Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2026 1:45 am
Russia was the fulcrum on which the Second World War was won and paid a horrific price in defeating that monster Nazi war machine. America lost half a million souls to that war; Russia lost twenty-seven million souls and a totally gutted country.
It wasn't Russia that lost twenty-seven million souls it was the USSR, and about half of them were Ukrainian, not Russian.
The USSR was Russia under Stalin, and the Ukrainians were fighting Russia side by side with the monster Nazi war machine. That Russia lost twenty-seven million souls in defeating the Nazi war machine is simply recorded history; look it up!
The Ukrainians have suffered plenty, especially given the Holdomor that Russia inflicted on them before Hitler even goth there. Any respect that Russia deserves for a right to self-determination is at least matched by Ukraine's right to the the same for which you show no regard whatsoever.
You're quite right about the horrors of the Stalin days of rule; he was as much a monster as Hitler, but it took one monster to defeat another monster, and it was Stalin's Russia that crushed the Nazi war machine and chased them all the way back to Berlin to deliver the final death blow of total defeat. I suspect you have no idea about the historical process that led to the invasion of Ukraine, or even the significance of the geometry at play. Ok, think of Ukraine as similar to Canada in relation to the United States: if Russia wished to establish a military presence in Canada, right on the US border, what would America do about this obvious threat to the United States? Do you think the States would tolerate that? Right, no, they would not, and neither has Russia; it invaded Ukraine just as the States would have invaded Canada. After the war, the Allies occupied Germany for many years, but eventually NATO wanted to free Germany and asked the Russians to go along with it. They did on the condition that NATO agreed to not move any forces closer to Russia. After this agreement, NATO began moving ever closer to Russia, one country at a time, and installing American military bases in these new members of NATO. When Russia expressed its concerns over its security, it was told that what NATO does is none of its business. This process continued until NATO wanted to occupy Ukraine right on Russia's border; thus, the evil Russians invaded Ukraine, and the war with the West began. This is how Russia, through the Western propaganda machine, became the bad guy in this scenario.
That's a complete logical mess.
I don't care for any of this Victorian era spheres-of-influence nonsense and I can't see how somebody whinging about empires as you do can justify it. Metternich died 150 years ago, let him stay that way.
All the countries that border all the other countries have the right to self-determination. Your imperialist crap justifies none of the authoritarian shit you are selling. Those countries are all democracies, none of them is a territory of any American empire.
It wasn't Russia that lost twenty-seven million souls it was the USSR, and about half of them were Ukrainian, not Russian.
The USSR was Russia under Stalin, and the Ukrainians were fighting Russia side by side with the monster Nazi war machine. That Russia lost twenty-seven million souls in defeating the Nazi war machine is simply recorded history; look it up!
The Ukrainians have suffered plenty, especially given the Holdomor that Russia inflicted on them before Hitler even goth there. Any respect that Russia deserves for a right to self-determination is at least matched by Ukraine's right to the the same for which you show no regard whatsoever.
You're quite right about the horrors of the Stalin days of rule; he was as much a monster as Hitler, but it took one monster to defeat another monster, and it was Stalin's Russia that crushed the Nazi war machine and chased them all the way back to Berlin to deliver the final death blow of total defeat. I suspect you have no idea about the historical process that led to the invasion of Ukraine, or even the significance of the geometry at play. Ok, think of Ukraine as similar to Canada in relation to the United States: if Russia wished to establish a military presence in Canada, right on the US border, what would America do about this obvious threat to the United States? Do you think the States would tolerate that? Right, no, they would not, and neither has Russia; it invaded Ukraine just as the States would have invaded Canada. After the war, the Allies occupied Germany for many years, but eventually NATO wanted to free Germany and asked the Russians to go along with it. They did on the condition that NATO agreed to not move any forces closer to Russia. After this agreement, NATO began moving ever closer to Russia, one country at a time, and installing American military bases in these new members of NATO. When Russia expressed its concerns over its security, it was told that what NATO does is none of its business. This process continued until NATO wanted to occupy Ukraine right on Russia's border; thus, the evil Russians invaded Ukraine, and the war with the West began. This is how Russia, through the Western propaganda machine, became the bad guy in this scenario.
That's a complete logical mess.
I don't care for any of this Victorian era spheres-of-influence nonsense and I can't see how somebody whinging about empires as you do can justify it. Metternich died 150 years ago, let him stay that way.
All the countries that border all the other countries have the right to self-determination. Your imperialist crap justifies none of the authoritarian shit you are selling. Those countries are all democracies, none of them is a territory of any American empire.
You're quite right about the horrors of the Stalin days of rule; he was as much a monster as Hitler, but it took one monster to defeat another monster, and it was Stalin's Russia that crushed the Nazi war machine and chased them all the way back to Berlin to deliver the final death blow of total defeat. I suspect you have no idea about the historical process that led to the invasion of Ukraine, or even the significance of the geometry at play. Ok, think of Ukraine as similar to Canada in relation to the United States: if Russia wished to establish a military presence in Canada, right on the US border, what would America do about this obvious threat to the United States? Do you think the States would tolerate that? Right, no, they would not, and neither has Russia; it invaded Ukraine just as the States would have invaded Canada. After the war, the Allies occupied Germany for many years, but eventually NATO wanted to free Germany and asked the Russians to go along with it. They did on the condition that NATO agreed to not move any forces closer to Russia. After this agreement, NATO began moving ever closer to Russia, one country at a time, and installing American military bases in these new members of NATO. When Russia expressed its concerns over its security, it was told that what NATO does is none of its business. This process continued until NATO wanted to occupy Ukraine right on Russia's border; thus, the evil Russians invaded Ukraine, and the war with the West began. This is how Russia, through the Western propaganda machine, became the bad guy in this scenario.
That's a complete logical mess.
I don't care for any of this Victorian era spheres-of-influence nonsense and I can't see how somebody whinging about empires as you do can justify it. Metternich died 150 years ago, let him stay that way.
All the countries that border all the other countries have the right to self-determination. Your imperialist crap justifies none of the authoritarian shit you are selling. Those countries are all democracies, none of them is a territory of any American empire.
I think at least some of the confusion here is understanding the history of the rise of the "nation state". We now live in a world dominated by nation states but it wasn't always so. The medieval "states" had a great deal less of unified/centralized rule. That's why I am saying for RUSSIA (as a nation state) that was 16th Century under Ivan IV (aka Ivan the Terrible). The Ukraine (the part of the Rus' centered on Kiev) didn't become part of Russia until the 18th Century. What is now Belarus (the part of the Rus' centered on Novgorad) about the same time. This was part of the breaking up of Poland which had been under Lithuania << yes, organized early as a nation state, Lithuania was once a major power >>>
BUT -- in the 13th and 14th Centuries almost all of this area was under the control/overlordship of the Tatars << aka the "Mongols" >> who also ruled China. In the 13th and 14th Centuries a lot of the area also under the gradually collapsing Byzantine Empire (last bit went down 15th Century)
Especially in the area of the "south Slavs" unwise to consider all this "ancient history". Look at the break-up of Yugoslavia and the fighting that broke out. PART the effort of the Serbs was to not lose control of the site of the "Field of the Blackbirds" (in Kosova --- 14th Century battle, Serbians trying to stop the Turks --- look folks, we probably had a history education centered on Western Europe but this, and the second battle of Kosova in the 15th Century (now the Magyars trying to stop the Turks) were the really big battles of their time period )
What is now Belarus is not geographically connected to Novgorod.
And the formation of modern Belarusians is not connected with Novgorod, Belarusians were formed on the territory of Rus' that was under Lithuania, and the Belarusian language was also formed there.
In Western sources, the territory of Novgorod was once considered part of "White Rus'", but this has no relation to modern Belarusians.
Novgorod belongs to the territory where the Great Russians and the modern Russian language were formed.
The princes of Rus' brought tribute to the Mongol-Tatars, but the Mongol-Tatars themselves did not live in Rus', they carried out raids.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2026 1:45 am
The way I see it, this new world order is a necessity; it is either evolving into something other than fifteenth-century colonialism or humanity will perish. As much of the world realizes, the world is a network of interrelated and interdependent nations requiring cooperation between nations rather than the traditional colonial enterprise and violent empires. The British Empire started to be taken over by the Americans after World War I. Britain realized it could no longer get its own way in the world and needed the Americans. Empire has always been a bloodbath in the subjugation of weaker nations. The BRICS federation of nations holds out a promise of a more peaceful and coherent world; the old colonial system holds no hope for a better world, just more wars and chaos. Russia agreed to the unification of Germany on the condition that NATO would not move one inch closer to the borders of Russia. NATO immediately afterwards started moving eastward towards Russia, and with each nation it enfolded came the placement of American military with their nuclear weapons.
The reaction to Russia's concerns for the security of a sovereign Russia was met with, " What we do is none of your business. Ukraine was the last straw, and so, invasion by the evil demon Putin. Remember, Russia has been invaded numerous times in its history. Russia was the fulcrum on which the Second World War was won and paid a horrific price in defeating that monster Nazi war machine. America lost half a million souls to that war; Russia lost twenty-seven million souls and a totally gutted country. So, yes, my hopes are with the new order of the BRICS federation of nations, which I now believe represents over half the population of the planet now or close to it and growing. Think about it, China is America's chosen enemy. Why? Because they are doing better with a middle-of-the-road system than the West can match. So I say to NATO, get off Russia's back porch and go home; that is the sane thing to do, but NATO, somewhere along the line, transformed into a war machine, at first the puppet of the American Empire but now operating out of its own aggressive nature.
You certainly surprised me by putting forward BRICS as your model of the ideal world! I’m trying to characterise BRICS in general terms, and the best I’ve come up with so far is that it is a bunch of countries who agree to trade with one another on advantageous terms while simultaneously agreeing not to criticise their partners’ human rights records or use of violence towards their own citizens or their neighbours. Does that sound about right?
Perhaps I’m asking you about all this the wrong way. Let’s try something different: popeye, what are the good things that you’d like to see characterising the world in the future? Peace? Prosperity? Justice? Democracy? Can you give us a list maybe? What is your BRICS-like international order supposed to deliver to the citizen on the street?
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2026 1:45 am
The way I see it, this new world order is a necessity; it is either evolving into something other than fifteenth-century colonialism or humanity will perish. As much of the world realizes, the world is a network of interrelated and interdependent nations requiring cooperation between nations rather than the traditional colonial enterprise and violent empires. The British Empire started to be taken over by the Americans after World War I. Britain realized it could no longer get its own way in the world and needed the Americans. Empire has always been a bloodbath in the subjugation of weaker nations. The BRICS federation of nations holds out a promise of a more peaceful and coherent world; the old colonial system holds no hope for a better world, just more wars and chaos. Russia agreed to the unification of Germany on the condition that NATO would not move one inch closer to the borders of Russia. NATO immediately afterwards started moving eastward towards Russia, and with each nation it enfolded came the placement of American military with their nuclear weapons.
The reaction to Russia's concerns for the security of a sovereign Russia was met with, " What we do is none of your business. Ukraine was the last straw, and so, invasion by the evil demon Putin. Remember, Russia has been invaded numerous times in its history. Russia was the fulcrum on which the Second World War was won and paid a horrific price in defeating that monster Nazi war machine. America lost half a million souls to that war; Russia lost twenty-seven million souls and a totally gutted country. So, yes, my hopes are with the new order of the BRICS federation of nations, which I now believe represents over half the population of the planet now or close to it and growing. Think about it, China is America's chosen enemy. Why? Because they are doing better with a middle-of-the-road system than the West can match. So I say to NATO, get off Russia's back porch and go home; that is the sane thing to do, but NATO, somewhere along the line, transformed into a war machine, at first the puppet of the American Empire but now operating out of its own aggressive nature.
You certainly surprised me by putting forward BRICS as your model of the ideal world! I’m trying to characterise BRICS in general terms, and the best I’ve come up with so far is that it is a bunch of countries who agree to trade with one another on advantageous terms while simultaneously agreeing not to criticise their partners’ human rights records or use of violence towards their own citizens or their neighbours. Does that sound about right?
Perhaps I’m asking you about all this the wrong way. Let’s try something different: Popeye, what are the good things that you’d like to see characterising the world in the future? Peace? Prosperity? Justice? Democracy? Can you give us a list maybe? What is your BRICS-like international order supposed to deliver to the citizen on the street?
You'd rather keep the status quo; well, it's been that way since the fifteenth century. I might ask you: what is it you like so much about colonialism and empire? Many people realize we live in an interrelated, interdependent world and would thrive much better through cooperation rather than forced compliance by the most powerful nations on Earth; this certainly is not global democracy now, is it? I see it as an evolutionary change, and it's either change or perish; with the weaponry humanity presently has, we cannot afford not to change. Even a failed attempt at a better world is at least an attempt at rising above the stomach and its greedy mind. An analogy: the world wants to get rid of the bullies in the schoolyard, that sounds not like a good idea to you? America started to take over from the British Empire after World War I. They realized that they could not get their own way in the world without the help of the Americans, and the transition slowly began. America has been a cruel master, and it will fight change red in tooth and claw, but it is already losing. I believe the BRICS federation is about half the population of the world now and growing. You speak of human rights as if the West has any moral ground to stand on; it's just silly. Don't go there. The fact that Africa is rising scares the crap out of the West; they now realize, I think, that despite killing off their leaders, they cannot stop Africa's rise, and Africa is the richest continent in natural resources in the world. You have a better idea; let's hear it. I am all ears.
You're quite right about the horrors of the Stalin days of rule; he was as much a monster as Hitler, but it took one monster to defeat another monster, and it was Stalin's Russia that crushed the Nazi war machine and chased them all the way back to Berlin to deliver the final death blow of total defeat. I suspect you have no idea about the historical process that led to the invasion of Ukraine, or even the significance of the geometry at play. Ok, think of Ukraine as similar to Canada in relation to the United States: if Russia wished to establish a military presence in Canada, right on the US border, what would America do about this obvious threat to the United States? Do you think the States would tolerate that? Right, no, they would not, and neither has Russia; it invaded Ukraine just as the States would have invaded Canada. After the war, the Allies occupied Germany for many years, but eventually NATO wanted to free Germany and asked the Russians to go along with it. They did on the condition that NATO agreed to not move any forces closer to Russia. After this agreement, NATO began moving ever closer to Russia, one country at a time, and installing American military bases in these new members of NATO. When Russia expressed its concerns over its security, it was told that what NATO does is none of its business. This process continued until NATO wanted to occupy Ukraine right on Russia's border; thus, the evil Russians invaded Ukraine, and the war with the West began. This is how Russia, through the Western propaganda machine, became the bad guy in this scenario.
That's a complete logical mess.
I don't care for any of this Victorian era spheres-of-influence nonsense and I can't see how somebody whinging about empires as you do can justify it. Metternich died 150 years ago, let him stay that way.
All the countries that border all the other countries have the right to self-determination. Your imperialist crap justifies none of the authoritarian shit you are selling. Those countries are all democracies, none of them is a territory of any American empire.
Have a good one!
You're just being silly, so if Canada agreed to let Russia set up a military base across the river from the United States, you think the United States would be all right with that. That is too dumb for words.
