- This topic has 9 voices and 44 replies.
-
Posts
-
Do you think that old Cold War-era geopolitical mentalities continue to exist today, more than a decade since the Cold War ended? Do you think that geopolitics - military, economics, political, and cultural -needs to be updated for our new age of globalism?
I think that the Cold War have ended as soon as the USSR have been destroyed in 1991. Today's Russia is not a direct descendant of the USSR. Today's Russia was building on the USSR's ruins. USSR was comparable with USA in the technology, weapons, economics, etc, but today's Russia does not. I think the cold war can exists only when combatants are comparable in power.
Do you think Russia's current actions in mainly Eastern Europe nations are a continuation of Cold War mentality?Do a google news search on Estonia and you'll see what I mean.
What do you mean? 🙂
Do you think Russia's current actions in mainly Eastern Europe nations are a continuation of Cold War mentality?Do a google news search on Estonia and you'll see what I mean.
Russia's actions in Eastern Europe are a continuation of a centuries old Policy by the Russian's. They think that the Slavic countries are their backyard and they should have carte blanche to do with them and to them what they will.
Estonia is not a Slavic country.
Estonia is not a Slavic country.
I am going to guess you are claiming that the Estonians are Laps or Swedes instead of Slavs? I will give you this point as it is not germane to the discussion and so not worth debating.And yes, the Russians do historically think they should have hegemony over the nations on their border. See any of the Partitions of Poland, Russian actins in the Crimea in the 19th century. You can even look as far back as the actions of the Princes of Novgorod.
I am going to guess you are claiming that the Estonians are Laps or Swedes instead of Slavs? I will give you this point as it is not germane to the discussion and so not worth debating.
Estonians is the Finno-Ugric peoples.
And yes, the Russians do historically think they should have hegemony over the nations on their border.
Every country's governments want to increase their borders. It doesn't mean that they think they should have hegemony over the nations on their border.
See any of the Partitions of Poland, Russian actins in the Crimea in the 19th century.
Russian actions in the Crimea in the 19th century were not to have hegemony over the nations, but it was war for the access in the Mediterranean, that Britains and Frenchs want to forbid to Russia. What parts of Poland now is Russian's? Or the Crimea?
I concede the point about ethnicity, it is irrelevant to the debate.
Every country's governments want to increase their borders. It doesn't mean that they think they should have hegemony over the nations on their border., that Britains and Frenchs want to forbid to Russia. What parts of Poland now is Russian's? Or the Crimea?
No, in fact, every country does not want to control the countries on its border or increase their borders at the expense of others. My point is that Historically Russia has sought to control the avenues of approach to the Russian Heartland. That is what the Russian drive for greater size has always been about. The partitions of Poland were partly inspired by Russian desire for greater security on their western border. Though I hate citing wikipedia here is a good description there: Partitions of Poland
Russian actions in the Crimea in the 19th century were not to have hegemony over the nations, but it was war for the access in the Mediterranean, that Britains and Frenchs want to forbid to Russia. What parts of Poland now is Russian's? Or the Crimea?
Attempts to conquer Turkey for access to a warm water port unconstrained by the Dardanelles are not attempts at hegemony? What would you define as hegemony then?
No, in fact, every country does not want to control the countries on its border or increase their borders at the expense of others…The partitions of Poland were partly inspired by Russian desire for greater security on their western border.
Those partitions were carried out not only by Russia, but also by Prussia and Austria.
Attempts to conquer Turkey
Do you really think that it is true?
No, in fact, every country does not want to control the countries on its border or increase their borders at the expense of others...The partitions of Poland were partly inspired by Russian desire for greater security on their western border.
Those partitions were carried out not only by Russia, but also by Prussia and Austria.
And of course Russia was just going along with the Prussians and Austrians because they were forced to, right?
Attempts to conquer Turkey
Do you really think that it is true?
Yes, how else do you explain Russian moves towards Constantinople in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? The Russians wanted unfettered access to the Mediterranean, they probably still do but are not powerful enough to force the issue. A warm water port in European Russia would improve their strategic stance immensely. As it is the russians are bottled up in the Black Sea and have only fair weather ports in Murmansk and Archangel.
Russian actions in the Crimea in the 19th century were not to have hegemony over the nations, but it was war for the access in the Mediterranean, that Britains and Frenchs want to forbid to Russia. What parts of Poland now is Russian's? Or the Crimea?
I don't know what else you can call it but hegemony over the Black Sea and the Dardanelles. But perhaps I'm being a tad bit picky.
Don,Why do I always seem to pick debates with the unwashed?
Because you want to see them learn and grow in their studies. This is the mark of an educator. 🙂
Sometimes it so frustrating. Makes me want to pound my head on my desk. Like the current debate with ivkhan. that is definitely a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
ivkhan is a special case I must admit, but he's willing to go the extra mile to prove with sources (albeit dubious sources). The work ethic is there, but the ability to discern good sources from bad, has yet to surface. I think this is a product of Eastern bloc educational values leftover from the Warsaw Pact days. Probably not his fault, but still very hard to break through. But onward we must push for ivkhan's sake and the sake of History's posterity.
Well, I havent given up yet. That is my next project. To teach him to differentiate between credible and dubious sources.
Yes, how else do you explain Russian moves towards Constantinople in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries?
The same way as I explain Russian moves towards Berlin in 1945.
Yes, how else do you explain Russian moves towards Constantinople in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries?
The same way as I explain Russian moves towards Berlin in 1945.
Which is how? Keeping in mind that Russia maintained control of both Berlin and East Germany for the next fifty years as the most strategic depth they had ever achieved. Only relinquishing control in the face of popular uprisings both in Germany and at Home.The Russian bear is not cuddly, but rather kind of scary and very territorial.
