Russian Empire -- RSFSR under USSR -- Russian Federation

[Nemo1024]

I'd like to start a topic on Russia in general and the historical transformations that it suffered through. This is brought about by a discussion with iCEBREAKER that I had on Donetsk thread, but I also had similar discussions with people before. The discussion will be quoted below.

The main theme is: Russia is not USSR. But you are welcome to post other questions, concerns, observations related to Russia and its policies, past and present.

After the quote exchange below, I will make two separate posts. One covering the question of propaganda, and the other of my view on Russia as a victim of USSR.

The problem is not where nice Russian people put their beautiful country.

The problem is where the Kremlin puts the Russian Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_invasion_of_Georgia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia







and still today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine

These are only a few of the reasons why the countries in galdur's funny picture welcome NATO with open arms and great relief.

My reply:

The Soviet-Georgian war was basically a continuation of the 1917 revolution (coup d'etat) that overthrew the government of Russia, continuation of the fight between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks for power. I don't see you complaining about the Western intervention into Russia during that time. Before the coup d'etat of 1917, Georgia was part of Russian Empire, which it entered on its own request seeking protection from Persia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28country%29#Georgia_in_the_Russian_Empire

When you write about the Soviet era, speak of Soviet army and not about "Russians" as is the want of the Western propaganda. So the "Soviet invasion of anything" is basically an invasion of the said "anything" (depending on the year) by Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia, Moldova, Georgia, Russia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, and the remaining of the 15 republics. You need to remember that RSFSR (that's how Russia was called back then) had little say in the running of USSR. The majority of the Soviet leaders and the members of polit-bureaux were from other republics than Russia. After Stalin's (Georgian national) death, the centre of political power and influence shifted to the Ukrainian Communist Party.

In any case, when blaming USSR for something, don't forget to spread the blame, and not shift it onto Russians as it is dictated by your current political agenda.

Now on to Georgian-Russian skirmish. Yes, it was in fact a minor skirmish, and not a war. Georgia invaded South Ossetia, where Russian peacekeepers were stationed. Said peacekeeping forces responded according to the prior agreements without requiring any additional mobilisation (as the case would be in a real war). Georgians (and among the offensive force there were quite a few Ukrainians that you see in the current extremist factions that took power in Ukraine) started shelling civilians. If Russia didn't interfere, you'd have the outcome that you see now in Novorossia. Once Russian forces drove Georgian army back to Tbilisi, they retreated, not staying/occupying Georgia (while this is standard military practise for USA: see Afghanistan, Iraq, etc). Which invalidates your last link/reference. There is no Russian intervention in Ukraine. If Russia interfered, you'd know that, because Russian military would be then seen in Kiev and beyond. As it is, because of the USA's pressure, Russia is staying out, only helping with humanitarian aid, and is helplessly watching the atrocities committed by US-backed Ukrainian nazis.

While on the topic of Georgia, here is an interesting political analysis:

Ukraine Part 6. Striking Geopolitical Similarities: Georgian War – Beijing2008 and Ukraine – Sochi2014
https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/ukraine-part-6-striking-geopolitical-similarities-georgian-war-beijing2008-and-ukraine-sochi2014/

The events in Ukraine are developing with such speed that I can’t write articles fast enough. Three days ago I said that I was planning a new article about the striking similarities of the situation during #Beijing2008 and #Sochi2014. As many would recall, during the Beijing Summer Games opening ceremony it became known that #Georgia in Caucasus had attacked a small breakaway republic of #SouthOssetia, killing in the process several Russian peacekeepers and shelling the sleeping city. #Russia responded and for four days there was something that Russia considered a small “peacekeeping operation” but what was dubbed dramatically in the West a “Georgia-Russian war.”

Also, you mention 6 cases over the last century (including Soviet period). How about USA, with over 50 invasions all over the world just post-WWII. I am sure Bryant Coleman would oblige with an updated list, but here's one in his earlier posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=725907.msg8828906#msg8828906

Oh, and about welcoming NATO. Georgia started to be friendly with Russia again, even prosecuting the US protege and hardened criminal Saakashvili, which prompted NATO chief of command urgently fly there and push a few buttons, give a few threats.

Yesterday, Uzbekistan and Russia made several economical and military agreements (and Russia completely wrote off Uzbeck debt). I wonder how long it will be before USA rushes there with a colour revolution.

iCEBREAKER then wrote:

when blaming USSR for something, don't forget to spread the blame, and not shift it onto Russians as it is dictated by your current political agenda.

Where I "spread the blame" isn't important.  My "current political agenda" has nothing to so with this.

What matters is where countries harmed by the Kremlin spread the blame.  They spread it all over Red Square.

It's no surprise their current political agenda is to join NATO as soon as possible, all of your Russplaining notwithstanding.

And my reply:

You know there are a lot of people who are tired of those damned Belgians. Belgians stopped the South Stream project by sabotaging it. Currently the Belgians are driving German economy to ruin. This damned Belgian Angela Merkel is not hearing her own business circles in Germany. Oh, and Belgian Francois Hollande, despite the French best interests, killed its ship-building industry. Yes, Belgians are evil. Many Europeans are spreading the blame all over Brussels now.

Oh, and show me countries that are newly rushing to join NATO, where either a colour revolution or a substantial buying off of the politicians by US was not needed first.

Your statement is exactly the reason why you should differentiate between Russia and Soviet Union. Under Soviet Union, Russia was an occupied country, itself a victim. During coup d'etat of 1917 Russia was essentially hijacked, anyone who resisted killed off (much like today in Ukraine - anyone against forced Westernasation now falls victim of lustration), and the state and its structure destroyed. Russia (RSFSR) had the least say in running of USSR, and its territories were treated as private property of the USSR leaders, to be given away at a whim (Novorossia, South Ossetia, Crimea). If USSR's capital were in Kiev, would you be blaming Ukrainians, and if in Tbilisi, would Georgians be the bad guys today?

With that I tried to show that blaming Russia/Russians for the deeds of USSR, just because the capital of USSR was in Moscow is the same as blaming Belgians for the crimes of EU, just because the EU HQ is in Brussels, but the message didn't get through.

And if Putin had tits, he'd be Angela Merkel.  So what?   

Regardless, how I personally differentiate or do not differentiate "between Russia and Soviet Union" is not important.

What is important is how the neighboring countries, oppressed by Russians from the Kremlin under both under Tsar and Bolshevik, differentiate or do not differentiate "between Russia and Soviet Union."

Looking at this map...

...it is clear Russia's neighbors reject your putative differentiation as a 'distinction without a difference' and crave the safety of NATO membership and bases.

So here is my final attempt to clarify:

But it is important. First NATO = USA, based on financing and agenda. Most of the new bases are created through bribes and threats of the politicians in the host countries. We can have this conversation again in 5 years or less, when NATO countries will start jumping ship, and some of the newest countries will be going first...

In the meantime:
https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/this-is-the-germany-i-recognize-anti-nato-pro-friendship-with-russia-demonstration/

‘NATO was never what it was created for. After NATO lost its fake stated purpose in 1989, its true purpose was suddenly revealed: to promote USA’s hegemony over the world. We have no reason to stay as part of the union that so openly states its global goals.’

Now about the Tsar period. Whom did the Russian oppress then, pray? Russian imperial model was very much different from the British (who are the real masters of oppression. See: India). When a new country or territory joined Russian Empire, it did so on privileged position. The aristocracy of that country automatically became the aristocracy of the Russian court, with equal rights to the Russian aristocrats. And the peasants of the new territories were protected from migration from the original Russian territories - Russian peasants were prohibited from moving to the new territories. The relation were built upon trade.

So yes, differentiating is very much important. As for the Soviet Union, remember that for half of its existence, the leader of USSR and his right-hand-man were Georgians (Stalin/Gzhugashvili and Beria); Shevarnadze, Soviet Foreign Minister of the later days was Georgian; Lithuanian and Ukrainian party tops had a very strong sway in the government, Ukrainians heading USSR for several periods.

[Nemo1024]

A small note about propaganda.

I moved to the West in the late teens. Having grown in a family that was critical of the Soviet system, while living in the USSR, I grew pretty much immune to the social propaganda. In the West, I was surprised to discover that social propaganda is very much a part of everyday life, and is almost a copycat of the Soviet one. My propaganda immunity remained needed. Take, for example, a passage from a Soviet song "Eh, how wonderful it is to live in a Soviet land", and the Norwegian mantra, often cited on the MSM pages that we live in the richest, most socially secure country in the world...

When it comes to present-day Russian social propaganda, it is mainly saying that, yes, there are problems in Russia, but they can be overcome if people build strong families, bear children and adhere to Christianity. Christianity/religion (RF is a multi-religion state, so the balance is kept between the three major confessions) is used to the point of obvious indoctrination, even though Church and State are officially separated.

Present-day political propaganda, is interesting to observe. Russia has a tendency to exaggerate the facts and their meaning/consequences, while keeping all of the logic connections and the context intact. Western political propaganda, on the other hand, twists the facts, often either taking them out of context or rearranging the context altogether to suite the need.

[jaysabi]

I just don't find it credible that Russia wasn't calling the shots politically in the USSR. Do you have (respected) sources to substantiate such a claim? I studied US-Soviet relations during the Cold War in college, and asking me to believe the the Russian satellites were politically and militarily more important than Moscow is a great stretch, to put it politely.

[Nemo1024]

I am not saying that the other republics were more important politically (with the exception fro Ukraine during Hrushjov period). Though many republics were demanding, had strong lobby, as we would say now.

Militarily, all republics contributed proportionally. That also meant that the losses were proportional. Tens of millions Russian perished during both The War and from the Soviet repressions. Russia still hasn't come around after the demographic hit of those years.

What I am saying is that Russia under USSR was a shadow of its former self pre-1917 coup d'etat. Yes, the shots were called from Moscow, but who were in power there then? How was the money distributed? Russia (RSFSR as it was called then) dissolved politically into shadows during USSR era. It had its own government but it had little say over the running of RSFSR, unlike the local governments of the other republics.

Note that RSFSR lost its territories on the whim of the leaders of USSR and through other machinations, without consulting the government and population of RSFSR. For example, Kazahstan and Kirgizija became republics within USSR (and are now separate states), but before 1930s they were a part of RSFSR. Lenin wrote off Novorossia to Ukraine. Stalin presented Georgia (his homeland) with Abhazia and South-Sossetia. Hrushjov made a generous personal gift to Ukraine, bypassing USSR's constitution and not consulting with RSFSR government - Crimea.

RSFSR was the economic donor of USSR to its own detriment. Whole cities were built in the Central Asian republics and Baltics were industrialised, while Russia coughed up the money. (Interestingly, only Belarus managed to preserve the industry and economy that it got from USSR. All the other republics squandered their inheritance.)

Interesting is also the Western portrayal of events from that time. If an event was positive, you'd largely see it hailed as an achievement of USSR (which is correct), while if an event is negative, then it becomes "those Russians".

I see the 20th century as a lost century for Russia. Only now is it somewhat starting continuation of the path it was walking before 1917.

[sickhouse]

I hope Russia does something about US terrorist plundering of the middle east and now Ukraine.... Even if it means everyone on earth dies - we need to reboot humanity everyone in the west is evil and just thinking about themselves.

[TaunSew]

RSFSR was the economic donor of USSR to its own detriment. Whole cities were built in the Central Asian republics and Baltics were industrialised, while Russia coughed up the money. (Interestingly, only Belarus managed to preserve the industry and economy that it got from USSR. All the other republics squandered their inheritance.)

Nationalistic revisionism at best.  Riga was the largest city under the Swedish Empire and later it didn't need Russian help in industrialization.  On the contrary, most of the early industry in the Russian Empire was in Congress Poland, Baltic states and Finland and this technical expertise and capital came from the Baltic sea trade network.


As for Central Asia - this might be true for Tajikistan but countries like Kazakhstan have cities like Astana that were largely built after 1990 and are more modern than anything you can find in Russia.  Vladimir Putin himself should know that - he was somebody who grew up in the squalors of St. Petersburg and the squalors are still present in Russia.   Typical household in Russia often consists of two working adults making less than $10,000 a year and real estate prices in the large cities rivals California.

[blablahblah]

What I am saying is that Russia under USSR was a shadow of its former self pre-1917 coup d'etat. Yes, the shots were called from Moscow, but who were in power there then?

Why do you bother asking if you are never interested in what other people have to say on this?

You're always complaining that Russia was just a victim of the USSR dictatorship, yet you seem to like that style of leadership.

How was the money distributed? Russia (RSFSR as it was called then) dissolved politically into shadows during USSR era. It had its own government but it had little say over the running of RSFSR, unlike the local governments of the other republics.

Note that RSFSR lost its territories on the whim of the leaders of USSR and through other machinations, without consulting the government and population of RSFSR. For example, Kazahstan and Kirgizija became republics within USSR (and are now separate states), but before 1930s they were a part of RSFSR. Lenin wrote off Novorossia to Ukraine. Stalin presented Georgia (his homeland) with Abhazia and South-Sossetia. Hrushjov made a generous personal gift to Ukraine, bypassing USSR's constitution and not consulting with RSFSR government - Crimea.

Crimea river...

Have you considered that the USSR was just Russia's alter-ego? They just changed the label so that Russia would not get blamed after a future "coup" or "collapse". People sometimes do similar things with limited-liability companies. If it goes bankrupt, they just start a new company under a different name. Or, if they want to try something different, they won't want to risk damaging the label of the old brand, so they create a second company.

[saddampbuh]

ussr was a great place until stalin died. most of the information we get about it comes from descendants of russian and russian empire aristocrat exiles who are still pissed of they lost property and power. there were no man made famines no tens of millions killed by the regime and the incarceration rate was lower than 2014 usa.

present day russia is defending its people who are unfortunate enough to have ended up on wrong sides of borders after ussr broke up in countries where majority populations wish to sell out to nato/eu for more mcdonalds and iphones. good for them.

[Nemo1024]

RSFSR was the economic donor of USSR to its own detriment. Whole cities were built in the Central Asian republics and Baltics were industrialised, while Russia coughed up the money. (Interestingly, only Belarus managed to preserve the industry and economy that it got from USSR. All the other republics squandered their inheritance.)

Nationalistic revisionism at best.  Riga was the largest city under the Swedish Empire and later it didn't need Russian help in industrialization.  On the contrary, most of the early industry in the Russian Empire was in Congress Poland, Baltic states and Finland and this technical expertise and capital came from the Baltic sea trade network.


As for Central Asia - this might be true for Tajikistan but countries like Kazakhstan have cities like Astana that were largely built after 1990 and are more modern than anything you can find in Russia.  Vladimir Putin himself should know that - he was somebody who grew up in the squalors of St. Petersburg and the squalors are still present in Russia.   Typical household in Russia often consists of two working adults making less than $10,000 a year and real estate prices in the large cities rivals California.

I don't see where you find revisionism here.

Riga: The keyword here is "under Swedish Empire" - until 1721. All industrialisation happened there while it was part of the Russian Empire. Latvia, like Estonia, Finland and Ukraine became states as the result of the coup d'etat in Russia. I'll touch that in a later post.

Now, Astana. Here you really have to learn history. The previouse name of the city - Celinograd, as it was called since 1961, and before that is was the city called Akmolinsk. Celinograd comes from the word "celina" - "virgin lands", and commemorated the development of such empty lands during the big constructions projects of the Soviet Union. Btw, millions of Russians were sent either voluntarily or "compulsory voluntarily" to build/raise the southern republics and Siberia. You can read more about this project of 1955-1965 here.

And about revisionism in general. Russian history was heavily revised during the Soviet period. A lot of the pre-1917 history was either perverted, defamed or sent into oblivion, redacted. It is interesting to observe how the Western historian are now actively revising the history of USSR, but are embracing the Soviet revisions that damaged Russia. Food for thought?

[Nemo1024]

I just don't find it credible that Russia wasn't calling the shots politically in the USSR. Do you have (respected) sources to substantiate such a claim? I studied US-Soviet relations during the Cold War in college, and asking me to believe the the Russian satellites were politically and militarily more important than Moscow is a great stretch, to put it politely.

Do you understand Russian? I would expect that if you studied US-Soviet relations, then you'd want to study the original sources. In case you do, I'd recommend the following historical work: Aлeкcaндp Eлиceeв: "Pyccкиe в CCCP - Пoтepпeвшиe или пoбeдитeли?" (Alexander Eliseev: "Russians in USSR - Victims or victors?") ISBN: 978-5-9955-0129-9 It's a well-researched work that looks at the title questions from all angles. I remember I did not completely agree with all of his conclusions, but the information presented is pretty comprehensive and he provides references for future research.


Relevant reading at this point would be:

Deconstructing Russophobia
http://russia-insider.com/en/2014/11/17/07-03-54pm/russophobia

   Russia is the ideal scapegoat seeking to blame others for their own problems
    Russia has no significant lobby in Western societies
    Cultural prejudice goes back for 1000 years
    English russophobia has been virulent for centuries - going back to imperial competition
    Resentment against pogroms of Jewish immigrants in the West contributed and contibutes to a cultural stereotype of Russia
    Russia has to learn to effectively argue against this ongoing prejudice in the court of world public opinion

Black myths about Rus – From Ivan the Formidable until our time
http://stanislavs.org/black-myths-about-rus-from-ivan-the-formidable-until-our-time/

[Nemo1024]

Let me play a devil's advocate role for a while.
There are a couple of reason for why some set equation sign between Russia and USSR.

Before the coup d'etat of 1917, several of what later became republics were part of Russian empire, either integrally as a national component (Malorossia, Novorossia, Belorussia), as results of peace treaties (Latvia, Estonia, Finland), or as unions brought forth by mutual military or economic interests (Tadjikistan, Georgia).

Now, taking a step back, it is a sad irony that Soviet ideology was built on the works of Marks and Engels - two vocal russophobes, who in their works wrote that Russia must be broken up. Lenin, a half-German, was also a russophobe with a personal grudge against the royal family. It is now wonder that when Lenin came to power through the coup d'etat, he promptly set about breaking up Russia. Ironically, he is the founding father of at least 4 states: Ukraine, Finland, Latvia and Estonia. About 1.5 million Russian people died as a result of orders that can be traced to Lenin. He also pushed for abolishing Cyrillic alphabet and Westernising Russia, The russophobic policy later prevailed in the Soviet Union. While other republics could demonstrate their national identities, it was unaceptable to declare oneself as Russian, you were immediately stamped as chauvinist. There were many other manifistations of russophobia in USSR, Russian national conciousness was seen as a threat to the existence of USSR's elites.

Nevertheless, all the territories that were part of greater Russia (with the exception of Finland) later came under the umbrella of Soviet Union, and Russian was the lingua franca of the USSR. So, from the outside it very much looked like Russia, while politically, on the inside, Russia was bleeding its lands... The use of Russian language is persistent today. It is gruesome to watch Georgian and Ukrainian extremists convene in the Ukrainian coup government and discuss how all things Russian must be exterminated... using Russian language as their common tongue.

(By the way, if people want to understand what happened in Russia in 1917, look at Ukraine in 2014. Less than 100 years after, the events are repeating themselves, down to such details as Polish intervention.)

These same regions were later again ejected at terminal velocity when USSR was broken up. And they are gyrating back, whether the West wants it or not. Some doing so because of the national identity, other out of economic sensibilities, but it's a process that already started. Russia, true to its pre 1917 policy will welcome into the Federation those who want to join, while creating mutually-profitable economic ties with those who wish to stay for themselves. No force needs to be applied.

As a post-scriptum to the above, a quote from Patrick J. Buchanan:
A Foreign Policy of Russophobia
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/a-foreign-policy-of-russophobia/

We seem to support every ethnic group that secedes from Russia, but no ethnic group that secedes from a successor state. This is rank Russophobia masquerading as democratic principle.

What do the people of Crimea, Transnistria, Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Luhansk, or Donetsk want? Do we really know? Do we care?

And what have the Russians done to support secessionist movements to compare with our 78-day bombing of Serbia to rip away her cradle province of Kosovo, which had been Serbian land before we were a nation?

[Agestorzrxx]

Why russian keep invade other country?
I don't understand.
At present, invade other country can't bring any to their own people.

[blablahblah]

Let me play a devil's advocate role for a while.
There are a couple of reason for why some set equation sign between Russia and USSR.

Before the coup d'etat of 1917

Was it "bloodless"?

Now, taking a step back, it is a sad irony that Soviet ideology was built on the works of Marks and Engels - two vocal russophobes, who in their works wrote that Russia must be broken up. Lenin, a half-German, was also a russophobe with a personal grudge against the royal family. It is now wonder that when Lenin came to power through the coup d'etat, he promptly set about breaking up Russia. Ironically, he is the founding father of at least 4 states: Ukraine, Finland, Latvia and Estonia. About 1.5 million Russian people died as a result of orders that can be traced to Lenin. He also pushed for abolishing Cyrillic alphabet and Westernising Russia, The russophobic policy later prevailed in the Soviet Union. While other republics could demonstrate their national identities, it was unaceptable to declare oneself as Russian, you were immediately stamped as chauvinist. There were many other manifistations of russophobia in USSR, Russian national conciousness was seen as a threat to the existence of USSR's elites.

You're being way too paranoid and small-minded about patriotic labels, and you are missing the bigger picture.

Apparently, the Brits have to call themselves "British" on their census forms, instead of English. Is England being "destroyed from within by the evil British Empire"? No, the idea is laughable. England basically IS Great Britain, and the different label is just political correctness to make the satellite states feel more comfortable. What is far more likely is that for example the Scottish and Welsh cultures are gradually being eroded and diluted due to the overwhelming dominance of the English language.

Do you think the imperialistic Russians could have just told the Estonians and Latvians "come, volunteer to join Russia! The name of your country will change to Russia, but that's just a minor technicality to save ink on maps. Everything else will be the same. You'll be able to keep your own little quirky culture, and trade will improve. We'll allow you to export more goods to Moscow."

Wow! Sounds like a great deal, right?

Of course nobody would ever buy that bullshit. As usual, it would be a long and expensive war. The Russians just needed a better story (to reduce military costs), and Soviet ideology was that story.

"Hey look! We're not Russia any more! Those guys are gone. We have grown beyond such primitive patriotic labels. We are now a friendly Union! Here's a leaflet explaining Marx' Dialectical Gobbledegook. We invite you to join us! By the way, pay no attention to our giant Russian Soviet army, they're just doing unrelated exercises next to your border for no reason. Oh and... if you do decide to join us peacefully, we would require you teach the Russian language in your schools. It's just a small technicality to promote friendly relations while Moscow steals all your stuff makes really good trade deals with you."

Nevertheless, all the territories that were part of greater Russia (with the exception of Finland) later came under the umbrella of Soviet Union, and Russian was the lingua franca of the USSR. So, from the outside it very much looked like Russia, while politically, on the inside, Russia was bleeding its lands...

The use of Russian language is persistent today.

Of course it is. That was one of the most important parts of the "Soviet" expansion.

[Nemo1024]

Why russian keep invade other country?
I don't understand.
At present, invade other country can't bring any to their own people.

Invade what country? Ukraine? Because Psaki told you there is a YouTube video of it, while avoiding giving any hard evidence?
Believe me, if Russia invaded anyone, you'd know by the hysterical howling in the West and a lot of satellite and ground imagery coming directly from CIA (and not from YouTube).
And what did you mean by that last sentence? It does not make sense.

[NUFCrichard]

Why russian keep invade other country?
I don't understand.
At present, invade other country can't bring any to their own people.

Even if Russia has invaded other countries, we can surely agree that they are only border countries that are of major strategic importance to them. They don't get involved in frivolous conflicts around the world like certain other groups of nations.

[jaysabi]

Why russian keep invade other country?
I don't understand.
At present, invade other country can't bring any to their own people.

Even if Russia has invaded other countries, we can surely agree that they are only border countries that are of major strategic importance to them. They don't get involved in frivolous conflicts around the world like certain other groups of nations.

Sorry border countries, your right to self-determination is less important to Russia's right to control you.

[Nemo1024]

Why russian keep invade other country?
I don't understand.
At present, invade other country can't bring any to their own people.

Even if Russia has invaded other countries, we can surely agree that they are only border countries that are of major strategic importance to them. They don't get involved in frivolous conflicts around the world like certain other groups of nations.

Sorry border countries, your right to self-determination is less important to Russia's right to control you.

Sorry, countries of Planet Earth, your right to self-determination is less important to USA's exceptionalistic right to control you.

[jaysabi]

Why russian keep invade other country?
I don't understand.
At present, invade other country can't bring any to their own people.

Even if Russia has invaded other countries, we can surely agree that they are only border countries that are of major strategic importance to them. They don't get involved in frivolous conflicts around the world like certain other groups of nations.

Sorry border countries, your right to self-determination is less important to Russia's right to control you.

Sorry, countries of Planet Earth, your right to self-determination is less important to USA's exceptionalistic right to control you.

Calm down Ruski. I wasn't defending the USA's imperialism, I was pointing out how flawed the quoted logic is.

[Nemo1024]

Why russian keep invade other country?
I don't understand.
At present, invade other country can't bring any to their own people.

Even if Russia has invaded other countries, we can surely agree that they are only border countries that are of major strategic importance to them. They don't get involved in frivolous conflicts around the world like certain other groups of nations.

Sorry border countries, your right to self-determination is less important to Russia's right to control you.

Sorry, countries of Planet Earth, your right to self-determination is less important to USA's exceptionalistic right to control you.

Calm down Ruski. I wasn't defending the USA's imperialism, I was pointing out how flawed the quoted logic is.

He-he. I wasn't very agitated. Yes, that logic is flawed (and my comment further showed it), and I would actually take objection to NUFCrichard's reply saying that "Russia invaded other countries". Peace.

[jaysabi]

Why russian keep invade other country?
I don't understand.
At present, invade other country can't bring any to their own people.

Even if Russia has invaded other countries, we can surely agree that they are only border countries that are of major strategic importance to them. They don't get involved in frivolous conflicts around the world like certain other groups of nations.

Sorry border countries, your right to self-determination is less important to Russia's right to control you.

Sorry, countries of Planet Earth, your right to self-determination is less important to USA's exceptionalistic right to control you.

Calm down Ruski. I wasn't defending the USA's imperialism, I was pointing out how flawed the quoted logic is.

He-he. I wasn't very agitated. Yes, that logic is flawed (and my comment further showed it), and I would actually take objection to NUFCrichard's reply saying that "Russia invaded other countries". Peace.

 I just find it ridiculous that one kind of hegemony can be "better" than another kind. Whether it's the US interfering in the Middle East or Russia interfering in border countries, imperialism is imperialism. These nations ought to be leaving independent nations alone for the good of the planet.