If you knew absolutely nothing about anything just looking at the GOPs stance on Russia 30 years ago to now, shows you immediately how full of shit and propaganda the party is.
They’ve literally gone from fuck the reds to sucking Putins cock.
A complete 180 on their “values”, without even flinching…
Yes, I believe they are called traitors.
Better dead than red.
Not to be that guy but Democrats were all up on Putins dick like 20 years ago. He came and spoke at some universities and denounced the war in Iraq. It was good publicity for him for sure. I thought he seemed pretty chill but I was barely a teenager yet.
So what? Putin hadn’t gone full Nazi yet and was for the most part a respected world leader. The fact that he spoke up against the bullshit Iraq war, just shows that even assholes can be right occasionally.
Putin of 2000 is not Putin of 2020.
And furthermore, I’d say there’s a big difference between let him give a speech at a university and let him have Ukraine.
Not to be that guy, but you’re absolutely that guy looking for bOtH sIdEs false equivalencies.
I was a leftist teenager in the W Bush years and I was very much pro-Putin/Russia. I even used to watch RT occasionally. It wasn’t until around 2012, with the handling of Pussy Riot that I started to look more closely at what modern Russia actually was, and what kind of leader Putin was. I remember laughing at Romney back in 2012 before all of that, when he said that Russia was out biggest threat. Fast forward to 2016 and I realised just how right he was, and I really don’t like agreeing with Mitt Romney.
W: He has evil eyes.
Trump: Give him Ukraine, what could happen.
Was this imagined time before or after W looked into his eyes and saw his soul and how good he would be for Russia?
NATO WAS BUILT SPECIFICALLY TO OPPOSE RUSSIA, MORON!
Who says Russia can’t join in on that goal? /j
In fairness, in the very early 2000s, before it became obvious Russia was just going to continue being a dick, Russia was on the path of becoming a NATO ally.
Which makes one wonder why they were still around after the collapse of the USSR. Well, they’ve managed to create jobs for themselves since then, so congrats to them.
NATO was built to oppose the USSR, of which Russia was a member state. Do not confuse them. Modern Russia is feeling the effects of the Soviet era, but that doesn’t make them the same country.
Although you are correct from a historical perspective, you are not from a foreign policy perspective.
With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the United States considered the Russian Federation as the successor state of the USSR.
“Successor state” means the next state. Your own source disproved you. The successor states to Yugoslavia are not the same as Yugoslavia in that same manner.
Edit: since this is the most downvoted comment I’ve posted in this thread, I’m curious. Does anyone know why the US chose to so quickly recognize Russia as the successor state out of all of the former Soviet nations?
Removed by mod
Took a while for someone to finally try and answer this.
It’s because Gorbachev plotted with a small group of people to undermine the Soviet communist party and “reform” it into a more liberal nation to appease the west. What he failed to realise was that the Soviet communist party was the underpinning of the entire USSR (an optional union), as well as the source of his authority as an elected leader. This intentional shifting of power from “we are party for the politicians” to “we are the party that controls institutions” (as well as external pressure, unorthodox party members as elected officials, and historical implications) weakened the Soviet party and the USSR to the point where unity broke down into national/ethnic tribalism with far right reactionaries destabilizing things even more. When the USSR collapsed in political suicide, Yeltsin was President of the Russian SFSR, was more than eager to seize power from Gorbachev, and was one of three that plotted to illegally dissolve the USSR. The moment the USSR collapsed, Gorbachev was out of power. The US didn’t have to do anything to get the same results as the Mujahideen, but they had a reactionary in power that was lukewarm to the west; the results were the same. That is why they recognized the Russian Federation so quickly.
The Russian SFSR and the Russian Federation are distinct countries with different economies and different interests. In no way, shape, or form are they the same. The only thing in common is the geographic region. You hurt your credibility by claiming otherwise.
You might be technically correct but the distinction largely does not matter in terms of the West taking a hard line against military aggression in Eastern Europe.
This doesn’t make any sense. What military aggression?
Edit: aside from this ongoing war in the Ukraine, of which Russia is obviously the aggressor towards another former Soviet state (i.e. not towards the west)
I thought you were being intentionally obtuse but I see what you mean. Ukraine might not be a NATO member (yet), but that doesn’t mean that NATO wants Russia grabbing land from democracies that act as a buffer between them and Russia.
I’ll be entirely honest, I don’t think NATO will accept the Ukraine at all. I think NATO saw an opportunity to fuel a proxy war against Russia, and after they win the Ukraine will receive some aid and be left to their own devices. There’s nothing about the situation that leads me to believe anything else other than NATO using the war as an excuse to further their imperial interests. Right now the excuse is the war. When the war is over, there will be a different excuse; perhaps it will be “not until the country is rebuilt”.
‘the ukraine’ was dropped over 30 years ago. Nato Imperialism? i see you.
I don’t know what you mean. I use ‘ukraine’ and ‘the ukraine’ interchangeably for better sentence flow. That’s like getting upset over someone saying ‘the us’.
What military aggression?
Russia fighting a devastating war in Chechnya. Russia occupying and trying to annex Transnistria. Russia fighting a war in Georgia in order to annex South Ossetia. Russia fighting a second war of annihilation in Chechnya. Russia annexing Crimea. Russia fighting a war in an attempt to annex all of Ukraine.
Do you think this doesn’t constitute military aggression?
I will not deny that Russia is an aggressive nation, and I was not aware of some of those things, like the war of aggression with Georgia. Thank you for sharing some examples. Also, holy shit Putin is more scum than I thought. However, these acts of aggression by Russia don’t appear to me as reasons for NATO to exist beyond the collapse of the USSR.
How are these acts of aggression towards the west in a manner that justifies the continued existence of NATO?
Let me ask you the opposite question: what do all of those nations on that list (and really, it’s only a partial list because it doesn’t even feature Russian aggression on the Asian continent, in the Middle East and in Africa) have in common?
Is it possible that the commonality is that not a single one of them is part of a large military alliance capable of stopping Russian aggression?
And, to take this one step further: why do you think that, in the last two decades, Russia has never messed with Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania - even though it has repeatedly claimed that they should be part of Russia?
Is it possible that NATO membership of those three, very small nations is all that has prevented Russia from treating them like Transnistria or Crimea or South Ossetia or Chechnya?
Those are all excellent questions, and unfortunately I don’t know all the answers. I’ll try to answer what I can despite their loaded nature, and say when I don’t know.
- There are a few different commonalities; they generally identify as slavs (with exceptions, especially in the middle east like Kazakhstan), most former USSR states are member states of the CIS, almost all nations have people within them that identify as ethnic Russian, and naturally most share borders with Russia.
- That’s a good point, most former Soviet states don’t have a modernized military and likely wouldn’t be capable of withstanding a Russian invasion, however I think it’s worth pointing out that the majority of the West also thought Ukraine would fall during the initial invasion. Generally, I don’t think I understand your point here and I’m genuinely interested in the reasons you brought this up.
- Honestly, I have no idea why the northern Slavic nations haven’t seen more aggression from Russia. It’s possible that the Kremlin doesn’t see them as valuable, though they have seen some disinformation campaigns and political propaganda via proximity to Russia and Belarus.
- I don’t think NATO has been a deterrent, but it’s possible that I’m wrong. I think it’s worth pointing out that an excuse for Russia invading Ukraine was explicitly NATO trying to expand into Ukraine. They didn’t have much interest in doing so either, until after the initial invasion saw Ukraine still standing.
Uhhh, Crimea, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Africa.
They don’t attack the west directly, they attack western interests and proxies.
None of those are attacks on the West, and if you recall there’s been far more violence and imperialism imposed on Africa and Afghanistan by the global north.
You’re shifting the goalpoast. The comment above you said the west is drawing a line in regards to military violence upon Eastern Europe. All of Eastern Europe are old Soviet states so mentioning that is not at all a refutal of their statement.
I didn’t shift anything. I want to know what military aggression they’re talking about, because otherwise it just comes off as the ethnocentric and uninformed stereotype of “slavs are violent”.
deleted by creator
- I very clearly made an edit asking for an example that wasn’t the war in Ukraine.
- So NATO has remained in force since the dissolution of the USSR because they’ve known that the Russian Federation would invade Ukraine 30 years into the future? And they didn’t even have the courtesy to give them a warning? Get real.
The war in Ukraine obviously.
Gaetz is on par mentally with Boebert and MGT. Is China really building a secret military base in Cuba? Not so secret now, I guess, unless it’s supposed to be common knowledge and he didn’t just let slip a piece of national security.
god damn he’s dumb.
dumba Russian operative.
Removed by mod
Makes you wonder about what’s in his blackmail file that keeps him so willing to be a Kremlin mouthpiece.
I bet he’s just being paid with money and fresh kids every month.
How would that even work? Then we’ll have to deal with figuring out what to do when “allies” attack other members.
This would mean that Article 5 - the mutual defense clause - would come into effect whenever Russia manufactured a conflict claiming it was being attacked. So what then? America would have to send in its military in order to fight a war in Transnistria? America would have to commit troops to wage war in South Ossetia? America would have to defend Crimea against “attacks” from Ukraine?
Friendly reminder a significant portion of the Republican party has been in Putin’s pocket since at least 2016!
1980s. Trump never said or did anything about politics until he went to Russia in 1987.
The top level of the Soviet diplomatic service arranged his 1987 Moscow visit. With assistance from the KGB. It took place while Kryuchkov was seeking to improve the KGB’s operational techniques in one particular and sensitive area. The spy chief wanted KGB staff abroad to recruit more Americans.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/19/trump-first-moscow-trip-215842/
Trump ran for president shortly after in 1987-88.
1989 he took out a full page ad to publicize the case and called for the death of the central park five, now known as the exonerated five, as they were innocent.
Wonder what the Russians said to him.
They got Steven Seagal, Rudy Giuliani, a bunch of others. All are Republicans, including Tulsi Gabbard and RFK.
Traitors to America, each.
E: Czech Espionage campaign against Trump began in 1977. Ivana Trump was investigated for years by the FBI as a spy. Trump’s phones were tapped and letters read by Czech intelligence. Wonder what compromising information they learned. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/soviet-linked-spies-targeted-trump-after-he-married-ivana-knowing-he-wanted-to-be-president-one-day/
Traitorous scumbag.
They wanted to join NATO. NATO said no, and here we are.
In that case, imagine how much long term benefit China could bring.
Is this an alternative fuxking timeline we’re in?
Do republicans WANT to be seen as traitorous evil dixkheads? They seem to think they can spin anything and their idiot supporters will believe it, and, after trump, they’re probably right.
It’s pretty insidious. I’ve seen Republicans wearing shirts that say things like, “I’d rather be Russian than Democrat.”
I’m old enough to remember when the right was saying “better dead than red” (referring to the Soviet Union, not to “red/Republicans”). They went from “better dead than red” to “better Russian than Democrat” scarily quickly.
That’s why Russia is putting up an internet-wide firewall. They know how effective they’ve been at weakening their enemies by manipulating conversations on the internet. They nearly took down our whole country not too long ago. And they are still dangerously close, as seen in the above story.
It’s because they are against “Communism”, whatever that means, but the modern Russian state is seen by them as a model Capitalist country. They’re more likely to consider someone from San Francisco a Communist than someone from Russia.
It’s an Oligarchy, of course, but they see themselves as Oligarchs-in-training.
There’s a bunch of people at the side of the road by the local mall every day with tons of flags and signs like “good bless America because Biden doesn’t” and “defund 🇺🇦 refund 🇺🇸”. Yet during protests by democrats they’re all going on about how the democrats protesting must have no jobs and should be working instead of protesting.
If you remind yourself that everything this band of dipshits does is in Russia’s favor, then the world makes sense.
