Putin is a pig like many politicians.
7
posts
Russian President Vladimir Putin criticised on Friday what he called the United States' "unilateral diktat" in global affairs and said the "so-called" winners of the Cold War wanted a new world order that suited only them.
I think if you back away from the situation and think about the fact the United States has turned it's military into the largest organization in the world.
It has multiple Intelligence agencies with absolutely no accountability and plenty of money as well..
Putin's words are hypocritical and self-serving. How funny it is that he accuses the U.S. of wanting a "world order" that suits them while simultaneously annexing Crimea and trying to buffer NATO by violating international law.
Don't get me wrong, he is correct about what the U.S. is doing. But his political ambitions are much the same; it's only because the U.S. is more flexible and far-reaching in its influence that he is able to wag his finger. But as he points a finger of blame at the U.S. for imperialism, he simultaneously exhibits the same political behavior in Eastern Europe.
The United States is indeed the most powerful military force in the world. But looks how hard Russia tries to keep up, despite radical differences in GDP.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Russia
There is indeed a global game of power and influence with the United States, China, and Russia at the fore. Putin is right now very proactively playing that game.
And these two massive entities cooperate - and one of them has no accountability - the other has the largest military force ever assembled... and we cant seem to control them or even understand the motivations behind their choices, outside of attempting to maintain economic equilibrium and/or gain political advantage in areas where we want leverage.
Maintenance of economic equilibrium and political advantage is their motivation; what is not understood about this?
I think you could intepret that as - we already lost control of this horse and I dont see a way to stop it, even with massive reform. People arent going to agree to their quality of lives going down - which is what the Intel agencies and DoD are defending - American assets or interests which result in economic or political leverage.
"Losing control of this horse?" Geopolitical power games have been the rule of thumb as far back as written history goes, and are equally evident in archaeological findings.
History has shown time and time again that multiple, equally powerful countries is unstable and leads to war.
Yes, nations have always vied for their personal interests.
History has also shown that when there is one country with a much greater technological and military advantage, they keep expanding their territory over weaker neighbors. The US did throughout much of its history also.
This is why the US as a superpower for the last 70 years so unique. Yeah, the US exerts influence over other countries, but when the US uses its military in other countries, it's not annexing them
Only because annexation isn't practical in our current political and social paradigm. Instead the US uses influence and exerts power by proxy, as it does by defending and empowering nations such as Israel and Taiwan.
History has also shown (and is still showing) that when there is a single (or two) very powerful country, and bunch of smaller, weaker countries, that the world is much more peaceful...
This sounds extremely dubious to me given all the learning of history I can recall; are there any good examples of this?
The past 70 years of US dominance have been the most peaceful in human history. There have been less wars and less people dying due to war than ever before in human history. This peace we are experiencing is an anomaly in history and it is so peaceful largely because of the US keeping things stable.
What about the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Gulf War, "Operation Enduring Freedom," the current situation with ISIS, the Soviet purges, the Chinese Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot's regime, the Balkan conflicts, and the current situation in Ukraine?
Yes, that was 2000 years ago. And unlike the Roman Empire, which has achieved regional domination, the US has achieved global domination. The US is the first country in the world to have total control of all the oceans in the world.
Not true, China is being very aggressive about its nautical control. In fact, they may currently be creating islands to expand their borders.
Since the vast majority of global trade goes through the oceans, the US essential controls the global economy. The US has the power to block out any country from the global trade network. However, the US also has the power to protect the global trade network, which is exactly what it has been doing for the past 70 years using its Navy.
It certainly has been trying, I agree.
Before WW1, there were two alliances and they both consisted of pretty equally matched countries. Not even their economic dependence on each other stopped WW1 from breaking out.
WW2 was no different. Both sides were pretty evenly matched, so one side jumped at the chance to defeat the other since there was a large chance that it was possible.
World War 2 was rigged in favor of the Germans until they decided to start war with their Russia, who at the outset had been collaborators with the Germans, splitting up Eastern Europe with them.
Go back even further and you'll see that Europe was in a near constant state of war for hundreds and hundreds of years... this was because there were many evenly matched countries, crammed into a limited amount of space.
If there is a single (or sometimes two) dominant hegemons in power, with a bunch of other weaker countries allied to it, that instantly creates peace.
The current state of affairs appears to refute that hypothesis.
Nobody dares to attack the hegemon or it's allies, in fear of being economically and militarily destroyed.
ISIS and Russia are both doing this now. Russia has been persistent despite being economically slammed by NATO.
Ever since the US became the global economic and military superpower, there has never been a nation state that has attacked the US first, or attacked one of America's close allies. Japan was the last country that has attacked the US first back in 1941.
This isn't just a coincidence...
This is true.
This reminds me of one of the problems after WWI. Allied troops never occupied Berlin. Many Germans felt that they had not truly been defeated. This (among other things) led to WWII. If NATO didn't "win" the Cold War, does that mean that the Cold War isn't over?
Clearly it's not, that's why there's still fighting in Eastern Ukraine, and "number stations" have only increased over the years.
The US has a strong global network of alliances that have been pain painstakingly built for over 200 years. Mostly in the last 75. Russia never did this and is paying the price. To put this in further perspective, in 1776 there were virtually no true democracies on earth. Only one really, the US. At the end of WWII there were less than 15. Now there are over 100. The US has painstakingly built this global empire of democracies and as a result is the hub of that wheel.
I think this is giving the U.S. too much credit for the rise of democracy in conjunction with the fall of monarchy. I believe that the rise of democracy has more to do with the after-shock of the Renaissance.
We inspired the French to have a revolution, I think that's pretty neat.
The French Revolution was inspired by the U.S. seceding from Britain?
You probably shouldn't forget the part where the French also fought in your revolution.
They didn't even get anything out of it, they just fucking hate the English.
They got fucking up the English out of it, as well as a pact of military support from the United States. Unfortunately, after the French Revolution, the U.S. refused to honor this pact; it claimed it had made it with the prior French government.
Putin crying about the USA kicking his ass in economics. This is why America only invades third world countries and not the ones they share their borders and trade with. The closer you are to America, the greater your economic advantage.
Kind of weird that the Russians always bully their neighbors and then complain about their dismal economy. Now they are killing theirs brothers in Ukraine and will be wondering why Ukrainians do not want to be allies with them. Russia is just 50 years backwards. Putin is a relic of the Soviet times, they need new leadership.
Putin is making a desperate attempt to buffer NATO, but I agree his tactics are futile.
The US' position as the world's sole superpower is based on the fact that it has been the world's largest economy for a century, the European empires were devastated by WWII (giving the US an important role both in Europe and the former colonies), and its sole competitor, the Soviet Union, imploded politically and economically 25 years ago.
The rosy, feel-good picture of "painstakingly built" relationships is frankly bullshit. Go ask Latin America, Indochina, the Middle East or Africa why they respect American power. It isn't some cozy, touchy-feely relationship. Economic and military power is the basis for American hegemony.
I agree.
.... The US isn't a democracy. It's a democratic republic. Quite honestly if the country was truly democratic it would have faltered soon after inception because people truly are idiots.
Probably.
Mexico needs someone to come in and clean up. We can't just invade them even if it was 100% only with the intention of cleaning corruption and the cartels but damn me if it wouldn't be better than what they have now.
I don't know how America's Mexican population would feel about us invading their homeland on the basis that they do a shit job of handling it.
They'd be pissed off, sure... But they probably wouldn't try to stand up against the US.
Mexican citizens who have faced off with the cartels would probably be pretty stoked about it.
We'd save a shit ton on Border Patrol. 2000 miles down to just under 700 miles. Even if you halved the BP you could still patrol it more effectively.
That is absurd.
To all Russians, would-be Russians, past Russians:
Allow me to speak as a citizen of a country that has had the "pleasure" of being "liberated" not once, but twice.
Nobody likes you. You treat your own citizens and other nations you deal with as serfs. Being in your sphere of influence means corruption, stagnation and misery. Your "friends" are North Korea, Syria, Iran.
And China.
Your economy is strong because of oil exports and nothing else. Oil you can't even extract without Western technology. You don't make anything anyone would ever want, except for Russian girls. Your leaders are KGB apparatchiks, corrupt oligarchs, or both.
America is not perfect but I'd much rather be in its sphere of influence than yours.
Kindly fuck off, please.
Whiny and dubious.
Of course the United States wanted a new world order after the cold war, the world NEEDED some stability.
Personal and emotional opinion.
And yes, the US abuses its "sphere of influence" under the pretext of national interests, but literally every developed country in the world does this, just on a smaller scale. Don't get me wrong, there have been some major US fuck ups, however at least when we fuck up, there is a healthy dialogue in our country where we can debate and push for action.
Yeah, the public is real quick to get us out of them proxy wars.
Russians have the wool pulled over their eyes and most believe every single word of state run propaganda. Those who refuse to be manipulated are silenced and jailed under some bullshit laws that fit the government's best interests. The real issue here is Putin actually believes in this fantasy world of his and refuses to frame the current situation with logic and reason. This is a war of misinformation against the international community, primarily the west, but also against Russia's own citizens. Whatever they believe in regards to Putin's leadership, they are paying for his aggressive policies through economic and political consequences.
Yes, it is rather unfortunate that many Russians yearn for the return of the Russian influence of the Soviet years, but they lack the means of it, and will support Putin's belligerence out of nostalgia.
Quite frankly, the thought of a Russian based new world order scares the hell out of me. I can't even imagine how the ex-soviet states are feeling right now with Putin stepping on their toes.
They needn't be too worried. NATO members don't want a war, but they will fight one if circumstance mandates.
After WWII before russia got the A-Bomb the U.S. could have made the world a much different place, but we helped germany and japan
What?
Yea, this whole discourse of his on America being a tyrant and everything being its fault is getting tiresome. If he wants to make a statement he should put or shutup, and start doing some relative "good" out there. The US is in the position its in because its been on the right/winning side of two world wars and didn't have to shoulder the load of being a communist economic black hole for 50 years.
The U.S. is in the position it's in because we have the worlds largest GDP. The only thing stopping the U.S. military is the fact that nuclear technology is developed enough that the U.S. can't take over the world, despite the fact that its military budget suggests that it might like to, and our foreign policy appears to corroborate that.
Note global military expenditures:
This is a conversation between users on Reddit. I thought the conversation they had there was fascinating, so sharing it here! You might like it, or not! Patriots will like it. I like it too. 
Article summary:
The criticisms of a world order dominated by Washington, more than two decades after the Cold War, recalled a 2007 speech in Munich in which Putin shocked the West by lambasting Washington's "unipolar" world view.
Putin has increasingly sought to shift blame for the economic crisis onto global problems, the sanctions and the oil price.
The speech prompted many Western leaders to reassess their view of Putin.
Russian President Vladimir Putin criticised on Friday what he called the United States' "unilateral diktat" in global affairs and said the "so-called" winners of the Cold War wanted a new world order that suited only them.
I think if you back away from the situation and think about the fact the United States has turned it's military into the largest organization in the world.
It has multiple Intelligence agencies with absolutely no accountability and plenty of money as well..
And these two massive entities cooperate - and one of them has no accountability - the other has the largest military force ever assembled... and we cant seem to control them or even understand the motivations behind their choices, outside of attempting to maintain economic equilibrium and/or gain political advantage in areas where we want leverage.
I think you could intepret that as - we already lost control of this horse and I dont see a way to stop it, even with massive reform. People arent going to agree to their quality of lives going down - which is what the Intel agencies and DoD are defending - American assets or interests which result in economic or political leverage.
History has shown time and time again that multiple, equally powerful countries is unstable and leads to war.
History has also shown that when there is one country with a much greater technological and military advantage, they keep expanding their territory over weaker neighbors. The US did throughout much of its history also.
This is why the US as a superpower for the last 70 years so unique. Yeah, the US exerts influence over other countries, but when the US uses its military in other countries, it's not annexing them
History has also shown (and is still showing) that when there is a single (or two) very powerful country, and bunch of smaller, weaker countries, that the world is much more peaceful...
The past 70 years of US dominance have been the most peaceful in human history. There have been less wars and less people dying due to war than ever before in human history. This peace we are experiencing is an anomaly in history and it is so peaceful largely because of the US keeping things stable.
Yes, that was 2000 years ago. And unlike the Roman Empire, which has achieved regional domination, the US has achieved global domination. The US is the first country in the world to have total control of all the oceans in the world.
Since the vast majority of global trade goes through the oceans, the US essential controls the global economy. The US has the power to block out any country from the global trade network. However, the US also has the power to protect the global trade network, which is exactly what it has been doing for the past 70 years using its Navy.
Before WW1, there were two alliances and they both consisted of pretty equally matched countries. Not even their economic dependence on each other stopped WW1 from breaking out.
WW2 was no different. Both sides were pretty evenly matched, so one side jumped at the chance to defeat the other since there was a large chance that it was possible.
Go back even further and you'll see that Europe was in a near constant state of war for hundreds and hundreds of years... this was because there were many evenly matched countries, crammed into a limited amount of space.
If there is a single (or sometimes two) dominant hegemons in power, with a bunch of other weaker countries allied to it, that instantly creates peace. Nobody dares to attack the hegemon or it's allies, in fear of being economically and militarily destroyed.
Ever since the US became the global economic and military superpower, there has never been a nation state that has attacked the US first, or attacked one of America's close allies. Japan was the last country that has attacked the US first back in 1941.
This isn't just a coincidence...
"So called winners?" As I recall Mr. Putin, you consolidated your power from the crumbled ruins of a failed state. I'd say they were prettt clearly the winners.
This reminds me of one of the problems after WWI. Allied troops never occupied Berlin. Many Germans felt that they had not truly been defeated. This (among other things) led to WWII. If NATO didn't "win" the Cold War, does that mean that the Cold War isn't over?
The US has a strong global network of alliances that have been pain painstakingly built for over 200 years. Mostly in the last 75. Russia never did this and is paying the price. To put this in further perspective, in 1776 there were virtually no true democracies on earth. Only one really, the US. At the end of WWII there were less than 15. Now there are over 100. The US has painstakingly built this global empire of democracies and as a result is the hub of that wheel.
We inspired the French to have a revolution, I think that's pretty neat.
You probably shouldn't forget the part where the French also fought in your revolution.
They didn't even get anything out of it, they just fucking hate the English.
They even gave us a nice statue to commemorate their involvement, complete with a giant torch hoisted aloft like a giant middle finger to all the authoritarian monarchs of the world.
Not just fought, but trained and supplied. The Colonists would have been fucked without France.
Ironically, bankrupting themselves helping us during said war was one of the reasons that led to France's own rebellion.
They might not have gone as bankrupt if they had merely stuck to helping us in NA. They wanted to screw with Britain even more though, and because of that the largest battle of the American revolution wasn't even in North America, it was the Spanish + French assault on British held Gibraltar in 1782. A failed venture that cost them more men and ships than the entire North American campaign did.
Not to mention the Nobles and Clergy were exempt from taxes. Even a minor sum from these groups would have been a relative windfall for the French Treasury.
This was a time of war, famine and new ideas which helped greatly to stir the pot.
Putin crying about the USA kicking his ass in economics. This is why America only invades third world countries and not the ones they share their borders and trade with. The closer you are to America, the greater your economic advantage.
Kind of weird that the Russians always bully their neighbors and then complain about their dismal economy. Now they are killing theirs brothers in Ukraine and will be wondering why Ukrainians do not want to be allies with them. Russia is just 50 years backwards. Putin is a relic of the Soviet times, they need new leadership.
Putin is a very smart and powerful guy, I agree with you, he bullies his neighbors like George for example and Armenia.
Armenia (who has great relations with The US, Europe, and Russia) is usually forced to make it's economical decisions leaning towards Russia's favor, for obvious reasons based on it's geographical location in the middle of Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Honest relationships are scarce in that region.
I'm calling bullshit on this.
The US' position as the world's sole superpower is based on the fact that it has been the world's largest economy for a century, the European empires were devastated by WWII (giving the US an important role both in Europe and the former colonies), and its sole competitor, the Soviet Union, imploded politically and economically 25 years ago.
The rosy, feel-good picture of "painstakingly built" relationships is frankly bullshit. Go ask Latin America, Indochina, the Middle East or Africa why they respect American power. It isn't some cozy, touchy-feely relationship. Economic and military power is the basis for American hegemony.
.... The US isn't a democracy. It's a democratic republic. Quite honestly if the country was truly democratic it would have faltered soon after inception because people truly are idiots.
Ummm...Russia literally annexed Crimea; Russian-led, Russian-staffed, and Russian-supported secessionists ran amok in eastern Ukraine and their "republics" are still in existence today; and Russia has all but annexed portions of Georgia and Moldova.
Russia could have easily joined in to the world post Soviet times but after one hard decade they decided to revert to the old ways. We have no problem with Russia, we have a problem with a government refusing to join the present instead of staying in the 80's permanently.
Yes lets be more like Russia and invade our neighbors.
Yea i bet Mexico would hate that, oh wait.....
Mexico needs someone to come in and clean up. We can't just invade them even if it was 100% only with the intention of cleaning corruption and the cartels but damn me if it wouldn't be better than what they have now.
I don't know how America's Mexican population would feel about us invading their homeland on the basis that they do a shit job of handling it.
They'd be pissed off, sure... But they probably wouldn't try to stand up against the US.
Mexican citizens who have faced off with the cartels would probably be pretty stoked about it.
We'd save a shit ton on Border Patrol. 2000 miles down to just under 700 miles. Even if you halved the BP you could still patrol it more effectively.
To all Russians, would-be Russians, past Russians:
Allow me to speak as a citizen of a country that has had the "pleasure" of being "liberated" not once, but twice.
Nobody likes you. You treat your own citizens and other nations you deal with as serfs. Being in your sphere of influence means corruption, stagnation and misery. Your "friends" are North Korea, Syria, Iran. Your economy is strong because of oil exports and nothing else. Oil you can't even extract without Western technology. You don't make anything anyone would ever want, except for Russian girls. Your leaders are KGB apparatchiks, corrupt oligarchs, or both.
America is not perfect but I'd much rather be in its sphere of influence than yours.
Kindly fuck off, please.
Of course the United States wanted a new world order after the cold war, the world NEEDED some stability. And yes, the US abuses its "sphere of influence" under the pretext of national interests, but literally every developed country in the world does this, just on a smaller scale. Don't get me wrong, there have been some major US fuck ups, however at least when we fuck up, there is a healthy dialogue in our country where we can debate and push for action. Russians have the wool pulled over their eyes and most believe every single word of state run propaganda. Those who refuse to be manipulated are silenced and jailed under some bullshit laws that fit the government's best interests. The real issue here is Putin actually believes in this fantasy world of his and refuses to frame the current situation with logic and reason. This is a war of misinformation against the international community, primarily the west, but also against Russia's own citizens. Whatever they believe in regards to Putin's leadership, they are paying for his aggressive policies through economic and political consequences. Quite frankly, the thought of a Russian based new world order scares the hell out of me. I can't even imagine how the ex-soviet states are feeling right now with Putin stepping on their toes.
After WWII before russia got the A-Bomb the U.S. could have made the world a much different place, but we helped germany and japan
Yea, this whole discourse of his on America being a tyrant and everything being its fault is getting tiresome. If he wants to make a statement he should put or shutup, and start doing some relative "good" out there. The US is in the position its in because its been on the right/winning side of two world wars and didn't have to shoulder the load of being a communist economic black hole for 50 years.
7
posts