Lol to “equal partner” the u.s. policy towards Russia after WWII and even after the Soviet Union was of containment. Whether that was necessary considering their history with their neighbors is another story, but the idea that after the wall fell there was a path to E.U. and NATO cooperation on equal footing is delusional. None of this justifies the war, but it remains to be seen whether they’ll even bring Ukraine in as an equal partner and not just a battlefield for there war with Russia
And if the world had stopped immediately after the cold war ended this would be a valid statement.
Unfortunately there were 30+ intervening years where the US and other countries did invest in Russia. Stop acting like that wasn’t a thing, we’ve spent the last year plus trying to drag that shit out of russia since they invaded Ukraine.
Invest in Russia? Bwahahahaha. Did US invest into Russian Public Transit? Into affordable housing? They can’t do it domestically, you think they can improve quality of life abroad?
US “invested” into oligarchs that got rich by buying for dirt cheap public property on money loaned by state that was returned by selling tiny fraction of it for real price.
we’ve spent the last year plus trying to drag that shit out of russia
Depends who “we”. Unless “we” are Finland, “we” happily received stolen money. Putin’s yacht that costs about 8000 his annual official wages(duh, he has wage) was arrested only after war started. Do you really think nobody questioned that? When person who questioned that was poisoned, US did nothing.
Half of them are service or retail and did not produce anything domestically, another half that did invest invested mostly into Putin’s oligarchs. Also first link for some reason mentions FIFA and Olympic Comittie, why? They don’t give money.
The country that industrialized under Stalin at a breakneck pace, and then underwent a massive post-war building program for housing (commie-blocks, which are actually quite good for what they were meant to achieve) now can’t handle building affordable housing?
Well, Germany wasn’t subject to shock therapy in the way that Russia was due to West Germany becoming a capitalist democracy way before neoliberlism was a thing. The USSR collapsed decades later, at a time when the USA was spreading weird economic policies in the most rabid way possible. It was “capitalism at any cost”. And the cost could be democracy… and all social fabric. It was shock therapy that largely led to the oligarchs.
Listen, fuck Putin. I fully stand behind Ukraine, but US policy created Putin’s opening through shock therapy. The idea that this is just because Russians are inherently violent is absurd.
Russians aren’t inherently violent, but the idea that shock therapy, as absurd and damaging as it was, is responsible for Russia’s current state flies in the face of the entire rest of the Warsaw Pact, which also suffered from ‘Shock Therapy’ insanity being imposed, yet have largely moved on to more functional systems than Russia.
Of course shock therapy didn’t cause the war, it was just one big factor that lead to the modern Russian state. Putin and other top brass caused this war. My point was it’s not reasonable to compare Russia to Germany.
Also, some nations that underwent shock therapy do OK now, but many are still to recover and have rampant corruption and wide spread poverty. Granted, that’s not the same as bombing schools.
I’m hawkish on my support for Ukraine, but I do think that we need to remember the history behind this.
My point wasn’t to refute that shock therapy caused the war, but to refute that shock therapy caused the modern Russian state in general. Shock therapy was economically damaging, but the root causes of the Russian kleptocracy are much, much deeper and more severe.
Fun fact, the term tankie came about because some “lefties” decided to defend the imperialism of the Russian state bashing down dissident rioting populations in their imperial holdings, generally by driving a platoon of tanks in, and shooting if the crowd dosn’t disperse
no, they still yell from the rooftops that it was perfectly justified and still somehow NATO is at fault.
Chechnya doesn’t want to Russian? NATO COLOR REVOLUTION!
Hungary doesn’t want to Russia? LITERAL NAZI DISSIDENTS CREATED BY NATO!
Students protesting in China? TIENANMEN SQUARE NEVER HAPPENED.
etc…
Germany had the world’s 3ed strongest army during the cold war, 2nd strongest right after unification. your “turned into a protectorate” statement is bullshit and basically shows that you just repeat Tanki shit-takes without understanding what you are talking about.
you literally are stuck in the mode of seeing the world through the eyes of colonial empires, the shit that caused WW1 and even WW2, and it’s no wonder, a lot of these takes come from Russian funded sources, so it literally is seeing the world through the eyes of a colonial empire!
you read the bit in the parentheses? the “by GDP” part?
as for when? it’s at the approximately 19 second mark, when the spending just to maintain the new joint BRD/GDR army rocketed them to the upper half of the chart.
and what are you trying to imply with “US bases in Germany” bit? that it’s some hallmark of colonialism? what if I tell you that, up until recently, Germany had bases in the USA? they both somehow protectorate of each other? no, the US has bases in Germany for two reasons, 1: to help NATO nation counter-attack Russian aggression (these bases were basically on the border to the east block when they were built, and it turns out are difficult to move, seeing as they are buildings and not trucks), and 2: to function as a logistics waypoint into the Europe/Mideast region.
It might also interest you to know that the amount of US bases in Germany is going down, but that doesn’t mix well with your preconceived 19th century notion of global politics.
Face it, you are a tanki, you do not care about imperialism, you are a fascist wearing the skin of the anarchists, socialists and communists you butchered.
I’m not sure you understand what exactly was going on in the 90s and early 2000s, but considering your comment on Ukraine, I question whether having the conversation would be at all productive.
What happened in the 90s and 2000s then? The west had been propagandized for half a century that Russia was the enemy, so had Russians, so neither side was going to hold out there hand and try for cooperation. If the west was serious about incorporating Russia they would’ve done some sort of marshall plan to modernize them before bringing them into the fold like Poland. They didn’t, they did let a bunch of their business men buy former public property for pennies on the dollar, which I guess is investment but only really for the corrupt officials who got rich off it. There was no path to EU membership, especially after Poland and the baltics joined because they, justifiably, hate Russia for all the imperial oppression they’ve done over the centuries.
Where am I wrong about Ukraine, do you think E.U. and NATO are going to let them in even after all this? I’m not a tanky , the Russian invasion of Ukraine is horrific and unjustified, that doesn’t mean the west’s response to it is benevolent and with the ukrainians best interest.
Where am I wrong about Ukraine, do you think E.U. and NATO are going to let them in even after all this?
Yes, definitely. NATO expansion has long been a goal of NATO hardliners, and NATO support in NATO countries has shot up to a degree few would have expected before Russia made the dubious decision of validating the purpose of the old alliance, which had become lethargic and uncertain in recent years.
What reason is there to exclude Ukraine from NATO once the war is over? Do you think the West wants to deal with a land-grab like this bullshit again, disrupting international markets? Or do you think we’d much prefer to station a token ‘tripwire’ force in Ukraine and ensure that Russia can’t do this bullshit again in ten years?
The EU I’m less informed on the nuances of, but it seems to me they’re pretty forward about opening a path to EU membership to Ukraine. I’d be more concerned on the EU trying to stall on including them in the Schengen Area than excluding them from the EU entirely.
I’m not a tanky , the Russian invasion of Ukraine is horrific and unjustified, that doesn’t mean the west’s response to it is benevolent and with the ukrainians best interest.
I appreciate that you aren’t a tankie, or a Russian bootlicker, but sometimes national (or international) interests and the right thing line up. Western hegemony benefits most from countries deeply connected to the international market (ie Russia and Ukraine) NOT invading each other and disrupting world trade. As Russia is the aggressor, it is in the interests of the West to discourage further aggression, both practically (supporting Ukraine to end the war faster) and in principle (assuring other countries that their sovereignty will be reinforced in the case of blatant outside interference).
What happened in the 90s and 2000s then? The west had been propagandized for half a century that Russia was the enemy, so had Russians, so neither side was going to hold out there hand and try for cooperation.
Both sides did, actually. The refrain in the US was always that Russians weren’t the enemy, that Communism was - we learned our lesson with our propaganda campaigns against Germany in WW1. Even Reagan, anti-Soviet agitator extraordinaire, stuck to that line. Yeltsin expressed strong interest in joining the international order - even Putin claims that he raised the issue of NATO, though he wanted special fast-track status for Russia, which was a non-starter. God, I don’t know how to express the sheer triumphalism of 90s academia on the subject. Communism was defeated. Russia was free. That was what the West told itself.
If the west was serious about incorporating Russia they would’ve done some sort of marshall plan to modernize them before bringing them into the fold like Poland.
There was no Marshall Plan for Poland. Or any of the ex-Sovs or Warsaw Pact states. The Soviet Union refused all aid when the Marshall Plan was implemented in the 40s, and there was neither the political will nor interest in the 90s in extending generous aid terms. Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, the Baltic States - they all managed to escape not only the horrendous effects of ‘Shock Therapy’, but also half a century of Soviet exploitation, if not necessarily evenly. Yet Russia, and Belarus, did not. One might then begin looking for reasons why Russia and Belarus failed to integrate, rather than reasons why the West failed to welcome, with that in mind.
They didn’t, they did let a bunch of their business men buy former public property for pennies on the dollar, which I guess is investment but only really for the corrupt officials who got rich off it.
This I agree with. ‘Shock therapy’ was nothing but a plundering of the old Soviet states by a plutocratic elite who could generously be said to have gotten high on their own supply of free market fetishism, or more cynically to simply have done what the faithless dogs would do with any weakened state - strip it bare for short term gain.
There was no path to EU membership, especially after Poland and the baltics joined because they, justifiably, hate Russia for all the imperial oppression they’ve done over the centuries.
Man, you put too much stock in old grudges. As much as I enjoy ragging on Old Worlders for their ancient blood feuds, it’s not actually that prominent in terms of diplomatic behavior. International relations are predicated almost exclusively on “What can you offer me NOW?” If they weren’t, Germany would never have snuggled up to Russia, France would currently be blockading Britain, and Spain would have cut off the New World colonies which kicked them out. In the 30s and 40s, Ukrainians and Poles were genociding each other, independent of Nazi-led initiatives - now the relation between the two countries is very warm.
History matters for context - but speaking as a History Major, it rarely matters more than present circumstances.
Thank you for your well thought out response. I still think that there was no path to cooperation without a buy out. Even though both sides ostensibly were against the leaders of their opponents, Reagen would say were against the communist regime not the russians and kruschev would say they’re against the imperialist capitalists not the americans, how that was interpreted by the average person was just anti-american, anti-russian sentiment. In the 90s Russians either saw westerners as their cold war enemy or the carpet baggers looting their country.
The only way to win the Russians over would be a marshall plan like foreign aid package that would buy they’re loyalty. Stalin refused it in the 40s for ideological reasons but I doubt Yeltsin would turn down free money. It’s just that there was no political will in the west because there lingering antagonism towards Russia and the idea that liberal capitalism would solve all their problems. They will shell out huge sums for military aid for Ukraine, which again is justified, but if they had sent an equivalent sum to what we are sending now to Ukraine to Russia in the 90s I don’t think we’d be in this mess.
Lol to “equal partner” the u.s. policy towards Russia after WWII and even after the Soviet Union was of containment. Whether that was necessary considering their history with their neighbors is another story, but the idea that after the wall fell there was a path to E.U. and NATO cooperation on equal footing is delusional. None of this justifies the war, but it remains to be seen whether they’ll even bring Ukraine in as an equal partner and not just a battlefield for there war with Russia
And if the world had stopped immediately after the cold war ended this would be a valid statement.
Unfortunately there were 30+ intervening years where the US and other countries did invest in Russia. Stop acting like that wasn’t a thing, we’ve spent the last year plus trying to drag that shit out of russia since they invaded Ukraine.
Invest in Russia? Bwahahahaha. Did US invest into Russian Public Transit? Into affordable housing? They can’t do it domestically, you think they can improve quality of life abroad?
US “invested” into oligarchs that got rich by buying for dirt cheap public property on money loaned by state that was returned by selling tiny fraction of it for real price.
Depends who “we”. Unless “we” are Finland, “we” happily received stolen money. Putin’s yacht that costs about 8000 his annual official wages(duh, he has wage) was arrested only after war started. Do you really think nobody questioned that? When person who questioned that was poisoned, US did nothing.
So your premise is there was no western investment at all?
REALLY?
How fucking dumb are you? Why would there be a divest-russia movement after they invaded Ukraine if no one had business in russia? https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-1000-companies-have-curtailed-operations-russia-some-remain https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/economy-and-ecology/a-reality-check-on-divestment-from-russia-6531/ https://www.nytimes.com/article/russia-invasion-companies.html https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-companies-sanctions-713eea2e1de70afc977e2b855212bfe7
start citing facts or I’m just going to block your ignorant ass.
Half of them are service or retail and did not produce anything domestically, another half that did invest invested mostly into Putin’s oligarchs. Also first link for some reason mentions FIFA and Olympic Comittie, why? They don’t give money.
The country that industrialized under Stalin at a breakneck pace, and then underwent a massive post-war building program for housing (commie-blocks, which are actually quite good for what they were meant to achieve) now can’t handle building affordable housing?
deleted by creator
Well, Germany wasn’t subject to shock therapy in the way that Russia was due to West Germany becoming a capitalist democracy way before neoliberlism was a thing. The USSR collapsed decades later, at a time when the USA was spreading weird economic policies in the most rabid way possible. It was “capitalism at any cost”. And the cost could be democracy… and all social fabric. It was shock therapy that largely led to the oligarchs.
Listen, fuck Putin. I fully stand behind Ukraine, but US policy created Putin’s opening through shock therapy. The idea that this is just because Russians are inherently violent is absurd.
Once again, all roads lead back to Reagan.
Russians aren’t inherently violent, but the idea that shock therapy, as absurd and damaging as it was, is responsible for Russia’s current state flies in the face of the entire rest of the Warsaw Pact, which also suffered from ‘Shock Therapy’ insanity being imposed, yet have largely moved on to more functional systems than Russia.
Of course shock therapy didn’t cause the war, it was just one big factor that lead to the modern Russian state. Putin and other top brass caused this war. My point was it’s not reasonable to compare Russia to Germany.
Also, some nations that underwent shock therapy do OK now, but many are still to recover and have rampant corruption and wide spread poverty. Granted, that’s not the same as bombing schools.
I’m hawkish on my support for Ukraine, but I do think that we need to remember the history behind this.
My point wasn’t to refute that shock therapy caused the war, but to refute that shock therapy caused the modern Russian state in general. Shock therapy was economically damaging, but the root causes of the Russian kleptocracy are much, much deeper and more severe.
Please go on.
Sad, but true.
Fun fact, the term tankie came about because some “lefties” decided to defend the imperialism of the Russian state bashing down dissident rioting populations in their imperial holdings, generally by driving a platoon of tanks in, and shooting if the crowd dosn’t disperse
Some say if you listen closely, you can hear them apologizing for atrocities to this day…
no, they still yell from the rooftops that it was perfectly justified and still somehow NATO is at fault.
Chechnya doesn’t want to Russian? NATO COLOR REVOLUTION! Hungary doesn’t want to Russia? LITERAL NAZI DISSIDENTS CREATED BY NATO! Students protesting in China? TIENANMEN SQUARE NEVER HAPPENED. etc…
Germany was militarily occupied and basically turned into a protectorate of the usa. There are still many us military bases in Germany
edit: added basically
Germany had the world’s 3ed strongest army during the cold war, 2nd strongest right after unification. your “turned into a protectorate” statement is bullshit and basically shows that you just repeat Tanki shit-takes without understanding what you are talking about.
you literally are stuck in the mode of seeing the world through the eyes of colonial empires, the shit that caused WW1 and even WW2, and it’s no wonder, a lot of these takes come from Russian funded sources, so it literally is seeing the world through the eyes of a colonial empire!
When did Germany have the 3rd largest military? https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZKZAG3OYNqk&si=py_CAkId7GtM_ufh
US bases in Germany: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
you read the bit in the parentheses? the “by GDP” part?
as for when? it’s at the approximately 19 second mark, when the spending just to maintain the new joint BRD/GDR army rocketed them to the upper half of the chart.
and what are you trying to imply with “US bases in Germany” bit? that it’s some hallmark of colonialism? what if I tell you that, up until recently, Germany had bases in the USA? they both somehow protectorate of each other? no, the US has bases in Germany for two reasons, 1: to help NATO nation counter-attack Russian aggression (these bases were basically on the border to the east block when they were built, and it turns out are difficult to move, seeing as they are buildings and not trucks), and 2: to function as a logistics waypoint into the Europe/Mideast region.
It might also interest you to know that the amount of US bases in Germany is going down, but that doesn’t mix well with your preconceived 19th century notion of global politics.
Face it, you are a tanki, you do not care about imperialism, you are a fascist wearing the skin of the anarchists, socialists and communists you butchered.
I’m not sure you understand what exactly was going on in the 90s and early 2000s, but considering your comment on Ukraine, I question whether having the conversation would be at all productive.
What happened in the 90s and 2000s then? The west had been propagandized for half a century that Russia was the enemy, so had Russians, so neither side was going to hold out there hand and try for cooperation. If the west was serious about incorporating Russia they would’ve done some sort of marshall plan to modernize them before bringing them into the fold like Poland. They didn’t, they did let a bunch of their business men buy former public property for pennies on the dollar, which I guess is investment but only really for the corrupt officials who got rich off it. There was no path to EU membership, especially after Poland and the baltics joined because they, justifiably, hate Russia for all the imperial oppression they’ve done over the centuries.
Where am I wrong about Ukraine, do you think E.U. and NATO are going to let them in even after all this? I’m not a tanky , the Russian invasion of Ukraine is horrific and unjustified, that doesn’t mean the west’s response to it is benevolent and with the ukrainians best interest.
(Part 2 due to character limit)
Yes, definitely. NATO expansion has long been a goal of NATO hardliners, and NATO support in NATO countries has shot up to a degree few would have expected before Russia made the dubious decision of validating the purpose of the old alliance, which had become lethargic and uncertain in recent years.
What reason is there to exclude Ukraine from NATO once the war is over? Do you think the West wants to deal with a land-grab like this bullshit again, disrupting international markets? Or do you think we’d much prefer to station a token ‘tripwire’ force in Ukraine and ensure that Russia can’t do this bullshit again in ten years?
The EU I’m less informed on the nuances of, but it seems to me they’re pretty forward about opening a path to EU membership to Ukraine. I’d be more concerned on the EU trying to stall on including them in the Schengen Area than excluding them from the EU entirely.
I appreciate that you aren’t a tankie, or a Russian bootlicker, but sometimes national (or international) interests and the right thing line up. Western hegemony benefits most from countries deeply connected to the international market (ie Russia and Ukraine) NOT invading each other and disrupting world trade. As Russia is the aggressor, it is in the interests of the West to discourage further aggression, both practically (supporting Ukraine to end the war faster) and in principle (assuring other countries that their sovereignty will be reinforced in the case of blatant outside interference).
Both sides did, actually. The refrain in the US was always that Russians weren’t the enemy, that Communism was - we learned our lesson with our propaganda campaigns against Germany in WW1. Even Reagan, anti-Soviet agitator extraordinaire, stuck to that line. Yeltsin expressed strong interest in joining the international order - even Putin claims that he raised the issue of NATO, though he wanted special fast-track status for Russia, which was a non-starter. God, I don’t know how to express the sheer triumphalism of 90s academia on the subject. Communism was defeated. Russia was free. That was what the West told itself.
There was no Marshall Plan for Poland. Or any of the ex-Sovs or Warsaw Pact states. The Soviet Union refused all aid when the Marshall Plan was implemented in the 40s, and there was neither the political will nor interest in the 90s in extending generous aid terms. Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, the Baltic States - they all managed to escape not only the horrendous effects of ‘Shock Therapy’, but also half a century of Soviet exploitation, if not necessarily evenly. Yet Russia, and Belarus, did not. One might then begin looking for reasons why Russia and Belarus failed to integrate, rather than reasons why the West failed to welcome, with that in mind.
This I agree with. ‘Shock therapy’ was nothing but a plundering of the old Soviet states by a plutocratic elite who could generously be said to have gotten high on their own supply of free market fetishism, or more cynically to simply have done what the faithless dogs would do with any weakened state - strip it bare for short term gain.
Man, you put too much stock in old grudges. As much as I enjoy ragging on Old Worlders for their ancient blood feuds, it’s not actually that prominent in terms of diplomatic behavior. International relations are predicated almost exclusively on “What can you offer me NOW?” If they weren’t, Germany would never have snuggled up to Russia, France would currently be blockading Britain, and Spain would have cut off the New World colonies which kicked them out. In the 30s and 40s, Ukrainians and Poles were genociding each other, independent of Nazi-led initiatives - now the relation between the two countries is very warm.
History matters for context - but speaking as a History Major, it rarely matters more than present circumstances.
Thank you for your well thought out response. I still think that there was no path to cooperation without a buy out. Even though both sides ostensibly were against the leaders of their opponents, Reagen would say were against the communist regime not the russians and kruschev would say they’re against the imperialist capitalists not the americans, how that was interpreted by the average person was just anti-american, anti-russian sentiment. In the 90s Russians either saw westerners as their cold war enemy or the carpet baggers looting their country.
The only way to win the Russians over would be a marshall plan like foreign aid package that would buy they’re loyalty. Stalin refused it in the 40s for ideological reasons but I doubt Yeltsin would turn down free money. It’s just that there was no political will in the west because there lingering antagonism towards Russia and the idea that liberal capitalism would solve all their problems. They will shell out huge sums for military aid for Ukraine, which again is justified, but if they had sent an equivalent sum to what we are sending now to Ukraine to Russia in the 90s I don’t think we’d be in this mess.
It wouldn’t be. They don’t seem old enough or are just ignorant.
Oh look, the tankies are here