What is it that distances Russia from the West?

[Gene2memE]

Russia is a Christian country.
They celebrate Christmas and Easter every year.

The Russian Orthodox Church has a privileged position in Russian society. Christian Russians do celebrate Christian holidays, and Christian holidays are state holidays.

However, there is also a significant Muslim minority in Russia - about 8-9% of the population - and Russia also has a significant atheist population - somewhere about 10-12% of the population.

Russia has no state religion however, and Russia recognises faiths other than Christianity under its laws.

Russia has no seats in European Parliament.

Because Russia is not part of the EU, and has actively rebuffed all attempts at wider integration with the EU. Russia is unwilling to meet any of the criteria to become a member of the European Parliament.

When Russia trades with the rest of Europe they are taxed.
That is Taxation without Representation.

Any nation that's not part of the Common Market is subject to EU taxes, tariffs and other trade charges.

Russia should have been given seats in 1993.

Nope. See the answer two above.

 

[Love365]

Would you support giving Russia an observer seat in European Parliament?

 

[Desk trauma]

Would you support giving Russia an observer seat in European Parliament?

No.

 

[Love365]

No.

Why not?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why?

Why do they need to "protect" themselves from the United States? What are we supposedly going to do to them?

A Russian might have said something similar to this in October 1962. Placing military hardware in a country immediately adjacent to a rival power is unnerving to that rival power. There is no logical reason for us to expect Russians to have more trust in the intentions of the west than the west has in the intentions of Russia. Contending that unlike Putin, our leaders would not do anything to harm those that they see as enemies does not seem to be reassuring to those on the other side. If the intention is to try to solve international political problems, one side cannot simply hand-wave away the fears of those on the other side of the conflict. Just because we are confident that our side has no hidden agenda does not mean the fears of the other side can be ignored as the other side is not so confident about that at all. Whether those fears are justified or not, the other side takes those fears seriously. I might add that this is also true about domestic politics.

 

[Landon Caeli]

A Russian might have said something similar to this in October 1962. Placing military hardware in a country immediately adjacent to a rival power is unnerving to that rival power. There is no logical reason for us to expect Russians to have more trust in the intentions of the west than the west has in the intentions of Russia. Contending that unlike Putin, our leaders would not do anything to harm those that they see as enemies does not seem to be reassuring to those on the other side. If the intention is to try to solve international political problems, one side cannot simply hand-wave away the fears of those on the other side of the conflict. Just because we are confident that our side has no hidden agenda does not mean the fears of the other side can be ignored as the other side is not so confident about that at all. Whether those fears are justified or not, the other side takes those fears seriously. I might add that this is also true about domestic politics.

Where did we place military hardware immediately adjacent to Russia?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Clinton Foundation = Sock Puppet

US = Hand inside puppet.

US is part of Nato, and unlike Georgia, Ukraine is Europe adjacent .. so starting a war there is just asking for trouble.

Show me where the Clinton Foundation was present in Ukraine, and why the Clinton Foundation matters at all.

What does the Clinton Foundation do that's so bad, that it's worth killing 100,000 people over it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Where did we place military hardware immediately adjacent to Russia?

NATO on the Map

Explore this interactive map to learn more about NATO, how the Alliance works and how it responds to today’s security challenges

www.nato.int

 

[Landon Caeli]

NATO on the Map

Explore this interactive map to learn more about NATO, how the Alliance works and how it responds to today’s security challenges

www.nato.int

There was no military hardware in Ukraine. That was just an information center, that had been there since 1997.

 

[Larniavc]

It is NATO that causes all these proxy wars.

Sorry, which head of state invaded Ukraine? It certainly wasn’t the King of NATO.

 

[grasping the after wind]

There was no military hardware in Ukraine. That was just an information center, that had been there since 1997.

There was ocean between Cuba and the US. Adjacent can mean different things to different people.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Georgia also has an "information center". It looks like this:

 

[RDKirk]

Yeah, that's what sovereign nations get to do. They don't have to ask permission to form alliances. Neither did Latvia or Lithuania, for that matter.

It's Russian propaganda to say that NATO is inherently an aggressor. NATO was formed to defend western Europe against potential aggression by the Soviets. Defense is not aggression.

Americans don't see is that it's a poltiical/geographic issue embedded in the Russian national zeitgeist older than the USSR. Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus are the historical pathways of invasion from western Europe into Russia. Controlling those pathways is as much a part of their national existentiality as "Manifest Destiny" was once a part of the national existentiality of the US.

When you tell the Russians that they aren't permitted to control those pathways, that registers in their minds as telling them they aren't permitted to exist. When they say "defense" they mean taking control of those pathways.

Of course, the people in Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus do fully understand this. The Belarusians have accepted vassaldom to Russia, the Poles and Ukrainians...not so much.

Putin's intentions toward Eastern Europe are no different now from what they were when he was an agent for the USSR...because that predates even the USSR.

 

[Landon Caeli]

There was ocean between Cuba and the US. Adjacent can mean different things to different people.

Or, it was never about NATO at all, considering that in 2014, when Russia took Crimea, there was no desire to join NATO by the Ukrainian government.

...It was after that, they started panicking.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Americans don't see is that it's a poltiical/geographic issue embedded in the Russian national zeitgeist older than the USSR. Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus are the historical pathways of invasion from western Europe into Russia. Controlling those pathways is as much a part of their national existentiality as "Manifest Destiny" was once a part of the national existentiality of the US.

When you tell the Russians that they aren't permitted to control those pathways, that registers in their minds as telling them they aren't permitted to exist. When they say "defense" they mean taking control of those pathways.

Of course, the people in Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus do fully understand this. The Belarusians have accepted vassaldom to Russia, the Poles and Ukrainians...not so much.

Putin's intentions toward Eastern Europe are no different now from what they were when he was an agent for the USSR...because that predates even the USSR.

I'm not sure Russia does have any right to exist, honestly. They've always been bent on controlling everyone they come into contact with. Karelia is one of many examples of a nation swallowed up by Russian domination.

...And if there are groups who want out, they should be allowed out.

"Many see the war in Ukraine as a chance for ethnic minorities inside the country to push for greater autonomy or even independence."

"Many analysts agree that the war is shaking the centralized power structure Putin has created over nearly a quarter-century as president or prime minister." :

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[Landon Caeli]

IMO, if Russia loses to Ukraine, it would change Russia’s status on the world stage. It could no longer be considered a superpower, capable of defending all those nations within it!

...It would completely disintegrate! It would have been a fraud all along!

 

[RDKirk]

IMO, if Russia loses to Ukraine, it will be a display of Russia’s true vulnerabilities. Everyone will know that Russia is powerless over those nations that live within it.

...It could disintegrate completely if Ukraine wins. Which would a great thing.

Putin has put Russian control of Ukraine in existential terms. Putin wrote a long polemic to that effect: if Russia loses Ukraine, Russia will no longer exist. Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

 

[Landon Caeli]

The Western powers ought to take advantage of this moment.

Start by sending letters to all the different nations within Russia, proclaiming our unconditional support to them should Russia collapse... Better to have open dialogue beforehand by extending the olive branches.

in the meantime, provide Ukraine with tanks and planes, while taking a hard stance on China.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Show me where the Clinton Foundation was present in Ukraine, and why the Clinton Foundation matters at all.

What does the Clinton Foundation do that's so bad, that it's worth killing 100,000 people over it.

I dunno.

All I know is Russia is reacting like the US is bullying them through means that are all covert.

Any human being would start smashing things if that happened.

 

[Desk trauma]

Why not?

They have not made an effort to qualify for EU membership and their aggression should not be rewarded.