If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   I want whatever this Putin advisor is smoking, it has to be GOOD   (nationalreview.com) divider line 39
    More: Unlikely, Vladimir Putin, consultants, East Ukraine, nuclear wars  
•       •       •

2077 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Mar 2014 at 7:20 AM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-11 07:27:44 AM
This kinda falls into my therory that Putin is trying to create a right wing nationalistic government in Kiev. They keep talking about it but I don't see it at the moment. However if Putin keeps up the pressure he can push Kiev farther to the nationalistic side.
Same thing they did in Syria. Keep talking about terrorists and creatures conditions where the logical outcome is terrorists join the fighting.
 
2014-03-11 07:32:40 AM
That reads like the outline for a junk political thriller.
 
2014-03-11 07:34:01 AM

kyleaugustus: That reads like the outline for a junk political thriller.


NRO is a junk political thriller, the audience just doesn't realize it.
 
2014-03-11 07:34:08 AM
Just remember. The cold was was an armaments version of Coke vs Pepsi.

Restaurants only sell Pepsi products if they're owned by Pepsi.
 
2014-03-11 07:40:49 AM
Wow. How to take over Europe in 10 impossible steps.
 
2014-03-11 07:43:28 AM
It's interesting to watch authoritarians on both "sides" playing a game of telephone to conjure up another cold war to give their miserable reactionary lives some meaning.
 
2014-03-11 07:43:48 AM
You know who else wanted to dominate Europe?
 
2014-03-11 07:45:18 AM
He doesn't mention:  Russia gets humiliated and backs off, Crimea votes against going to Russia, NATO ratifies Ukraine as a member, the slow simmering tension lasts long enough for the 2016 elections where a Republican is elected and then uses half the US warheads to make Russia uninhabitable for the next 30k years (aka the Russian long winter of regret)
 
2014-03-11 07:46:36 AM
yeah, ok

Here, I can write my own. Since we already have established what either NATO or the UN does when one nation invades another (nothing).

1. Russia keeps Crimea because good luck taking it back from them... and because no one that matters really gives a shiat. They didn't about Georgia and they don't about this.

Pundits will have a field day saying what should or shouldn't be done.
And people will get boners talking about nuclear war.
But in the end, nothing is going to happen that will be of any consequence for your average trans-fat devouring American.
 
2014-03-11 07:50:09 AM
FTFA: 7. Russia does not stop there, but carries activity into Europe, acting as the main element of the European Conservative Revolution. Europe starts to crack: Some countries are behind the U.S., but more often begin to listen to Russia. Against the background of the financial crisis, Russia's position becomes more attractive. Russia takes on the protection of multipolarity, continentalism, and new conservatism (the Fourth Political Theory).

Instead of communist revolutions, now Russia is trying to build its political sphere of influence by exporting conservative revolutions in other countries. He is also putting the U.S. on the side to defend the liberal western social democracies of Europe from this impending conservative ideological threat. What irony. I can't wait until this actually "sinks in" with hard right wing American conservatives.
 
2014-03-11 07:57:07 AM

MurphyMurphy: yeah, ok

Here, I can write my own. Since we already have established what either NATO or the UN does when one nation invades another (nothing).

1. Russia keeps Crimea because good luck taking it back from them... and because no one that matters really gives a shiat. They didn't about Georgia and they don't about this.

Pundits will have a field day saying what should or shouldn't be done.
And people will get boners talking about nuclear war.
But in the end, nothing is going to happen that will be of any consequence for your average trans-fat devouring American.


To the best of my knowledge, Georgia was an entirely different scenario as they weren't nearly as industrialized or economically strong as Ukraine is/was. Also, NATO wouldn't do anything here because risking a large-scale conflict on the basis of occupying and defending a non-NATO nation isn't a good strategy, and there are no treaties binding them to do so. Any agreement between the UK/US/Russia to defend Ukraine in the event of occupation is nonbinding and more of a "memorandum" than anything else.

If you look at the population, economic strength, military strength, cause of revolution, cause of Russian occupation and annexation.. the list goes on for awhile, the difference between Georgia and Ukraine is pretty stark IMO.

This, of course, is all to the best of my knowledge.
 
2014-03-11 08:00:57 AM

MurphyMurphy: yeah, ok

Here, I can write my own. Since we already have established what either NATO or the UN does when one nation invades another (nothing).

1. Russia keeps Crimea because good luck taking it back from them... and because no one that matters really gives a shiat. They didn't about Georgia and they don't about this.

Pundits will have a field day saying what should or shouldn't be done.
And people will get boners talking about nuclear war.
But in the end, nothing is going to happen that will be of any consequence for your average trans-fat devouring American.


Part of the reason they didn't do jack in Georgia was because the Georgians actually started shooting first.  People always forget that part.
 
2014-03-11 08:01:42 AM
Dugin is a literal Fascist. Not one in the vein of a pejorative for mild reactionaries as Orwell described the term. He is a creepy brownshirt sharpening his long knives and polishing his jackboots. Here's an exerpt from his political screed "Fascism, borderless and red."

Fascism - this is nationalism, yet not any nationalism, but a revolutionary, rebellious, romantic, idealistic form of nationalism appealing to a great myth and transcendental idea, trying to put into practice the Impossible Dream, to give birth to a society of the hero and Superhuman, to change and transform the world. On the economic level, fascism is characterized rather by socialist or moderately socialist methods which subordinate personal, individual economic interests to the principles of national welfare, justice, and brotherhood. And finally, the fascist view of culture corresponds to a radical rejection of the humanistic, "excessively humane" mentality, i.e. of what represents the essence of the "intelligentsia." The fascist hates the intellectual as a type. He sees in him a masked bourgeois, a pretentious philistine, a chatterbox and irresponsible coward. The fascist loves the brutal, superhuman and angel-like, at the same time. He loves the cold and tragedy, he does not like warmth and comfort. With other words, fascism despises everything that makes up the essence of "national capitalism." He fights for the "domination of national idealism" (and not "national capital") and against the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia (and not for her and not with her). The fascist pathos is accurately defined in the famous phrase of Mussolini: "Rise, fascist and proletarian Italy!" "Fascist and proletarian" - such is the orientation of fascism. It is a labor and heroic, militant and creative, idealistic and futuristic ideology which does not have anything in common with securing additional governmental comfort for the traders (even if a thousand times national) and sinecures for the socially parasitic intelligentsia. The central figures of the fascist state, and fascist myth are the peasant, worker, and soldier. On the top, as the supreme symbol of the tragic fight with destiny, cosmic entropy is the god-like leader, Duce, Führer, superhuman who realizes in his supra-individual personality the extraordinary tension of national will for feat. Of course, somewhere, at the periphery, there is also a place for the honest citizen-merchant and university professor. They too put on party badges and go out to ceremonial meetings. But, in fascist reality, their figures are fading, getting lost,and move into the background .

If he's getting frustrated that Putin is not comfortable with the idea of becoming Der Furher, that's actually a good sign.
 
2014-03-11 08:02:40 AM

heavymetal: FTFA: 7. Russia does not stop there, but carries activity into Europe, acting as the main element of the European Conservative Revolution. Europe starts to crack: Some countries are behind the U.S., but more often begin to listen to Russia. Against the background of the financial crisis, Russia's position becomes more attractive. Russia takes on the protection of multipolarity, continentalism, and new conservatism (the Fourth Political Theory).

Instead of communist revolutions, now Russia is trying to build its political sphere of influence by exporting conservative revolutions in other countries. He is also putting the U.S. on the side to defend the liberal western social democracies of Europe from this impending conservative ideological threat. What irony. I can't wait until this actually "sinks in" with hard right wing American conservatives.


/Well, THERE's your problem right there....
//We had a power outage for the second weekend in a row.  My dumbass Fox news watching brother actually said "It's because of the whole "going green" energy policy.."  In OHIO... we might be the state getting the least amount of electricity from "new" green energy as any state in the union - we're at like 98%+ coal/gas/nuclear.  Nothing sinks in with them... nothing.
 
2014-03-11 08:03:55 AM

NEDM: MurphyMurphy: yeah, ok

Here, I can write my own. Since we already have established what either NATO or the UN does when one nation invades another (nothing).

1. Russia keeps Crimea because good luck taking it back from them... and because no one that matters really gives a shiat. They didn't about Georgia and they don't about this.

Pundits will have a field day saying what should or shouldn't be done.
And people will get boners talking about nuclear war.
But in the end, nothing is going to happen that will be of any consequence for your average trans-fat devouring American.

Part of the reason they didn't do jack in Georgia was because the Georgians actually started shooting first.  People always forget that part.


SERIOUSLY. It's not like it's the most important factor in Russia roflstomping Georgia the way they did.
 
2014-03-11 08:19:24 AM
Since that article was from NRO, there is a good chance it is all made up.
 
2014-03-11 08:20:48 AM

Muta: Since that article was from NRO, there is a good chance it is all made up.


Pretty close. It's from the facebook page of a Russian fascist, not a policy paper by a Putin adviser.
 
2014-03-11 08:26:37 AM
If the EU wants Ukraine why don't they take care of this.
 
2014-03-11 08:33:07 AM
I read that as PALIN instead of PUTIN. Still works.
 
2014-03-11 08:45:09 AM

Fizpez: heavymetal: FTFA: 7. Russia does not stop there, but carries activity into Europe, acting as the main element of the European Conservative Revolution. Europe starts to crack: Some countries are behind the U.S., but more often begin to listen to Russia. Against the background of the financial crisis, Russia's position becomes more attractive. Russia takes on the protection of multipolarity, continentalism, and new conservatism (the Fourth Political Theory).

Instead of communist revolutions, now Russia is trying to build its political sphere of influence by exporting conservative revolutions in other countries. He is also putting the U.S. on the side to defend the liberal western social democracies of Europe from this impending conservative ideological threat. What irony. I can't wait until this actually "sinks in" with hard right wing American conservatives.

/Well, THERE's your problem right there....
//We had a power outage for the second weekend in a row.  My dumbass Fox news watching brother actually said "It's because of the whole "going green" energy policy.."  In OHIO... we might be the state getting the least amount of electricity from "new" green energy as any state in the union - we're at like 98%+ coal/gas/nuclear.  Nothing sinks in with them... nothing.


Doublethinking past it is easy.  Russia is exporting conservative revolutions because, "Reagan won the cold war and turned the commies to freedom" and liberalism is being defended by the west "because Obama has turned America into a homofascist caliphate."

Any logical contradictions in there are just libtards trying to confuse the situation with liberal quibbles.
 
2014-03-11 09:24:08 AM
Oh goddammit. The bad thing about being on the mobile site is that I don't see the NRO flag as easily, so it's easier to waste my clicks on garbage... like NRO articles.
 
2014-03-11 09:25:03 AM

heavymetal: FTFA: 7. Russia does not stop there, but carries activity into Europe, acting as the main element of the European Conservative Revolution. Europe starts to crack: Some countries are behind the U.S., but more often begin to listen to Russia. Against the background of the financial crisis, Russia's position becomes more attractive. Russia takes on the protection of multipolarity, continentalism, and new conservatism (the Fourth Political Theory).

Instead of communist revolutions, now Russia is trying to build its political sphere of influence by exporting conservative revolutions in other countries. He is also putting the U.S. on the side to defend the liberal western social democracies of Europe from this impending conservative ideological threat. What irony. I can't wait until this actually "sinks in" with hard right wing American conservatives.


Also, I like the assumption that the support of the US is why Western Europe is so liberal, and that without the US, Europe would be Christendom restored.
 
2014-03-11 09:27:05 AM

kyleaugustus: That reads like the outline for a junk political thriller.


It's almost a trashy erotic thriller.  I'm surprised the guy was able to keep going after "Putin is supported by everyone. His popularity among the people climaxes."
 
2014-03-11 09:45:10 AM
I completely forgot Georgians instigated that confrontation. (not sure I knew that to begin with)

And that's a very valid point that the two nations are apples and oranges.

I still don't think anyone that isn't Ukrainian is going to do jack-all about this land grab.
 
2014-03-11 10:39:05 AM

Odin's Other Eye: Pretty close. It's from the facebook page of a Russian fascist, not a policy paper by a Putin adviser.


Wikipedia suggests this clown may have a tenuous connection to Putin; it looks on the very rough order of influence that Pat Buchanan had on Dubya during the latter's presidency.

/www.thatkennel.com
 
2014-03-11 10:50:10 AM

rev. dave: He doesn't mention:  Russia gets humiliated and backs off, Crimea votes against going to Russia, NATO ratifies Ukraine as a member, the slow simmering tension lasts long enough for the 2016 elections where a Republican is elected and then uses half the US warheads to make Russia uninhabitable for the next 30k years (aka the Russian long winter of regret)


First, the Crimea "referendum" they are organizing is illegal, and there's no reason why anyone should acknowledge it or pretend otherwise. It would be like the US invading Baja then setting up a vote about whether they wanted to secede from Mexico.

Second, the Russia forces in Crimea are already beating pro-Ukrainian protestors in the streets and probably surveiling/harassing them in their homes in prep for mass-arrests later this week; Putin does everything he can to keep the Russian protest movement from getting to the polls and he'll do the same here as well.

Third, the Russians are running the regional parliament, will be running the "referendum", and will be the one's counting the votes, so regardless of how people actually vote its result is already determined.

Fourth, Putin's interests in Crimea are not cultural or political, but geo-political. He isn't doing this to "protect the rights of ethnic Russians" any more than(my intent here is not to Godwin the thread but the parallel is too strong to ignore) Hitler's intent in invading Czechoslovakia was to "protect the rights of ethnic Germans" in the "Sudetenland", and thus he doesn't give a damn about the election results. The Crimea is, and has been ever since they conquered it from(I think?) the Ottomans and Butchered its Tartar inhabitants centuries ago, Russia's only warm-water ocean-access, meaning it is their only non-frozen year-round access to the sea. For Putin to fulfill his fanciful ambitions of pretending Russia is an actual player on the world-stage commiserate to the US and China, he needs warm-water ports. As part of their accession agreements, Ukraine has to allow Russia access to its ports, but apparently that binding agreement has never been good enough for Putin because since he took office Russian chauvinist paramilitaries in Ukraine have been mysteriously far better funded and organized, as have the "peaceful" political face of their movement represented by corrupt, thieving stooges like Yanukovych. He has been trying through bribery, cronyism, crime, and assassination to dominate Ukraine politically for over a decade now, and when they rebelled against that(the recent revolution) he did exactly what you'd expect him to do; he marched his troops into the part of Ukraine most important to his ambitions. As long as you have Muscovite leaders who harbor dreams of a real empire(because lets be honest, the only reason Russia holds on to all that Siberian land and Kamchatka is because nobody else wants either), then the realities of geo-politics will dictate their need to control Crimea. Controlling all of Ukraine would be nice too since it grows most of Russia's food and a big chunk of Europe's cereal crop, but modern technology makes terrorism far too easy and destructive for trying to swallow it or the rest of Eastern Europe cost-effective.

Fifth, the US would never threaten nuclear weapon's use over a conventional war now that we know what nuclear weapons are capable of.

Sixth, actually listen to your vaunted Republicans. Are they saying they want war? Are they castigating the President for not directed an immediate and overwhelming military response? What Policies are they suggesting Obama should take, and are they raising hell in the HoR that they control to get those policies implemented? The Rs are talking a lot of shiat about this to run down the president but that's all it is; bs. You push them on policy and they suggest exactly what Obama is doing, only someone done "stronger" with more "command" and less "weakness". The facts of the matter are that the Rs cannot trash Obama or the Dems on domestic policy or any of the other foreign policy decisions of his term without either looking ridiculous or alienating voters(witness their hilarious belly-flop on Libya, where in the course of 24 hours they went from advocating immediate, overwhelming military involvement to castigating him getting us involved in one of those oversea military adventures that Republicans hate so much *greatest eye-roll of forever*), that, unable to find purchase, the Rs have been flailing around for something to trash him with for years now, and that their pontificating about Ukraine is just another example of this; the Cons yet again reducing a genuine international tragedy and crisis to a base-rousing, bloody-shirt-waving domestic political issue. None of their Rhetoric is genuine, and if you genuinely believe their tone over the substance of their statements, then you are a willing fool.

Seventh, in the last three days military helicopters have been flying down Highway 6 in Texas, which I live along, in significant numbers. In my experience, this tends to be a good sign that mobilization is underway. While it isn't getting any media coverage, the Obama admin is preparing a more robust military response than they have already undertaken(we've been transferring lots of fighter, surveillance, and bomber craft to Europe lately, and of course the 6th Fleet is in the Med, no doubt preparing for action), and while it will take some time to marshal our forces given that(thanks to Shrub) they are exhausted and scattered all over the damn globe, we can probably expect to see a stronger US presence in the Baltics and Poland within the next month.

What I'm wondering is whether the Germans(and by extension, the rest of the EU minus Britain and possible France since they won't act without the Germans on this) are going to be willing to back any military pressure placed on Russia by the US to influence this stand-off with their own forces, or if they're just going to continue selling the Eastern Europeans out to the Russians like they have been for the last 20 years.
 
2014-03-11 11:02:49 AM

Witty Comment: MurphyMurphy: yeah, ok

Here, I can write my own. Since we already have established what either NATO or the UN does when one nation invades another (nothing).

1. Russia keeps Crimea because good luck taking it back from them... and because no one that matters really gives a shiat. They didn't about Georgia and they don't about this.

Pundits will have a field day saying what should or shouldn't be done.
And people will get boners talking about nuclear war.
But in the end, nothing is going to happen that will be of any consequence for your average trans-fat devouring American.

To the best of my knowledge, Georgia was an entirely different scenario as they weren't nearly as industrialized or economically strong as Ukraine is/was. Also, NATO wouldn't do anything here because risking a large-scale conflict on the basis of occupying and defending a non-NATO nation isn't a good strategy, and there are no treaties binding them to do so. Any agreement between the UK/US/Russia to defend Ukraine in the event of occupation is nonbinding and more of a "memorandum" than anything else.

If you look at the population, economic strength, military strength, cause of revolution, cause of Russian occupation and annexation.. the list goes on for awhile, the difference between Georgia and Ukraine is pretty stark IMO.

This, of course, is all to the best of my knowledge.


That's a bit like saying the Lincoln started the Civil War because Union forces shot first at Bull Run. Ossetia and Abkhazia were "separatist" regions only in that Russia backed pro-Russia extremists in those areas with money and arms, and put them up to seceding, at which point they fired on lawful Georgian authorities and drove them out. What Georgia was doing in "firing first" was pursuing its stated campaign of retaking these rebellious enclaves. Knowing that the Russians were backing them and knowing that there were Russia troops in those enclaves already made pursuing that campaign as far as they did stupid, but the argument that "they shot first" and therefore the Russians were the "good guys" in that fight completely ignores the political realities of post-Soviet Muscovite Imperialism generally, and the Georgian situation in particular.
 
2014-03-11 11:20:17 AM

ReaverZ: If the EU wants Ukraine why don't they take care of this.


The EU does not want another poor country with a crappy economy. The Ukraine wants to be closer to the EU, and that's fine, but it's a long way away from becoming an actual member nation.
Also, some EU countries rely on Russian supplies of natural gas.


heavymetal: FTFA: 7. Russia does not stop there, but carries activity into Europe, acting as the main element of the European Conservative Revolution. Europe starts to crack: Some countries are behind the U.S., but more often begin to listen to Russia. Against the background of the financial crisis, Russia's position becomes more attractive. Russia takes on the protection of multipolarity, continentalism, and new conservatism (the Fourth Political Theory).

Instead of communist revolutions, now Russia is trying to build its political sphere of influence by exporting conservative revolutions in other countries. He is also putting the U.S. on the side to defend the liberal western social democracies of Europe from this impending conservative ideological threat. What irony. I can't wait until this actually "sinks in" with hard right wing American conservatives.

I think you misunderstand what words like "conservative" and "liberal" means outside a US context.
When a fascist Russian who longs for the days of Stalin talks about Conservatism, he doesn't mean fundamentalist Christianity & The Right To Bear Arms but increased centralisation and government control of populations and economies, and when he says "Liberal" it doesn't mean "lefty", it means Liberal Democracy and/or economic Liberalism, which, just to make if more confusing, are central elemens of most Western Conservatism.
 
2014-03-11 11:24:23 AM

Heron: The Crimea is, and has been ever since they conquered it from(I think?) the Ottomans and Butchered its Tartar inhabitants centuries ago, Russia's only warm-water ocean-access, meaning it is their only non-frozen year-round access to the sea. For Putin to fulfill his fanciful ambitions of pretending Russia is an actual player on the world-stage commiserate to the US and China, he needs warm-water ports. As part of their accessi ...



Crimea is Russia's only warm water port access? What about St Petersburg? Or Murmansk? Or all of their other territory on the Black Sea?
 
2014-03-11 11:43:24 AM

Moosecakes:
Crimea is Russia's only warm water port access? What about St Petersburg? Or Murmansk? Or all of their other territory on the Black Sea?


The Neva tends to freeze during winter, and Murmansk is north of the Polar Circle.
Is that the joke?
 
2014-03-11 12:05:52 PM

RevCarter: Just remember. The cold was was an armaments version of Coke vs Pepsi.

Restaurants only sell Pepsi products if they're owned by Pepsi.


Umm, no. Yum! Foods chains only serve Pepsico brands because of inertia. But plenty of mom and pop stores serve Pepsi because it's cheaper. It's a warning sign when you go in a restaurant that they have Pepsi; someone has gone through the place to cheap out.
 
2014-03-11 04:16:27 PM

Witty Comment: MurphyMurphy: yeah, ok

Here, I can write my own. Since we already have established what either NATO or the UN does when one nation invades another (nothing).

1. Russia keeps Crimea because good luck taking it back from them... and because no one that matters really gives a shiat. They didn't about Georgia and they don't about this.

Pundits will have a field day saying what should or shouldn't be done.
And people will get boners talking about nuclear war.
But in the end, nothing is going to happen that will be of any consequence for your average trans-fat devouring American.

To the best of my knowledge, Georgia was an entirely different scenario as they weren't nearly as industrialized or economically strong as Ukraine is/was. Also, NATO wouldn't do anything here because risking a large-scale conflict on the basis of occupying and defending a non-NATO nation isn't a good strategy, and there are no treaties binding them to do so. Any agreement between the UK/US/Russia to defend Ukraine in the event of occupation is nonbinding and more of a "memorandum" than anything else.

If you look at the population, economic strength, military strength, cause of revolution, cause of Russian occupation and annexation.. the list goes on for awhile, the difference between Georgia and Ukraine is pretty stark IMO.

This, of course, is all to the best of my knowledge.


Your knowledge is fairly good compared to most.  Which is why the situation must seem odd to you that we seem to be abrogating protective treaties unilaterally.  The policies of Russia in either case are nearly identical.  Russian speaking members of society in the given areas are handed Russian passports.  They are given special treatment and int he case of South Ossetia they had UN troops stationed there that just 'happened' to be Russian.  They were made over the course of a longer period of time to feel closer to Russia.  This would be a similar feeling in my opinion to someone working on the US/Canadian border feeling a closer relationship to their friends, family and business associates on the other side.

So when asked to join Russia (which appears ascendant politically and economically compared to the debt laden Ukraine) it seems like a win...win...win for Crimea.  There is quite literally no downside for them.  For the rest of the Ukraine...well it would seem things are going to be tougher as Victoria 'Destabilize Everything' Nuland continues her State Department sanctioned Jihad against smaller sov bloc's and works actively to undermine trust of the United States.  God damned cookie pusher.

This analyst is predicting things out way too far.  The US will acquiesce to Crimea joining Russia (eventually after much whining and pointing at how much our butts hurt from the surprise buttsex).  Yes we will probably try to activate some kind of insurgency...but not in Russia itself.  We will import more jihadi fighters loosely associated with the Chechens/Al Qaeda all the while our media will spin something about *where did these guys come from*.  and how destabilized the Ukraine is suddenly for no reason.

The media will engage in creating plausible deniability for whatever administration is in power...in this case it is Obama and fewer people who call themselves journalists will be skeptical than under a GOP dominated administration.  The media at large however will follow the admin lead regardless just like with Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.  This won't be any different from how news coverage will follow the Russian Federation's POV on RT.  The only difference really being that RT is out front and admits that it takes that bias on actively so at least your guard is up.
 
2014-03-11 04:41:17 PM
Who let Soorcha Faal into the thread?
 
2014-03-11 05:47:09 PM

Dansker: ReaverZ: If the EU wants Ukraine why don't they take care of this.

The EU does not want another poor country with a crappy economy. The Ukraine wants to be closer to the EU, and that's fine, but it's a long way away from becoming an actual member nation.
Also, some EU countries rely on Russian supplies of natural gas.


heavymetal: FTFA: 7. Russia does not stop there, but carries activity into Europe, acting as the main element of the European Conservative Revolution. Europe starts to crack: Some countries are behind the U.S., but more often begin to listen to Russia. Against the background of the financial crisis, Russia's position becomes more attractive. Russia takes on the protection of multipolarity, continentalism, and new conservatism (the Fourth Political Theory).

Instead of communist revolutions, now Russia is trying to build its political sphere of influence by exporting conservative revolutions in other countries. He is also putting the U.S. on the side to defend the liberal western social democracies of Europe from this impending conservative ideological threat. What irony. I can't wait until this actually "sinks in" with hard right wing American conservatives.
I think you misunderstand what words like "conservative" and "liberal" means outside a US context.
When a fascist Russian who longs for the days of Stalin talks about Conservatism, he doesn't mean fundamentalist Christianity & The Right To Bear Arms but increased centralisation and government control of populations and economies, and when he says "Liberal" it doesn't mean "lefty", it means Liberal Democracy and/or economic Liberalism, which, just to make if more confusing, are central elemens of most Western Conservatism.


No I do not.  First of all, American conservatives are constantly accusing President Obama of trying to turn the U.S. into a western European style liberal social democracy, and are vehemently against it.  Second Putin is aligning himself with the Russian Orthodox church and vilifying gays to solidify his power base just liek American conservatives have done.  Third in foreign policy he is a straight up neo-conservative, which is why American conservatives are fawning over him.
 
2014-03-11 06:49:11 PM

Witty Comment: To the best of my knowledge, Georgia was an entirely different scenario as they weren't nearly as industrialized or economically strong as Ukraine is/was. Also, NATO wouldn't do anything here because risking a large-scale conflict on the basis of occupying and defending a non-NATO nation isn't a good strategy, and there are no treaties binding them to do so. Any agreement between the UK/US/Russia to defend Ukraine in the event of occupation is nonbinding and more of a "memorandum" than anything else.

If you look at the population, economic strength, military strength, cause of revolution, cause of Russian occupation and annexation.. the list goes on for awhile, the difference between Georgia and Ukraine is pretty stark IMO.


Ukraine's military is FAR, FAR more competent than Georgia.  Georgian forces weren't even able to realize that the Russians had massed four tank divisions just over their border and were dumb enough to fire on them.

Look at the discipline that the Ukranian military has shown so far.
 
2014-03-11 07:18:20 PM

heavymetal: First of all, American conservatives are constantly accusing President Obama of trying to turn the U.S. into a western European style liberal social democracy, and are vehemently against it.  Second Putin is aligning himself with the Russian Orthodox church and vilifying gays to solidify his power base just liek American conservatives have done.  Third in foreign policy he is a straight up neo-conservative, which is why American conservatives are fawning over him


But the quote we're talking about is not from Putin, it's from this guy,
In this context Liberalism is not synonymous with Social Democracy (and European Social Democrats never call themselves Liberals), its basically shorthand for free market capitalism and Liberal Democracy. And Dugin draws inspiration for his openly fascist "Fourth Way" Conservatism from Russian history; his admiration for both the Tzarist rule and the Stalinist era creates a completely different foundation than that which American Conservatism is built on.
 
2014-03-11 09:39:31 PM
Nothing to worry about. The Russian armed forces will be under the direct personal supervision of Comrade Rumsfeldski, ably assisted by Comrade Wolfowitzovich, and if past experience holds true, these two won't be able to lead an army out of a closet if you put their hand on the doorknob.
 
2014-03-11 11:02:56 PM

TheBigJerk: Fizpez: heavymetal: FTFA: 7. Russia does not stop there, but carries activity into Europe, acting as the main element of the European Conservative Revolution. Europe starts to crack: Some countries are behind the U.S., but more often begin to listen to Russia. Against the background of the financial crisis, Russia's position becomes more attractive. Russia takes on the protection of multipolarity, continentalism, and new conservatism (the Fourth Political Theory).

Instead of communist revolutions, now Russia is trying to build its political sphere of influence by exporting conservative revolutions in other countries. He is also putting the U.S. on the side to defend the liberal western social democracies of Europe from this impending conservative ideological threat. What irony. I can't wait until this actually "sinks in" with hard right wing American conservatives.

/Well, THERE's your problem right there....
//We had a power outage for the second weekend in a row.  My dumbass Fox news watching brother actually said "It's because of the whole "going green" energy policy.."  In OHIO... we might be the state getting the least amount of electricity from "new" green energy as any state in the union - we're at like 98%+ coal/gas/nuclear.  Nothing sinks in with them... nothing.

Doublethinking past it is easy.  Russia is exporting conservative revolutions because, "Reagan won the cold war and turned the commies to freedom" and liberalism is being defended by the west "because Obama has turned America into a homofascist caliphate."

Any logical contradictions in there are just libtards trying to confuse the situation with liberal quibbles.


Conservative is a relative term. In the Soviet Union the conservatives were the hard line communists rather than those who wanted change to democracy.

By definition conservatives are those who want to conserve the things as they are whether that is communism or capitalism or whatever else. They resist change.

That is why I don't consider US Republicans to be conservatives. They want to make radical changes - they are in fact radicals. And most of them seem to be authoritarians.

Democrats are also not conservatives since they also want to make substantial changes.
 
2014-03-11 11:08:36 PM

rev. dave: He doesn't mention:  Russia gets humiliated and backs off, Crimea votes against going to Russia, NATO ratifies Ukraine as a member, the slow simmering tension lasts long enough for the 2016 elections where a Republican is elected and then uses half the US warheads to make Russia uninhabitable for the next 30k years (aka the Russian long winter of regret)


Russia have 1,800 active nuclear warheads. If the US launched any of its nuclear weapons toward Russia then most of those Russian nukes would be headed for the US.

Is that what you want?
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report