It's sad that the lies that are coming from the U.S. administration are voted up on HN. It's not clear whether officials from the U.S promised in 1990 to Gorbacev that it won't expand NATO to Eastern-Europe, but it's clear that Russia was controlling Ukraine and U.S. is invading (by giving money to various groups in Ukraine).
Actually, the exact point of the article would be that Russia, under Putin's wily leadership, has gotten much better about invading using non-physical force, or at least highly obscured physical force. We are instead the fools making the exact mistakes of a Russia from the 80's.
Its interesting to watch occur, as Putin is currently so much better at the game than we are. You talk about it like we're interacting with the slow bear, when in truth we're now facing a strong, beloved dictator, who has largely consolidated dissent on his homefront with a clear message of nationalism / longing for the USSR, who is adept at manipulating geopolitics, and who excels at "showing" people the right choice, rather than telling them.
Most of the baltic states and former soviet republics are part of NATO now. Rather than asking whether there was a tacit agreement on spheres of influence at the time the Berlin wall fell, it might be worth asking why those countries so unanimously prefer closer ties to the EU and NATO over Russia. I think that money is part of the answer, but not in the way that you're implying.
"Politics and propaganda is new warfare" seems to be the dominant message of this article. Essentially article claims Russia is using globalization[0] to get away with annexing part of Ukraine and is seeding pro-Russian sentiment by placing articles in western media. All of that is spiced up with strong emphasis on corruption in Russia.
[0] As in stronger economic ties between countries, according to the article Russia is banking on the fact that west cannot effectively retaliate without significant economic damage received.
Does anyone else seem to think this article suggests anyone who doesn't agree with aggressive western policy is somehow connected to subversive (and often financed) Russian activity?
Maybe some people just don't agree with cruel, aggressive and foolish policy (Iraq being the example that leaps to mind) and Russia is incidental in the matter?
But...probably in their minds Washington intellectuals can do no wrong.
Being a USA citizen, I find it difficult to look at the world from outside my own life/fishbowl, even though I have traveled to about 20 other countries.
My understanding is that most of the world basically likes Americans but is fed up with our hegemony. Perhaps other world powers like Russia and China get away with stuff because they are perceived as not being as bad as we are?
I know this is not going to happen but I think we would be better off taking the huge hit on our economy right now (by ceasing to be a military empire, and dealing with then losing the US$ as the reserve currency and all the benefits that entails) and really focus on both internal infrastructure and also developing strong friendships with other countries. Oh, and stop having fiat currency and go back to something partially backed by gold or other real resources. (I don't think we need to be on 100% gold backed currency - perhaps 20% or so would be enough).
8 comments
[ 225 ms ] story [ 42.2 ms ] threadhttp://rt.com/op-edge/ukraine-russia-nato-enlargement-577/ http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeit... http://dialogueeurope.org/uploads/File/resources/TWQ%20artic...
Its interesting to watch occur, as Putin is currently so much better at the game than we are. You talk about it like we're interacting with the slow bear, when in truth we're now facing a strong, beloved dictator, who has largely consolidated dissent on his homefront with a clear message of nationalism / longing for the USSR, who is adept at manipulating geopolitics, and who excels at "showing" people the right choice, rather than telling them.
[0] As in stronger economic ties between countries, according to the article Russia is banking on the fact that west cannot effectively retaliate without significant economic damage received.
Maybe some people just don't agree with cruel, aggressive and foolish policy (Iraq being the example that leaps to mind) and Russia is incidental in the matter?
But...probably in their minds Washington intellectuals can do no wrong.
My understanding is that most of the world basically likes Americans but is fed up with our hegemony. Perhaps other world powers like Russia and China get away with stuff because they are perceived as not being as bad as we are?
I know this is not going to happen but I think we would be better off taking the huge hit on our economy right now (by ceasing to be a military empire, and dealing with then losing the US$ as the reserve currency and all the benefits that entails) and really focus on both internal infrastructure and also developing strong friendships with other countries. Oh, and stop having fiat currency and go back to something partially backed by gold or other real resources. (I don't think we need to be on 100% gold backed currency - perhaps 20% or so would be enough).
edit: fixed a typo