Turkey to claim Crimea from Russia: The next WW3?
- Thread starter Sovereign
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 6,905
- Reaction score
- 233
A few things first:
Define "near-constant." Does this apply to the Russian Federation or its predecessor states? Is your argument an analogy; and if so is it meant to be a prognosis? Are you justifying ethnic stereotyping and fascist speech tropes on this reading of history?
To start.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2010
- Messages
- 4,536
- Reaction score
- 48
You're done. You win current affairs. Now get out and never come back
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,911
- Reaction score
- 7
Clearly your creation has evolved so much that not even you can understand it any more.
Tara Bronwyn
SWRP Writer
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2013
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 0
Both, although admitly the only recent incursion was Georgia. Another good example is the Bessarabia fiasco, although that is not a current event. Anyway, for the most part if you're being occupied by Russia you are not having a good time.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 6,905
- Reaction score
- 233
Tara Bronwyn
SWRP Writer
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2013
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 0
I just gave two examples. Georgia around 2008 and Bessarabia around 1940. I'm not complying a complete list for you. And while I am not old enough to have lived any great time in a soviet controlled country I have heard first hand accounts from people who did and yes if your country is occupied by either the current Russian government or the former USSR, you're not having a good time. We're not going to agree, nor do we have to. You're more than welcome to you're point of view. However, I'm not retracting what I said just because you do not like it.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 6,905
- Reaction score
- 233
So your examples of Russia "constantly" annexing land is Russia not annexing all of Georgia in 2008 and a country that no longer exists --the Soviet Union-- taking a small slice of land from Romania in a clear example of buffer-state building nearly eighty years ago. WHOA. CONSTANT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
As far as your strawman --though I may be giving you too much credit here by assuming you can actually understand the questions I'm asking-- I've never contended that living in occupied territory is good or bad; it is usually the latter unless you're a collaborator or invested somehow in the new power structure.
The point, however, remains. You --and others-- are trying to ahistorically paint Russian actions here as harbingers of a new globalist imperialism. Which is propaganda nonsense that only serves to unnecessarily heighten tensions between Russia and the West.
I have in fact posited an alternative thesis, and one which makes a great deal more sense; the Russians were provoked by the expansion of NATO, which they rightly see --sans an invitation for Russia itself to join NATO-- as a potential security threat. Indeed, one could argue --though this forbearance is at least as much due to weakness as it is due to any inherently beatific qualities in the Russian polity-- that the Russians have been quite patient with the West given how we've ringed them with essentially American client-cum-security vassals. We Americans, for example, have our Monroe Doctrine, and would not appreciate any foreign power --say the Chinese-- entering into a mutual security alliance with say... Mexico.
One wonders then, how we would react.
tl;dr
You are certainly free to your opinions, but grappling yourself to them with hoops of steel does not mitigate the glaring weaknesses in your argument.
Or as the great Jules Winnfield puts it:
