• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ukraine's cultural genocide

Tigerace117:

Yes. Alfons is not alone in his advocacy for Igor (Strelkov) Girkin. Another poster has endorsed this man and gone one step further suggesting the Chechen Ramzan Kadyrov who is even more corrupt and violent than Igor Strelkov.

Both men suggested are examples of the type of leaders who would dismember Russia into their own personal regional principalities?states because they are incapable of working or unwilling to work with others and simply choose never to make compromises which last very long. I surmise we are dealing with people whose ideas closely align with very far right-leaning, ultra-violent, Russian hyper-nationalists who would rather see their country destroyed from within than get along with their neighbours and grow peacefully. It is quite tragic for the "rodina mat"/motherland and for all the sacrifices of their forefathers and mothers to protect it in its many times of peril.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I believe you're referring to me in this post.

Let me say that I believe that there is a lot of Russia hatred in the West. That has been the case for centuries. I also believe that history tells us that when Russia is not expanding it is contracting due to this endemic hostility and the repeated history of western aggression towards it.

Now to your point. Because of Russia's size, geography (that thing again), and diversity, it con only be held together by a strong central leader. Western style 'democracy' is a sham put on to pacify citizens and pretend that ther views matter, but it's also a slow and weak decision making machine which is designed to preserve the status quo. Russia can have no such luxury because it needs to be dynamic and decisive in decision making. We see the advantages that this brings Russia over such western debacles as Syria, and their vanity projects like Libya. The West is unable to react to the obvious failures of its own policies.

So, sham democracy is not an answer for Russia. This system would preside over the break up of Russia into constituent smaller entities - that's exactly why the West is so keen to foist its own weak systems onto Russia. Ironically, in a western system, Chechnya would have become its own mini state. So Evilroddy, try looking at Europe to see how the West creates regional principalities like Kosovo.

By contrast, Russia holds together because of strong leaders. Kadyrov is not my favourite, but being a Muslim he would in fact be ideally placed to hold the Caucasus regions in place. The exercise and projection of power from Moscow is a central to Russia's future. This is precisely what Putin did in his first term.

Thus your analysis is a virtual nonsense. Russia does not survive by weakness, or by trying to accommodate with a West which has now shown itself to be incapable of accepting anything other than surrender on US terms. This is not ultra anything, it's an empirical observation of reality, of geography, of centuries of history, and of the post Cold War era. The siren voices of those who actually want Russia to be weak and subservient cut no ice in Russia.
 
Regarding RV's attempt to portray this as a local affair inLviv, he is being disingenuous.

Kiev has in fact banned hundreds of Russian books where views are expressed which Kiev does not like. Ukraine openly proclaims this censorship as something of which it is proud.

https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-po...ng-committee-bans-import-9-russian-books.html


But not content with books, Ukraine also bans Russian TV channels, including the independent Dozhd which fell foul of Kiev's censors. This is clearly a state which is so far from freedom and 'European values' that it makes Russia look like a paragon of virtue.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/01/18/ukraine-tv-channel-ordered-banned


An order from Ukrainian authorities banning the Russian independent television channel Dozhd TV (TV Rain) from broadcasting on Ukrainian cable networks violates freedom of expression and should be revoked, Human Rights Watch said today.
 
Westphalian:

=Westphalian;1069069515]I believe you're referring to me in this post.

Your belief is correct.

Let me say that I believe that there is a lot of Russia hatred in the West. That has been the case for centuries. I also believe that history tells us that when Russia is not expanding it is contracting due to this endemic hostility and the repeated history of western aggression towards it.

There is some Russian hatred in the West but it I s marginal. What you seem to be doing is conflating legitimate criticism with hatred. They are not the same things. Criticising Russia for its policies is not hate, it is criticism in order to correct what others see as problems going very wrong in Russia. Now you may say that foreigners have no right to criticise Russia but Russia is part of an international community and not all members of that community approve of what the Russian political leadership are doing. So get used to the criticism because it will not stop.

Russia has had long periods of steady-state stability where its borders have been largely unchallenged and it has been left in peace. For example the period from 1945-1989 was a period of stability on the frontiers of the USSR/Russia. So the notion that Russia must constantly expand in order to avoid being gobbled up by greedy foreign militarists is absurd.

Now to your point. Because of Russia's size, geography (that thing again), and diversity, it con only be held together by a strong central leader. Western style 'democracy' is a sham put on to pacify citizens and pretend that ther views matter, but it's also a slow and weak decision making machine which is designed to preserve the status quo. Russia can have no such luxury because it needs to be dynamic and decisive in decision making. We see the advantages that this brings Russia over such western debacles as Syria, and their vanity projects like Libya. The West is unable to react to the obvious failures of its own policies.

Here we have the expression of the central tenet of The Rule of Man which has plagued Russia since the times of leaders like Ivan Dragonov. Strong leaders die or eventually fall to other ambitious and new strong leaders condemning societies to periodic and cyclical upheavals and violent civil strife until a new great leader emerges and imposes order on the chaos. Rather than changing strong leaders violently every one, two or three generations it is far better to have enduring and strong institutions with proper checks and balances which are pan-generational and which endure far longer than strongmen leaders. Such institutions can hold a country together just as well as, if not better than, strongmen but can remove the opportunity for other new strongmen to rise to power by challenging the present king of the hill violently. As long as no powerful person or faction is allowed to become too deeply entrenched into any of these enduring and strong institutions and as long as the electorate retains the power to kick out abusive leaders non-violently, then democracies with strong central institutions are more enduring and stable than cyclical authoritarian regimes built on the principle of The Rule of Man rather than The Rule of Law.

[/QUOTE]So, sham democracy is not an answer for Russia. This system would preside over the break up of Russia into constituent smaller entities - that's exactly why the West is so keen to foist its own weak systems onto Russia. Ironically, in a western system, Chechnya would have become its own mini state. So Evilroddy, try looking at Europe to see how the West creates regional principalities like Kosovo.[/QUOTE]

You're right. Sham democracy is not an answer to any state's problems but real and durable democracy coupled with powerful central institutions tempered by checks and balances and the Rule of Law are a better answer than strings of despotic strongmen/strong-women punctuated by regular periodic upheaval and civil war.

Continued next post.
 
Last edited:
By contrast, Russia holds together because of strong leaders. Kadyrov is not my favourite, but being a Muslim he would in fact be ideally placed to hold the Caucasus regions in place. The exercise and projection of power from Moscow is a central to Russia's future. This is precisely what Putin did in his first term.

Kadyrov-style leaders will clash with each other and will eventually dismember Russia as they set up their own smaller fiefdoms in Russia rather than working cooperatively with each other to the benefit of all Russians. They are in the power-game to serve their own appetites and ambitions and not for the good of Russia or the Russian people.

Thus your analysis is a virtual nonsense. Russia does not survive by weakness, or by trying to accommodate with a West which has now shown itself to be incapable of accepting anything other than surrender on US terms. This is not ultra anything, it's an empirical observation of reality, of geography, of centuries of history, and of the post Cold War era. The siren voices of those who actually want Russia to be weak and subservient cut no ice in Russia.

Western powers are opportunistic predators abroad, so if you don't give them the opportunity to prey upon you during periods of internal instability, then they will not prey upon you. The cyclical disruption and upheavals by a series of strongman leaders rising and falling means that the West will have plenty of opportunities for predation. However the West's elites are also fierce defenders of their own ideals and territory, so a doctrine of continued expansion will run headlong into their tenacious defences, ruining Russia by costly war and covert destabilisation. A doctrine of expansion will also alienate Central Asian powers and China, making it far harder for Russia to integrate into a powerful Eurasian bloc in order to gain some measure of protection and relief from Western interference and predation.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy:

A comprehensive and interesting answer for which I thank you.

If you don't mind I'll reply to you rather obliquely. Your post, in common with much of your writing, assumes that Russia is, or wants to be, part of what you call the 'international community'. From this stems many of your prescriptions - that Russia should co-operate with the West, or at least not irritate it. You are also averse to strong leaders, seeming to believe that democracy is the least worst form of government. From this you argue that Russia should eschew strongmen in favour of your (western) systems.

But I think in all honesty that you make a prime assumption mistake. Russia does not want to be part of your 'international community' which is really a euphemism for western 'values'.

Russia is a different civilisation. It has never been European (much to the chagrin of the westernisers in Russia), it has never modernised in the same way as the West, it has avoided the colonial status most US allies are forced to adopt. Russia simply has different civilisational values.

So your assumption that Russia cares about criticism from the 'international community' is wishful thinking. It doesn't care, and it is big and resourceful enough to ignore criticism, sustained by different values.

During the heady days of the 1990s, Russia threw itself at the West. Its leadership and economic thinkers were literally prepared to do anything to ingratiate Russia into the club. Yet it didn't happen, mostly because Russia remains a different civilisation and the people looked on in horror at their leadership, and partly because the West was too distracted by its own perceived supreme triumph to bother with a barbarian Russian culture which they believed would have no choice but to do whatever it was told.

Given that the 1990s were a disastrous period for Russia, and that the 2000s saw Putin's attempts to reconcile with Europe (respecting separate Russian interests) rebuffed, there is a high probability that the Russian Eurasianist civilisational strand will win out.

That makes your appeals to 'international' (really American) opinion totally irrelevant. The Western globalists has their chance to conquer a floored Russia in the 1990s. They failed then and are now doomed. Globalisation now faces very serious problems from a Eurasian axis which will not subsume its interests to those of the US, and which is sustained by different civilisational values.
 
Evilroddy:

A comprehensive and interesting answer for which I thank you.

If you don't mind I'll reply to you rather obliquely. Your post, in common with much of your writing, assumes that Russia is, or wants to be, part of what you call the 'international community'. From this stems many of your prescriptions - that Russia should co-operate with the West, or at least not irritate it. You are also averse to strong leaders, seeming to believe that democracy is the least worst form of government. From this you argue that Russia should eschew strongmen in favour of your (western) systems.

But I think in all honesty that you make a prime assumption mistake. Russia does not want to be part of your 'international community' which is really a euphemism for western 'values'.

Russia is a different civilisation. It has never been European (much to the chagrin of the westernisers in Russia), it has never modernised in the same way as the West, it has avoided the colonial status most US allies are forced to adopt. Russia simply has different civilisational values.

So your assumption that Russia cares about criticism from the 'international community' is wishful thinking. It doesn't care, and it is big and resourceful enough to ignore criticism, sustained by different values.

During the heady days of the 1990s, Russia threw itself at the West. Its leadership and economic thinkers were literally prepared to do anything to ingratiate Russia into the club. Yet it didn't happen, mostly because Russia remains a different civilisation and the people looked on in horror at their leadership, and partly because the West was too distracted by its own perceived supreme triumph to bother with a barbarian Russian culture which they believed would have no choice but to do whatever it was told.

Given that the 1990s were a disastrous period for Russia, and that the 2000s saw Putin's attempts to reconcile with Europe (respecting separate Russian interests) rebuffed, there is a high probability that the Russian Eurasianist civilisational strand will win out.

That makes your appeals to 'international' (really American) opinion totally irrelevant. The Western globalists has their chance to conquer a floored Russia in the 1990s. They failed then and are now doomed. Globalisation now faces very serious problems from a Eurasian axis which will not subsume its interests to those of the US, and which is sustained by different civilisational values.

See the Historical Revisionist writings in all their glory...
 
[Q UOTE=Fledermaus;1069075143]See the Historical Revisionist writings in all their glory...[/QUOTE]

It's not historical revisionism, it's really about the non universalism of western 'values'.

Because once you understand that these values are not universal or inevitable, then we see that Evilroddy's prescriptions are based on a false logic.

Russia is a terrible disgraceful 'European' state. This is what you constantly tell us. I'm explaining to you why that is - it's because Russia doesn't share your values and never will.
 
What is quite apparent is that the Kremlin (not equating to Russia) shares no values with Europe, respectively the West. Not on democracy, not on rule of law, not on the undesirability of dictatorship, not on assassins not being above the law, let alone being its providers, not on them being subject to it, no matter how high they'v managed to rise.

What the Kremlin, Soviet or in today's version, holds by way of values is despicable to any free man or people.

And what those constantly defending it by all means from distortion to outright lying commit, is as despicable as they are.
 
Evilroddy: A comprehensive and interesting answer for which I thank you.

You're welcome.

If you don't mind I'll reply to you rather obliquely. Your post, in common with much of your writing, assumes that Russia is, or wants to be, part of what you call the 'international community'. From this stems many of your prescriptions - that Russia should co-operate with the West, or at least not irritate it. You are also averse to strong leaders, seeming to believe that democracy is the least worst form of government. From this you argue that Russia should eschew strongmen in favour of your (western) systems.

Russia is part of an international community whether it wants to be or not. What Russia does effects and affects other states and what other states do effects and affects Russia. There is an international symbiosis which you can try to deny but which is nonetheless inescapable. Being part of an international community does not require a state to cooperate with other states, although such cooperation is often mutually beneficial to all cooperating states. The idea that states should go out of their way to irritate other states without good reason is daft. If there is good reason then it happens and some times what State A thinks is a good reason seems perverse or wrong to State B. That is the point where diplomacy and negotiation are needed.

One need not look to foreign counsel for reasons to eschew the adoption of The Rule of Man and strongmen to lead Russia. Russian history is full of reasons not to cede power to individuals whose ambitions and determination exceed their good sense and basic humanity. Russian history in the modern period (1500-2018) is replete with lessons of how the appetites of great men (and some great women) have led to death and destruction on cataclysmic scales from the destruction of Novgorod by Ivan Vasiliyevich IV to rule of Stalin and perhaps the ascendency of Putin (the jury is still out on Putin, but it's not looking good right now). Millions have died from the whims and miscalculations of these strongmen and many tens of millions more have suffered greatly. The Rule of Man is a key ingredient in these repeating national tragedies which have befallen Russia/the USSR for the last five centuries. Look at your own history rather than believing a foreigner if you wish, but you can't deny the deaths, destruction and misery which your people have suffered due to your own leaders and their absolute power.

But I think in all honesty that you make a prime assumption mistake. Russia does not want to be part of your 'international community' which is really a euphemism for western 'values'.

Russia has no choice but to be part of an international community. You are only about 2% of the human race and the other 98% isn't going to disappear because you don't like the way they think and behave. No, being part of the international community does not mean surrendering your country or yourselves to Western Values. It means being a responsible state and not allowing your own set of values or an absence of values in a ruthless strongman to so antagonise those around you that they come to view you as an enemy and act accordingly. It means holding your nose and actually talking to people who you would rather not interact with in order to use diplomacy rather than militarism to solve or reduce the severity of disputes. Refusing to negotiate will not work in the long-run.

Russia is a different civilisation. It has never been European (much to the chagrin of the westernisers in Russia), it has never modernised in the same way as the West, it has avoided the colonial status most US allies are forced to adopt. Russia simply has different civilisational values.

I am a teacher. I have taught Russian, Belarussian, Ukrainian, Siberian, Balt, Kazak and Tajik students over the years and talked history and politics with them and their families. I think what you are presenting as Russian civilisation and Russian values are really your own and those of a small minority of like-minded allies. The Russians I have spoken to were depressed by the distress and humiliation of Russia by their own leaders and the West but these were minor concerns. What they really emphasised was having opportunities, good education and good jobs for themselves and their kids and having both peace and freedom in their private and public lives. They and their children were not that different from the Canadian, Iranian, Egyptian, Kuwaiti, Taiwanese, Japanese and Korean kids and families I met and talked to. So I think you are purposefully overstating the differences and understating the similarities between Russians and Westerners as a tool to advance your political goals.


Continued next post.
 
Last edited:
Russia may not be fully European but it is steeped in European traditions and influences. Cis-Ural Russia is far more European than you wish to admit. Trans-Ural Russia is less so but still is heavily influenced by European traditions thanks to Imperial Russian colonialism. Your alphabet is Greek, your religion and logic are Greek, your leaders were Tsars (Roman) and later chairmen or presidents (Western terms), your Duma is a Western styled parliament, your lingua Franca is Russian (a European Slavic language) .... shall I go on? You are not a different civilization from Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Balts, Bulgars, Romanians, Finns, etc. - all Europeans. The Rus were Germanic peoples and their blood still flows in your collective veins and their culture and history is still part of yours. So I call BS on your setting the groundwork for a clash of civilisations argument. We are far more similar than we are different.

So your assumption that Russia cares about criticism from the 'international community' is wishful thinking. It doesn't care, and it is big and resourceful enough to ignore criticism, sustained by different values.

I never said that Russia cares about criticism. I only said such criticism is there and will persist as long as Russia pursues policies which antagonise other states and nations. Grow a thicker skin but also begin to be more carefully and to consider the impact of your unaccountable leaders' decisions on others and the blowback that such decisions can cause.

During the heady days of the 1990s, Russia threw itself at the West. Its leadership and economic thinkers were literally prepared to do anything to ingratiate Russia into the club. Yet it didn't happen, mostly because Russia remains a different civilisation and the people looked on in horror at their leadership, and partly because the West was too distracted by its own perceived supreme triumph to bother with a barbarian Russian culture which they believed would have no choice but to do whatever it was told.

Much of the harm done to Russia between 1991 and 2000 was done by Russians to Russians. The West played a role but that role was always peripheral to the degradation of life in Russia during that terrible decade. It was your own leaders and those of other former Soviet republics plus your own oligarchs and ex-security apparatchiks which hollowed out the Russian economy and caused such suffering to your people. Your president and your Duma could have reined in or shut down both the domestic and foreign carpetbaggers who gutted Russia but they chose not to. Don't say they couldn't because that is precisely what Vladimir Putin did after assuming power in 1999/2000.

Given that the 1990s were a disastrous period for Russia, and that the 2000s saw Putin's attempts to reconcile with Europe (respecting separate Russian interests) rebuffed, there is a high probability that the Russian Eurasianist civilisational strand will win out.

I agree. But Russia would be better off fostering both avenues rather than closing the door on one.

That makes your appeals to 'international' (really American) opinion totally irrelevant. The Western globalists has their chance to conquer a floored Russia in the 1990s. They failed then and are now doomed. Globalisation now faces very serious problems from a Eurasian axis which will not subsume its interests to those of the US, and which is sustained by different civilisational values.

Western globalists did not try to conquer Russia. As you yourself stated above their crime was to ignore it, to not take it seriously and down play its importance. The one area where you have a case is the advancing of the NATO alliance eastward and the simultaneous dismantling of pro-Russian governments in the Balkans. But aside from those two points the West's failure was one of neglect or indifference and not one of conquest.

You are right to point out that a mono-polar globalisation with America as the sole global superpower is coming to an end. But that does not mean that an Eurasian global hegemony is around the corner anytime soon. What will emerge is a more dangerous multipolar equilibrium where diplomacy and consensus are more important than bluster and threats as means to shape future events.

Continued next post
 
Last edited:
Right now China wants to trade its way to the top and sincerely wants to avoid war if at all possible. It will not approve or cooperate with a bellicose Russian ally bent on expanding its borders and recapturing former greatness by military means. Nor will it allow Russia to dominate or bully the Central Asian states which left the USSR soon after its break-up. Russia can grow great again but China will insist it do so peacefully or China will simply not cooperate with Russia and an effective Eurasian bloc will not happen.

Only if China finds itself under direct attack by the United States or some sort of Western alliance would it consider militarism as a possible option. Asserting authority over its own coastal waters may trigger such a clash but China is patient and it is playing a long-game while the US is trapped by its own politics and political cycles into a short-term outlook. Thus China may get what it wants without war, if it is careful, opportunistic and lucky. It would not want an impetuous Russian ally to muck that up for China. In that respect Russia could learn a lot from China.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
@Westphalian: I am not that good in writing than Evilroddy, but for me your opinons sound quite theoretical and from the view of the political leading class. It sounds that you don´t include the view of the normal people. Normal People want peace, freedom, good oportunities for their lives - they don´t care about most of the things you write in your texts.

We have a lot of "russian Germans" here who fled the System (tragically here they are often "the Russians"). I worked with them in the industry and the building buisness while studying and I have some neighbours from Russia. They only return for holiday to see the land of their birth, but would never go back to a country with so low individual rights. They don´t differe that much to my other neighbours...

and don´t tell me it´s because of there german ancestors - I don´t believe in this "blood - gene thingy"
 
Evilroddy and German Hick:

Thank you both for your interesting comments (and German, you are clear in English).

In my view the Russians you have encountered are by definition westernisers who have chosen to leave Russia. They do not represent ordinary Russians. They will typically be middle or upper class with a strong desire to enjoy western culture and the means to do so (some no doubt will have benefitted from the rape and pillage of Russia in the 1990s, probably by their parents). So take what they say with extreme caution.

I agree with Evilroddy that the era of US hegemony is over, and that we are entering a multi-polar world. This is a normal historical state and we welcome it (Min Lavrov has written repeatedly about it). Sadly, our US colleagues still refuse to recognise their own decline. They still seek to isolate Russia and punish China through sanctions. This policy is evidently failing, it's illegal under WTO rules, it antagonises, but still the US dies it.

When will they learn to accept that they can't control the world? When will their vassal European allies stand up to them and tell them they are causing global tensions?

People always blame Russia but it is not us who pursues sanctions and tariff policies as a tool of control. The US even punishes European companies who deal with Iran or Russia. The US rips up agreements on Iran, on climate, it withdraws from UN Human Rights panels, it tore up the ABM treaty. These are all examples of US attempting to extend its hegemony, unable to accept its reduced role in the world.

So I do see a clash of civilisations unless the US can accept that its values are not universal. It wants a single global market for itself. It wants all states to be the same - with US culture, US payment systems, US global companies. It wants a world government in which it is the first among all its vassals.

But Russia and China reject the sterile and value-less culture of post modernism. Look at all the crazy gender nonsense, where boys and girls are 'its', where family and religion don't matter, where the individual is king no matter what they do.

That insanity is alienating indigenous Europeans. Hungary welcomes Christian refugees from Western Europe where those states barely exist in a European form. The EU is sanctioning its own states, or trying to.

The mono-culture of post modernism is disgusting and revolting. It's an insanity which you will not impose on Russia. You have problems enough in imposing it on your own people, half of whom you alienate and calm 'racists' etc just because they want to have their own culture.

It's not a clash of civilisations so much as a rejection of universalism which the US seeks to impose on all.
 
Further:

Russia is not a revanchist state. Putin et al are actually moderate European oriented politicians. But they have themselves now been alienated from that path for their crime of refusing to accept US rule.

That is probably the US's latest mistake. Its colossal arrogance is uniting China and Russia - the only aggregation of power capable of resisting them.

What you've seen so far is a moderate and cautious Russia. Moscow will not alienate China by excessive meddling in Central Asia as we have too much in common now with a shared threat. In any case, both Russia and China far more respect state sovereignty than the post modernists who actually hate states as old fashioned.

So I don't worry about that. But I know that Russia needs to forget about the West. They are hostile, they demand subservience. EU states fully signed up to vassal status decades ago.

We must confront the US, develop our own Eurasian alternative in payment systems, space programmes, civilisational culture. Everything.
 
See the Historical Revisionist writings in all their glory...

It's not historical revisionism, it's really about the non universalism of western 'values'.

Because once you understand that these values are not universal or inevitable, then we see that Evilroddy's prescriptions are based on a false logic.

Russia is a terrible disgraceful 'European' state. This is what you constantly tell us. I'm explaining to you why that is - it's because Russia doesn't share your values and never will.


Please quote where I have stated Russia is a terrible disgraceful 'European' state.

I do deplore what Putin and the Russian military have done and are doing in Crimea, Georgia, etc.

I do mock the bare faced propaganda of RT.com, SPUTNIK, TASS etc. and those foolish enough to use them as sources.

Please quit lying about what I post.
 
We must confront the US, develop our own Eurasian alternative in payment systems, space programmes, civilisational culture. Everything.

Russia can't even afford the pensions that were promised to the working people.
 
Russia can't even afford the pensions that were promised to the working people.

That apart, I suggest that any Asian countries aligning themselves with the Kremlin of today, will not only be precluded from developing any civilisational culture, they'll be abdicating any that they have.
 
Back
Top Bottom