start asking questions, for example where all the money from Russia's natural resources goes, why elections are rigged and if a Putin dictatorship is really the best form of government?  That's why Putin reacted immediately and sent troops to suppress anti-government protests in Kazakhstan a few weeks ago.

And all this BS about the imperialistic NATO: The only thing keeping the Baltic states safe is the US military involvement in NATO. Somehow people like you have seem to have a lot less compassion for countries that have been attacked by Russia before. I have no doubt the German government would throw the Baltic states under the bus in an instant if it weren't for NATO.

[Ginger()]

All I'm saying is that after researching the subject for years I can now understand their point of view better and why they are feeling threatened, encroached and betrayed (broken promises). How to resolve that I don't know, but clearly military action and annexing is not it.

You fail to understand that the greatest danger for Putin's reign is not military in nature. All this nonsense about NATO troops and feeling threatened is just a narrative to distract the population and deliver an excuse for western countries to keep doing business with Russia.

Who exactly would want to invade Russia? For what reason? And most important: How is anyone supposed to successfully attack Russia without risking nuclear retaliation? Putin is certainly not losing any sleep over this possibility. Sometimes the Putin apologists make it sound like the maximum range of a nuclear missile is 500 kilometers and NATO membership of the Ukraine would spell the end of Russian security.

The true danger for Putin is the emergence of successful democratic pro-western governments in the neighbouring states that subscribe to most of the values we associate with a democracy. The Russian people could become dissatisfied and start asking questions, for example where all the money from Russia's natural resources goes, why elections are rigged and if a Putin dictatorship is really the best form of government?  That's why Putin reacted immediately and sent troops to suppress anti-government protests in Kazakhstan a few weeks ago.

And all this BS about the imperialistic NATO: The only thing keeping the Baltic states safe is the US military involvement in NATO. Somehow people like you have seem to have a lot less compassion for countries that have been attacked by Russia before. I have no doubt the German government would throw the Baltic states under the bus in an instant if it weren't for NATO.

 So much this!
It's the cultural significance of a successful replacement for authoritarianism and the implications for politics at home that he fears, the desires for a revived Russian empire or boogeyman-ing NATO play second fiddle to that motive, even if that's the public talking point.