Geopolitics

>Is unaware of the state of modern education

>Current events in Veeky Forums.

>Not when you are talking about Russia, which has consistently been "bad".

Has it?

>needs to be liberated
by its own people, and not NATO. The same goes with China or any other state in the world.

Because if there's one thing the West has the moral high ground on, it's not starting proxy wars in smaller nathions

>Implying the west should ever take the moral high ground.

>Implying this is all da evul Tsar Putin's fault and not Russians in general being Drunkard Slavshits
>Implying Dumbocracy will fix anything

Yeah sure Ukraine is a proxy war sure....

They just went in and said, this part of your country that is mine now.

Ukraine is a 19th century style imperialist war, no made up justification you don't need that with submissive People like the Russians.

I can't remember when a country did something like that just go in and annex.

But nice whataboutism tho, and yes the West where critics are not shot in the streets where ever human has rights, has the moral highground.

Greetings from europe, hows weather in St Petersburg?

Russia is a wounded empire that is trying it's hardest to co-exist in the modern world while nevertheless it continues to crumble. The US in comparison is more stable but it itself is also on the verge of falling from grace. Russia is only adding fuel to the fire.

As we know it the winners write history and get to decide who were the bad guys and the good guys in history. Don't be so surprised that, following the US' loss of global hegemony, history books will start writing of the US as manipulative imperialists instead of generous liberators when the actual truth is that they used to be both.

Because it is.

>posting a youtube clip of pleb tabloid columnist

Who was also an ambassador of the UK to USSR, was a self confessed Marxist and Communist until he had to look for a new job and said he no longer is, lived in Moscow and talked to USSR government officials, and is still a pro-Russian anti-NATO speaker and insists that the decolonization of the British Empire was a mistake and the UK should resume direct control over her past holdings, starting from Malta.

Empire is a state that rules over multiple people.
The USA rules only over americans, and Russia rules only over russians.
She isn't an empire, she just wishes she was one, and wants to rule over Estonians, Latvians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Syrians, Armenians, Georgians, etc.
Which is even worse. Its not the dying pain of a failing empire trying to cope with reality, it is the angry roar of an old hungry wolf doing mental arithmetic over weather it is desperate enough to attack the farm just yet, or if it will try to wait out another day.

youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y

>Who was also an ambassador of the UK to USSR

That's a mighty vivid imagination you have there, kid. I suppose he was an astronaut that flew a blue winged pig to the Moon as well.

>That's a mighty vivid imagination you have there, kid.

You are right, he was the corespondent for the BBC in the USSR. Which is better than ambassador, since he actually spoke on TV more than twice per year.
I am sure most people would make this mistake, as he was the main "british person in USSR", however you call that position.

A single spark is enough to (re)ignite separatist sentiments in Chechnya, two in Bashkiria or Tatarstan, three for Yakutia, Siberia and most other oblasts with a significant non-russian majority or parts that are sick and tired of having all their resources sucked-out by Moscow and European Russia.

Chechnya exists as part of Russia because Moscow basically pays them to keep it that way. Once it stops Chechnya will set an example for other parts of Russia to follow.

>Russia rules only over russians
Wrong.

Russia rules over dozens of Caucasian, Finno-Ugric, Turkic and Mongolic peoples who would be better off independent.

>You are right, he was the corespondent for the BBC in the USSR

That's a mighty vivid imagination you have there, kid.

He was though.

Spain pays two communist semi-autonomous states to say they are part of it.
Canada pays a semi-autonomous state to stay in it as well.

Its a much more common practice than you assume.

The huge difference is that Spain and Canada are more economically and politically stable than Russia.

No, he was a foreign reporter for the Daily Express, a pleb tabloid, for a bit.

No, he was called by the BBC to talk for the USSR when they needed someone to do so.

Even on this board I've never spoken to anyone who made up as much rubbish in their own head as you.

More like everyone is a bad guy.

Best you can hope for with Russia is a peaceful geopolitical balance of power with underlying tensions rather than overt aggression. Give them an inch and they'll fuck you in the ass. This is true even when you're on good terms with Russia. That state of balance must be preserved.

That's another way of phrasing it, yes.
Morality has no place in geopolitics, friendships do not exist, there are only aligned interests and long running partnerships of convenience, and i wish people all over eastern Europe would understand that.

You described the US more accurately than you did Russia.
> They still DO support fascist dictatorial regimes, like the ones in Iraq, Syria, Libya.
>They still DO have military bases on the ex-American Empire territories
>invade Germany
>while buying out the Middle East, South. America
>the stereotypical bad guy, and its a tragedy soon to be realized that they have become "cool", like the nazis were cool, like I imagine germanic barbarians were cool to roman youths.

>Empire is a state that rules over multiple people.
In itself not an accurate statement. The current usage would rather be that an empire is ruled by an emperor. Historically it's derived from impera which simply means to rule.

>The USA rules only over americans
And puerto ricans and several polynesian states, including Hawaii.

>and Russia rules only over russians.
Everything east of the Urals are Russian colonies, populated by several different nationalities who are certainly not Russian.

...

America might say she rules over just America but her sphere of influence, puppets and satellites are all over the world.
Russia still is an empire in every sense except for the lack of a pure emperor. Directly rules over more than several nations.

Russia literally practices nuclear war and invasion of Baltics/Poland during Zapads.

Soon.

>Why do you think the U.S/Nato alliances feel the need to portray Russia as a powerful and aggressive enemy?
If we are talking about current geopolitics this breaks the 25 year rule.
>do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago

You are also implying Russia isn't powerful or aggressive whatsoever despite current events, obviously no country is 100% demon or 100% angel. If you want someone to tell you what you want to hear to you go to a safe space like reddit or /pol/.

I'm sure he didn't tell you, ivan, but putin's fucking invaded places again.

Pretty sure France wasn't part of NATO in 1990

>Bosnia and Austria still aren't in NATO
huh

considering bosnia and austria have a history of starting world wars this is a good thing

Austria's foreign policy in the last 70 years is being neutral towards Russia. Their politicians tend to be quietly pro-Russian, I think the current guy speaks Russian fluently.

That's what has happened for a century. "The West" aka capitalist hegemony needs an external enemy to satisfy their need for "growth".
According to Friedman there is one potential rival for the US which would be an alliance of Russia an Germany.
youtube.com/watch?v=z5SjPLJOjqc
Since a few years before WW1 there has always been anglo propaganda aginst there next invasion victim. Germany was a trade rival of Britain and not part of "the West". British economy was deficitary, that had to be solved by war. WW2 isn't as easy because you have an actual bad guy as a result of anglo greed
>inb4 usual propaganda, but 100 years of repeating the same lines doesn't make them true.
Britain went down with germany and lost all relevance, the US were now leading the capitalist world. Once Germany was dealt with, Russia became the enemy. Once russia was dealt with (economic nosedive of the Warsaw Pact) Islam became the enemy. Now that oil is safe Russia had always been the enemy once more. It's quite orwellian really.

How about we start with the fact that Libya is now under control of an American backed president? Or that the president is democratically elected in Syria. There are countless countries that haven't let go of claims that are older than a century.
Let's be real, we need an excuse to be pulling the wait of every single country in NATO and the solution is to blame the homophobic Putin.

Russia is and has always been, an existential threat to Western Europe. I thought people here actually knew a bit history but alas.

>Russia rules only over russians.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechen–Russian_conflict

>all the states have a russian majority

wew

They are powerful.
They are aggressive.

What's wrong with NATO telling the truth?

not history it literally has politics in the thread title

because they are, they constantly test the preparedness of Sweden and Finland. The dumb fucks even turned off one of their transponders at one point and almost crashed with a commercial airliner.

They also insist on having shitty exercises in the Baltic sea youtube.com/watch?v=IvPmHXY6-8s

A political scapegoat for the left of course, everything is hacked by russia nowadays apparently

remember when we were the ones who hacked everything?
youtube.com/watch?v=CsdpCBopbhE