What's new
By:

Putin's Speech?!

ema

ema

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Is it being talked about in the US?

https://cluborlov.blogspot.com.tr/2014/10/putin-to-western-elites-play-time-is.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F9pQcqPdKo


The summary of it by a Russian blogger:
1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.

2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.

3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.

4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.

5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding “empire of chaos,” and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.

6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.

7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war—nor does she fear it.

8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order—until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain.

9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia's power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people.
Click to expand...
 
It sounds pretty reasonable. The U.S. has been incredibly aggressive and uncompromising in foreign relations. I guess that works so long as you're on top. Let's all hope for the sake of our grandkids we can stay on top forever. Or that our adversaries are much kinder than we are.
 
Gameface said:
It sounds pretty reasonable. The U.S. has been incredibly aggressive and uncompromising in foreign relations. I guess that works so long as you're on top. Let's all hope for the sake of our grandkids we can stay on top forever. Or that our adversaries are much kinder than we are.
Click to expand...
Meh. The era of war is over and the U.S. is the very last developed nation holding out. Putin's attempt at reestablishing totalitarian control over Russia is anything hut reasonable. His actions are guaranteeing Russia takes that much longer to develop into a humane and respectable liberal democracy, and he will go down in history as just another loser.

That's the 'new world order' he's so afraid of. The one where egomaniacal dictators are held accountable.
 
Gameface said:
It sounds pretty reasonable. The U.S. has been incredibly aggressive and uncompromising in foreign relations. I guess that works so long as you're on top. Let's all hope for the sake of our grandkids we can stay on top forever. Or that our adversaries are much kinder than we are.
Click to expand...
Nothing lasts forever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ema
Siro said:
Meh. The era of war is over and the U.S. is the very last developed nation holding out. Putin's attempt at reestablishing totalitarian control over Russia is anything hut reasonable. His actions are guaranteeing Russia takes that much longer to develop into a humane and respectable liberal democracy, and he will go down in history as just another loser.

That's the 'new world order' he's so afraid of. The one where egomaniacal dictators are held accountable.
Click to expand...

War is the lowest common denominator. When all else fails there's still the option to kill and destroy. And the fact is, if a nation can't do anything else successfully besides win in a fight that nation can destroy whatever else other "post-war" nations have accomplished. And they can rape all the women and children. And they can break all the toys. And they can execute all the non-compliant men.

Reality, it sucks.
 
addictionary said:
I can see the US H-bombing the entire planet before letting it slip out of their hands.

But if the new rulers happen to be the Chinese, God help the entirety.
Click to expand...


Well, I used to think it was just a funny joke, but when people talked about how in debt the U.S. was my response was "the thing about holding a debt is that you have to be able to collect...Let's see the Chinese try to collect."

Not so funny now, as the Chinese are building their capacity to "collect" and the Russians are increasing their capacity to challenge us and the world as a whole is becoming pretty ****ing murky.

I wouldn't say I'm a fan of Niccolo Machiavelli, but as a teenager I read "The Prince" seven or so times. I think they guy was a truth teller. Of course you have to be able to understand what he's saying in a broader sense in order to apply that thinking to the current reality, but the guy was keepin' it real and he wasn't lacking for intelligence or access to the intrigues of his day.

Anyway, one thing he said that has always stuck with me (and that I think is widely misunderstood) is "Men should be treated well or killed." Now, I take that to mean "men" should be treated well. If at all possible treat others well. If that is not possible, destroy them. He goes on to say that a man injured but not killed eventually has the ability and motivation to strike back. The U.S. has utterly defied this bit of wisdom. We have injured, and injured, and injured. Like it ain't no thing. To us, it isn't. To the injured I bet it's a different story.

But, the fact is that the U.S still has the ability to rain destruction down like no other nation, or combination of nations, or the rest of the world combined. You want to threaten our very existence? We will hurt you. We will kill. We will destroy all of your toys. How long will that be true? I can't say.

Machiavelli had another bit of wisdom. If you have the advantage over your enemies, attack them now. If you can gain the advantage by waiting to attack, then wait. If you have neither, you better figure something out.
 
Empires tend to rot from deep within. Sociological reasons and statial/governmental corruption can eat them from inside. And since every one bite is so small and not looks like a big deal, no one will probably care to fix it until it becomes a cancer.
 
The speech is definitely putting forth the Russian point of view, but it's not based on fantasy nor inventing facts.
 
The difference between the US and Russia

Russia in 2014 seized Crimea from a democratic nation. Before they even held the election Putin and the Russian media were referring to it as south Russia. Leading up to the hastily planned election the Crimean Tartars were intimidated and some were beaten. The results of the election were of course a foregon conclusion and within just over a month Russia had annexed it.

The US seized Puerto Rico in 1898 from Spainish colonialism. Puerto Rico voted for statehood over independence but the referendum was worded strangely so the US has not taken the vote as evidence for clear support for statehood and thus not expanded the union.

Russia's neighbors are under real threat of being partially or fully annexed by Russia. The US's neighbors face no such threat even though the strongest amongst them would be incapable of preventing the US from doing so.

Putin is perhaps the most intelligent leader of any nation and he is as patriotic as they come. Unfortunately Russia is facing decline whilst the US, Nato, and the west are poised to remain in the drivers seat and developing nations are rapidly increasing their own influence. Putin realizes that Russia cannot win an arms race, cannot win a trade war, and that his Eurasian currency (Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan) cannot compete with either the Euro or the Dollar.

So he is left with the only option available to him. Change the rules. I imagine for instance that he would love to prevent states from invading other states without support of the security council unless there was a imminent humanitarian or national security threat in a bordering state. It sounds wonderful at first until you think about Mr. Putins motives for supporting such a rule.

Putin sees that the great weakness of the west is an indecisiveness and lack of coordination amongst nations. This indecisiveness has already paid dividends for Putin in the Ukraine and in Georgia. If he can get the west to voluntarily disarm, make it harder to impose sanctions, and require the UN to vote for military action they will be paralyzed whilst he exercises his right unilaterally to "protect" the people of Latvia from their elected leaders.
 
Gameface said:
War is the lowest common denominator. When all else fails there's still the option to kill and destroy. And the fact is, if a nation can't do anything else successfully besides win in a fight that nation can destroy whatever else other "post-war" nations have accomplished. And they can rape all the women and children. And they can break all the toys. And they can execute all the non-compliant men.

Reality, it sucks.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what any of this is based on. Just because a view is cynical, doesn't necessarily makes it realistic.

Here's a nice short video on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbuUW9i-mHs

But if you want an extremely comprehensive study of the issue, with volumes of supporting data on the profound decline in violence within human civilization, then I highly recommend Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of our Nature.
 
Gameface said:
They probably consider breaking the Nazi military and going into Berlin as saving the world.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you paint your role in WWII as the country that lured a snake out of it's den and into your yard only to crush it?

I sure would.

The speech... says nothing. Nothing. At. All. It says what every country should try to say; Hey guys, we're here. We won't be bullied, nor will we try to bully. We're going to listen to outside ideas, but develop on our own.

If you want to take it as negatively as "OMFG!!!!1 TEH DEMOCRACIE H8 IS OVERWHELMING!", you can. But I will watch his actions, not his words.
 
ElRoach0 said:
Wouldn't you paint your role in WWII as the country that lured a snake into your yard only to crush it?

I sure would.
Click to expand...

Clever. And accurate. The snake was already dazed and would have eventually died anyway, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top