By treating Russia as a pariah, we painted ourselves into a corner

[tsuki]

@zazen Thank you for sharing this material. It was very informative.

Looks like whatever warfare we face next (conventional, or economical) polarization is imminent. The more the EU sanctions Russia, the more incentives it has to consolidate its alliance with China, thus forming a counterweight for EU and NATO, which is the Putin's goal all along.

[vizual]

Over 2000 reported civilian Ukrainian casualties up till this point

Edited March 2, 2022 by vizual

[Fleetinglife]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

 

Caspian Report gives you a brief detailed cover of all the potential ramifications of the war on potentially the the economy, surge of prices, international changes of stances, strategies and potential wider international political ramifications for stability in other problematic regions of the globe etc. 

But I would only advise to people to take his supposed objectivity and neutrality with a grain of salt since I stopped watching all his content regularly as more as I did before and taking his forwarded neutral credibility seriously when the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and war broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan in November 2020 (and I think I presented an almost identical and very similar analysis and criticism of the neutrality and objectivity of his channel when it comes to it's geopolitical content analysis because of that on this very old thread section on the forum back then two years ago from my old and different account), and he started slightly cheering on and misinforming and disinforming about the the Azeri side (as he is Azerbaijani) and the Armenian losses and casualties in the conflict, didn't criticize Turkey for it's involvement and painted in a different light then was the consensus in the international humanitarian organisations then. He showed his nationalistic utilitarian light in that conflict shining through, his tacit cheerleading and complacency of Turkey as NATO members shady, questionably internationally legal and geopolitical involvement there, because it served Azeri interests, his clearly detectable personal bias and dislike against Russia, which he showed at the beginnings of his channel, as an Azeri having conflicting interests with Armenia who Russia supports and his country being the former part of the Soviet Union's republics, and the uncritical sometimes cheerleading on his channel in some episodes of everything that might serve the Azeri interests, from Turkey, NATO to Washington, not mentioning honestly some of the key missing details in the whole narratives and stories involving them and sometimes openly just if it serves to undermine Russia globally and geopolitically, and maybe position Azerbaijan better geopolitically.

He didn't show the moral scorn and concern for repercussions of war in the way that he did in this videos tonality with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict where it was easily detectable that he was very favoritistically oriented, biased and even slightly cheerleaded on one side in the war, that of his own nation, and it's questionable past pretexts and justification to declare war to Armenia, attack, and invade take the territory from the Nagorno-Karabakh (self-declared Republic of Artsakh in Armenian parts) autonomous region by force, superior military might and quantity of high-tech weapons and drones and regional support by Turkey, while Russia at the time couldn't affirmed to be involved but instead acted as one of the representatives and arbiters in conducting peace talks for deploying a limited peacekeeper force of it's own troops to a buffer zone between the new territorial borders drawn out between countries in that autonomous region after the war was finished, for it to advance it's own plans for wider regional influence and dominance (so-called Alliances and Unions between Turkic peoples with Turkey at the center, most powerful leader and lynchpin of those international alliances) and incorporate it directly into Azerbaijan and it got help in that from Turkey, looking out for its own interests in being a more than few decades now traditional ally to Azerbaijan that fits that Turkic alliance bill, from that in attack drones, as Ukrainians also got, where he showed no detectable shock and outrage and instead painted it more as a justifiable war of opportunity, from his side whose concerns and history that he choose to tilt it in the favor of overrepresenting and taking more of a supportive and justification stance towards the Azeri side in those videos POV, for past unsolved issues and should we now also give him the benefit of the doubt that he is also an unbiased bystander and commentator, with no favoritism, some biased incentives to paint this in a certain way and frame it in this conflict as well, in the way he presents the factographics he talks about in the video and directs them towards a certain conclusion to the viewer. 

A slight degree of double standards and hypocrisy, in contrast to the way he choose to present his coverage, commentary and analysis of Nagorno-Karabakh war, in a more nationally triumphalistic and war of opportunity form, in which his own country was directly involved and was in opposing interest to the Russian side which supported Armenian interests. 

His channel could have been detected  by a more acute observer to have a layered geopolitical anti-Russia agenda and anti-Russian bias to it in the way he frames political issues involving it in some way in his videos.

It just goes to show that geopolitics is not an impartial field it goes with a lot of personal biases and presumptions of how you choose to frame and present certain factographics and in the way you want drive conclusions to the viewer to have about them and regarding them

Edited March 2, 2022 by Fleetinglife

[tsuki]

@Fleetinglife Do you think it's fair to judge against this material based on one of the previous ones where the author's livelihood was at stake?

Is the current material biased in your opinion? I didnt notice any bias against Russia in this one.

[Ryan_047]

 

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

So, your point hinges on the distinction between "true Russian POV" vs "false Russian POV". How do you make this distinction?

• Is the "true POV" the one that causes the decisions to be made? In that case, Putin's (or Lukashenko's) POV is the true Russian POV.
• Or maybe the "true POV" is the one that most of the Russians share (which may be in a disagreement with Putin's)?

Are we trying to understand why Russia (as in: Putin) made the call to invade Ukraine, or are we trying to assess the "Russian spirit" that is the people's will? What value does the people's will bring to this discussion if it was clearly ignored?

Or maybe you are referring to Putin's ulterior motives, to which we have no access? Is there a point to guessing them if we assume that the information that is publicly available is propaganda and is aimed to throw us off?

As a disclaimer, it is my personal opinion that at certain times in history, totalitarianism is beneficial, as it can save a nation from its very destruction and its loss of identity. With that out of the way, it is my opinion that this does not apply to Russia at this point in time. I'll explain in a bit why I think that.

The true POV comes from both Putin's oligarchy survival needs and from Russia's common folk survival needs. The question is, are they in alignment? When should one trump the other?

Putin was initially popular in the 2000s because he had brought stability to a downwards spiraling Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. He stopped USA's economic abuse of the country, eased the corruption by putting his own people in charge, and put the country on a track forward. It is true, Russia's internal situation was very bad, as multiple factions were fighting locally for supremacy (don't know the exact details though). Putin stopped that. It's no wonder some older Russians see him as a good leader. Yes, his methods were unorthodox, but it worked.  His fear of Western encroachment on Russia is valid. The story with Belarus is different, but still similar to a certain degree. The difference is that Belarus became a buffer state for Russia because of Lukashenko's relationship with Putin. He actually played both EU and Putin for advantages, but in the last few years he was isolated by the EU. 

However, is the current West the same as the West of today? Would the EU and NATO turn Russia into a underpaid slave like-nation and economically abuse it? We can't know for sure as we don't know what Biden and Ursula want, but I personally think not. The current West is not the 90s West which fought against communism for 50 years and wanted to put Russia in its place. Also the conception of the average folk in Europe changed to a considerable degree of Russians. They no longer see them as violent animals who kill, rape, steal and drink vodka. There is a whole lot more compassion for them, even when this war is raging on. You can see this compassion even spill into politics. EU at least made economic deals with Russia, which benefited both (more or less). Stuff got worse once Russia intervened in Georgia and Ukraine. The politicians of today are not the politicians of 30 years ago.

Especially the younger Russians are more inclined towards the West, as they study, work and even permanently move there. Putin's Russia cannot offer what the West can, and it's not because that the West is intellectually superior in any way, it's because of the mess and corruption the local oligarchy has created. You can see how the "elite" group directly goes against the survival needs of the common Russian. It creates narratives in which Europe and USA want to destroy and dismantle Russia, but is this really the truth? Maybe, but we don't know for sure, and Russia "respecting their current survival agenda" by being a fascist oligarchy has become way more toxic than beneficial, for quite some time now. 

I personally think that the solution for Russia are free elections and progressive but slow integration with the West in order to avoid possible abuses. The same goes for Belarus, with the notable exception that the people in Belarus have suffered way more and I think they should join EU asap. As I've said to Leo, I think we need a strong just Russia to keep USA in check, geopolitically.

Coming back to the true POV of a nation, when the leadership tends to become corrupt and greedy, it goes against the true needs of the people and thus it's not the true POV. When the people of a nation are too ignorant or weak, a strong leadership can act in their best interest even if that means adopting very unpopular measures. There are examples in history of when change was forced, and it was for the better even though there was massive resistance to it.

Basically, whatever causes development is the true POV. Yes, it sounds idealistic and maybe silly, but was the true POV of Germany in WW2 that the Jews had to be exterminated? I'd argue not, because they posed no threat whatsoever. It was all propaganda, and in our case, Ukraine wronged Russia by aligning herself with the devilish West. There is a rift between what Putin wants and thinks it's best for Russians, and what they themselves want and need. And I don't think Putin is some genius who'll throw Russia into stage green-yellow, but instead be keeps it stuck in red-blue (and poverty) refusing change. 

Also the more outlandish the propaganda is, the less validity its underlying message really has. In our case, fighting against the devilish West that wants to disintegrate Russia and eliminating the Nazis in Ukraine. Putin's actions can only be justified to maintain his elite order in Russia, it can't be justified as defending Russia. 

[tsuki]

@Ryan_047 I enjoyed reading your post and I have one question:

What do you base your conviction that a nation is supposed to serve it's citizens, instead of the other way around? This is a western, individualistic point of view.

[BlueOak]

 

This is going to be hard to see given the context and the title obviously with the focus isn't helpful, but at the very end. The beginnings of an awkward, angry peace? An Agreement. So life can go on in a war. Sometimes perhaps we forget that peace also starts with people, not just politicians. 

[Ryan_047]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

What do you base your conviction that a nation is supposed to serve it's citizens, instead of the other way around? This is a western, individualistic point of view.

Ultimately the citizens give power to politicians, not the other way around. We are the boss of our leader, be it democratic or a dictator. The problem is that the common citizen doesn't know that they are giving their power away, it's done unconsciously. The same goes for the person in power, and that's when stuff goes wrong. You won't steal stuff from your office and shit on the floor whenever it feels good to do so, if you know you're gonna be fired by your boss. I don't deny the leadership skills, charisma or intelligence needed in order to become a leader, but you can't change a thing if you can't move masses.  

[tsuki]

@Ryan_047 You are still stating your views without giving objective basis for it.

Notice that you ground your argument in capitalist view in relation to workplace environment. Russians may not think in terms of "people giving power to government". They may think that Putin gave power to  Russia by saving it from the collapse of the Soviet Union. They may think that he is a hero that sacrifices himself for the country and that this is the proper relation between a citizen and a country.

The idea that a country is a being that is derivative from collective existence of many individuals is a Western one. In the East, the collective is more real than the individual.

Edited March 2, 2022 by tsuki

[Fleetinglife]

@tsuki Sorry for not answering right away. 

I was busy with somethings regarding info relaying to some of my friends. 

2 hours ago, tsuki said:

Do you think it's fair to judge against this material based on one of the previous ones where the author's livelihood was at stake?

Is the current material biased in your opinion? I didnt notice any bias against Russia in this one.

I would not say it's overtly present in this one, where he mostly speculates based on some economic data on the possible repercussions of this for politics around the globe and the ré-alignment and re-structuring of the global economy as whole on some different basis because of this. This one I see as an honest attempt at speculation and prognosis based on the info and the data that he has. Though again he cast at the end a pretty dire prognosis for Russia coming out of this based on some central bank reserve currency data that he has, that we can't be sure it will come about that way, the way those more optimistic and cheerleading about it to go that way as result hope it to be, we don't know in what period of time Russia might stock up on digital sovereign Chinese reserve currency avoid the hardest blowback to them from this, if they in the end decide to cut them from the American led Swift payment system, I am not sure analysts like him and elsewhere in the West my have full knowledge of Russian states capabilities or something up it's sleeve to avoid this, given the overconfidence and recklessness in which they planned this invasion and reached a consensus in carrying it forward it seems for a long time in advance and decided to go forth with this invasion, but I have noticed this consistent thread of anti-Russia biases in his videos and taking more pro-NATO and pro-US ones in each relevant situation involving it, that seems more to favorably center "his people more" and nation that he currently resides in. 

His livelihood was not at stake at that one at all, he was siting pretty comfortably near the Azeri city of Shirvan, near the Caspian lake/sea, hence channel name, a bit south from the capital Baku where the invasion was planned and directed from reaching to the south-west of the country in the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region and border area with Armenia, so his livelihood was in a pretty good, one would say favorably profitable for it's betterment from that position where he was located in and who was he more advocating for, as the result of that conflict, and in terms of safety matters at the time being at the side of the invading, war-starting country looking at the far east from its actual fighting and invasion and people impacted and hit by it, that one could say he slightly profited from a bit on regards to his channel ads and views and position he took in that conflict, if only perhaps you mean his "economic livelihood" of the ad profit for one side he generated and that jumped for him during it after that war and his analysis re-aligning with his own governments stance on the issue. 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Fleetinglife

[Ryan_047]

35 minutes ago, tsuki said:

The idea that a country is a being that is derivative from collective existence of many individuals is a Western one. In the East, the collective is more real than the individual.

Yes, that's true, and I tried very hard to keep my bias away. However, I wasn't talking about how the leader should or shouldn't be viewed, I was talking about how power is transferred to the leader from the common folk. Power dynamics, not culture. You can be a leader only if others let you be a leader (either actively or passively) or choose you. If the Russians know that Putin rose to power because they were passive or not it's up to them. I think the only organization of humans where this doesn't apply are small tribes. I'm not trying to argue for libertarianism. 

Leo and his admins have administrative powers over this forum because we are "voting" for it by the very fact that we are using this forum and adhering to the rules. If nobody used this forum, it would cease to exist and in this particular context, Leo couldn't lead anything. 

Hitler rose to power because:

1. Some people believed and voted for him (this includes his party)

2. His party killed or scared political opponents (be it communist or republican/democrat) 

3. (most important) many people were passive by either not voting at all, or not opposing his directives 

(I know there is more to that, please don't bash me)

We are giving power to authority without even knowing.. parents, teachers, politicians, partners, and the list goes on. We don't always acknowledge that because we didn't thought deeply about it, or realizing this dynamic could result in dire consequences. Imagine being a farmer tied to a vassal in the middle ages, and your entire world was only a parcel of land. Imagine realizing one day that "Hey, I'm actually choosing to be a slave to my master." At that point you either settle for slaving away your life and the life of your partner and children, in which case you may fall into a desperate powerless depression... or you kill your master and free yourself. Yeah, not pretty at all.

Reality is brutal, and if tomorrow the president of my country suddenly started a genocide, I would be responsible for that, because I'm part of the collective that paid taxes and voted for this guy. Sure, if I didn't vote for him, you could argue that my responsibility is not that big, but I'm still responsible. If I was a Chinese during Mao's rule I'd still have a little tiny bit of responsibility of why people are starving and killing one another, because I'm part of the collective and I worked/fought for that bigger Chinese collective. The alternative means death, yes. I'm not demonizing such people in any way, because it's a doomed if you do doomed if you don't scenario, and survival trumps all in the end. Even if the consequences are not that extreme such as death or losing a loved one, we need to be empathic and understand that it's not easy to cut your losses for a higher goal. This is (a reason) why collective human development is slow. 

[tsuki]

45 minutes ago, Ryan_047 said:

Leo and his admins have administrative powers over this forum because we are "voting" for it by the very fact that we are using this forum and adhering to the rules. If nobody used this forum, it would cease to exist and in this particular context, Leo couldn't lead anything. 

I could successfully argue the opposite. Leo attracted people here through his brilliance and marketing, and without him, this place would not exist. Many countries started and kept existing because of a strong leader that attracted people to his cause. The leader understood the needs of his subjects, and worked for the best interests of his allies. He served justice so that the country could flourish and passed heirs to assure smooth succession.

On the other hand, the democratic view you are presenting breaks down in dictatorial states, where disobedience can get you imprisoned, or even shot. A farmer in Maoist regime is not responsible for Mao's actions because he does not even have the agency to decide his own fate. It is true that we can leave this forum when we don't like it (assuming we're not addicted to arguing), but this idea won't work in North Korea

The view you are presenting is not exactly wrong, it's just very modern and democratic.

Edited March 2, 2022 by tsuki

[Ryan_047]

36 minutes ago, tsuki said:

On the other hand, the democratic view you are presenting breaks down in dictatorial states

No, that's what I was trying to convey. If I'm a North Korean, I have 2 choices: 

a. accept the current situation and continue my life in this horrible state and hope that something will change someday

b. fight against the regime 

What I'm trying to convey is that all citizens are responsible for what is going on in their country. All the individuals in a collective make up the collective, right? b seems dumb because it literally means death (as I tried conveying multiple times in my previous reply) and it is dumb, but that doesn't exempt you from responsibility no matter how grim the alternative is.  (my opinion of course) I also don't demonize or think that these people who don't actively resist oppression are evil or should be looked down upon, I want this to be very very clear and not be misunderstood. I'm trying to get as objective as possible as to understand fundamentally why oppressive societies exist. 

By choosing to go to work in North Korea, you are helping the regime stay alive and thus spread suffering. Yes, your "sin" is very very small because you did not create North Korea and made it a communist nightmare 70+ years ago, but you have influence, no matter how small it is. Your actual responsibility is very very small, but it's there. 

This is what I was arguing for, that the average Joe in any country (no matter how free or oppressive) has power, from the guy that is cleaning toilets, to the leader himself/herself. Yes, it's dumb to use that very small power because it can get you killed (especially when there is no realistic opportunity to change anything), but that doesn't change the fact that you still have it. 

48 minutes ago, tsuki said:

A farmer in Maoist regime is not responsible for Mao's actions because he does not even have the agency to decide his own fate.

I'm being radical and say he/she is (to a very tiny degree ofc). Acting upon that responsibility means having his own family killed and eaten, but it won't happen, because survival is way more important no matter how aware he is of this. His agency boils down to either survival, or death for fighting a dictator that made life unbearable for everyone still alive. 

[Leo Gura]

A private forum is not a country. Very big difference there. Even though I can dictate this forum, I cannot dictate your whole life, but a country can. Hence democracy is much more fundamental to a country than to this forum.

[tsuki]

@Ryan_047 I can see that you are trying not to, but you are moralizing and being an idealist.

A starving peasant that has been kept under a boot of a Korean regime for three generations has zero capacity for resistance. The choice you are presenting does not exist for him. Not "practically" does not exist, as in "nobody's gonna choose that for their own good", but literally. A thought of raising against the regime does not even occur in his mind.

I understand your line of reasoning about working in any way for a regime, but as I already said, this is moralizing.and idealism. This view does not help anybody cope with the existence of violence, but morally justifies democracies and is a privilege of an educated, intelligent man of the West.

Edited March 2, 2022 by tsuki

[Hardkill]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

A private forum is not a country. Very big difference there. Even though I can dictate this forum, I cannot dictate your whole life, but a country can. Hence democracy is much more fundamental to a country than to this forum.

If Russia takes over the Ukraine, how long do you think that Ukraine will become an autocratic nation?

[somegirl]

In first one it says : "A massive bombing attack opens the door to peace"

In the second one it says: "How Putin shattered Europe's dreams"

Edited March 2, 2022 by somegirl

[Ryan_047]

7 minutes ago, tsuki said:

but you are moralizing and being an idealist.

Yes, that's true. What I'm saying is not really meant to be taken as practical advice because pragmatically is really dumb. And again, not used to look down upon unfortunate people. I'm being non judgmental as in I don't attach emotions to these things. Of course, If I really lived in North Korea I would be pissed and slave my way through life hoping something would change without having to sacrifice myself. 

11 minutes ago, tsuki said:

but morally justifies democracies

Yes, that's true again. But I'm not trying to covertly defend today's democracies because I think they are not really true democracies that work in the interest of everyone. I see how frustrating it is for some people who were "saved" by these democracies not being able to speak up because they are considered to have the moral high ground. Depending on the country, is more of a mix of multiple things and I cannot really put a label on it. But that's more mental masturbation, so no need to get into that. 

Again, sorry if I seemed rude at any point in our conversation. 

[tsuki]

@Ryan_047 No offense taken. Thank you for a good conversation.

[Preety_India]

2 hours ago, Ryan_047 said:

Hitler rose to power because:

1. Some people believed and voted for him (this includes his party)

1. Most people believed and voted for him because they were frustrated with the nature of things. 

2 hours ago, Ryan_047 said:

2. His party killed or scared political opponents (be it communist or republican/democrat) 

2. Wrong. Other parties, the communist parties tried to kill and scare his party. But he survived. 

2 hours ago, Ryan_047 said:

3. (most important) many people were passive by either not voting at all, or not opposing his directives 

3. Wrong. Many people were active and didn't want to oppose his directives because they had begun to admire him. This is opposite of dictatorship. 

 

2 hours ago, Ryan_047 said:

(I know there is more to that, please don't bash me)