Many of them share a similar structure: there are various ethnic groups in close proximity, but they don't "want" to live together peacefully. The attitude may not be inherent, but as the result of ethnic baiting by those who have a reason to do so, but delusion still can create "want".
Ethnic Russians living in former Soviet Republics, where they were the dominant force and are now a disliked minority, is one large category. Similar cases exist in the Balkans, many parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Some of these cases have been partially "solved" by ethnic cleansing or reducing the minority to permanent second-class status, but the risk of rebellion always remains.
So, I'm stumped as to what Russia wants. Do they want to restore their power over their former clients? Do the expect Russians to take on key posts in Latvia or elsewhere again?
I'll ask the same question about Darfur, or the West Bank or Kosovo. The attitudes of the various groups just seem such that there is no interest in resolving things.
Since "follow the money" is one of my basic premises, I'll assume that some groups like the current situations, but I don't know who or why. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
I'm in a criminal minority here, but I suspect that Russia wants normalized relations with its neighbors, respect for its people, Nato off its doorstep. Why people find it nearly impossible to imagine Russians, who posses human dna like everyone else, would want the same things as everyone else, I don't know. But flip the idea around in your head for a while. It's so crazy it might just be true. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
If these states are treating ethnic Russians poorly then why is it mother Russia's responsibility to intervene?
As for NATO, suppose they swing neighboring states away from Russia, does this present a threat or does it just thwart Russia's ambitions?
I'm not anti-Russian, and I assume no motives for either the leaders or the population, but Russia has an unbroken four hundred year history of empire and one needs to demonstrate that this sense of its own place in the world has changed.
Look at all the criticism the US is getting because of its imperial policies, and these are only about 100 years old. It's not clear who is pushing this either. I don't remember anyone voting to invade: Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, the Philippines, Vietnam...
Apparently leaders go in the direction they wish, the population be damned. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
The US has been threatening Russia since 1989. (Or since 1917--take your pick.)
Funding the color-coded revolutions, maintaining NATO rather than dismantling it, adding former Warsaw-Pact nations to NATO, trying to add former Soviet Union nations to NATO, these are all moves in a long-range strategic plan to envelop and subjugate.
Does Russia have something the US wants? Yes: Oil. But at this stage, even more important than Russian oil is influence over Caspian Oil. The US wants that foremost.
You don't have to be Russophile to observe this (I'm not.) You just have to notice basic strategy. Knowing US history doesn't hurt either.
Both?
I don't think you'll find much sympathy for Russian imperialist adventures on ET, but 1) the present conflict can hardly be called an imperialist adventure - at least not on Russia's part - and 2) The West(TM) has precious little credibility to argue the point even if it were, given NATO's behaviour since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
And the blatant displays of hypocrisy that result when European heads of state accuse Russia of adventurism over a decidedly non-adventurist intervention, while at the same time supporting various and sundry imperialist adventures on part of the USA (many of which directly threaten legitimate Russian interests) hurts our credibility, our standing in the world and thus our power.
First, I'll PN you on that number. US imperial ambitions go back at least to the first Mexican-American war in the early half of the 19th cent. So make that 150-200 years. At least.
Second, there is one distinct difference between US imperialism and post-Soviet Russian imperialism (with the exception of their Chechnya adventure, which is routinely condemned on ET) is that Russia has pretty much stayed more or less within accepted international law and accepted Western(TM) precedents when carrying out its imperialism.
As far as I'm aware, post-Soviet Russia has not terror-bombed other people's cities (unlike Beograd and Fallujah), has not aided and abetted ethnic cleansing (unlike Palestine and Kosova, and again with the exception of their Chechnya adventure, which is routinely condemned), has not launched wars of aggression (unlike Afghanistan and Iraq and again keeping in mind that Chechnya is a black exception to this rule), and so on and so forth and et cetera. (Soviet imperialism is, of course, a whole 'nother ball game; that was fully as bad as US imperialism. But the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.)
Now, that does not excuse Russian imperialism, or make Russian imperial ambitions non-existent, but it does explain the difference in the volume of the criticism directed at it.
Oh, and of course it should be mentioned that the commercial press does enough criticism of Russia that even people who rely virtually solely on ET for their news are bound to hear of it anyway, so ET can hardly be faulted for omitting it.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
Or, to take a slightly more real-world example, if Serbia were to invade Kosova and bomb Camp Bondsteel, the EU would indeed be justified in responding with sufficient force to end Serbian aggression. "Sufficient force to end Serbian Aggression" does not, however, include terror-bombing Beograd.
But there is a world of difference between this scenario and toppling moderately social democratic governments in Latin America at the behest of various US-based transnational companies and replacing them with unreconstructed fascists.
For what it's worth I would even say that taking various hostile actions (short of war, however) against Cuba was justified while they were playing host to Soviet rockets aimed at the US. What's not OK is keeping Cuba in thumbscrews after the rockets have been taken away. (And of course the same goes for Poland and the missile defence system strategic radar installations.)
But we know it won't work in the first place, which makes it awfully suspicious. Going through that much foreign policy hassle just to get a site for a pork barrel project? I wouldn't be willing to bet money against it, but I wouldn't be willing to bet money on it either.
But of course you're right that absent strategic weapons - all kinds of strategic weapons - the "Cuba justification" breaks down. I agree with you that military bases from a power you don't like are not in and of themselves sufficient reason to give an independent country grief.
and some of those neighbours would like the same but they're just going to have to deal with having Russia on their doorstep whether they like it or not. To the extent that two cases are different its because Russia has more oil and more tanks. That's it.
