Red Mosquito

Why is Russia acting so aggressively?

Though I assume the Afghan bases are gone by now.

BurtReynolds wrote:Why is Russia acting so aggressively?

They have legitimate concerns, sure. If they fail to neutralize Ukraine, this will be a massive own goal and they'll be in a worse position going forward.

They did shit like invade Georgia in 2008 after sponsoring a Donetsk-lite separatist region. This, after decades of mistreating all their neighbors helped encourage their neighbors to join a counteracting alliance.

Not our problem, but fuck 'em.

This feels a lot like one of those WWI, everyone-is-the-bad-guy type of deals.

BurtReynolds wrote:This feels a lot like one of those WWI, everyone-is-the-bad-guy type of deals.

What was the alternative to joining NATO for the Baltics? Developing an independent strategic deterrent?

How is NATO expansion at all equivalent to the sins of Russia 1919-1991?

They're not equivalent, but the goal is the same (they aren't doing it for the good of the Baltics).

Russia wants to maintain its sphere of influence and have a buffer against NATO (which was literally created to combat Russia and strangely didn't end after the USSR dissolved.) NATO wants to expand to Russia's borders to neutralize them as a threat to their world order. I don't think it matters who is in charge of Russia. Those interests don't change.

BurtReynolds wrote:They're not equivalent, but the goal is the same (they aren't doing it for the good of the Baltics).

Russia wants to maintain its sphere of influence and have a buffer against NATO (which was literally created to combat Russia and strangely didn't end after the USSR dissolved.) NATO wants to expand to Russia's borders to neutralize them as a threat to their world order. I don't think it matters who is in charge of Russia. Those interests don't change.

Russian interests include interfering in their neighbors affairs, by force if they so choose. These are not valid interests, but yes, Russia feels unduly constrained by the existence of NATO.

BurtReynolds wrote:They're not equivalent, but the goal is the same (they aren't doing it for the good of the Baltics).

Russia wants to maintain its sphere of influence and have a buffer against NATO (which was literally created to combat Russia and strangely didn't end after the USSR dissolved.) NATO wants to expand to Russia's borders to neutralize them as a threat to their world order. I don't think it matters who is in charge of Russia. Those interests don't change.

The USSR dissolved, but the threat never disappeared, which recent events highlight.

The Baltic countries are very lucky they joined NATO.

I enjoy dabbling with Buchannanite revisionism as much as the next guy, but sometimes I think he just really hates Poland, and he constructs everything around the Poles deserving it.

That made me look up this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -Rome.html

What an idiot.

Commies amirite

Anders wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:They're not equivalent, but the goal is the same (they aren't doing it for the good of the Baltics).

Russia wants to maintain its sphere of influence and have a buffer against NATO (which was literally created to combat Russia and strangely didn't end after the USSR dissolved.) NATO wants to expand to Russia's borders to neutralize them as a threat to their world order. I don't think it matters who is in charge of Russia. Those interests don't change.

The USSR dissolved, but the threat never disappeared, which recent events highlight.

The Baltic countries are very lucky they joined NATO.

Russia was under the control of a clueless drunk for 8 years. Didn't stop NATO.

Hard to see how Ukraine prevails, but it would be fitting if this turned into a repeat of the Winter War. In the quest for increasing its buffer zone, Russia pushes a neighbor into a hostile alliance and pays dearly for limited gains.

History rhyming and all that.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Anders wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:They're not equivalent, but the goal is the same (they aren't doing it for the good of the Baltics).

Russia wants to maintain its sphere of influence and have a buffer against NATO (which was literally created to combat Russia and strangely didn't end after the USSR dissolved.) NATO wants to expand to Russia's borders to neutralize them as a threat to their world order. I don't think it matters who is in charge of Russia. Those interests don't change.

The USSR dissolved, but the threat never disappeared, which recent events highlight.

The Baltic countries are very lucky they joined NATO.

Russia was under the control of a clueless drunk for 8 years. Didn't stop NATO.

Think Yeltsin was a lot more than that. But his country did not stop being a future threat under his leadership, as time has shown.

The ruthless aggression shown in Chechnya even under Yeltsin’s rule, is proof of that.

«Yeltsin ordered Russian forces to crush a Chechen independence movement that had grown in power and influence since the 1991 break-up of the Soviet Union.

Russia's artillery and air force pounded Grozny indiscriminately killing civilians, both Russian and Chechen, and destroying the largest city in the North Caucasus.»



Wouldn’t take much for this to be Riga.

Anders wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Anders wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:They're not equivalent, but the goal is the same (they aren't doing it for the good of the Baltics).

Russia wants to maintain its sphere of influence and have a buffer against NATO (which was literally created to combat Russia and strangely didn't end after the USSR dissolved.) NATO wants to expand to Russia's borders to neutralize them as a threat to their world order. I don't think it matters who is in charge of Russia. Those interests don't change.

The USSR dissolved, but the threat never disappeared, which recent events highlight.

The Baltic countries are very lucky they joined NATO.

Russia was under the control of a clueless drunk for 8 years. Didn't stop NATO.

Think Yeltsin was a lot more than that. But his country did not stop being a future threat under his leadership, as time has shown.

The ruthless aggression shown in Chechnya even under Yeltsin’s rule, is proof of that.

«Yeltsin ordered Russian forces to crush a Chechen independence movement that had grown in power and influence since the 1991 break-up of the Soviet Union.

Russia's artillery and air force pounded Grozny indiscriminately killing civilians, both Russian and Chechen, and destroying the largest city in the North Caucasus.»



Wouldn’t take much for this to be Riga.

I hope Putin hasn't been referring to Latvians as "Bandits" and "Terrorists".

Russia often has criticism and even official complaints to Latvia over how they Russia feels Latvia treats the Russian population in the country. But now that Latvia is in the EU and NATO, war seems very unlikely.

Anders wrote:Russia often has criticism and even official complaints to Latvia over how they Russia feels Latvia treats the Russian population in the country. But now that Latvia is in the EU and NATO, war seems very unlikely.

Can the Latvians calm them down by doing land acknowledgements identifying Latvia as unceded Soviet land?

simple schoolboy wrote:

Anders wrote:Russia often has criticism and even official complaints to Latvia over how they Russia feels Latvia treats the Russian population in the country. But now that Latvia is in the EU and NATO, war seems very unlikely.

Can the Latvians calm them down by doing land acknowledgements identifying Latvia as unceded Soviet land?

No.

Anders wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Anders wrote:Russia often has criticism and even official complaints to Latvia over how they Russia feels Latvia treats the Russian population in the country. But now that Latvia is in the EU and NATO, war seems very unlikely.

Can the Latvians calm them down by doing land acknowledgements identifying Latvia as unceded Soviet land?

No.

I'm pretty sure we just need some racial justice here, centering ethnic Russian voices.

There is nothing that can't be solved by exporting American racial patholgies and making them universal. I am assured of this.

Think Latvia had enough issues of their own:

In early 2018, the Parliament of Latvia has officially introduced the legislation which would limit the use of the Russian language in national schools. The objective was to set Latvian as the primary language of instruction, increasing the number of courses held in this tongue in minority schools from 40% to 80%.

The language limitations are not the only measure Latvia has taken in past few years that affect the level of Russian presence in this country. In February 2021, 16 Russian-language TV channels were suspended following the failure to identify representatives of the broadcasts.