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
