Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй

Eastwood

By Eastwood
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • atomheartbevo

    8625

  • MillerEP

    7299

  • Schulz2.0

    3649

  • InkaUtexas

    3007

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

AUS-97HORN
AUS-97HORN

For the love of Christ woman,  stop posting the same fucking thing every 20 mins just to make your neurotic self feel better.     Bring something useful to the thread other than your inane babbli

closetohumping
closetohumping
InkaUtexas
InkaUtexas

I volunteered today. Log/Admin role to replace people for 30-60 days. The operation is in the west, or should the Orcs win will be pulled back behind the NATO wall. Either way the humanitarian effort

Posted Images

956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34746

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Rimbo said:

 

I mean, this is a nice sentiment and all, but what did Russia do to provoke Napoleon's invasion?

It doesn't matter if they're nice or not. Some dickhead will come to power and decide to invade everything he can. No matter how nice Russia is, someone will want to capture Moscow. Maybe not this century or the next, but eventually, and that threat is always there for Moscow.

Moscow will always have a geopolitical need for a buffer zone.

I mean, in one of @Chad Fuck's own examples, Germany played nice with Russia, only to invade. So being nice won't work.

The point I'm making here is the same point Poland and Ukraine and other Eastern Europeans have made: Russia is an existential threat to them, because Moscow will always have a need to build this buffer zone.

The problem is three-fold. First, Russia does not understand “buffer state,” it understands “puppet state.” Belarus is Russia’s idea of a “buffer state.” I’ve posted before about Russia’s history of manipulating post-USSR Ukraine and won’t do it again, but it’s safe to say that an independent and non-aligned Ukraine that governs itself (like Austria, or pre-2022 Finland) was never on the table. Worth noting that the outburst of Russian rage in 2014 was not about NATO, it was about a EU trade and economic agreement. 
 

Ukraine (and Belarus) have a special role in the Russian imperial imagination. Russia with those states under its thumb IS an Empire.  Russia without them is a weak, half-European backwater. That has been true throughout Russia’s history.   Ukraine is far more about Russia’s ambitions for itself than it is about steppeland as geographic insulation. 
 

The third factor at play is that the further out Russia pushes its borders, the less secure it feels and the more it demands. Letting Russia have their “buffer” only further confuses Russia about where Russia ends. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
InkaUtexas

InkaUtexas 26034

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The problem is three-fold. First, Russia does not understand “buffer state,” it understands “puppet state.” Belarus is Russia’s idea of a “buffer state.” I’ve posted before about Russia’s history of manipulating post-USSR Ukraine and won’t do it again, but it’s safe to say that an independent and non-aligned Ukraine that governs itself (like Austria, or pre-2022 Finland) was never on the table. Worth noting that the outburst of Russian rage in 2014 was not about NATO, it was about a EU trade and economic agreement. 
 

Ukraine (and Belarus) have a special role in the Russian imperial imagination. Russia with those states under its thumb IS an Empire.  Russia without them is a weak, half-European backwater. That has been true throughout Russia’s history.   Ukraine is far more about Russia’s ambitions for itself than it is about steppeland as geographic insulation. 
 

The third factor at play is that the further out Russia pushes its borders, the less secure it feels and the more it demands. Letting Russia have their “buffer” only further confuses Russia about where Russia ends. 

Good post. It is important to remember the expansion of the Russian empire from a small walled village to what it became was in part the incorporation of Buffer states. The Caucus adventures were in part to create a buffer against Turkey. The "Stans" to slow down the British in India and Afghanistan. Once they are incorporated they are then considered historical parts of the Empire, ceasing to just be buffer states. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
statsman

statsman 5474

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Rimbo said:

This is worth repeating.

Russia's need for a buffer between it and Western Europe isn't going away. Moscow is vulnerable to attack from the West; there's few natural boundaries between them. And they've been invaded twice in the past few centuries for just that reason. So they've always wanted buffer states to add distance between Moscow and the West.

The trouble is, by trying to seize the land by deception and force, Putin has made their situation infinitely worse. How far is new NATO member Finland from St. Petersburg? And Ukrainian nationalism has been galvanized by the invasion.

Things are as bad for Russia as they've been since the Mongols invaded.

Russia tells themselves this, but let’s look a little closer and deeper. 
 
Russia has been invaded twice in the past 220 years- by Napoleon and Hitler. In either case, did those “buffer states” make a difference? Did cutting deals with the aggressors help?

What did help? Being on the same side as the UK seemed like it helped. 
 
Looking at Russian western expansion over the last couple of centuries, it seems like the purpose of having “buffer states” has more to do with marking out future turf for Russian expansion (invasion) than security. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
InkaUtexas

InkaUtexas 26034

Posted
Posted

those are the two times Moscow was threatened. 

Poland invaded right after WW1. 

You can kind of say the US/UK did as well with the Murmansk actions in 1918.

Turkey invaded a few of the buffer areas as well. Crimea was part of the Ottoman Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russo-Turkish_wars

Not making any excuses for Russia. Fuck them and their fear.  Just wanted to add to why they think they need buffers. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 26035

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The third factor at play is that the further out Russia pushes its borders, the less secure it feels and the more it demands. Letting Russia have their “buffer” only further confuses Russia about where Russia ends. 

Oh, y'all don't actually think I'm suggesting we ALLOW Russia to have their "buffer," do you?

I'm merely explaining, beyond recent cultural norms, beyond recent history, what has and always will drive Muscovites to push itself Eastwards. A thousand years from now, Moscow will still feel a need to push East. 

The issue here is geography. Without a mountain range or ocean on that border, they'll always need more.

Unless, of course, there's no Moscow left. 😁

Edited by Rimbo
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
statsman

statsman 5474

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

those are the two times Moscow was threatened. 

Poland invaded right after WW1. 

You can kind of say the US/UK did as well with the Murmansk actions in 1918.

Turkey invaded a few of the buffer areas as well. Crimea was part of the Ottoman Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russo-Turkish_wars

Not making any excuses for Russia. Fuck them and their fear.  Just wanted to add to why they think they need buffers. 

I don’t think the post WWI events were about invading as much as trying to get involved in internal Russian squabbling to undo the usurping by the Bolsheviks and throw control over to saner factions. As for the Turks- that’s what happens when two nations want the same “buffer”. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 26035

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, statsman said:

Russia tells themselves this, but let’s look a little closer and deeper. 
 
Russia has been invaded twice in the past 220 years- by Napoleon and Hitler. In either case, did those “buffer states” make a difference? Did cutting deals with the aggressors help?

What did help? Being on the same side as the UK seemed like it helped. 
 
Looking at Russian western expansion over the last couple of centuries, it seems like the purpose of having “buffer states” has more to do with marking out future turf for Russian expansion (invasion) than security. 

Well... yeah.

They want those warm water ports, and they want distance from independent nations where there otherwise are no natural borders.

These things don't change from century to century.

And again, just so it's clear... I'm telling you why Moscow will always be a threat, why putting every effort into draining them now that we have a chance, is so important. Why making sure that Russia, at the end of all this, is near collapse or collapsing, is necessary for Europe's security. But not so much that they get desperate and launch nukes... which is where the delicate balance comes in.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 26035

Posted
Posted

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-alarmed-no-us-visas-033903929.html

 

This is delightful.

 

Quote

“To ensure timely processing, we repeatedly remind the Russian Mission to the U.N., as we do all other U.N. missions, that the United States needs applications as early as possible,” said the spokesperson, who was not authorized to be quoted by name.

“This is especially important," the U.S. spokesperson said, “because of Russia’s unwarranted actions against our embassy in Russia, including the forced termination of local and third country national staff, which have severely limited our staffing and therefore our capacity to process visas.”

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
InkaUtexas

InkaUtexas 26034

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Oh, y'all don't actually think I'm suggesting we ALLOW Russia to have their "buffer," do you?

I'm merely explaining, beyond recent cultural norms, beyond recent history, what has and always will drive Muscovites to push itself Eastwards. A thousand years from now, Moscow will still feel a need to push East. 

The issue here is geography. Without a mountain range or ocean on that border, they'll always need more.

Unless, of course, there's no Moscow left. 😁

Fuckers push at all compass points, until they run into someone who can handle them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...