The so-called "progressive change" you want is nothing but a regressive change to the days in which Western intervention could simply call the shots as and when it likes. Those days are over. And thank God.

By progressive change, I mean live alongside their neighbours peacefully. With some kind of basic cooperation. Nothing else. It’s not a big ask.

Western intervention hasn’t worked for 40yrs or so. And wasn’t directed against communism for longer than that. The fact that Russia still seems to think that it is is rather strange and may be for an ulterior motive. I note that the US doesn’t start proxy wars in opposition to Maoism, which is an invidious form of communism.(there is an issue of capitalism as a kind of conquering force, which I’ll deal with separately*).

I draw your attention back to the theatre of Eastern Europe. What is happening here is a reordering of coalition/allegiance between states which used to be either members of, or influenced by the USSR. Any discussion of the Ukraine crisis which doesn’t place this process at the heart of the issue is entirely missing the point.

I agree that there is a creeping influence, even expansion from the EU. However this was either at the request, or with agreement with the nations concerned. At one point Putin flirted with such an allegiance. By counterpoint, Russia has been seeking to regain influence, or assimilate these states back into a Russian federation. I note, that this is usually against the wishes, or agreement of the peoples of these states. These two processes have been on a collision course for some time. This crisis was inevitable and has been prepared for by both sides for some time as well.(although, I suggest that the EU was asleep at the wheel and enfranchised it’s security to NATO)

There is no grand conquering of Russia, or Eastern Europe in the mind of Americans. Likewise in the minds of Europeans. However there is a blindness as to how the hand of beneficial coalition, cooperation and economic prosperity with a neighbour can get under the skin of an adjoining neighbouring autocratic state.

I have no particular argument with your hatred of US behaviour and policy. Other than that you do seem to put all the worlds woes at their door, which clearly is not the case.

* as for “capitalism in principle” as a conquering, expanding force. Yes this is the case, one only need look at the prosperity experienced in the Far East to see this in action. But one mustn’t conflate this with Western Imperialism. It is not, it is simply a system of economic prosperity and growth which some populations adopt willingly and on their own terms.( there is a side issue of corporate power and oligarchy, but this is not really an issue of nation states, so I don’t include it here).

The slow death of Western empire - and we are living through it now - — Streetlight

I propose to decolonize Australia, free Aboriginal people and send those Westerners back to the UK where they come from.

Let's goooo. Let's fuckin' do it. Hell yeah.

I suppose the Chinese will do so, ultimately. They need space.

By progressive change, I mean live alongside their neighbours peacefully. — Punshhh

This simply won't happen so long as the US retains its world imperial ambitions - ambitions which it not only holds, but continues to actively pursue, and which is both a major cause of the present Ukraine crisis, and a major element in its deepening. It is simply the case that the US economy exists precisely to the extent that wars and deaths continue to feed it. America is a necrogenic empire, whose condition of existence is the production of dead bodies and shattered lands beyond its borders. Any analysis of Ukraine that does not begin from this most basic of facts - which includes the outsized American role in bringing this about - is irrelevant and beneath consideration from the get-go.

So calls for 'progressive change' that aim outwards at second-rate Italian-sized economies like Russia with regional ambitions are nothing more than shitty, reprised, versions of white men's burdens, repurposed for propagandized morons who cannot but get their news direct from the US state department via CNN and NYT.

Western intervention hasn’t worked for 40yrs or so. — Punshhh

I'm not sure what this means, - worked for who? - or why this matters. Western invention continues to help stave children to death in Yemen, treat Palestinians like animals, subjugate Iraq, agitate for 'regime change' in places like Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, produce famine in Afghanistan, fund and produce global Islamic terrorism, and deprive and debase its poor and "middle class" at home as a condition of all of the above. Western intervention works spectacularly well for the capitalist class, and the idea that it 'doesn't work' is meaningless from the perspective of all those for whom it has worked to the point of their annihilation. It continues to work in Ukraine.

I note, that this is usually against the wishes, or agreement of the peoples of these states. — Punshhh

These "wishes" are far more ambiguous than you make out to be. The fact is that Ukraine has been a tinpot country and a mess for decades, economically the worst in Europe, with forces buffeting it from within and without every which way, with a weak state and a politically fractured populous. Not to mention teeming with Nazis. The idea that there have been some univocal set of "Ukranian wishes" - either for or against both Russia and the West - is a complete back-projection that is largely a myth.

France, of course, will be required to send at least half of it's GDP split proportionally among among Haiti, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Vietnam, Congo and a bunch of others for the next say, century or so. Also all the stolen colonial art in the Lourve and elsewhere is gonna have to be returned, naturally.

I don’t see evidence of this expansionist US imperialism that you allude to. The US abandoned their proxy wars with Russia before the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR. If they wanted to subjugate Russia, they would have done it long before now, when Russia was weak.

I stand corrected on the research. The assessment of the US being a fascist country though, is one I stand by. Just look at the development of minimum wage, the level of wage theft (minimum wage, off the clock, overtime and rest break violations) by corporations is higher than other types of theft but only results in companies being closed instead of people ending in jail. Meanwhile regular theft means jailtime. Profit over people.

Not paying a minimum wage, forcing people to rely on government benefits is an effective subsidy for companies paid for by everybody else. Profit over people.

Taxes are mostly paid by regular people since the rich and companies avoid paying taxes. Corporate taxes make up only 3.9% of US tax revenue. Profit over people.

PPP loans are forgiven but personal student loans aren't. Profit over people.

Bailing out banks isn't a problem but poor people need to be policed. Profit over people.

And the research still shows an inordinate amount of influence by the rich. Your "requirement" for that control to be absolute is silly. It isn't absolute in Russia either but we have no problem recognising it for the shithole it is.

All this is supported by a political and oligarchic elite which makes it a fascist political system. We have a highly militarised society - see defense spending, police outfitting (thin blue line flags) and incarceration rates -, a rejection of liberal democracy (compared to other societies, there's no meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans), effective one-party rule (eg. rich oligarchs) and ultra-nationalism.

The US abandoned their proxy wars with Russia before the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR. — Punshhh

Well, the "abandonment" was only a temporary measure, as it was cheaper to do it by economic and financial means.

If they wanted to subjugate Russia, they would have done it long before now, when Russia was weak. — Punshhh

Actually, they did try in the 90's, didn't they? But Putin came to power and stood up for Russia.

The problem with Americans and Westerners in general is that they tend to be either uneducated or miseducated. It’s hard to tell which is worse, but the result in either case is that Westerners can’t see through their own ignorance and propaganda.

If we think about it, the vast majority of the world population (Russia, China, India, Africa, etc.) has a different perspective to that of the West. The West is, literally, an island of ignorance and self-serving propaganda promoted by the US-controlled global media. If this island were strong and stable, it might be a different story. But it is sinking under our feet as we speak.

The historical truth is that the Black Sea area was under Greek and Roman control for many centuries. This is why, to this day, many Crimean and other cities in the area have Greek names, e.g., Simferopol, Yalta (Yalita), Feodosia (Theodosia), Alupka (Alopex), Alushta (Alouston), etc.

In the 1400's, the area got invaded by Mongols and Turks from Central Asia who conquered Greece and transformed Crimea into a large slave market:

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe - Wikipedia

10 Little-Known Facts From The Crimean Slave Trade

For several centuries, the Russians (and Ukrainians who at the time were one country) fought to push back the invaders. Unfortunately, England and France aimed to contain and eventually conquer Russia (including Ukraine). France had already invaded Russia under Napoleon. It now joined England and sided with the Turks against Russia in the Crimean War (1853-1856). THIS is where the current anti-Russian stance started.

So, arguably, there are two basic kinds of nations and empires. Some tend to be hard-working, honest, and legitimate, and others are dishonest, predatory, and illegitimate.

Ancient Greece, for example, started off as a collection of separate city-states based on farming and trade. These city-states were forced to unite because of constant attacks from Persia. Under Alexander the Great they became strong enough to counterattack and take over the Persian Empire itself.

Similarly, Russia became an empire because it was forced to defend itself against attacks by the Mongols and other Central Asian invaders.

Germany became an empire simply through the unification of German kingdoms.

In fact, Russia never called itself “Russian Empire”, but simply “Russia”. The czar’s title was “Emperor (i.e., Ruler) of all Russia”. Similarly, “Deutsches Reich” simply meant “German Realm”, it did NOT imply rule over non-German territories. The title of “Emperor” (Kaiser) simply referred to the Overlord or head of united German states.

At the other end of the spectrum, England is a totally different kettle of fish, being an example of predatory empire par excellence. The Anglo-Saxons invaded the British Isles, conquered the Welsh, Scots, and Irish, and then proceeded to invade country after country in Africa, India, America, and other parts of the world until they built for themselves the largest empire of all times and came into conflict with Germany and Russia.

America replaced Britain when Britain was no longer able to pay and fight for its European wars, and so America became a world empire in its own right. Like Britain, America is largely founded on the financial and economic domination and exploitation of other nations.

When analyzed from a historical perspective, it becomes clear that Russia has been far less predatory and aggressive than Britain and America, and that the cause of the current conflict is Western, not Russian expansionism.

Why are Britain and America leading the international Jihad against Russia? How is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatening Britain’s or America’s national security? The truth of the matter is that Russia is threatening neither Britain nor America. What it is threatening though, is Britain and America’s economic and financial expansionism and imperialism. The EU and NATO certainly are expansionist entities and have been expanding from inception. And that’s where the real problem is. It's the same old problem, NOT a new one.

Of course, it is regrettable that the Ukrainians have to suffer because of this Western-instigated clash of rival economic and military interests. But if the world is to be prevented from being totally taken over and enslaved by monopolistic capitalism, someone has got to stand up to Western imperialism, i.e., rule by banksters and their political stooges.

Unfortunately, Germany can no longer do that, so it’s got to be Russia who is Europe’s last independent nation. And if Russia gets defeated, China will be the next challenger, and after that India, Africa, and Latin America.

With America’s fast-changing demographic situation, my take is that America will eventually lose and wind up in the trash can of history. And so will Europe if it fails to wake up and free itself from American domination.

The social collapse in such areas of the US is breathtaking. — Punshhh

But isn't this the Western "civilization" that you are trying to save from the "Russian barbarians"?

I watched an excellent documentary about the effects of Fentanyl in social breakdown in St Louis last night. (U.K. Channel4, Unreported World). The social collapse in such areas of the US is breathtaking.

I reiterate what I said to Streetlight earlier,

“ I draw your attention back to the theatre of Eastern Europe. What is happening here is a reordering of coalition/allegiance between states which used to be either members of, or influenced by the USSR. Any discussion of the Ukraine crisis which doesn’t place this process at the heart of the issue is entirely missing the point.”

So a failed attempt in the 1990’s by the US to somehow control Russia, is evidence of an overarching US expansionism. I’m not convinced I’m afraid.

I don’t disagree with your historical insights apart from the glaring omission of the Norman conquest and colonisation of England. Who’s descendants, still totally in control of the population, did the global empire building you refer to.

Also your conflation of geopolitical issues with the spread of the capitalist economic system confuses the issue at hand. One might as well say that Britain is conquering the world through spreading the adoption of the English language globally.

Speaking of historical knowledge, Napoleon invaded Russia in "The War of the Sixth Coalition." I wonder what the other five wars were before that and if they involved Russia? :roll:

I'm just going to throw this out there: maybe there aren't good hard working nations and predatory ones. Maybe nations are variably predatory towards different nations in different time periods, depending on their culture, norms, leadership, internal politics, economic situation, etc.?

The problem for the Russian nationalist version of history, where Russia is subject to waves on invasion from the West, is that it leaves out a few key details:

1. France was definetly expansionist under Napoleon, although this was also spurred on by the monarchies of Europe all attacking it due to the politics of the Revolution while it was also embroiled in its own civil wars (the Vendee, etc.). That said, it is also true that Russia sent armies west to attack France during the earlier coalitions, starting with it coming to the Austrian Empire's aid with the campaign under Suvorov.

Russia didn't invade France before France invaded Russia only because Napoleon had a preternatural ability to win battles despite being out numbered and kept routing the coalitions (notably with Russia's army and the German allies at Austerlitz). Both sides were expansionist here. France was setting up sister republics as it took territory, and building an empire. Meanwhile, the other thing Suvorov is famous for is kicking off the partitions of Poland. Russia was also conquering land across Central Asia across this period.

2. France and Britain aiding the Ottomans was not an attempt to "conquer Russia." This is explicit in their war aims and also the fact that the forces they sent were entirely insufficient to invade even part of Russia. The goal of the war was to prop to Ottomans up in order to keep a "balance of power" in the East. They wanted to avoid a Russian monopoly on the Black Sea and check their power relative to the other Great Powers, which isn't a moral war aim, but also not an attempt to conquer Russia.

3. There is plenty of blame to go around for WWI. The Russian nationalist line of this being another in a series of invasions seems to leave out a lot. The war resulted from a disasterous collection of miscalculations and interlocking security guarantees. German aggression towards Russia being the primary driver, a common theme in nationalist retellings, seems to miss that:

A. Russia mobilized first out of any of the great powers (although this was largely due to them having the slowest time table for mobilization). Germany would mobilize last (and attack poor Belgium).

B. Russia invaded Germany first during the war while Germany sat on the defensive and threw the vast bulk of its army at France. Only after the Russian army was routed in East Prussia with relatively light German losses and the invasion of France had stalled did Germany switch to planning an offensive against Russia.

When the Tsardom fell, after the February Revolution and the July Days, the Bolsheviks got their turn in power. They renounced Russian imperialist claims on other people's territories. This claim lasted until the Red Army was in a good place to reinvade Russia's neighbors, at which point it went into Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia to re-annexing them. It attempted to retake Poland but was defeated, and lacked the military capacity to retake the Baltics or Finland. Notably, only Belarus seems likely to have stayed with the Soviets based on the preferences of its residents.

The reason all the post Soviet states have such large Russian minorities is in part because the boundaries for the new Soviet "autonomous" regions were drawn so as ensure a large Russian population in them, as well as other minorities, to help create backlash against majority nationalist movements. This was further cemented by later mass deportations and genocides. So, in 1930, Ukraine was 9% Russian. Following the Hodolomor and further mass deportations after WWII, that had almost doubled.

Then you get to World War 2, which, with Victory Day, has become the greatest pillar of the founding mythos of modern Russia. The great invasion from the Germans and their allies that justifies whatever harsh acts the Soviet regime may have taken.

The problem here is that Hitler was quite explicit about his plans for war with the Soviets long before the outbreak of the war, in both his speeches and his book. Despite this, Russia formed a military alliance with the Nazi regime. Its surprise attack on Poland, in coordination with the Nazis, greatly reduced the already significant toll the conquest of Poland took on the Wermacht.

Russia also had plans to split other areas of Eastern Europe with its Nazi allies, although these had to wait due to the Red Army being a mess due to the ill thought out attempt to conquer Finland in another war of aggression, and Stalin's purge of his officer corps.

Ukraine thus had to deal with a genocide by the Soviets in the early 1930s, followed by a Nazi invasion that its government couldn't effectively stop until the suburbs of Moscow due to its earlier focus on reclaiming the territories of the old Russian empire.

The Soviets also continued to supply Germany with the material it would use in Barbarossa right up until the invasion.

Russia has plenty to celebrate in its people's sacrifice and heroism in defeating the Nazis. However, it's a true mark of how effective propaganda can be that Joseph Stalin is still voted the greatest Russian leader in history by Russians to this day. The idea is that, whatever atrocities he may have committed, his iron will was necessary to defeating the Third Reich. In reality, he is responsible for the absolute shit show that was Russian defense at the outset of the war, and they should be celebrating their ability to prevail in spite of their leader's total incompetence, not because of it.

Unfortunately, the myth of the actually effective Stalin is still used to justify Putin's more repressive actions.

Describe an alternative then. — Punshhh

The end of states and the reign of private property. But this is not quite the thread for that. — Streetlight

Do you think that's realistic, though? (on a large scale, or globally)
I'm kind of thinking that chipping away at all the wretched exploitation is doable.

(Anyway, sorry for the side-track, maybe something for a separate thread.)

Surely Empires are the ugliest of beasts.

Your empire is now like a tyranny: it may have been wrong to take it; it is certainly dangerous to let it go. Pericles

Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/empire-quotes

The price of empire is America's soul, and that price is too high.

J. William Fulbright

Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/empire-quotes

So a failed attempt in the 1990’s by the US to somehow control Russia, is evidence of an overarching US expansionism. I’m not convinced I’m afraid. — Punshhh

The evidence is the expansionism of US-created instruments of US foreign policy like the EU and NATO. If an entity is officially expanding, it makes little sense to deny that it is expanding.

I don’t disagree with your historical insights apart from the glaring omission of the Norman conquest and colonisation of England. Who’s descendants, still totally in control of the population, did the global empire building you refer to. — Punshhh

I think it is better to omit the Normans than to omit everything else in European history. But I don’t think I “omitted” them. The British Empire was built by the United Kingdom regardless of the ethnic group that was in charge of it.

Besides, were the founding members of the East India Company “Normans”? Was Queen Victoria “Norman”? Was Churchill “Norman”? Or Lord Milner? Are Balfour, Disraeli, Gladstone, Hamilton-Gordon, Primrose, Wellesley, etc., all “Norman” names?

Also your conflation of geopolitical issues with the spread of the capitalist economic system confuses the issue at hand. One might as well say that Britain is conquering the world through spreading the adoption of the English language globally. — Punshhh

Nonsense. The British Empire was a capitalist as well as imperialist entity. Imperialism can perfectly well be a manifestation of capitalism. Ditto the desire of British capitalists to exploit Russia’s natural resources.

Even Donetsk and Luhansk were industrial cities founded by British capitalists in the 1700’s and 1800’s. The British held extensive mining and other interests in Russia. This is why after the 1917 revolution, they intended to divide Russia into zones of influence with the French.

As admitted by Churchill, the Franco-British Agreement stated:

The zones of influence assigned to each government shall be as follows: The English zone: The Cossack territories, the territory of the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, Kurdistan. The French zone: Bessarabia, the Ukraine, the Crimea … ‘

W. Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath, p. 166

And, yes, spreading the English language can be an instrument of imperialist policies. If nothing else, it is cultural imperialism. But its main source nowadays is not England but America.

In the 60’s and 70’s it was US (CIA)-promoted drugs, sex, and “rock’n roll”. Now it’s drugs, guns, and violent hip hop/rape-rap a.k.a. “gangsta kulcha”. All Made in America and part of American (cultural) imperialism.

In any case, I think we can see which way US-inspired Western “civilization” is going. Fentanyl is only the other side of the Twitter & Instagram coin that is set to become the global capitalist currency …. :smile:

Maybe nations are variably predatory towards different nations in different time periods, depending on their culture, norms, leadership, internal politics, economic situation, etc.? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, nations can still be predatory towards others to different degrees, which was the point I was trying to make. IMO there is a vast difference between (a) a British Empire consisting of England dominating India and other nations across the globe, and (b) the German "Empire" consisting of united German states. The former came into being through conquest, exploitation, and enslavement of oversea territories. The latter through unification of existing ethnic German states.

Plus, the fact remains that the dominant world power today is America. Germany was eliminated as an obstacle to American hegemony, and now it is Russia's turn to be eliminated, by economic, financial, or military means.

France, of course, will be required to send at least half of it's GDP split proportionally among among Haiti, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Vietnam, Congo and a bunch of others for the next say, century or so. Also all the stolen colonial art in the Lourve and elsewhere is gonna have to be returned, naturally. — Streetlight

Required by whom, I wonder, in the absence of a world policeman. As for the stolen art in the Louvre, most if it comes from Italy.

Corporate taxes make up only 3.9% of US tax revenue. — Benkei

Could you link me your source for this? I didn’t think it was so low. Not surprised.

Russian anti-war protestors brave police repressions, sometimes resorting to subtle subversion in an attempt to avoid being arrested.

"Мир! Труд! Май!" (Peace! Labor! May!) used to be a common slogan at Soviet May 1 demonstrations. Here is an updated version at a government-sponsored demonstration today, featuring the omnipresent "Z"wastica:



In contrast, this lone picketer is holding up a sign on which the word Peace is conspicuously absent. (When passersby asked her why there was no "peace", she told them that she could ask them the same question.)



I like this one best (the disappearing letters spell PEACE in millet):

Similarly, Russia became an empire because it was forced to defend itself against attacks by the Mongols and other Central Asian invaders. — Apollodorus

Moscow and other Russian Duchies fell under Mongol control. And Muscovy worked for the Mongols to reinforce it's position:

The major turning point surfaced in 1327 when the populace of Tver started to rise in rebellion. Seeing this as an opportunity to please the khan of his Mongol overlords, Prince Ivan I of Moscow took a huge Tatar contingent and quashed the rebellion in Tver, thereby restoring order in that city and winning the favor of the khan. For his show of loyalty, Ivan I was also granted the iarlyk and with this Moscow took yet another step towards prominence and power. Soon the princes of Moscow took over the responsibilities of collecting taxes throughout the land (and in doing so, taking part of these taxes for themselves) and eventually the Mongols gave this responsibility solely to Moscow and ended the practice of sending their own tax collectors.

Hence Moscovy was a vassal of the Mongol Horde. Only after 1380 the battle of Kulikovo Moscow began to rise as the Golden Horde was decaying. So this idea of Russia being the defender against the attacks of the Mongols is typical dubious history from you.

And the obvious apologist attitude towards Russia that you have should be obvious to everyone, as no empire becomes an empire because just by "defending" itself.

Here is an updated version at a government-sponsored demonstration today, featuring the omnipresent "Z"wastica — SophistiCat

Do note the ribbon pattern of Saint George in the "Z". It's now commonly used to commerate WW2 and the Victory Day, even if the historical order of Saint George is from the 18th Century.

Ancient Greece, for example, started off as a collection of separate city-states based on farming and trade. — Apollodorus

Oddly enough, they were all gay.

This simply won't happen so long as the US retains its world imperial ambitions - ambitions which it not only holds, but continues to actively pursue

I don’t see expansion of a US empire, there are the claims about corporate exploitation and and litigation by US companies around the world, the spread of capitalism as an economic model etc etc. Again I don’t see evidence of imperial expansion there either (unless one conflates economic developments with imperialist expansion).

I’m not excusing some unpleasant involvement in some other countries around the world by the US. This is likely a hangover from the anti Communist interventions and proxy wars following WW2. This was about a paranoia about Communism which resulted in numerous destructive activity around the world for decades. As I said this activity focussed on combating Russian Communism ended a few decades ago.

Western invention continues to help stave children to death in Yemen, treat Palestinians like animals, subjugate Iraq, agitate for 'regime change' in places like Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, produce famine in Afghanistan, fund and produce global Islamic terrorism, and deprive and debase its poor and "middle class" at home as a condition of all of the above.

Of course, but US military intervention with the aim of occupying and rebuilding states in their own image have not happened for a long time. Following the disaster of the Iraq invasion and the destruction of the whole region from the fallout. The US has withdrawn from such ambitions, culminating in the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. So no US imperialist expansion there either.

It is precisely because Putin sees the US withdrawing from interventions and the failures where they have. That Putin has been emboldened to carry out a full scale invasion of a neighbouring state.

The idea that there have been some univocal set of "Ukranian wishes" - either for or against both Russia and the West - is a complete back-projection that is largely a myth.

Yes I know, the Ukrainians where going to shower the Russian troops with flowers to welcome them.

It is precisely because Putin sees the US withdrawing from interventions and the failures where they have. That Putin has been emboldened to carry out a full scale invasion of a neighbouring state. — Punshhh

For the authoritarian like Putin, democracies look inherently weak and incapable of decisive action. Biden's US looked especially like that not only after the humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan, but with the Capital riots and with the dumpster fire that US domestic politics is today. Then add the Europeans to this picture with Brexit, with squabbles over Polish and the Law and Justice Party or the Hungarian Orban. Not a group that you would anticipate to respond firmly with large coordination and being capable of dramatic turn arounds in policies.

Add to this picture an Ukrainian government, which was denying that Russia was going to attack. Lead by an actor who had played a President having been elected as the President. One might fall for the arguments that it's going to be a piece of cake when your intelligence guys insist they have bribed enough people in the Ukrainian government to make this a rerun of 2014. (Back then some Ukrainian commanders jumped to the Russian side, which was quite telling).

Here's Russia-1's response to the Brits. The graphics at 17 seconds and then at 1:27 get the point across.



Why Huddersfield is the main target, I'm not sure.

Hence Moscovy was a vassal of the Mongol Horde. Only after 1380 the battle of Kulikovo Moscow began to rise as the Golden Horde was decaying. So this idea of Russia being the defender against the attacks of the Mongols is typical dubious history from you. — ssu

On the contrary, I think that's typical dubious "logic" from YOU! :lol:

Of course Moscovy was a vassal of the Mongols as it had no other choice. Moreover, though you may not realize this, Moscovy being a vassal of the Mongols only proves that the Mongols invaded Russia, not the other way round!

Mongol invasions and conquests – Wikipedia

The fact is that the Mongols invaded China, India, Persia, Eastern and Central Europe, and the Mid East. Many nations had to submit to Mongol rule because they lacked the military capability to fend off the attacks and because their populations had been decimated by the invaders. That doesn’t mean that there was no resistance.

The Mongols invaded and occupied Russia in the 1200’s. Obviously, it takes decades to rebuild destroyed cities and organize a decisive counteroffensive. But Russia gradually recovered and defeated the Mongols in 1380. Parts of Russia remained under Mongol rule but the Mongols got finally defeated in 1480:

Moscow started its independence struggle from the Mongols by the 14th century, ending the Mongol rule (the so-called "Mongol yoke") in 1480, and eventually growing into the Tsardom of Russia.

Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia

Basically, after the initial shock, Mongol rule contributed to the formation of the Russian nation centered on Moscow instead of Kiev (which had been destroyed) and when the Russians became strong enough they defeated the Mongols and conquered their territory. That’s how Russia became an “empire”. Very simple and easy to understand IMO.

In any case, I don't think you can seriously compare Russia’s liberation from Mongol occupation with England’s invading and occupying India, Africa, and other places .... :grin:

Of course Moscovy was a vassal of the Mongols as it had no other choice. — Apollodorus

Hence it's rather wrong to portray as you wrote "became an empire because it was forced to defend itself against attacks by the Mongols and other Central Asian invaders". Vassal's have chosen surrender.

Parts of Russia remained under Mongol rule but the Mongols got finally defeated in 1480. — Apollodorus

Something like that. Because afterwards 1480 the expansion of Muscovy was totally classical imperial expansion of subjugating others that don't have much if anything to do with Russians. The last remnant of the Golden Horde could be said to be the Crimean Khanate (then an Ottoman Protectorate) and it was annexed by Catherine the Great in 1783. Quite important to the present as during that time starts the idea of Novorossiya.

In any case, I don't think you can seriously compare Russia’s liberation from Mongol occupation with England’s invading and occupying India, Africa, and other places .... :grin: — Apollodorus

Actually, there's your obvious and blatant apologism for Russian imperialism. You're simply delusional if you don't see it because Russian expansion didn't end in 1480. Basically it only started then, and thus Russia's action are totally comparable to the imperial aspirations of Great Britain.

Because what else can you call the invasion of Central Asia by Russia anything than Imperialism? Are Samarkand or Dushanbe somehow a "Russian Cities"? The Kazakh Khanate or the Emirate of Bukhara weren't any kind of threat to Russia in the 19th Century, but an imperialist prize to be taken.

That there's no fucking sea between Central Asia and Russia doesn't make a difference here with imperialism. And if there would have been no mountains and Afghanistan with their annoying inhabitants between Russia and India but only that steppe, Russia would surely have wanted to have Russian soldiers dipping their feet into the Indian Ocean (as one modern day Russian imperialist put it). And idiotic apologists like you would be talking about it as a "defensive measure" and how Russia can feel safe only if it has on the coast of the Indian Ocean. In the minds of Russian imperialists, "fortress Russia" naturally would have it's borders on any ocean.

Soviet Union was a relic of an colonial empire where the colonies simply weren't detached by sea, but were connected by land. It should be understood that it was a colonial empire and that Russia hasn't gotten over this, but think it has the right for that empire. Putin's words and actions clearly show this.

Predatory relationships between large multinationals and countries with poor labor rights/protections, poor enviornmental regulations, weak rule of law, and weak states, would be significantly improved if all the world's nations reached a level of development on par with the OECD.

It's hard to imagine US companies pulling the shit they pull in Central America or Africa in Austria or Belgium, despite those two states not having much economic leverage against the US.

Canada and the US host the same oil companies that are involved in all sorts of exploitation and corruption abroad. Environmental regulation isn't prefect there, and to be sure, not all the state oil revenues are put to their best uses, but the situation is still night and day compared to how these companies are allowed to act in the developing world.

Accountable government ensures that natural resource revenues flow back into the nation that owns those resources. Strong rule of law allows the victims of enviornmental degradation to effectively seek recourse, even if no justice system is perfect. Labor rights mean that minimum standards for employment are met.

How do we get from poor to developed states? Why did some states that were quite poor, with low quality governments, see a huge shift in the 20th century, while others did not (e.g. the rapid development of South Korea, Finland, Iceland, etc.)? Why did some wealthy states go off their growth trajectories and see their economies and state capacity collapse (e.g., Argentina was wealthier than much of Europe going into the 20th century)?

It's a very tough set of questions.

Francis Fukuyama has an excellent two volume opus on state development. The question he uses is: how do states 'get to Denmark?'"

That is, how do states develop a well functioning rule of law, accountable institutions that respond to citizen complaints, provide a fairly wide amount of political and economic liberty, ensure access to basic services and meet the basic needs of most citizens, and provide a high standard of living.

The value of the book isn't so much Fukuyama's unique takes (although those are good too), but that it is basically a summary of all the existing state development literature. You get a tour through the political science literature, but also look at political philosophy going back to Plato, going through Machiavelli, Weber, etc.

He does a pretty fair assessment of the pros and cons of each of the views, covering the theses of books like Why Nations Fail, geographical explanations of development, genetic ones, the arguments of Guns, Germs, and Steel, Whig History, etc.

(Side note: Why Nation's Fail is worth reading only because it explains why autocrats choose not to modernize even though it makes their nations weaker and makes them more open to conquest. Quaddafi was richer than Musk, and no amount of money in a modern state gives you impunity to kill your enemies, take women, etc. However, it is pretty much "selecting on the dependant variable: the book;" apparently Rome declined because the Republic fell... after 1,400 years.)

Fukuyama's main thesis is pretty much main stream political science. Modern states requires three (sometimes four pillars).

1. Rule of law, no special privileges for the nobility, rich people can go to jail even if justice isn't totally equal. Property rights and contracts are enforceable.

2. A strong, centralized state with a monopoly on the use of violence and a meritocratic, independent bureaucracy (sometimes the independence of the bureaucracy is its own pillar).

3. Accountable government, generally this means some form of democracy. Basically, if the rulers mess up, they can be replaced at regular intervals without violence. Citizens can change laws through some sort of mechanism.

The case studies Fukuyama has for why some, but not all of these emerged in some places are pretty good.

Russia had the strong state emerge, but because the church and nobility were subservient to it, there was no balance of power that led to the rule of law being established. The nobility kept special economic rights into the Russian Revolution, and serfdom carried on till almost the US abolition of slavery. The bureaucracy was never fully independent, and so didn't develop as a counter to bad political leadership, and obviously accountable government never happened.

China had a strong state and civil service develop early, and decent rule of law for the time, but not accountability. Rule of law had never fully developed, the state is allowed to step in and violate legal agreements on a routine basis (e.g., markets getting closed during volatility as a regular practice, Jack Ma, China's Bezos, getting disappeared for speaking out about Chinese state banking policy, etc.)

Strong states emerged in Europe because the nobility was initially stronger than the kings. The common people used their support to empower the monarchs to deal with recalcitrant elites. As they did so though, they also demanded rule of law (plus some rule of law carried over from Rome, particularly in Church law).

But development is also contingent on a lot of other factors. I would recommend Kaplan's The Revenge of Geography, which looks at 21st century politics and grand strategy through a geographic lens. Resources also matter to some degree, and too many exportable raw materials actually seems to hinder growth. It means elites can get rich just by extracting something like oil, instead of developing their economies.

Geography changes slowly, but it does change (e.g., climate change and water supplies, the desertification of North Africa due to over farming and natural climate change fucking Rome, etc.). Kaplan also throws demographics in there, which is something that changes slowly, but has long term strategic implications

Fukuyama's The End of History also helps to explain the success of liberal democracy, but I would say 90% of people who talk about it haven't read it or fundamentally misunderstand it. Fukuyama has later said he pronounced the end of history too soon, global governance to deal with global issues like climate change and multinational megacorps is another step that seems likely.

I could say a lot about this one. The best parts of the analysis are the parts he explicitly borrows from Hegel, and the weakest areas are where he seems to misunderstand Hegel. Liberal democracy didn't "beat" fascism and communism, it sublated them and made elements of both central to it. All liberal democracies now have socialist welfare policies. Liberal democracy now explicitly legitimizes itself using nationalism as well, the right of a given people to choose their own leaders (e.g., liberals would generally not say Algeria didn't need independence from France, it just needed voting rights; the idea is an Algerian democracy for Algerian people).

Global institutions also stop predation. For all the negative impacts of multilateral trade agreements that get attention, they actually do stop huge multinationals from being able to exploit poorer countries as well.

The problem is that fostering development is very difficult. The US has given tons of aid to Egypt and it is still repressive and poor. Meanwhile, support for Korea and steady pressure, paired with major internal changes, led to Korea going from an impoverished backwater to one of the world's wealthiest states, with solid rule of law.

The Baltics are another good example of rapid development, as is Chile, or Spain after Franco. Argentina is probably the premier example of backwards progress, but Russia might be another, and Lebanon.

The problem is that the commonalities successes have are very hard to replicate.

The other problem is that issues like global warming and powerful global corporations require global responses, but global institutions tend to be fairly weak. The AU for instance is a far cry from the EU.

In any case, I don't think you can seriously compare Russia’s liberation from Mongol occupation with England’s invading and occupying India, Africa, and other places .... :grin:

No, but you could certainly compare Russia invading and occupying most of the kingdoms of Central Asia, Poland, Finland, the Baltics, the Caucuses, and Siberia with it. Not to mention their occupation of Eastern Europe for the second half of the 20th century. A major part of 19th century "Great Game" politics was Russia trying to take India away from Britain, so it could occupy it itself. It didn't succeed, but it conquered a lot of land trying.


You're correct. Russia had plenty of reasons to think the war could be a cake walk. It is just baffling that they did not prepared for resistance as even a low risk eventuality.

Aside from the completely inadequate number of troops mobilized, they are invading with T-72As and even T-72 Urals. They spent $40-70 billion a year for 15 years and didn't get around to modernizing anywhere close to a decent number of their tanks? Even their special forces can't get optics, while the Chechen Til Tok brigades they send tribute to are kitted out like a trade show? Where is the T-14 vaporware? They've managed to build all of four production SU-57s in 12 years and now they are building more wunderwaffen with the MiG-31 space ship fighter? Tsunami causing nuclear torpedos to destroy the UK? Seriously, where did all the roubles go!? You expect some to get stolen, maybe even a lot. But it looks like a solid 75% was stolen.

"Dmitry Kiselyov about nukes and Britain"

graphics at 17 seconds and then at 1:27 — Jamal

Erasure of the UK + Ireland (× 2) is a couple of buttons away... (Leveling Kyiv surely would be a trivial matter.) I'm guessing, in principle at least, others could wreak havoc on the British Isles as well, but just have different aspirations, no particular posturing. (France has nukes.)



Elsewhere, some people, ripe for manipulation, bought Putin's stories wholesale ...

... which then made it to the streets.

Thanks, . :up: I now have to put yet another darn book in my to-read queue.

There must be some geologists in Russia who know that you can't "plunge" the UK into the sea. It's a prominance on the Eurasian continent.