Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Alastor]

You're mistaking "russophobia" for "russomisia". We, who have been invaded by the Mongolian horde for 500 years, are eligible to talk about wanting keep the them outside of our somewhat civilized countries. You're just not eligible to comment on this. We don't want to them here, in any form, we want them to stay on their side of the map, in their swamp. Mmmkay?

The fact you are calling them "the mongolian horde" tells me all I need to know about where you are coming from and no I'm not mistaking anything. I'm simply using the standard definition that anyone can find with a simple google search. Here you go from wiki:

Anti-Russian sentiment or Russophobia, is dislike or fear or hatred of Russia, Russian people, Russian culture,^[1] or Russian policy.^[2] The Collins English Dictionary defines it as intense and often irrational hatred of Russia.^[3] The opposite of Russophobia is Russophilia.

If the word Russophobia scares you so much, you can always try not to exhibit it this blatantly. Mmmkay?

[StarDreamer]

The fact you are calling them "the mongolian horde" tells me all I need to know about where you are coming from and no I'm not mistaking anything. I'm simply using the standard definition that anyone can find with a simple google search. Here you go from wiki:
If the word Russophobia scares you so much, you can always try not to exhibit it this blatantly. Mmmkay?

So if you dislike Russian policy, ie whatever Putin is doing you are a Russophobe. Thank you for proving this has nothing to do with irrational fear, since the definition claims it is enough to dislike Russian policy.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

If mere dislike of Russia makes one a Russophobe,, then this is a useless term. Like branding everyone who disagrees with the current Israeli government as an anti-Semite.


If opposing fascism makes you a Russophobe, then everyone in their right mind should be a russophobe.

[Alastor]

So if you dislike Russian policy, ie whatever Putin is doing you are a Russophobe. Thank you for proving this has nothing to do with irrational fear, since the definition claims it is enough to dislike Russian policy.

irrational fear was not explicitly mentioned, intense and often irrational hatred was. And I have quoted several examples of that in this thread. Of course when it's not convenient I can always trust you folks to fail to read between the lines.

Either way, don't let me stop you from exhibiting your Russophobia just because I called it what it is. Do go on.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Your quote literally says “ Anti-Russian sentiment or Russophobia, is dislike or fear or hatred of Russia, Russian people, Russian culture,[1] or Russian policy.”

Dislike of Russian policy is enough to make one a russophobe. Don’t like Russia invading Ukraine? You’re a russophobe. Don’t like Russia annexing parts of neighbouring countries? Russophobe. Don’t like Russia kidnapping children and brainwashing them into thinking they’re Russians? Russophobe. Don’t like Russia threatening to nuke London? You’ve guessed it, you’re a russophobe.


According to this definition, everyone who isn’t Vladimir Putin or one of his lapdogs is a russophobe, including many Russians.

I’m part Russian, but according to this I’m a russophobe.

[Alastor]

Your quote literally says “ Anti-Russian sentiment or Russophobia, is dislike or fear or hatred of Russia, Russian people, Russian culture,[1] or Russian policy.”

It literally says more than that, but ok sure, whatever makes you happy.

According to this definition, everyone who isn’t Vladimir Putin or one of his lapdogs is a russophobe, including many Russians.

I’m part Russian, but according to this I’m a russophobe.

I suppose that in your world it's not only Russophobia that doesn't exist.

[Coughdrop addict]

More Russophobic violence incoming!

Russia will never be a significant player on the world stage again. While no doubt they will try to blame the usual list of scapegoats (US, NATO, EU) this bleak national future is entirely Putin's own doing.

Trillions of petrodollars flowed in during Putin's reign, and almost nothing was invested back into Russia. It went to keeping Putin and his cronies living like kings.

Now it's too late to change course. Significant foreign investment in Russia is gone forever. Other than oil and gas Russia produces nothing that the world wants or isn't easier to get from someone else. Things are only going to get worse as the world moves away from fossil fuels and Russia's only means of supporting itself dries up.

The world has adapted, moved on and left Russia behind.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

It literally says more than that, but ok sure, whatever makes you happy.

There are clearly two separate definitions there. If you didn’t want us using the first one, why provide it?

I suppose that in your world it's not only Russophobia that doesn't exist, but also boomerang bigots.

Opposition to fascism makes me a bigot. Interesting sentiment.
Please explain how anything I’ve said is bigoted, give one example.

[Legio_Italica]

A far simpler explanation is that it is a Russophobe that can't spot the Russophobia, as being blind to one's own bias is a well-documented thing. On the other hand people not drenched in it can spot it fairly easily. Your imaginative, elaborate if rather convoluted alternative, is simply yet more Russophobic fantasies.

I have to admit though I am somewhat surprised at the amount of resistance to the term Russophobia the people exhibiting it are showing. Denial is quite the potent force indeed. Well, sucks to be you I guess.

Considering the US has taken a back seat to Europe in terms of pushing the envelope on support for Ukraine, it’s clearer than ever that strategic autonomy for Europe does not translate to a free pass for the Kremlin’s territorial ambitions. Can you describe a neutral or “non phobic” European stance towards Moscow that fits with the current trend? Labels aside, I don’t see Europe warming to a fully militarized and expansionist Russian state just because the US is entering a period of isolationism.

[Alastor]

Considering the US has taken a back seat to Europe in terms of pushing the envelope on support for Ukraine, it’s clearer than ever that strategic autonomy for Europe does not translate to a free pass for the Kremlin’s territorial ambitions. Can you describe a neutral or “non phobic” European stance towards Moscow that fits with the current trend? Labels aside, I don’t see Europe warming to a fully militarized and expansionist Russian state just because the US is entering a period of isolationism.

The US taking a backseat to Europe is just a result of acknowledging how much of a dead end this policy is for the US. The US afterall has far greater interests to chase elsewhere, it's hardly about isolationism and more about priorities. So now that the US understands there isn't much to gain here, they're taking a backseat and leaving their vassals in Europe with the hot potato. Meanwhile said vassals growing desperate for more US involvement are acting in a more US manner than the US itself. In the vain hope the overlord will actually give them some good boy merit badge or other. To put it simply, Europe has no strategic autonomy here. The US via NATO is firmly in control of the continent as far as general policy goes and any attempts to acquire some strategic autonomy for Europe, on anything but the most core interests they collectively have, so far have failed. if anything, as many NATO hawks are eager to tell us "NATO is stronger than ever", it's not really a true claim, but NATO remains a potent control mechanism for Europe. If the US was to really take a backseat the US would have to abandon NATO, as long as the US remains in control of NATO, then which seat it takes back or front the end result is the same.

A neutral, non-phobic stance would be treating Russia in a manner similar to other states rather than as a special case. Take for example sth as simple as the Olympics. Russian athletes are not welcome, Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris, recently said. Why? Because Russia is waging a war. Well ok, Israel is in the middle of a genocide and they are welcome. Yes, but Russia is not a democracy. Fine, but neither is China and their athletes are welcome... and so on. As long as we go out of our way to make Russia a case of 'special evil' any stance we have will be by definition Russophobic.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

A neutral, non-phobic stance would be treating Russia in a manner similar to other states rather than as a special case. Take for example sth as simple as the Olympics. Russian athletes are not welcome, Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris, recently said. Why? Because Russia is waging a war. Well ok, Israel is in the middle of a genocide and they are welcome. Yes, but Russia is not a democracy. Fine, but neither is China and their athletes are welcome... and so on. As long as we go out of our way to make Russia a case of 'special evil' any stance we have will be by definition Russophobic.

Whoah there, curb your Russophobia.

[Legio_Italica]

A neutral, non-phobic stance would be treating Russia in a manner similar to other states rather than as a special case.

How should Europe/EU/NATO treat any other state on its borders that has invaded its neighbors while repeatedly threatening to nuke European cities? For example, I find it far fetched to speculate that the French are warning Russian expansion will not stop at Ukraine and discussing hypothetical direct military action, all at the behest of the US or to manipulate policy in Washington.

Paris and Moscow have already been duking it out in Africa for some time, and France in general has always taken care to highlight her own independence from US influence - let alone the enthusiastic support for Ukraine from Eastern European members of NATO. Are you suggesting all these dynamics are attributed to Russophobia? The Kremlin has no agency?

[Alastor]

How should Europe/EU/NATO treat any other state on its borders that has invaded its neighbors while repeatedly threatening to nuke European cities? For example, I find it far fetched to speculate that the French are warning Russian expansion will not stop at Ukraine and discussing hypothetical direct military action, all at the behest of the US or to manipulate policy in Washington.

Paris and Moscow have already been duking it out in Africa for some time, and France in general has always taken care to highlight her own independence from US influence - let alone the enthusiastic support for Ukraine from Eastern European members of NATO. Are you suggesting all these dynamics are attributed to Russophobia? The Kremlin has no agency?

The idea that Russian "expansion" will not stop at Ukraine is indeed farfetched and it is done to serve certain political interests that primarily benefit the US, via NATO. So much so in fact I simply can't take it seriously as an argument at all. It is up there with the notion that the invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked and merely the Russians doing as Russians do. Likewise the notion that a war in Europe is somehow especially evil doesn't really have any merit except for hollow sentimentalities and cheap politicking. There have been wars in Europe and in the vicinity of Europe just as well it doesn't make them special. Nobody banned Azeri athletes from the Olympics, in fact the EU doubled down on buying natural resources from Azerbaijan shortly after they renewed their conflict with Armenia. Now as far as the threats to nuke Europe go, those are also overblown. When did Putin ever threaten to nuke Europe? I'm curious, do you have quotes? If you mean Medvedev or some of the more unhinged/cult figures around, well sure, we have politicians in the west that claim we should nuke Russia too. It differs from official policy.

I do generally agree that France has had a modicum of agency, likely the most out of the traditional powers in Europe and indeed there is competition between the French and the Russians in the Sahel. That would make the French act in a Russophobic manner all on their own, but it still doesn't give them some lofty moral highground, nor makes Russia in any way some form of unique evil. At the same time though, I also believe that without NATO France would have had greater agency than it does now. Whether that would lead it towards a more Russophilic or a more Russophobic path is speculative.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukra...drones-1886792

Residents in a region hit by the deepest drone strikes within Russian territory since the start of the war in Ukraine have been warned that air defenses may not be able to protect them from future attacks.

Since the start of its full-scale invasion, Russia has been hit with drone strikes reaching Moscow as well as ammunition depots and warehouses around the country linked to the war effort. Russian authorities blame Ukraine for the attacks, which Kyiv rarely claims responsibility for.
In the latest incident, a drone attack on the Russian republic of Tatarstan on Tuesday reportedly hit industrial areas that produce Iranian-designed Shahed drones which Moscow uses extensively in its invasion.

Responding to the strikes, the head of Tatarstan, Rustam Minnikhanov, appeared to suggest that the system that usually protects against airborne threats may not help them.
"You should not expect missile defense to work—it solves other tasks," he said in comments reported by Radio Free Europe, without specifying what the other tasks are.

Dictatorships are built on the illusion of strength and stability. The people are willing to sacrifice freedom so long as they can say the country is strong, prosperous and stable. It's part of the unspoken contract between the dictator and his subjects.

However, when the dictator stops delivering on their part of the bargain, that's when the people get uppity; at that point the dictator's rule comes into doubt and requires further repression, but that just makes the nation less prosperous and stable, which means the people get more upset, which requires more repression and so on and so on.

Putin's Russia was always a house of cards, but it could stand so long as no one bumped into the table. Well consider the table bumped.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Just as the idea that Russian expansion (I don't know why you're putting that in quotations when they literally annexed parts of Ukraine) wouldn't stop at Crimea was seen as far fetched not that long ago. Or that it wouldn't stop at Georgia. Or Chechnya.
Huh, now that I think about it, it's almost like Russia has been invading its neighbours for decades. I'm sure they'll stop this time, though. Just give them the sudetenland, err, eastern Ukraine, they'll pinky promise not to expand anymore, and peace in our time.

[irontaino]

It's all Ukraine's fault, don't cha know? The big mean Ukrainians were bullying the poor wittle Russians into war.

[Coughdrop addict]

Just want to also put out there that contrary to Alastor's assertion that Russia is banned from the Olympics because everyone is just being mean to them for no reason, it's actually because Russia has repeatedly been caught giving it's athletes steroids by the gallon.

[reavertm]

irrational fear was not explicitly mentioned

Yes it was explicitly mentioned in my post, where I referred you to dictionary. Try to keep up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

Given how regularly Russia invades its neighbours, said fear is not at all irrational. Hence it's Russorealism.

[Legio_Italica]

The idea that Russian "expansion" will not stop at Ukraine is indeed farfetched and it is done to serve certain political interests that primarily benefit the US, via NATO. So much so in fact I simply can't take it seriously as an argument at all.

What separates irrational phobia from rational security interests in your view? The idea that eventual Ukrainian membership in NATO will result in a western conquest of the Russian heartland is pretty far fetched too, but the fear was significant enough for the Kremlin to commit existential effort toward precluding any possibility. Surely the invasion of Ukraine is phobic and irrational by such standards.

Likewise, the Kremlin could invade the Baltics after they achieve their objectives in Ukraine, based on similar phobia/national interest. The Kremlin has already made clear that any countermeasures from NATO that threaten Kaliningrad are a red line and as the war drags on, the stakes of invoking Article 5 vs the benefits of steamrolling the Baltics and putting NATO on the defensive might appear lower and lower. Putin already sees the war in Ukraine as a war with NATO.

When did Putin ever threaten to nuke Europe? I'm curious, do you have quotes? If you mean Medvedev or some of the more unhinged/cult figures around, well sure, we have politicians in the west that claim we should nuke Russia too. It differs from official policy.

Afaik official policy is nukes are an option if the belligerent in question is perceived to pose an existential threat to the Russian state. Putin has said this before including just a couple weeks ago, always in the context of western “involvement” in Ukraine. Obviously he’s not going to explicitly spell out where that line is for strategic reasons, but he has made the threat more than once.

I do generally agree that France has had a modicum of agency, likely the most out of the traditional powers in Europe and indeed there is competition between the French and the Russians in the Sahel. That would make the French act in a Russophobic manner all on their own, but it still doesn't give them some lofty moral highground, nor makes Russia in any way some form of unique evil. At the same time though, I also believe that without NATO France would have had greater agency than it does now. Whether that would lead it towards a more Russophilic or a more Russophobic path is speculative.

Is the Kremlin’s conflict with the French quasi-empire Francophobic? I just don’t see the utility of substituting national security interests with psychological terms as an analytical tool. Just as the Russians invaded Ukraine based on security interests the Kremlin believed to be legitimate, French troops joining the fray in a hypothetical scenario would be based on French national interest in protecting European sovereignty and its own national interests there and in Africa. In fact, just recently I believe, Macron clarified that he does not consider the death of French troops in Ukraine grounds for NATO intervention.

But most importantly, I don’t see how treating Russian athletes this or that way constitutes an alternative or “non phobic” policy or stance in terms of military support for Ukraine or lack thereof. By all accounts, the choices are to support Ukraine and continue to inflict damage on the Russian war machine vicariously, or pull back and hope for the best, in which case the world can be reasonably certain a battle hardened Russian army will regroup and replenish itself to fight another day.

[Alastor]

What separates irrational phobia from rational security interests in your view? The idea that eventual Ukrainian membership in NATO will result in a western conquest of the Russian heartland is pretty far fetched too, but the fear was significant enough for the Kremlin to commit existential effort toward precluding any possibility. Surely the invasion of Ukraine is phobic and irrational by such standards.

Likewise, the Kremlin could invade the Baltics after they achieve their objectives in Ukraine, based on similar phobia/national interest. The Kremlin has already made clear that any countermeasures from NATO that threaten Kaliningrad are a red line and as the war drags on, the stakes of invoking Article 5 vs the benefits of steamrolling the Baltics and putting NATO on the defensive might appear lower and lower. Putin already sees the war in Ukraine as a war with NATO.

Putin is not wrong. It is a NATO proxy war. Which still is an order of magnitude different from a direct, open war. As for what separates irrational phobia from rational security interests, I suppose a big part would be how rational a particular take is. I don't think that Russia genuinely feared a conquest of the Russian heartland via Ukraine, but it did fear the presence of American military bases in Ukraine as pressure points and constant threats to their national security, just like it feared the growing American influence in the same territories would be undermining their own. Both seem reasonable enough.

Regarding the Baltics, as I have said before this is a fait accompli. I have seen no indication whatsoever that Putin seeks an open conflict with NATO. Quite the opposite in fact. He doesn't want such a war. He didn't even want this war. He negotiated agreements Ukraine has acknowledged they never intended to keep. Eventually he gambled his army would go in and Ukraine would accept terms, the early phases of the invasion clearly signal that. Obviously, he miscalculated. Either way, the Baltic states are a lost cause for Russia. Provided those states act reasonably and stop provoking reactions (as they do with their mistreatment of Russians recently) there is no cause for concern.

Afaik official policy is nukes are an option if the belligerent in question is perceived to pose an existential threat to the Russian state. Putin has said this before including just a couple weeks ago, always in the context of western “involvement” in Ukraine. Obviously he’s not going to explicitly spell out where that line is for strategic reasons, but he has made the threat more than once.

What threat has he made? All I remember hearing was statements similar to this: "the west keeps provoking us", which is true. We have troops on the ground, we help Ukrainians actively on the battlefield with intelligence and even missile targeting and so on. Then recently France even said they'll sent troops openly in Ukraine. So Putin wondered "don't they know we have nukes"? That's hardly a threat and more of a reminder of fact. Of course if Russia faces an existential threat they will employ nukes, how is that different to western doctrines on nuclear weapons? But, the moment Putin says sth this obvious we scream bloody murder.

Is the Kremlin’s conflict with the French quasi-empire Francophobic? I just don’t see the utility of substituting national security interests with psychological terms as an analytical tool. Just as the Russians invaded Ukraine based on security interests the Kremlin believed to be legitimate, French troops joining the fray in a hypothetical scenario would be based on French national interest in protecting European sovereignty and its own national interests there and in Africa. In fact, just recently I believe, Macron clarified that he does not consider the death of French troops in Ukraine grounds for NATO intervention.

But most importantly, I don’t see how treating Russian athletes this or that way constitutes an alternative or “non phobic” policy or stance in terms of military support for Ukraine or lack thereof. By all accounts, the choices are to support Ukraine and continue to inflict damage on the Russian war machine vicariously, or pull back and hope for the best, in which case the world can be reasonably certain a battle hardened Russian army will regroup and replenish itself to fight another day.

I would argue it's more of a reaction to the west than a policy they initiated. I'm not sure of the full background but I'd be surprised that if France wasn't following the US and NATO around Russia and France would have had a similarly bad relation. It's possible of course, but I am not very convinced it would be the case. Who knows, perhaps they could cooperate instead of competing in Africa. Russia, as far as I'm aware, is not particularly Francophobic, neither as a state nor a society. If you have evidence of the opposite then do tell. As for Macron sending troops to Ukraine and them not counting as part of NATO, he only clarified that after he realized nobody is with him on this. Thankfully. I rather doubt that he will even attempt it in the end, if he's not completely stupid this would have been no more than some failed negotiating gambit.

As for the meaning behind the treatment of athletes it is an example of how as state entities, but also as societies, we are against anything Russian. Even simple athletes. That is phobic. We could have still supported Ukraine, in a more measured manner and on humanitarian grounds, and not burn all bridges with Russia. Instead we have gone all in. It was a disastrous decision. Russia was never going to lose this war, not without direct 3rd party involvement or some cataclysmic act of God. Our leaders, particularly in Europe, should have known better. I have constantly reminded people here that Russia has the greater strategic depth, in the Ukrainian front they have the capacity to escalate in ways we don't. Our support for Ukraine, the only thing it achieved really is prolong this conflict, with disastrous consequences for Ukraine and its people, but also make the Russian army more battle-hardened and dangerous, while turning Russia from a potential partner to an adversary.