"Russian Prepares for Total War With the West" Topic

"According to the pro-Kremlin pollster FOM, the majority of Russians (53 percent) consider the threat of nuclear war "real," with most believing the main threat is coming from the United States. Some 39 percent of Russians do not believe in an impending nuclear war with the West. But in the age bracket from 46 to 60 years old, some 63 percent of Russians consider the threat of nuclear war both real and imminent (Gazeta.ru, December 7). Since Russia's forcible takeover of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014, relations between Moscow and the West have deteriorated and, today, remain about as frigid as they were during most of the Cold War. Of course, the actual beginning of the confrontation dates back much further. Notably, President Vladimir Putin delivered his infamously combative speech at the February 2007 Munich Security Conference, where he spelled out his vision of the US and its allies as a hostile force bent on undermining Russia and its deserved place in the world. It took years for Washington to acknowledge that Putin was serious and not just engaging in a public relations stunt for internal consumption. Russian rulers are, indeed, quite convinced that only by deploying superior conventional and nuclear military forces, can Russia deter or at least survive a looming all-out war with the US and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies.

In the run-up to the November 3, 2020, US presidential elections, Moscow and Washington attempted to agree to a last-minute prolongation of the New START strategic nuclear arms control treaty, scheduled to expire on February 5, 2021. The deal would have involved also signing a supplementary political declaration that both sides freeze all nuclear weapons, including those not covered by New START, as well as pledge to begin new ambitious arms control negotiations that, the US insisted, would have to include China. This effort failed, with both parties blaming the other. The main US negotiator in the collapsed New START prolongation effort—Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Ambassador Marshall Billingslea—reportedly called on "future US administrations" not to prolong the strategic arms control treaty without a verifiable "freeze" of non-strategic nuclear weapons or without China becoming involved in further arms limitation talks. Moscow has agreed, in principle, to declare a one-year nuclear pause but without verification, and it has avoided calling for the inclusion of China in any future negotiations without Beijing's consent, which is not forthcoming (Militarynews.ru, December 9)…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Global Thermonuclear War is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

I wonder how Russia should force China to enter into this treaty? I somehow don't notice that China is under Russian influence. In my opinion – an absolutely idiotic requirement.
In the event of a nuclear war between Russia and the United States, China will be the winner. If he survives, of course.

+1 Oberlindes

Even a relative small nuclear exchange would probably fudge up the climate sufficiently to make descent harvests unlikely for a couple of years… So there's no such thing as a by-stander!

I wonder what our resident Russian members think of this article. I understand why Russia feels encroached upon by the West, but nuclear war is a whole other level. The US is debating building new missiles for our deterrent stockpile as our existing missiles are getting very old now (and Russia has refreshed their stockpile recently with new missiles).

However I'd guess most westerners consider the threat of nuclear war with Russia quite low right now despite current tensions, and would overwhelmingly reject the notion of a pre-emotive first strike against Russia and consider it a reprehensible act.

I think most Americans see Russia as a strategic competitor, but not a strategic threat. With the challenges Russia faces, I feel there is more opportunity for cooperation with the West than for confrontation.

The West needs to start understanding how our actions affect Russian attitudes and stir up very old fears due to Russian geography and history. Pushing NATO to the very doorstep of Russia was a strategic error. Likewise, Russia needs to understand the West's deep distrust for governments controlled by strongmen who threaten neighbors and the West with military force, even when the rhetoric is for internal consumption.

If we can get over these differences, we have much in common we can build on. Modern Russia is not the Soviet Union and West and East would benefit greatly from a more stable Middle East that doesn't breed terrorism.

Oberlindes +1 … it's a 0 – Sum game … in the end everybody looses. That kind of "logic" you may see in jihadis/terrorists who don't care if they die. But generally those in the West not blindly wedded to a corrupted religious ideology, would not start tossing WMDs around.

I understand why Russia feels encroached upon by the West, but nuclear war is a whole other level.

Agreed, but is Putin planning doing a "blitzkrieg" to regain lost Russian territory after the fall of the USSR ? Probably not … He certainly is not planning on to attack across borders and race towards the Rhine then the Channel. Of course if NATO gets any weaker. It many not be as hard as it sounds. Logistics may be the big problem, as it always is. Plus Putin would not want to lose all that business with the Germans.

It seems to me the Russian's building up it's military may be more of a defensive move for local consumption. Showing Putin and his cronies are still strongmen against the US, etc.

I don't see a Russian-PRC alliance against the US and it's allies, what there is left of them. That would actually be effective/useful, in e.g. a WWIII scenario.

The US sees the PRC more of threat, actually The Threat, primarily from an economic standpoint. The US has the #1 economy then the PRC/CCP #2. Is Russia even in the top 10 ? I think both California and Texas are in there. And they are not even nations.

If anything the US and Russia should make a pact to defend against the ever grown threat of islamic-fascism/jihadis/terrorists. With their population growing larger than the West, etc. And with the US, UK, France, Germany, etc., and Russia having to deal with radical islamic terrorism.

Of course we see how the PRC deals with islamic "threats(?)" in their nation. It rivals something the Nazis and USSR did during WWII. A crime against humanity of a colossal scale.

Regardless, I'm not saying go on a crusade but try to keep radical islamic fanatics at least in check. But it seems they do get a lot of support from within, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. even if some are on the opposite side of the same coin.

I think Putin and his cronies will continue to posture and sabre rattle if for no other reason then for local consumption. And the PRC, keep taking little pieces of the planet a little at a time. Thru economics, more so than armed conflict. But the are students of Sun Tzu. They are in it for the long game.

And with the US maybe getting a 10% downsizing of our military in 2021 or 2022. Weak leadership, etc., at the same time. Putin and the PRC, may take advantage of this. Not militarily but economically, etc.

I am not ready to say how much we in Russia are afraid of a nuclear war. Russians are fatalists))) What should be – it will not be possible to avoid))) I think that nuclear war is the last thing the average Russian thinks about.
All we want is to have a strong army, which will be able to inflict unacceptable damage on any enemy with a guarantee. We cannot rely on anyone else's help – we must be able to do everything ourselves. As one of the Russian tsars said: "Russia has only two reliable allies – this is its army and navy")))
Conquest of Europe? What for? What's the point of this? Where to get the forces and resources to control so much territory when Russia has its own gigantic and not yet developed space? The countries of the former USSR probably have some reason to be afraid. Since small countries are always satellites of large countries, this is how the world works. If there is no Russian influence, then there will be the influence of China or EU. The independence of small countries is still rather arbitrary. Yes, they do not really strive for it – they always look for themselves a "daddy" who will protect and give pocket money))) There are exceptions – but there are not many of them. And this is always a game on the contradictions and interests of the "big" countries. Why conquer someone who will come to you on his own when the situation changes?
But the approach to your borders of the infrastructure of a potential enemy is a direct threat. This is a military offensive, but in peacetime.
As for economic competition (including between countries) – isn't this the foundation of the Western world? I would like to hope that the world is not yet finally conquered and divided among themselves by multinational corporations, and the state has not yet turned into fiction, and the policy – in theater)))

Yes, but what did the USSR do there in the Second World War that they can be put on a par with the Nazis? Have German and Japanese cities wiped out from the face of the earth along with their inhabitants?

I think that nuclear war is the last thing the average Russian thinks about.

Probably the same here in the USA. Plus most in the USA couldn't find Russia on a map …

Yes, but what did the USSR do there in the Second World War that they can be put on a par with the Nazis? Have German and Japanese cities wiped out from the face of the earth along with their inhabitants?

Yes we all know the history … it was horrible in many cases. We can't change that … but hopefully we can learn from it.

E.g. We are currently going thru a "discussion" here in the US about our past history in the early days of our nation about slavery. We can't forget about the good, the bad and the ugly.

The fear and anxiety of nuclear armageddon today among the populace are nowhere close to the 1950's, or even the 1980's for that matter.

It's not the flavor of the month yet. The lame stream media in the USA only focuses on a few main stories (ad nauseam) at a time. Currently the only story is the plandemic and the bad man whose fault it is. Nukes won't be discussed until it is too late and then the blame game will begin of "how did this happen?".

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

The US sees the PRC more of threat, actually The Threat, primarily from an economic standpoint. The

Save a little bit under current POTUS, US action against China is minimal. They have let the Chinese do as they please. Thus it is hard to agree that the US sees China as more of a threat than Russia.

I think Putin and his cronies will continue to posture and sabre rattle if for no other reason then for local consumption.

To a degree, Putin has to sabre rattle. When he doesn't, NATO gets ideas of enlarging itself with Georgia and Ukraine. I suspect if those were absorbed into NATO, the Americans would start looking at expanding into countries like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc.

NATO* and the US never dropped their 1950s goal of encircling Russia, and ultimately destroying it. NATO was warned in the 1990s that expansion would recreate the cold war by a group of senior diplomats and foreign policy specialists. NATO ignored the advice and sought expansion.

link

And throw in the missile defence system that NATO wanted to place in new eastern European NATO partners, it could be argued NATO actively pursued a new cold war.

Indeed even though the missile defence system was publicly, meant to deter Iran, it was originally meant to go into Poland until the Russians threw up a proverbial #$% storm. It has since been deployed to Romania. where it's main target is still the Russians (Greece/Turkey would have been the logical deployment areas if Iran really was the target)!

*As in the organisation, not the member states.

Without Putin, NATO would have expanded much more and Russia would probably be a failed state which is where it was headed under pro-west Yeltsin .

The fear and anxiety of nuclear armageddon today among the populace are nowhere close to the 1950's, or even the 1980's for that matter.

As long as the populace gets their cheap consumer junk, they are happy.

One reason forever wars go on forever is because your average consumer citizen doesn't see much past their next purchase.

Indeed there is much opposition in the west against COVID restrictions (not just in USA but Europe as well) because it impinges on consumption too much.

So it's clear westerners are even happy to have others die in a pandemic as long as they can continue to consume.

It's like climate change, something many westerners are for until someone mentions potential changes to consumption habits.

As long as the populace gets their cheap consumer junk, they are happy.

I don't think it can be simply explained away by consumerism. After all, the 1950's and 1980's were just as consumerist as it is today.

The main reason is that the world is a different place today. The specter of global thermonuclear war is no longer the overriding threat it was during the MAD era of the 1950's/early 1960's or the spiraling arms race and belligerent nuclear brinkmanship of the 1980's. The fact is, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the strategic nuclear arms reductions that followed, nuclear apocalypse is simply no longer conceivable in most people's minds, much less keep them up at night. Indeed, even political leaders don't take the possibility of nuclear war very seriously, so why should your average citizen?

Indeed there is much opposition in the west against COVID restrictions (not just in USA but Europe as well) because it impinges on consumption too much.

So it's clear westerners are even happy to have others die in a pandemic as long as they can continue to consume.

Unfair and untrue. Covid simply changed the way people consume, not the level of consumption itself. Ebay, Amazon and other online businesses and services thrived while traditional brick-and-mortar stores and small businesses suffered. The opposition to restrictions and shutdowns were mainly from owners and employees of restaurants, retailers and other businesses such as barbershops and nail salons who lost their livelihood. These people can no longer pay their rent and bills or feed their families.

Save a little bit under current POTUS, US action against China is minimal. They have let the Chinese do as they please. Thus it is hard to agree that the US sees China as more of a threat than Russia.

Yes the current leadership in the US is tough on the PRC/CCP. But I'm betting that won't be the case with the new leadership. But I do not what to go much further as I will get DH'd.

While Watching some of the current media[not all] it has been made clear. Most/may considered the PRC/CCP a bigger threat.

To a degree, Putin has to sabre rattle. When he doesn't, NATO gets ideas of enlarging itself with Georgia and Ukraine.

Yes as we all see he is not too happy with the US and UK having troops in one of the new NATO members, i.e. Poland. So yes sabre rattling would be no surprise with many places from the WP going to NATO. Got to show he's still a tough guy for local consumption. Nothing new
there.

So it's clear westerners are even happy to have others die in a pandemic as long as they can continue to consume.

Yes those damned running dog Capitalist Imperialists !!!! Coming from a Russian I fine that amusing.

Got to show he's still a tough guy for local consumption. Nothing new
there.

The sabre rattling and occasional use of the sabre has stopped NATO expansion in its tracks – Ukraine and Georgia are now in limbo land and Armenia has seen what happens when you start looking westward. Crimea with its dominating position on Black Sea is now 100% Russian.

Without Putin, Russia would have been encircled from the south with Ukraine, Georgia and possibly even Armenia, Azerbaijan etc entering NATO.

The IMF and World Bank "shock therapy" associated with aid would have destroyed the Russian economy completely.

Russia would have lost territorial integrity – Chechnya was already lost before Putin and Tartastan and Dagestan were slipping away.

The Russians were aware all of this was happening but stopping it was not possible under the pro-western Yeltsin regime. Indeed Yeltsin was such a western stooge that in 1996 he asked Bill Clinton for assistance to win the election.

Yeltsin was gladly dismembering Russia for his own power.

As ex Putin right hand man, Dmitry Medvedev, said in 2005:

"If we fail to consolidate the elite, Russia may disappear as a single state. <…> The consequences will be monstrous. The disintegration of the Union may seem like a matinee in the kindergarten compared to the state collapse in modern Russia."

Given American responses and also the responses of American led institutions such as NATO and IMF, I would argue that this collapse was in fact the end goal of American policy in 1990s and still is in fact the goal.

Putin saved Russia – without him, it was doomed to poverty, failed states and endemic civil wars. Plus I wouldn't have been surprised if in such a scenario the Chinese occupied Siberia for its resource.

Yes those damned running dog Capitalist Imperialists !!!! Coming from a Russian I fine that amusing.

I am not a Russian, I am Australian with Jugoslav ethnic heritage.

The opposition to restrictions and shutdowns were mainly from owners and employees of restaurants, retailers and other businesses such as barbershops and nail salons who lost their livelihood. These people can no longer pay their rent and bills or feed their families.

Plenty of opposition from consumers as well. Indeed look at all the partying etc as soon as restrictions were lifted (the massive dinner party at Prague being a great example of the idiocy).

And then even as COVID second wave ran out of control, the Europeans were averse to restrictions until things completely spiralled out of control.

People are greedy and stupid. They don't really care about the environment or their neighbours. They certainly don't think long term.

And how myopic US policy against Russia is strengthening China by pushing the Russians towards them.

link

Indeed by pushing the Russians into China's arms, the US is destroying one of its most important advantages against China – an ability to shut down key trade routes to middle east and Africa.

Paul Stronski, a former director for Russia and Central Asia on the US National Security Council, identifies the implications better. Given that China "currently receives most of its primary imports through sea lanes from the south", Stronski writes, "the Russian Far East provides not only a diversified source … a reliable and rich supply from its northern borders could also function as a hedge against a US Navy blockade".

Just ponder that – US policy is:

a.) Undermining security in Europe and now Middle East by agitating Russians.
b.) Strengthening China's position and helping the Chinese source resource security!
c.) Diluting US military and diplomatic power by having to divide attention between countering Russia and China.
d.) Undermining US military strategy against China.

Is that sane, let alone intelligent?

Yet the American policy toward Russia is essentially stuck in 1949. The US elites never got out of the McCarty era when it comes to thinking about Russia.

And a historical analogy, several hundred years ago the 3 major Muslim empires (Ottomans, Persians, Mughals) focused a lot of their resources and energies in endemic warfare.

They neglected/ignored the fragmented and impoverished western Europeans until it was too late and the Europeans rose up and destroyed these empires or reduced them to rump states.

The US-Russian bickering and rise of China is very much an example of this.

The problem is that the US cannot be friend with Russia and enemy with China without becoming a hypocrite. Both Russia and China are anti-democratic authoritarian regimes that seek to undermine and replace the unipolar liberal democratic world order led by the US with a multipolar one with authoritarianism as a viable alternative model.

It would be wise to reset relations with Russia and play her against China from a realpolitik standpoint, but realpolitik has lost out to idealpolitik long ago.

The problem is that the US cannot be friend with Russia and enemy with China without becoming a hypocrite. Both Russia and China are anti-democratic authoritarian regimes that seek to undermine and replace the unipolar liberal democratic world order led by the US with a multipolar one with authoritarianism as a viable alternative model.

The US is already being a hypocrite by being super friendly with murderous Islamo-fascist states like Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, destroying Libya etc etc.

It would be wise to reset relations with Russia and play her against China from a realpolitik standpoint, but realpolitik has lost out to idealpolitik long ago.

My point exactly. It doesn't have to be 100% friendly. Indeed most European states are probably too friendly with Russia.

However that would mean the west would have to stop trying to expand eastwards into Russian domains. The Americans would have to stop trying to undermine Russian security concerns

I wouldn't even call American policy "idealpolitik." It's "nostalgiapolitik."

The problem is that the US cannot be friend with Russia and enemy with China without becoming a hypocrite.

LOL. The US has been hypocritical for years. We call for democracy around the world yet we have a long track record of supporting dictators and overthrowing democracies. We criticize third world countries for having fraudulent elections yet we just became the biggest banana republic in the world.

Plenty of opposition from consumers as well.

Plenty of opposition from flag-waving patriotic Americans as well. Don't you know that it's Un-American for the government to take away our civil liberties and tell us what we can and cannot do? What are they going to do next? Take away our guns?

Americans have an independent spirit and rebellious streak that they're proud of. It's been ingrained in their DNA since their forefathers broke away from the Crown over 240 years ago due to overtaxation.

"Given American responses and also the responses of American led institutions such as NATO and IMF, I would argue that this collapse was in fact the end goal of American policy in 1990s and still is in fact the goal."

This completely ignores the reality of US foreign policy, which is at best schizophrenic. Long term US policy on anything is an oxymoron. At best US policy is good for 4 years- 8 if you are lucky. It is impossible to work well the the US unless you understand this. All notion of a deep 'swamp' state aside, every time a new administration arrives, you are likely to have a new US policy on just about everything. It may eco past administrations, but rarely repeats or continues it.

The US is less likely to have a long term goal to do anything and more likely to pull a Monty Python. US foreign policy's motto should be 'And now for something completely different.'

It's not hypocrisy, but different administrations with different goals. That's built in as a feature, not a bug, but often it makes our friends as well as our enemies pull their hair out in frustration. The US has effectively no long term memory, and even our citizens often forget that we are only as good as a people as our last election. If we strive to be the City on the Hill as a nation, we are only as good as we act now. Not 40 years ago, not 40 years from now, but now.

I am not a supporter of Putin because I am leftist. Putin is a staunch supporter of capitalism and a representative of the oligarchy.
But he is not a usurper of power – to my personal regret, he is indeed supported by a very significant part of the population. He stopped the destructive processes of the 90s in Russia, he ensured order (albeit not fair from my point of view), he stopped the expansion of the West, he stopped conflicts in Russia. For this he is forgiven a lot. No pro-Western opposition now has a chance of political success in Russia – for the average Russian, these politicians pose the threat of a flourishing crime, interethnic wars, much more terrible corruption and destruction of the state. This is the legacy that Gorbachev, Yeltsin and the "young reformers" left in the Russian mind.

The western model of democracy is so bad because it is impossible to systematically move strategically towards the goals set. Different parties interfere with each other, and the course of the country can suddenly change dramatically following the change of the party in power. Silly and ineffective. Let's imagine that in a similar way the enterprise would be managed – how long would it be afloat?
I like the model proposed by Lenin more (Soviets is the ability of voters to recall their deputy at any time and replace him with another, depending on his activity in office and without the need for special regular elections), but alas – it has never been fully implemented … You just need to remove any political parties from this scheme. People should be chosen according to their business and moral qualities, and they should represent exclusively the interests of their voters, not parties.

This completely ignores the reality of US foreign policy, which is at best schizophrenic. Long term US policy on anything is an oxymoron. At best US policy is good for 4 years- 8 if you are lucky. It is impossible to work well the the US unless you understand this.

Yet long term policy does exist – eg towards the USSR or even towards China (pre-Trump policy dated back to Nixon era). The support of Israel also dates from 1960s! Economic neoliberalism started in the 1980s and only stalled ever so slightly with 2017 election when both presidential candidates refused to supported Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The deep state exists but not as a conspiracy but rather as a more nebulous gestalt construction based on shared culture, education etc.

The presidents might change but the major parties do not nor does the public service nor do the institutions they work for.*

*Says the career bureaucrat with 15 years in an Australian state bureaucracy.

The presidents can tinker but not many have actually changed the overall direction in a systemic and long term manner.

The last president to change US foreign policy direction in a meaningful manner was Bill Clinton who ramped up interventionism.

The last US president to change course on China in a meaningful manner was Nixon whereas for Russia the Truman Doctrine still holds true.

The US still adheres to some even older foreign policy principles eg Monroe Doctrine from 1823 which is designed to limit foreign influence in the Americas whilst allowing US interference in the region.

Yes, there are stable directions in the politics of countries. But there are also sharply changing vectors. Moreover, they change not under the influence of objective external factors, but under the influence of the traditions and views of the established parties. And I do not understand how two or three parties can take into account the full range of views and expectations of their voters. You just have to choose from what is given to you and sometimes this choice is between bad and very bad.

And about the pandemic. We need to understand that the coronavirus is with us forever. Like the flu for example … And it mutates in the same way, making vaccination a very conditional protection. People will die from it, just like every year they die from the flu. But soon most of the human population will adapt to this disease. All these masks and other safety measures can only delay your meeting with this disease, alas.

I wonder how many people will remain in the various parties if they lose the chance to get into the power structures thanks to this?)))

The sense of the structure of power, which I mentioned, is only in the fact that a person in power will be deprived of the opportunity to act against the will of his voters, otherwise he will immediately lose his post.

You just have to choose from what is given to you and sometimes this choice is between bad and very bad.

It doesn't. Hence voter apathy and disillusionment and voting based on how a candidate looks or sounds.

Here in Australia, the only two parties that can get in to form the government are:

1. Australian Labor Party – economically right wing, socially – centre left.

2. Coalition – economically right wing, socially slightly less centre left.

It's tweedle dum and tweedle dee.

Currently the opposition Labor party is not vocally opposing anything the government does. They even said they won't oppose the government.

Well, where's the choice? It is a profanation, not democracy.
Exactly for the same reason I do not go to elections in Russia. I have no one to vote for, although there are usually about five parties involved, including the communist (only in name))). And to participate in someone's performance is a pity for the time spent.
My favorite candidate now: Against All. But this opportunity was also taken away from me.

Actually, the problem Russia has with those in their former union isn't really caused by NATO, but by themselves.

Due to previous, heavy-handed governance, invasions, and policies, many of the former Soviet-allied states have fled to the West and tried to ally with them.

Many others would if they could, but I suspect for obvious reasons the status quo may remain for some time.

Oh, of course … Have these countries never seen invasion, conquest, or brutal rule from the West?
It's just that their current "fear of Russia" is now selling well – this is one of the main reasons)))
All that you have said may be relevant only for the Baltic countries, and then in part. These countries were ruled by their own communists, many of whom were in the leadership of the USSR, and sometimes headed it. If we are talking about the countries of the "socialist bloc", then the invasion of the USSR into their territory was preceded by their invasion of the USSR together with the Nazis. And who here should be afraid of whom?
If they were afraid, they could form their own, non-aligned, defensive alliance, to which Russia would hardly react in this way. And they could conclude an agreement with NATO on the provision of military assistance in the event of aggression. But they chose to threaten Russia as part of the Cold War anti-Russian military bloc.

we're coming to discuss the topic regularly, even that the discussion is a bit different every time ( and it's good to see)

The base of our discussion:
- Even that Chnia is a bigger threat, a Russian bear is much easier to sell as a rival and scarecrow to US audience due to economic interests of globalist economics and media
- Russian authorities are using all aggressive actions of USA as an explanation of our own difficulties (so, in a way, Russian government is interested in keeping the confrontation going….to some extent, as we also have plenty of export-oriented oligarchs.

- Even if I consider that Western states and IMF really had no clue how to reform the economy like Russia had in 1991 and had no interest to destroy the state itself, they did a lot to make it happen. I've just started my career in the beginning of 90s and I've seen some very strange things happening all over the country – western capital was aiming for joint ventures with military/strategic enterprises in order either to shut them down, or get all know-how and then just move to another victim.
For most of the people here it is very hard to think that it was not coordinated somehow.
We still remember this- and our older leaders, having much more info than me about this period have formed their opinion on the world, and it is not likely to change before we all die off.

In current situation Russia is not interested in starting the full scale confrontation with the West – it will not give us any geopolitical advantage, and it is not in the interests of our olligarchs.

Yet we need to be prepared to inflict the irreversible damage to anyone who will attack us.
Bombing of Yugoslavia was a huge shock, that have made even Yeltsin thinking that something is not right with Russia/West relations.
We have an old song, that new generations might not know with the following line:
- "we're peaceful folks, but our armored train is still waiting on reserve tracks".
YouTube link
It is used sometimes instead of saying "plan B" ;)

I really wonder sometimes how incompetent "experts" on Russia in the West can be, they're getting huge paychecks and they don't understand something that most of the Russians, or the posters like arealdeadone here know – I guess, it is not bcs they're stupid, but bcs their bias and general line they have to follow – in fact very similar to what USSR had in Soviet times…

We're different even within a single country – I don;t think that a fair communism/socialist state can be built, for instance, and been working in the Western company for many years I guess I understand a bit how capitalism works, but we're having the same ideas with Cuprum on foreign policy – the interests of a state are not going anywhere, regardless of the government you have…
(and I'm also not a Putin fan, but without him we 'd have much more problems to face)

Capitalism – communism – that's a completely different conversation. We are now talking about a new Cold War.
If the stars are lit, then someone needs it)))

I am not a Russian, I am Australian with Jugoslav ethnic heritage.

My error … I thought Cuprum2 said what I was referring to. I generally know your background. I like to know who I'm talking to. As each nationality, etc., may have/has some predilections, biases, etc. E.g. Cuprum just posted :

I am not a supporter of Putin because I am leftist. Putin is a staunch supporter of capitalism and a representative of the oligarchy.

So I have a generally good idea where he his coming from, his POVs, biases, etc. So my estimation, he may have some anti-US leanings, etc.

That is not really a big deal, in this context, but none the less interesting in the overall discussion.

E.g. Barin just posted :

(and I'm also not a Putin fan, but without him we 'd have much more problems to face)

I think I may know where is predilections, etc. I'd say he is far from an old school hard core Communist and probably a bit of a realist. More or less … plus he his a Vet so I'm always interested in talking to other Vets from other nations. Even if we may have been on the opposite sides of Cold War I …

arealdeadone,

I have had many discussions with him. I think he is a bit of a liberal intellectual. But he & I do agree on things at times. So there still may be hope of the world …

Regardless of all our differences, I rather, have interesting informative discussions. Agree to disagree, laugh it off, and move on … ☮

Left – still does not mean communist))) I have already written that I consider communism a matter of the distant future, but at the same time inevitable))) This is not a question of revolution, but of evolution.
As for the United States, I treat this country and people with respect, since its contribution to the development of mankind is great, which cannot be denied. With those Americans with whom I know personally, I have excellent relations and I do not notice any significant differences between us.
And yes, I disagree with many of the actions of the United States, but this is natural, since every country and every people has its own interests.
So I have very weak anti-American tendencies)))
Oh, yes, and I'm also the owner of several small businesses and also a bourgeois bastard)))

Actually, the problem Russia has with those in their former union isn't really caused by NATO, but by themselves.

Due to previous, heavy-handed governance, invasions, and policies, many of the former Soviet-allied states have fled to the West and tried to ally with them.

Many others would if they could, but I suspect for obvious reasons the status quo may remain for some time.

You do realise that the main country that was invaded during the last several hundred years was Russia? Ottomans (1571), Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1605-18), , Sweden (1610-1617), Sweden again (1707), France (1812), Germany 1914, western allies plus Poland (1919-21), Germany again (1941). Then eastward, two Japanese invasions/interventions (1905 and 1918-22).

That's an average of two invasions per century and 5 of which were in the 20th century alone including 2 major invasions.

It has created a sense of fear within the Russian culture. So the Russians crave a strategic buffer zone – someone to absorb the impact of foreign interventions.

Purpose of Warsaw Pact was a buffer zone. It was something not just craved by the Communists but the Tzars and the modern Russian leadership.

link

And note of all the major powers, the Russians are the most precarious in terms of geography. Unlike past and present powers, they struggle with access to the sea. Their environment is often harsh and unforgiving.

At the same time their long borders are vulnerable and susceptible to invasion and intervention.

link

Thus NATO expansion is a direct threat to the existence of Russia. It threatens to cut off access to few warm water ports. It makes the vast borders more difficult to defend especially given the truncated resources of the modern Russian state.

- Even if I consider that Western states and IMF really had no clue how to reform the economy like Russia had in 1991 and had no interest to destroy the state itself, they did a lot to make it happen.

I think it's deliberate. I do think IMF was doing Uncle Sam's dirty work.

Same strategies have been applied by IMF/World Bank to other crises eg Asian economic crisis in 1999 which resulted in food shortages and rampant inflation as well as violence in Indonesia.

The EU applied the same strategies to Greece, Cyprus etc in recent crises.

There is no concern for human impact of these strategies.

And the results are predictable – human misery, destruction of living standards, loss of economic independence, deindustrialisation etc etc.

The goal pursued is simple remove competitors to western economic hegemony and create captive markets for multinational companies.

The IMF and World Bank are basically capitalist shock troops.

The IMF has even admitted in recent times it's approach is fundamentally wrong.

One, neoliberal policies result in "little benefit in growth."

Two, neoliberal policies increase inequality, which produces further economic harms in a "trade-off" between growth and inequality.

And three, this "increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth."

link

Has this resulted in IMF changing its policies – of course not! It's still pursuing the same policies.

arealdeadone,

I have had many discussions with him. I think he is a bit of a liberal intellectual. But he & I do agree on things at times.

Oh I don't like the term liberal….too much associated with woke progressives.

Politically I am an old fashioned western leftist – allow heavily regulated private enterprise, government controls key sectors (health, education, infrastructure) and the emphasis is on a strong nation state with a healthy dose of patriotism.

Disempower large corporations and put the finance system back in its place instead of allowing it to continue being a massive parasite on the economy that contributes nothing except obscene profits for a few.

And yes, I disagree with many of the actions of the United States, but this is natural, since every country and every people has its own interests.
So I have very weak anti-American tendencies)))
Oh, yes, and I'm also the owner of several small businesses and also a bourgeois bastard)))

Good to know ! I too tend to agree with many but not all actions taken by the USA. Good luck with you businesses ! Nothing wrong with being a bourgeois anything.

Great maps arealdeadone, that always puts things in perspective for me. Spent a lot of time looking at maps as a PL and Co Cdr. It helps me visualize everything better …

Oh I don't like the term liberal….too much associated with woke progressives.

Well again we can agree on that … woke progressives are a scary confused lot IMO.

Politically I am an old fashioned western leftist

I can understand and respect that. Even though we may many times be on opposite ends with our POVs, etc.,.

arealdeadone, I agree … But I believe that it is not the US use the IMF, but on the contrary, the IMF uses the US. Unfortunately, big financial capital has long become supranational. And he does not care about peoples and countries. If it would be advantageous to "drown" the United States in order to obtain windfall profits – and he will do it.
And all this neo-liberal rhetoric – just a smokescreen.

The US wields massive power in the IMF thanks to the fact it is the organisation's largest voter and shareholder.

And US influence was bigger in the 1990s before China entered the IMF in 2016. Indeed the IMF used to act in conjunction with US policy.

I agree the organisation is more supranational these days.

link

We will see, especially with the new leadership in the USA. Which seems to have strong ties/leanings to the PRC …

the new leadership in the USA. Which seems to have strong ties/leanings to the PRC …

The whole world has/wants strong ties/leanings to the PRC.

link

Yes, it is economically advantageous to them. But meanwhile the PRC has infiltrated spies almost everywhere. With those good relations comes at a price.