What made Russia so adversarial towards the West? They seemed to be friendly with other Europeans up to WWI...

Damn, that's some spooky insight. Did he make other such predictions?

I wonder how the world would have turned out if Russia hadn't drank the Communist cool-aid.

Obviously, but you aren't giving me the answer I'm looking for. I'm asking for what exactly happened. Did the West impose directives on Russia too hard? Were they looking for corporatist interests over the well-being of Russian people when pushing their new policies?

>it was working to actively infest Russia.
What did you mean by this?

Wouldn't that be water under the bridge by the end of the Cold War though?

Russians are paranoid, since their country is located between Germany, Japan and China, rather than between Canada and Mexico.
You just can't understand their rational fear as Baltic states, Balkan states and Ukraine join NATO.
Theirs is a culture deeply ingrained in fear for your sovereignty, from the Mongols, to Napoleon, to Nazi Germany, to modern day global American Exceptionalism.

>What did you mean by this?
I mean both Jesuits and Freemasons were flooding Europe and pushing their ideas and getting teaching positions. As a consequence, freethinkers became a significant counterculture in Russia. Peter the Great actively supported them and tried to rub out Russian culture--he even forbade the Russian Church to write arguments against Protestants or Catholics, because he wanted more Western ideas to take root. Traditionalists, both clergy and laymen, were extremely alarmed, and at this point they saw it as a serious war over the heart of Russia. Communism was the ultimate conclusion of the Western infestation.

>flooding Europe
I meant flooding Russia

For modern development ie Putinrule its easy
You need to keep the people afraid, confused and the propaganda machine spewing 24/7 on all national media (which is almost all media in Russia)

Without external enemies, without the fear of "the west is coming to get us all" (which sure might be true to an extent) there is no robbing the country, concentrating all wealth to couple hundred individuals, letting all infrastructure go to hell etc.

Having Russia as the "enemy" is beneficial to the ruling class in the West, and having West as the enemy is beneficial to Putin and his cronies (or his puppet masters) to buy enough time until the country is stripped any and all value.

Putin is powerhungry but he actively cares for his country

>Did the West impose directives on Russia too hard?
They did.
>Were they looking for corporatist interests over the well-being of Russian people when pushing their new policies?
They were.

To simplify things, in the field of international relations Russia expected the West to respect what it considered its sphere of influence, that is, the post-Soviet space. The West didn't, exemplified by the Western-backed revolutions in Georgia, the Ukraine, and some other post-Soviet nations. These "revolutions" weren't democratic, of course, they just replaced somewhat pro-Russian crony cliques with somewhat pro-Western ones. I say "somewhat" because none of them was even truly loyal towards their Russian or Western patrons. Moreover, the West doesn't even consider the idea of anybody's sphere of influence to be legitimate, so the soil is more than fertile for future conflicts.

In domestic politics, the West believed that it could legitimately intevene in domestic political affairs and promote those it deemed beneficial for its interests. The first significant example of this in Putin's era was the West's condemnation of the Yukos case and the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which, in fact, was not a conflict between an evil ex-KGB president and a virtuous oil tycoon, but a part of Putin's efforts to bring big business under control. Most billionaires complied and agreed to abandon all political ambitions in exchange for guarantees of safety and forgiveness of their past sins (and ALL Russian big businessmen could be rightfully accused of fraud, tax evasion, and much worse), but Khodorkovsky didn't.

>Jesuits
That's funny because Jesuits are proto-communists.

My college was funded by Jesuits, and during the Cold War sponsored civil war, many of the Jesuit teachers got massacred for spreading socialist ideas.

The west span this narrative of the evil warlike totalitarian russians trying to take over the world for so long, that many russians started believing it, and they elected a leader who is attempting it.
Russia is a west-made problem.

Yes and no,
I have lived in Russia, my girlfriend is Russian. Right now they are renovating all the major streets in Moscow and plan to pave the sidewalks with granite stone. Was there anything wrong with the previous streets in Moscow that were renovated not so long ago? Nope but its a good way for Mayor to make money with his construction business connections.

Putin keeps up an absolute perfect image as a beneficial strong-man of the state, for this I admire him. He does his utmost to keep the people believing that is their best option, he keeps the nation strong, and so on.

Reality is another matter of fact Behind any news of constructing a new railroad line, or similar businesses ventures, corruption glows bright and usually the only two bidders for contract are fake companies owned by same one company behind them.

Russians dont actually believe this, they are Imperialistic in a sense, in protecting what is Russia (so anything up to old Tsar borders)

Most common Russian folk I've talked to in Russia itself, are mainly afraid that Americans are going to invade, they are coming to finish the Cold War.

Based Putin Strikes again. I had always thought about something like this in the Western Education but never knew that a similar policy already existed.

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophesy to me. You're unlikely to get attacked when you're friendly with everyone else.

>he even forbade the Russian Church to write arguments against Protestants or Catholics, because he wanted more Western ideas to take root.
Sound like an stupid thing to do. Censorship is inherently wrong, and those reasons only make it worse. And I say this as a former Catholic (now atheist). What a cuck.

>Western-backed revolutions
The eternal Anglo at it again.

Every time. Every time I wish again that I could be typing this in any other language.

>You're unlikely to get attacked when you're friendly with everyone else.
if you are friendly to everyone else, YOU as an entity stop existing

Shock Therapy and the continued existence of NATO.

NATO's original purpose can be succinctly described as 'Keep America up, keep Germany down, and keep Russia out'. After the end of the Cold War, realists called for the disbandment of NATO, as a threat like the Soviet Union no longer existed. However NATO persisted, eventually expanding eastwards into the former eastern bloc and former Soviet republics. If the Cold War was over, why would NATO expand its influence, unless it considered Russia a continuing threat, even after the chaos that Russia faced in the 90s? So as a Russian, you'd likely perceive NATO as antagonistic by nature. This would not only embolden the State Realists, but also the Slavophiles, who were averse to any Western influence in Russia.

So there is your answer OP.

>You're unlikely to get attacked when you're friendly with everyone else.

Putin has been trying to be friendly with everyone, as long as that doesn't step on Russia's interests.
He keeps saying he wants to trade with the EU and USA and that they are denying him.

[citation needed]

Great post. It always helps to put things into perspective. It didn't occur to me that NATO encroachment wouldn't feel different from communist encroachment from Russia's perspective, and that Russia's US(SR) is still alive and kicking, and a potential threat.

What you say is true, but then he goes and takes Crimea and completely justifies the US and EU's policies..

Crimea has a port, Sevastopol, which houses the Russian navy.
Ukraine was trying to join NATO. A NATO country taking control of the only military Russian port, and establishing a military base right next to Russia.
This is very hard to see as anything but a threat.

And I am not one for conspiracy theories, but there was a Russian friendly president democratically elected, and then there was a violent protest to remove him, a protest not at all supported in the Eastern part of the country.
Imagine in the USA, Trump is elected president, and then select states have riots and he is removed from office, despite other states continuing to support him.
The Crimea situation was not Russia turning peace to war, it was Russia supporting one side of a civil war, in a way that makes sense morally and ethically when you consider democracy and Russian minorities in the country, and it makes sense geopolitical when you consider the Sevastopol port and NATO continuing to creep towards Russia.
Also historically, if you consider that much of Ukraine is traditionally Russian land, and it was only given to the Ukraine district or federation or whatever they called it during the USSR period for the sake of convenience. Its not populated by Ukrainians, and it has no Ukrainian history or tradition. Its Russian land that Ukraine took when it left the USSR, because of the hastily and terribly handled dissolution of the union.

>then he goes and takes Crimea
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet

After years of political unrest in Ukraine caused by by our friends at Langley, he seized the opportunity in the chaos and removed even a chance of some parts of Black Sea fleet going NATO.

>Peter the Great and Catherine the Great both worked very hard to bring the Enlightenment to Russia.
Good examples. Peter the Great is the greatest tyrant in Russian history who enslaved Russian people and his "reforms" delayed development of capitalistic economics in Russia for more than a century. And yes, he was big fan of the West.
Catherine was a German-born and the greatest hypocrite. Killed 2 Russian emperors and became the usurper. She was a friend of Voltaire and wanted to execute the man who first wrote about hardships of serfdom (replaced by imprisonment). Russian culture didn't develop and French became main language for the upper class. Only nobles benefited from her rule, for others life became only worse. One of biggest uprisings (Pugachev) happened at that time.

I'm not sure it's fair to say Russia is being adversarial towards the West because Russia, or Putin at least, promote the view of individual models of development; i.e. each country can choose to be however it wants to be as opposed to encouraging countries to follow a certain accepted path that e.g. America or the 'West' is following. This 'individual model of development' attitude doesn't lend itself to adversarial behaviour unless strictly necessary.

There are two factors to the conflict between Russia and the West in my opinion.
1. If Russia is allowed to develop to the same level of e.g. the USA, then Russia as an economy would be as dangerous to fuck with as the American one is today. It would also mean an end to any kind of hegemonic world order which is in America's interest. China doesn't really threaten America's hegemony because China is dependent on America. This is one of the reasons China is interested in Russia developing economically. It would provide an alternative economy to link with that would reduce the impact the USA has on China's economy.

2. Cultural 'rejection' or 'validation' for the West. Just as the EU feels scorned by the UK brexit vote so does the West feel culturally scorned (denied validation) by Russia who reject the path most Western countries have gone down. It wouldn't really matter if Russia was some asian or african shithole but that's not what Russia is. The Russian history isn't as long as e.g. France or England but it is still an old European power who have a history of respecting/accepting and adopting Western values and ways throughout history. This has now changed and Russia culturally is trying to steer in its own direction rather than adopt, again, Western values. This 'demonstration' that the West's ways aren't the only way by a country that the West grudgingly accepts as on par with itself again damages hegemony. This time cultural hegemony. Western cultural hegemony.

>Without external enemies
It's interesting because it seems to me like this is also the case for the West. Without Russia as an enemy to force unity on the EU+USA then would the EU and NATO work as a unifying framework? I don't think it would, but who knows.

>Wimpy leaders
Still better than a corrupt irremovable ex-KGB demagogue.

I think Russians felt betrayed by the West. The 90's were a really chaotic time for the Russians, and in that time they saw really the worst aspects of democracy and capitalism. Oligarchs seized control of the economy and politics, there was a really awful war going on in Chechnya that was a huge embarrassment (one that Americans still use to deride and judge Russian combat capability by, go figure), and it was almost the complete opposite of Russians thought a "free" Russia would be like.

And while this was going on, NATO kept expanding to the West, breaking the promises they had made to Soviet leadership. This doesn't justify Russian actions in Ukraine, but Western media has painted an awfully biased picture.

This is no Cold War, there is no ideological war being waged worldwide and Syria doesn't compare to Afghanistan or Vietnam. To the Russians, the closest parallel would be the years or months before Operation Barbarossa, not the Cold War. This is an important distinction and America needs to be cautious in dealing with a fearful Russia.

>She was a friend of Voltaire
They at least exchanged letters. And this always confused me. The only way I can rationalize Catherine in a way that makes sense to me is that she idolized the man and not so much his ideals except where they benefited her.

>Try constitutional monarchy
never happened

>and not so much his ideals except where they benefited her.

So she was pretty much like Voltaire ?

>Russia should just let America topple all of its allies

>America should just let Russia topple all of it's allies

I hope you're not referring to Ukraine, because that was a Western-backed coup designed to oust Russian-friendly Yanukovych

I wasn't aware Russia was inciting revolutions in Japan, Australia, England, France, Germany, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, etc. etc.

Although, people are claiming Russia is funding nationalist movements in the EU so I guess that comes close.

Voltaire took risks/antagonized the state to stand by his beliefs.
Catherine was an Empress who suppressed the populace to avoid those risks.

No?

>Although, people are claiming Russia is funding nationalist movements in the EU so I guess that comes close.

Putin is funding them, this is no claim. But it's also probably not that nefarious, Putin is just using European nationalists like children. He's a master-level statesman compared to the likes of the members of National Front or AfD.

It has always been. The closeness was due to things such as .

It's East vs West. Orient vs Occident. Spiritualization versus Matterialization.

None is good, none is evil. They simply are based on two forces which are opposed; as all nature is formed.

If you feel one is better than the other, it is because you are naturally inclined for one or the other.

To understand Russia, you must understand Russian culture. To understand Russian culture, you must understand faith. To understand faith, you must go beyond the Christian exoteric dogma. You must search the roots.

Ant the thing is that these roots are oozed in negating material existence. Opposed to the West, where man is exploring material existence.

Sure, a valid analysis can be made as to understand the conflict as a simple economic, geopolitical one. But at the top some people lead decisions not for power or wealth ; for they need no more of those. At the top of the game there is a war.

And the war is but a theater of shadows.

We are void of the truth. And we suffer.

fedora/10

The mysticism of the Russian spirit.

>Two powerful forces with conflicting political ideologies

I don't know, you tell me?

>democratically elected

It should read """democratically elected""". Ukraine is not known for its electoral openness & fairness.

It's also ironic you list "democracy" as one of the motivating factors for Russian intervention since Russia's "democracy" is notoriously crooked. This is a country where throwing the opposition leader in jail before an election is considered a legitimate strategy.

You don't know how open and fair Ukrainian electoral processes were. You are regurgitating swallowed assumptions.

Also, he didn't cite democracy as a motivating factor for Russia's actions. You should probably read that post again.

>this thread
WTF I love Russia now.

The USA is to blame, of course.

Reminder that the Euromaidan was the second time Ukraine had a Maidan movement.

Reminder that the first Maidan, aka the Orange Revolution, came in response to Yanukovich winning the elections, all this back in 2004.

> Russia supporting one side of a civil war, in a way that makes sense morally and ethically when you consider democracy and Russian minorities

He specifically listed democracy as a moral justification for Russia's intervention in Ukraine.

>You don't know how open and fair Ukrainian electoral processes were. You are regurgitating swallowed assumptions.

Do you? Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The Economist, The New Republic, publications I keep up with, all seem to be agreed on this same point. It was certainly foul enough to inspire mass demonstrations against the regime. Do you have some international organization willing to back the legitimacy and fairness of the Ukrainian electoral process you can cite?

Huh? What do you mean by "friendly with Europeans"? Europeans were never traditionally friendly with eachother, with exceptions like Brits-Portuguese or Germans-Ottomans; they fought and allied and fought and allied depending on the situation.

The same thing is happening right now.

Honestly, there's nothing philosophical or ideological about it.

You have two relentlessly expansionist civilizations whose experiences conquering their own landmasses left them with a corporate consciousness that they are a uniquely blessed people destined to greater things. There is no possible way two such powers weren't going to butt heads one day.

>He specifically listed democracy as a moral justification for Russia's intervention in Ukraine.
mm, I interpreted it as 'it makes sense for the west (however much they hate it and will never admit it) and so they won't go to war with us'. But your interpretation could be what he meant.

>Do you?
Sure. Take the 2010 elections as an example.
osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/eoms/presidential_2010

The fact that your asswipe journals like the Economist and The New Republic were spewing bullshit and reinforcing patronizing stereotypes doesn't really surprise me.

Duma

>Every time. Every time I wish again that I could be typing this in any other language.

Stay mad

T. Anglo

Putin is an incompetent fucktard. You'd think he'd be trying his best to make living in Russia better for the citizens and thus set an example for neighboring and friendly countries to take example from and enter the Russian sphere of influence, but nah fuck that helping out his oligarch masters is more profitable than fixing the roads in Ural villages or living new houses to pensioners. It's only natural Ukraine, Georgia and various other ex-USSR states will want to strive for an European future instead of staying forever in a gray ex-Soviet dystopia based around corruption and incompetence.

Putin isn't a monarch. Yet.
Personally, I don't believe he ever will be. he'll just take a break again and see if someone else can do a better job than him and if not, run for election again.

/thread

Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of Veeky Forums are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

They were never civilized by the eternal Anglo.

Indeed, and the Anglos tried real hard
First they send the Frogs and then the Germs twice!
But Russian blood magick, summoning ice and snow, kept the Anglo out.
Now the Anglo stands in front of the bear a fourth time, the Germs readily forming the "tip of the spear", waiting for a reason to "shot back" again
And everybody sits on top of enough doomsday bombs to kill each other a hundred times

Interesting times we live in...

...

>They seemed to be friendly with other Europeans up to WWI.
I'm sure Poland, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Finland, and Sweden, has something to say about that.

France too in the early half of the 19th.

Because America is the great Satan and the destroyer of all things good and true in this world.

Not him but I think he meant post-first revolution Duma.

Do you think that this firm ever expected to have such a strong market with internet shitlords?

This Duma was literally powerless and was only for consulting, not for making decisions

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades

kek

Russia funded guerrilla groups in my nation. One of their guerrilla groups became a powerful criminal organization

And that nation would be?

Unfortunately most choose not to leave the comment section on RT

Turkey, the organization in question is the PKK

You fund and do business with ISIS. I hope your country collapses and the Kurds take over.

> 0.2 rubles have been deposited into your bank account

The cold war never really ended. The west still treats Russia with a "containment" policy... Hence trying to block their only year-round warm water port (via Ukraine/Crimea) and fucking with their only significant year round warm water naval base (Syria).

That's on top of building networks of pipelines around them.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades
>The web brigades (Russian: Beб-бpигaды), also known in English media as the troll army

The Kurds are based, though. Hating on Turkey is the new Veeky Forums craze, but in this regard I'll always support Kurds over Turks/Iranians/Iraqis. Kurds are the best hope for fostering actual democracy and human dignity in the ME.

Not that guy, but in the eyes of the average American, Putin and Erdogan are basically the same person.

If what you say is true that is proof right there that Americans are brain-dead retarded.

I agree.

The problem is Russia is taking the bait everytime. Every single fucking time an anglo-american stateman baits Russia into confrontation, the Eternal Rusky falls for it like a baby. And the Eternal Anglo laughs.

GG.

And then people tell me I'm crazy when I mention people on Veeky Forums like the Kurds for some weird reason.

I think I'll actually screencap this post so that I can just post it next time somebody says "what? nobody supports the Kurds here, they just hate Turkey"

When oil prices spiked, Putin and the oligarchs seized the money for themselves instead of investing in diversifying Russia's economy. Now that oil prices are down again, Putin needs to distract the people from his mismanagement of the economy.

What happened is Russia is still struggling with the same question they have been since the universe began: Are we Western or are we our own thing? It turns out that in the modern world, it's a lot harder to have the best of both worlds. You can't revive the Russian empire and pretend to be a Western-style democracy at the same time

wtf i hate the west now

>I just don't understand what happened to make Russia the """bad guy""" again, even though they aren't the world power they were during the USSR days.

>Be Russia
>Get shit invaded at every angle.
>Go super hard and conquer most of Asia to prevent them from invading again.
>Get brutally invaded by the West over and over (Sweden, France, Germany, etc.)
>Border paranoia leads to the Cold War.
>USSR dissolves.
>Russians expect "PEACE IN OUR TIME"
>NATO intervention in Eastern Europe despite Russia cockblocking them in the UN Security Council. This showed Russia that the West was more than willing to use NATO to check Russia's power in the region, and ultimately, possibly, attack them.
>"THEY TRICKED US, THEY'RE STILL OUR ENEMY"
>Russia tries to rebuild European buffer by bullying Eastern European nations, stealing Ukrainian clay, and shittalking the West in state media.

>Bonus question: would the world would be a better place if someone time traveled and killed Marx before he wrote his thesis, or was a US-Russia conflict inevitable once Russia industrialized and became a world power?

The things that make Russia an authoritarian shithole that fears the west have little to do with Communism.

Russia cannot survive and defend itself without being an authoritarian shithole, unfortunately.

youtube.com/watch?v=HE6rSljTwdU

>would the world would be a better place
OP here, I can't believe I'm only catching this error until now.

I had already watched that video, but I wanted a second opinion, and maybe some more explanation, though Caspian Report really is a great channel.

After seeing all the answers I can't really not sympathize with Russia anymore, though I wish there could be a more peaceful solution to this unnecessary conflict.

Maybe we really need a non-interventionist US president, and the dissolution of NATO, but that could probably damage the US maritime/, military hegemony and lead to setbacks in trade, which is something I don't believe the corporations would agree with.

Russia is a shit state, but I sympathize with their realpolitik concerns. You can't really call their paranoia unjustified when the Nazis, the Cold War, and Iraq are all in living memory.

>Maybe we really need a non-interventionist US president, and the dissolution of NATO, but that could probably damage the US maritime/, military hegemony and lead to setbacks in trade, which is something I don't believe the corporations would agree with.

As nice as US divestment from international affairs would be, dissolving NATO would just lead to Russia gobbling up Eastern Europe.

What we need is an ironclad way to keep Western Europe and Russia safe from each other.

>What we need is an ironclad way to keep Western Europe and Russia safe from each other.
Only way that will happen is Eastern Europe becoming important world power instead of barrier between two such powers.

Or take China/Russia separation approach and make big desert and mountains between the two and fill with hostile natives

>spend 60+ years oppressing neighboring countries and peoples
>whine about "encirclement" when they decide to go and hang out with the other regional power group instead

dindoo logic.

This shit started exactly because Bush was a stupid idiot. Russia was heavy pro-West during 90s and in early 00s, but then NATO started this shit with Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, they started installing missile defense system in Europe and so on.

They could easy avoid confrontation if they just... invite Russia too.

Except that the US has been dictating world policy for pretty much every country for the last 70+ years.

Countries dictated by the US live better than those that aren't.

Only exceptions would be some mudlslim states, african states, and surprise, Russia.

That's not the argument at hand, though.

The point is that you can't cry foul when Russia does it and ignore the fact that US has been doing it to for longer. That would be the literal dindu logic.

>
This get is for Russia

This get is for Kiev.

...

Nice.

This would have been fun if this board wasn't slow as fuck.