Ukraine to join NATO

[Omega18]

No, it's not. The method by which Russian Empire acquired Chechnya- conquest, does not make Chechnya any less a legitimate part of the Russian Federation, by any consistent norm for the conduct of nation states - that is the premise by which I proceed. For fuck's sake, the existence of the United States in total is a by product of ruthless conquest and large scale ethnic cleansing / mass killing of native peoples - does America get "moral legitimacy" over its possessions by conquest because there's so few native americans left after they lost their wars to keep their freedom and land?

I'd personally disagree and say the legitimacy of your holdings are far more questionable when achieved specifically by conquest. Regardless my main point on that issue was any claim by Russia on Alaska today really really sucks. You were not clear how you were describing Alaska with your initial assertion.

The big issue which you are completely and utterly ignoring is that unlike the situation in Alaska where the native ethnic groups of the state are a limited portion of the total population, Chechnya has somewhere around 93.5% of the population being Chechen, with only about 3.7% of the population being specifically Russian. This makes a huge difference in the eyes of many around the world, especially when its clear most of the population wants to be independent.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The big issue which you are completely and utterly ignoring is that unlike the situation in Alaska where the native ethnic groups of the state are a limited portion of the total population, Chechnya has somewhere around 93.5% of the population being Chechen, with only about 3.7% of the population being specifically Russian. This makes a huge difference in the eyes of many around the world, especially when its clear most of the population wants to be independent.

You do realise that same argument could be used against the American civil war?

[Vympel]

I'd personally disagree and say the legitimacy of your holdings are far more questionable when achieved specifically by conquest. Regardless my main point on that issue was any claim by Russia on Alaska today really really sucks. You were not clear how you were describing Alaska with your initial assertion.

I never spoke about a Russian claim on Alaska, or mentioned Alaska specifically - that was IP.

The big issue which you are completely and utterly ignoring is that unlike the situation in Alaska where the native ethnic groups of the state are a limited portion of the total population, Chechnya has somewhere around 93.5% of the population being Chechen, with only about 3.7% of the population being specifically Russian. This makes a huge difference in the eyes of many around the world, especially when its clear most of the population wants to be independent.

"Completely and utterly ignoring?" I thought my commentary about lots of dead native americans was pointing at it quite directly - ie. the Russians would've apparently been better off - legitimacy wise - if all the Chechens had been suitably slaughtered, so no one could speak up and put up a resistance.

As it is - this is nonsense. It's not "clear most of the population wants to be independent" at all, and further, it never was. There wasn't some mass popular uprising/ plebiscite / referendum when some of the Chechens attempted to declare independence.

And quite frankly, it doesn't mean dick even if they wanted to be, unless you're going to tell me that the Union was wrong to attack the Confederacy.

[Coyote]

Chechnya.

And cynical political maneuverings in places ranging from Dagestan, Nagorno-Karabakh, and other little microstates in the region.

That's completely nonsensical. No offense, but it would help if people took time to understand just what Chechnya and Dagestan are before using them as examples of anything. They are not micro-states, or states at all, for that matter- and never were. They are an intergral part of the Russian Federation, the successor to the Russian SFR- speaking of "cynical political maneuverings" in Dagestan would be like saying America engages in same when it passes Federal laws that affect the states.

If I asked a citizen from those places, would they agree? They made a move to bolt when they were told they could have "all the independence they can handle"... only to get smacked down when they actually tried.

Everyone else-- Hungarians, Romanians, Czechia, etc-- slammed the door and never looked back. They didn't like serving as the historical buffer zone for the Rodina-- sorry, that's the way it was.

This also tells me you haven't put much thought into the difference between the USSR, the Russian SFR, and the Warsaw Pact allies. Hungary, Romania and Czechoslovakia were client states of the USSR, they weren't Soviet Republics. Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, the Baltic States etc were Soviet Republics - ie. part of the USSR.

I can't speak for Georgeans, Ossetians, etc... but Ukrainians I met (and I met a lot of them in Israel) most certainly did not like being mixed up with Russians... and the Russians I met (again, there were lots of them) made sure to differentiate themselves. Don't even get me started on the Uzbek I met.

It was not a big, happy family. Kum-by-yah was not sung. Ethnic Russians dominated others. A more apt metaphor, rather than the US states, would be the relationship between the US government and the Seminole, Sioux Nation, Navajo, etc. The Reservations are, technically, sovereign states, but that sovereignty is severely truncated.

[Vympel]

If I asked a citizen from those places, would they agree? They made a move to bolt when they were told they could have "all the independence they can handle"... only to get smacked down when they actually tried.

Define "they". As I said, there was never even any popular referendum to that effect in Chechnya, and your refernece to Dagestan is simply incorrect - Dagestan never attempted seperatism from the Russian Federation - it's merely where your typical Islamic-Caliphate-In-The-Caucasus extremeists are conducting their latest attacks. There's no evidence of any popular oppressed front yearning for independence from Russia- it's bleed-over from Chechnya. Heck, the Islamist attempted invasion of Dagestan from Chechnya in 1999 (which was easily put down, which gives the lie to any popular support for same) was one of the reasons Russia went back into Chechnya that year.

As for Chechnya, my understanding, though I defer to Stas, is that most Chechens simply wanted the fighting to be over, and didn't care for independence either way. How do you think the current Chechen strongman survives in power, if being part of Russia is supposedly so intolerable to the Chechens as a people?

Not, as I said, that it matters either way, if we're talking about legitimacy, expansionism, or aggression.

EDIT: for the Chechens to conduct a referendum was, AFAIK, one of the conditions of the agreement under which the Russians pulled out of Chechnya in 1996. It was not lived up to (along with numerous other conditions, like not being a black hole of crime, kidnapping, drug-running, and Islamic funadentalism)

I can't speak for Georgeans, Ossetians, etc... but Ukrainians I met (and I met a lot of them in Israel) most certainly did not like being mixed up with Russians... and the Russians I met (again, there were lots of them) made sure to differentiate themselves. Don't even get me started on the Uzbek I met.

It was not a big, happy family. Kum-by-yah was not sung. Ethnic Russians dominated others. A more apt metaphor, rather than the US states, would be the relationship between the US government and the Seminole, Sioux Nation, Navajo, etc. The Reservations are, technically, sovereign states, but that sovereignty is severely truncated.

I never said it was a big happy family. I'm just pointing out the legal and practical differences between all the different entities.

[Stuart Mackey]

So, are we going to fight a nuclear war with Russia when the Crimean finally breaks free? This is simply the most idiotic thing possible. Fuck Bush.

There were nukes to the front of them there were nukes to the right......

[K. A. Pital]

Lets talk about previous election results in the friggin Ukraine then.

Why? I thought that elections are done over a plethora of issues, not just one issue, like an opinion poll.

A single not linked to poll which clearly doesn't represent how the people of the Ukraine actually vote doesn't change this. In fact, the results are so unbelievable it certainly makes me wonder who took the poll and what there motives were for doing so. (Beside outright making up the results or doing something like only polling people in the east, you can also certainly get desired results if you phrase the polling questions carefully enough as a rule.)

Hey, you idiot, this poll was run by polling groups from respective CIS countries. The phrasing of questions was given.

Opinion polls deal with single issues, whereas elections do not.

The "antiRussian" parties also promised to pay out a part of burned SberBank savings, for examples, which turned out to be a good strategy for the elections. Lots of issues. And you were saying we should just think only PR and Communist Party voters have a good opinion of Russia? Moron.

It seemed to me that freaking out about that (especially the Alaska one, which was so soon after the Nork missile test) kinda undermined the seriousness of other concerns.

A missile system threatens your strategic arsenals effectiveness. You voice concerns. End of story.

Chechnya.

Wait, what is that? Let me explain very carefully: Chechnya is not a foreign country. Chechnya is a slave-holding, ethnic cleansing and sharia law rebellion sprung inside of Russia. You can ask about the merits of crushing them, instead of just kicking it out of Russia and leaving it to it's devices, but that's a side question, so don't derail the thread while discussing how evil Russkies commited some sort of agression here.

And cynical political maneuverings in places ranging from Dagestan, Nagorno-Karabakh, and other little microstates in the region.

"Cynical"? You mean when our peacekeeper forces actually wasted their lives to stop the southern nations from engulfing into a complete genocide? Is that what you're insinuating, Coyote? In that case you're so badly unaccustomed with history of Dagestan and Nagorno-Karabach that this isn't even funny. Besides, how the fuck is Dagestan a state?

After the USSR broke up, only Beyelorus felt bad about it afterwards and wanted to come back.

It's Belorus. And Belorus didn't want Russia to come back, it just carried on with the USSR.

They didn't like serving as the historical buffer zone for the Rodina-- sorry, that's the way it was.

I never said that they did, or should. What should this point signify? We let our buffer zone states go away of our own free will.

I'd personally disagree and say the legitimacy of your holdings are far more questionable when achieved specifically by conquest.

Hey fucker, if you "question" something, go look into your own fucking back yard first:

I guess a lot of that is illegitimate. Let's cut that America down.

You are a second-rate power, and your nation has always typically had an inferiority/backwards complex with the West. Maybe since Byzantium and Ivan. Definitely since Peter. He just said your nation ought to accept its second-rate status. Nothing about "hammering it into you." Sorry, but that's Russian xenophobia right there.

So? If we are a second-rate power, and have some "inferiority complex" (isn't that better to have than a superiority one anyway?), why do we need to "understand" that? Doesn't it follow that we already do?

And how is our nation not accepting second-rate status? Maybe it goes around the world, blows up shit for gigs? Or it sits in the corner and voices discontent with some foreign policy decisions which it can't do anything about? Which course of action Russia follows and how does it reflect us being too stupid to understand that we're a small power?

How about South Ossetia interference?

Wait, are you saying we should remove the peacekeepers and let Georgia take over those regions? Do you know about the history of civil war in the Caucausus, and how Abkhazians and South Ossetians do not like Georgia?

Noises about intervention in Kosovo?

What's that shit, I wonder. "Noises". Intervention. That's not going to happen, and I'm quite sure our president or FM did not say anything about a military intervention. Feel free to correct me though.

None of the information you just posted in anyway supports the statement 'most of Ukraine holds our president in higher regard than their own' and it is drawing a very long bow to say that the majority of Ukrainians favour a unification with Russia when the actual question was a unification of four CIS states in the context of Ukranian membership of the EU.

Okay, I'll post the part about the president too. From the same poll:
Looking at the rating of foreign presidents in CIS coutnries, it's clear that

Putin is so far the most popular CIS leader. In Ukraine, Putin was approved by 72% of population, while their own president Yushenko was approved only by 30%. Also a striking trend can be seen - the support of Russian president in Ukraine never fell below 67% since 2004, while the support of the current Ukraine's president Yushenko fell from 57% at the start of 2005 to 30% currently (7th July 2006).

And yes, the actual question was about a 4-state union of historic USSR republics. So what? You're nitpicking, right?

The fact is that the Russian Federation in of itself is much more an empire than the United States. There are many culturally and ethno-linguistically distinct nations within the Russian Federation.

Why the hell are we talking about the United States anyway? And there's a map of US conquests and territorial aquisitions right up there - not the least of those territories were taken by the sword, so why is there "less legitimacy"?

Chechnya has somewhere around 93.5% of the population being Chechen, with only about 3.7% of the population being specifically Russian. This makes a huge difference in the eyes of many around the world, especially when its clear most of the population wants to be independent.

Hey, asshole. Do you even know that most Russians were ethnically cleansed in Chechnya? And do you know that Armenians and other etnhnic minorities were like 100% cleansed from Chechnya? Do you even know what the bloody fuck Chechnya is?

Dagestan never attempted seperatism from the Russian Federation

It never did. However, Chechnen radical islamists attacked the republic in 1999. Also, Russians were ethnically cleansed in Dagestan prior to and during the Chechen conflict; there's still huge fear of the Caucasus in the whole of Russia.

Ukrainians I met (and I met a lot of them in Israel) most certainly did not like being mixed up with Russians...

So? What is that supposed to tell? I was actually travelling around the CIS; there's not even a hint at the degree of animosity you're pointing out by the majority of populations.


So in short: "Russia always will be agressive" is full of shit, and post-1991 Russia was not agressive even compared to that moral paragon, the United States of Fuck Yeah.

[K. A. Pital]

A fuller analysis of opinion polls which I did last year:

VTSIOM summary - breakup of the USSR and new integrationist leanings in post-Soviet space.

Ukraine
The mottos of "orange revolution" in Ukraine were "Independence from Russia" and "orientation for Europe". But as it seems, that the people of Ukraine want still to live in a "united state of Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia and Kazakhstan". Ukrainian polling agency R&B Group ran a poll called "Eurasian monitor" which polled 5,5 thousand Ukrainians all over the country, it was a joint action with polling agencies VTSIOM and TSIRKON. The people of Ukraine voiced their thoughts on the state's politics.

As the poll shows, only 30% of Ukrainians can say they're content with their life. 66% evaluate their own situations with uncontent, and among them as many as 40% say that they're in a miserable situation.

The question "Unification with which state would bring the most use to Ukraine?" indicated that Russia is the likely ally - 57% percent have answered "Russia". The question "In which country would you like to live?" the most popular answer was a united state of Russia, Ukraine, Belorus and Kazakhstan. In such a state, 54% are willing to live.

This question has shown the most rapid change of opinions among Ukrainians. During this year, the number of Ukrainians who want to live in the EU dropped from 30% to 8%, while the number of those who want to live in the Union of four CIS countries rose from 26% to 54%. This indicates the rising prestige of Russia, and the outer policy of President Putin. It is possible that the current president of the Russia could launch such an integration.

Looking at the rating of foreign presidents in CIS coutnries, it's clear that Putin is so far the most popular CIS leader. In Ukraine, Putin was approved by 72% of population, while their own president Yushenko was approved only by 30%. Also a striking trend can be seen - the support of Russian president in Ukraine never fell below 67% since 2004, while the support of the current Ukraine's president Yushenki fell from 57% at the start of 2005 to 30% currently (7th July 2006).

November-December 2006 polls
VTSIOM in joint action with "Eurasian Monitor", polling group TSIRKON, sociological group "NOVAK" (Minsk), R&G Group (Kiev) and TseSSI-Kazakhstan present the results of the 6th polling wave in the post-Soviet space. The polls asked about possible integration on post-Soviet space and in which state most of the citizens would like to live.

Most of citizens of Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine regret the breakup of Soviet Union. It's especially strong in Russia (68% versus 24%), a little weaker in Ukraine (59% versus 30%) and yet weaker in Belarus (52% versus 36%) [given their respective human development and industrial development results, this is quite indicating - S.B.]

If today a new referenda was ran to join the Republics into a New Union, the citizens of Russia and Ukraine would've voted for unification (Russia - 51% versus 22%, in Ukraine 45% versus 25%), in Belarus the citizens are divided with a slight favour of unification (36% versus 32%). From 11% to 16% in those countries would've withheld their votes.

The re-creation of the entire Union of former USSR republics today is impossible, so think the majority of respondents - 76% in Belarus, 71% in Ukraine and 68% in Russia.

One third of respondents from Ukraine and Belorussia would want to live in a Russia-Ukraine-Belorussia-Kazakhstan Union (34% and 32% respectively). In Belarus, the second most-wanted option is to live alone without entering any unions (25%); the third place takes the idea to live in the European Union (18%). In Ukraine, the indepence and EU are favoured by equal numbers of respondents, 21%. In Kazakhstan, most of the people want to live independently (25%), but only with a slight supremacy over those who want to unite with Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine (23%). Among Russians 30% want to live in Russia alone, 20% want to live in a new USSR, and 21% want to live in the Union of 4 former Soviet states.

What do I make of it?
Unification rethorics are likely to find support among population, but so far no party has been able to smartly exploit them. Soviet nostalgia is very strong still after 16 years since it's dismemberment. Belarus has many people satisfied with the current order because basically it re-tained the Soviet system, only reformed it a bit. In Russia, support for both the former - and renewed - USSR in significantly stronger than in other Republics, perhaps because Russia today is seen as a weaker and less stable, less favoured by the people state - this is despite the fact that in many other Soviet republics, economic calamity was more severe (Ukraine, Kazakhstan).

I think the wish for integration will yet find a way to manifest in a political force.

The poll results were linked to on the previous pages. You can read the percentage breakups here:
BREAK UP OF THE USSR AND NEW INTEGRATIONIST LEANINGS

Use Google trans, the questions are pretty simple. That poll is one year old, so I guess I can use it quite well.

[K. A. Pital]

And some more polling:

Dynamics: what is your attitude towards Russia? - positive, neutral, negative (in order, from high to low)

Do you trust President Putin of Russia, or not? - yes/no (in order, from high to low)

Elections: Imagine the elections happen this week. Which party would you have voted for? (Timoshenko Bloc, Party of Regions, Our Ukraine-National Self-Defense, Communist, Litvin's Bloc, Socialist in order)

How do you evaluate Yushenko's job as president now?
Positive (good and very good) 48%, negative (bad and very bad) 48%, 4% don't know

Please tell us, after Yushenko opted for NATO, your opinion of him changed or stayed the same?

43% - worsened, 37% stayed the same, 10% - was better, 10% - hard to answer.

If a referenda were run today, should Ukraine enter NATO, you would?
58% - vote disagree, 22% - vote agree, 14% - don't know, 8% - ignore the referenda


How do you feel about Russia?
75% - positive, 13% - indifferent, 10% - negative, 2% - don't know.


Attitude to languages:
Language which you use for common conversation:
48% Russian, 46% Ukrainian.

Other results:

19 Feb 2008 Poll, Gorshenin Institute. Support entering NATO: 19,2% of respondents

28 March 2008 Poll, Kiev Institute of International Sociology in joint with LEVADA-Center.

If you would be entering a union now, which should you strive for? "EU" - 30%, "Union of Russia and Belorus" - 43%, "Enter neither, maintain good relations with both" - 22%, "Don't know" - 5%.

You're welcome, Omega18.

[CJvR]

How doe Japan count when they were the aggressor?

Japan in 1945 was not the aggressor, well at least not against the Soviets...

[K. A. Pital]

Japan in 1945 was not the aggressor

It did assault the USSR multiple times beforehand (in the 1930s), however, and the USSR was fulfilling Ally obligations when crushing Japanese continental forces. Do you also think France and Britain commited agression against Nazi Germany? After all, they weren't attacked - a treaty-bound state was.

Of course, if we subscribe to your bullshit ideas - legalist crap for all I see - we can claim military agression against Nazi Germany from Britain and France. Poor Germanz. In 1939 they weren't the agressors! Well, not agaisnt the Franco-British!

[CJvR]

Did "recent" fly over your fucking head, troll? Russia exists for 17 years. So I re-iterate: which nation have we attacked?

Russia, in various incarnations, have existed for millenea just where do you find it convenient to draw the "recent" line, why surprise at a time that suits your argument. Nations memories tend to be longer than peoples though do you seriously think any of Russias neighbours have forgotten the past just because Russia have been to weak and feeble in the past two decades to do more than beatup Caucasian goatherders? Why do you think everyone next to Russia is hurrying into NATO as fast as thay can?

[CJvR]

It did assault the USSR multiple times beforehand (in the 1930s), however, and the USSR was fulfilling Ally obligations when crushing Japanese continental forces.

So the Soviets attacked Japan, despite there being a non-aggression pact between them IIRC.

[Vympel]

Russia, in various incarnations, have existed for millenea just where do you find it convenient to draw the "recent" line, why surprise at a time that suits your argument.

That's piss-weak. Are you seriously attempting to propose there is no significant difference between the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation in terms of system of government, the domestic and foreign policy they pursue, etc?

[K. A. Pital]

So the Soviets attacked Japan, despite there being a non-aggression pact between them IIRC.

Wait, so Britain and France also were agressors against Nazi Germany? Surely, I have no problem with your legalist philosophy - just keep that shit to yourself.

Russia, in various incarnations, have existed for millenea

Hey hatfucker, we're talking about the current Russia which exists for 17 years. It has a government which is likewise only 17 year old.

just where do you find it convenient to draw the "recent" line, why surprise at a time that suits your argument.

Shut the fuck up, I didn't "draw the line" - the current system of Russian government exists for 17 years, as does Russia in it's current territorial borders. So fuck you. And yes, World War II and I are not recent.

Nations memories tend to be longer than peoples though do you seriously think any of Russias neighbours have forgotten the past

I asked a simple fucking question, you asswipe. Which nation did modern Russia attack. You weaseled out. Fuck off.

Russia have been to weak and feeble in the past two decades to do more than beatup Caucasian goatherders?

Sure. "Feeble innocent goatherders". How about sharia rebels who wanted to start a civil war in a Russian region, ass.

Why do you think everyone next to Russia is hurrying into NATO as fast as thay can?

Who "next to Russia" is "hurrying" there who isn't there already? We have found out that Ukraine's population is not so eager to enter NATO, so who are you talking about?

[Shroom Man 777]

You gotta love the double standard. No one minds America hunting down Al Quaeda suicide-bombing terrorists in foreign countries. But if it's the Russians doing it in their own country, everyone starts eating their own shit.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

How doe Japan count when they were the aggressor?

Japan in 1945 was not the aggressor, well at least not against the Soviets...

If you are going to indulge in such historical nitpicking, I could go as far as say that since Japan was allied with Germany, I would say that Russia attacking the Japanese, who may or may not have received aid from Germany, is perfectly justifiable since Japan was the last remaining member of the Axis. After all, wasn't it DA GREAT GRAND SLAVIC GENOCIDE PLAN of Hitler to link up with Japan and attack both sides of Russia? Oh wait, the Japanese got beaten to a pulp for even thinking that, so the DA GREAT GRAND PLAN didn't work in the end.

Quit the blubbering. Admit that you are a anti-Russianphobe and this discuss would be even clearer.

[K. A. Pital]

If he nitpicks that Japan did not attack Russia but attacking both of Russia's allies (US and Britain) doesn't mean anything, he better be sure to call Britain and France attackers of Germany over Poland.

[thejester]

Okay, I'll post the part about the president too. From the same poll:
Looking at the rating of foreign presidents in CIS coutnries, it's clear that

Putin is so far the most popular CIS leader. In Ukraine, Putin was approved by 72% of population, while their own president Yushenko was approved only by 30%. Also a striking trend can be seen - the support of Russian president in Ukraine never fell below 67% since 2004, while the support of the current Ukraine's president Yushenko fell from 57% at the start of 2005 to 30% currently (7th July 2006).

The broken translation I got made it sound like they'd basically said 'Putin has x approval in Russia and Yushenko has y in Ukraine, Putin wins!'...even then, is the question 'Who do you approve of more?' or 'Who would you want to run the proposed CIS merger?'

And yes, the actual question was about a 4-state union of historic USSR republics. So what? You're nitpicking, right?

The extract you posted suggested it was in the context of 'Would you rather be part of the EU or this proposed merger', even if that wasn't the direct question.

[K. A. Pital]

The broken translation I got made it sound like they'd basically said 'Putin has x approval in Russia and Yushenko has y in Ukraine, Putin wins!'

The idea is Putin's approval ratings in Ukraine are higher than Yushenkos. I've also posted similar indicating results up there for the Feb-March 08 polls.

Now, that doesn't mean Ukrainians want Putin to be their president; it's merely that they approve of him (as of a foreign leader) more than of their domestic leader. Which is unsurprising given the fragmentation of Ukrainian society.

The extract you posted suggested it was in the context of 'Would you rather be part of the EU or this proposed merger', even if that wasn't the direct question.

Of course not. The question had variants (EU, independnce or CIS Union). Anyway those results are obsolete and I've found a new (March 08) poll which basically shows the same thing.

They are given an open question which political course to pursue: EU, CIS Union, or independence from either - and most favour CIS Union (EU is second and independence third).

This shows that the ideas of Ukrainians are not as simplistic as "Russia OR EU!!!" polarization - in fact, many pro-indepenence Ukrainians oppose NATO for exactly the same reason, they dont' want to get into any mergers and remain something lik a nonaligned state. That is why NATO support is around 20% and not more consistently from Feb 2007 to March 2008, and resistance to NATO joining is constistently around 50%, making it clear Ukraine's population (so far) does not want into NATO.

That may be a detrimental issue to some nationalists though - even if they oppose NATO, they may vote for nationalist leaders like Yushenko or Timoshenko due to their other nationalist policies.

[atg]

As for Hemlock, he just went over the top with that, with the "always agressive, will be agressive, let us hammer second rate power into them!". I guess Red Scare affects thinking severely indeed.

You are a second-rate power, and your nation has always typically had an inferiority/backwards complex with the West. Maybe since Byzantium and Ivan. Definitely since Peter. He just said your nation ought to accept its second-rate status. Nothing about "hammering it into you." Sorry, but that's Russian xenophobia right there.

Even paranoids have enemies.

NATO was formed as a direct threat to Russia/Soviet Union, well before the Warsaw Pact was formed.
The US put IRBMs in Turkey, as a direct threat to Russia, well before the Soviet Union put them in Cuba, but its bad if the Soviets do it 'cause they are TEH EVIL!!!11!!!!one!!!!
Since the demise of the Soviet Union the alliance formed primarily for the purpose of opposing Russia has been growing - Why should the Russian's feel all fine and dandy about that?

Maybe the US should invite Taiwan into NATO or the ANZUS treaty (ANZTUS?). Do you think the Chinese would react any differently than the Russian's do to NATOs expansion?

Maybe before WWI the US should have just 'accepted' its second rate status and shouldn't have tried to improve its international standings.

[Coyote]

Well, first off I am going to concede with regards to the "band o' Stans" in the southern part of Russia due to inadequate knowledge on my part. I will explain my perceptions, however, regarding why I look at Chechnya (for example) as I do.

After the breakup of the Warsaw Pact, and then the moves for independence made by places that had been incorporated into the Soviet Union, they were told, I think by Gorbachev, that they were welcome "to all the independence they can handle". This was followed by an exodus of states which surprised pretty much everyone. Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine-- they jumped at the chance to get away. There was some fighting, sure, but eventually it died down. Georgia, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, etc... they also bolted.

Then, all of a sudden, there's Chechnya. It voices independence and then, all of a sudden, it T-72s downtown, like something out of 1956 Hungary. Rumors fly about oil or other resources down there.

Understand from Western perception: you let the Black Sea coast go, you let the Baikonur Cosmodrome go, you let Antonov and KRaZ go... but tiny Chechnya, the pimple on the ass of the mangiest dog of all former Soviet Republics-- and suddenly it's balls-out war. Russia insists that this is a part of Russia and that this is an internal manner, not comperable to international terrorism. But if these slavering maniacs are such a problem, in such an armpit part of the Caucuses, with no outlet to the sea and no resources worth mention, why the hell do you want to keep this death-grip on them? If anyone deserves to be cut loose, its those turkeys.

That is why the Chechnya thing is so hard for us to understand over here. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[K. A. Pital]

After the breakup of the Warsaw Pact, and then the moves for independence made by places that had been incorporated into the Soviet Union, they were told, I think by Gorbachev, that they were welcome "to all the independence they can handle".

IIRC, this is wrong. First of all, Gorbachov never told that line relating to WP states. He just let them go. Second, Gorbachov did not tell that to the republics of the USSR and still laments the forcible breakup. Third, Yeltsin told that line, and he was the one who curbstomped Chechnya the first time. Considering the shit going on there, unsuprising really - he would've been impeached or even face a revolution in Russia if he didn't do anything about it.

There was some fighting, sure, but eventually it died down

You mean there were local ethnic cleansings, very bloody wars which left Central Asia in shambles and poverty, islamist terror and general ethnic civil war in the Caucasus? That's what you refer to as "some fighting", Coyote? In that case Iraq and Afghanistan are also "some fighting". Also, I do see remarkable ignorance.

Do you know when the fighting "died down"? When evil Russia put peacekeepers in Tajikistan. When it continued to waste the lives of our border guards on Tajik-Afghan border. When it moved peacekeepers into Georgia. When it moved peacekeepres into Moldova.

That's right - Russia stopped the full out war in those cases. But nationalist douches never went away, so these conflicts are referred to as "slowly burning".

Then, all of a sudden, there's Chechnya. It voices independence and then

It cleanses out Russians. It used slavery from 1989 - that's the year the first slave has been captured by Chechen "villagers". It introduces Sharia law. Not least of all, it was a proper Russian region, unlike independent states.

But if these slavering maniacs are such a problem, in such an armpit part of the Caucuses, with no outlet to the sea and no resources worth mention, why the hell do you want to keep this death-grip on them?

They are directly on our border. How would you feel about Afghanistan being moved to Mexico? Pretty fucking uncomfortable, right?

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, and Afghanistan makes lots of sense - terrorist acts, attack a country full of Islamists on the far side of the ocean. Frankly, Chechnya makes a lot fucking more sense than Afghanistan or Iraq; Afghanistan is essentially the same as Chechnya except you are LUCKY Afghanistan is not one of the U.S. States.

[Adrian Laguna]

Understand from Western perception: you let the Black Sea coast go, you let the Baikonur Cosmodrome go, you let Antonov and KRaZ go... but tiny Chechnya, the pimple on the ass of the mangiest dog of all former Soviet Republics-- and suddenly it's balls-out war.

Unlike everything else you mentioned, Chechnya was not a Soviet Republic. Chechnya was part of the Russian Soviet Republic. Thus every person in there, regardless of ethnicity, was a Russian citizen. So when the ethnic Chechens started to terrorize, murder, and enslave them the ethnic everyone else, then Russia has to, as a matter of duty to its citizens, respond, and respond with force if need be.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Since the demise of the Soviet Union the alliance formed primarily for the purpose of opposing Russia has been growing - Why should the Russian's feel all fine and dandy about that?

I like how you act like deterring the Communist Bloc nations was the only purpose behind NATO, rather than being a deterrence against any enemy nation.