Putin Rumored to Order Russian Officials To Bring Family Members Back Home from Abroad

[Flagg]

It's not April 1, so this is just an example of someone being really dumb. Like "100 years ago would have died doing something stupid as a child" dumb.

[Simon_Jester]

LOL no,thanks for posting no name BS spin news. This is about Putin's internal power, and announced a while ago as part of an 'anti corruption campaign'.

You're right. I didn't check beforehand whether it was sensationalism/spin before posting it.

I'm basically crossed with (I'm not being sarcastic by the way).

Well, file it under 'lessons learned,' then actually learn the lesson, and we're good!

Remember, the sky is NOT falling, at least not tomorrow, the world is NOT constantly on the brink of war, this hour is no more magical and special than any of thousands of hours in humanity's past. What happens today and tomorrow does matter, but not enough to justify losing your head.

[Elheru Aran]

To add to Simon: War usually doesn't happen overnight. There's usually a lot of other stuff going on at the same time.

Take Pearl Harbor. Not only had the Japanese been in a period of diplomatic tensions with us-- which would have been reported in all the major newspapers, not as a leading item but at least as a story if you looked for it-- but there had been military conflicts with them in Asia throughout the 30s mainly in China, they were an aggressively expansionist Empire, and we were Lend-Leasing with Britain, who was facing off against them in Southeast Asia-- IIRC there were no open hostilities at the time but it was uncomfortably tense thanks to our economic sanctions on the Japanese.

So Pearl Harbor was something of a surprise attack, certainly... but in hindsight, Japanese aggression was entirely predictable and only a matter of time. The Germans and Italians had been in open warfare with Britain and France (did they start Barbarossa before PH? can't recall atm), so it was no question that we would end up fighting them, especially when they went and actually declared war.

Or take WWI. There was considerably more international tension back then than there is now (well, at least in Europe) thanks to overlapping networks of treaties, social unrest thanks to Anarchist and Socialist movements, and imperialistic ambitions coming to a full head between the various empires. It was only a matter of time, the only question was when someone would light the match. Conceivably, had Franz Ferdinand not been assassinated, WWI wouldn't have happened until perhaps the 20s.

Of course, a lot of this is mostly visible in hindsight, but nonetheless, what the OP article comes down to is an internal Russian affair combined with demagoguery from a Russian asshole. If it was actually Putin or his Foreign Minister saying these words, then that would be another story and rather more striking.

[K. A. Pital]

And yes, I think its getting to the point where we need to start thinking of Russia in the same terms that we do NK- as a combination of a failed state, a lunatic with a detonator, and bad joke.

Missed another idiotic rant from TRR. You know, at this point, you need to look at every state you dislike that way: Russia, China and anyone else who is not 100% in line with the US and might at times be hostile.

[Lord Revan]

I wonder if these people want to forget about Catherine the Great as not only was she female ruler of Russia but also tried reforming the rather badly corrupt feudal system Russia was under during that time (one can argue how successfull those reforms were but still).

Actually she did not reform the feudal system; that was the paradox of Catherine who posed as an "enlightened" autocrat creating universities, but at the same time she strengthened serfdom. Historians mostly agree that under Catherine, the position of the peasant serfs - and 90% of peasants were under serfdom - was one of the worst in history, almost as bad as plantation slavery. In fact, Catherine had a habit of calling the peasants "slaves", just as many other Russian nobles of the time did.

This also led to a peasant uprising led by Pugachev, which lasted three years and turned into full-scale civil war inside the nation.

Do not cut rulers some slack because they are women. In fact Catherine was one of the most cruel rulers and brutal oppression of the lower classes in her rule only intensified.

that I didn't know thank you for the correction.

[Iroscato]

And yes, I think its getting to the point where we need to start thinking of Russia in the same terms that we do NK- as a combination of a failed state, a lunatic with a detonator, and bad joke.

That is a profoundly stupid and hyperbolic statement, even by your usual lofty standards.

[Lord Revan]

Tbh USA/Russia relationship is still better then USA/USSR relationship and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (essentially) lasted for better part of the 20th century (from 1918 until 1990) so they had more then enough time to start the armageddon if they wished so yet they didn't because (and this might come as a surprice) they didn't want to die.

[K. A. Pital]

Tbh USA/Russia relationship is still better then USA/USSR relationship and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (essentially) lasted for better part of the 20th century (from 1918 until 1990) so they had more then enough time to start the armageddon if they wished so yet they didn't because (and this might come as a surprice) they didn't want to die.

Yes. As a matter of fact, Russia and the US are only two capitalist powers fighting for influence and client states. It is no longer a matter of life and death, and certainly a direct conflict is a good way to lose all your capitals in one second. So while war itself may be profitable, it is only profitable if it stays limited.

This makes the elites extremely wary of nuclear escalation. To such an extent that this fear has now been translated through the media to the general public. The risk of nuclear war is very low in our present day. It was high in the first decades when nuclear weapons arrived (50s, 60s) when both sides viewed them as acceptable tools to alter the balance of power - even if in threat form only, but the threat had to be credible.

Nowadays the credibility of nuclear threat is not doubted by any nation, and there is no global existential conflict between major nuclear powers.

[Iroscato]

Tbh USA/Russia relationship is still better then USA/USSR relationship and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (essentially) lasted for better part of the 20th century (from 1918 until 1990) so they had more then enough time to start the armageddon if they wished so yet they didn't because (and this might come as a surprice) they didn't want to die.

Yes. As a matter of fact, Russia and the US are only two capitalist powers fighting for influence and client states. It is no longer a matter of life and death, and certainly a direct conflict is a good way to lose all your capitals in one second. So while war itself may be profitable, it is only profitable if it stays limited.

This makes the elites extremely wary of nuclear escalation. To such an extent that this fear has now been translated through the media to the general public. The risk of nuclear war is very low in our present day. It was high in the first decades when nuclear weapons arrived (50s, 60s) when both sides viewed them as acceptable tools to alter the balance of power - even if in threat form only, but the threat had to be credible.

Nowadays the credibility of nuclear threat is not doubted by any nation, and there is no global existential conflict between major nuclear powers.

TL;DR - the 1% of the 1% doesn't want to stop their international coke-fueled orgies, and nukes would get in the way of that. Sound about right?

[Broomstick]

I wonder if these people want to forget about Catherine the Great as not only was she female ruler of Russia but also tried reforming the rather badly corrupt feudal system Russia was under during that time (one can argue how successfull those reforms were but still).

Actually she did not reform the feudal system; that was the paradox of Catherine who posed as an "enlightened" autocrat creating universities, but at the same time she strengthened serfdom. Historians mostly agree that under Catherine, the position of the peasant serfs - and 90% of peasants were under serfdom - was one of the worst in history, almost as bad as plantation slavery. In fact, Catherine had a habit of calling the peasants "slaves", just as many other Russian nobles of the time did.

This also led to a peasant uprising led by Pugachev, which lasted three years and turned into full-scale civil war inside the nation.

Do not cut rulers some slack because they are women. In fact Catherine was one of the most cruel rulers and brutal oppression of the lower classes in her rule only intensified.

One of the better history teachers I had in the past made a point that "Great" does not equal "Kind" when used to describe a ruler. A ruler might build an empire and make his/her nation incredibly powerful, wealthy, and influential.... but he/she does not need to be kind to achieve that goal. Indeed, that might be accomplished by running roughshod over innocents and ruthlessly exploiting people.

[The Romulan Republic]

And yes, I think its getting to the point where we need to start thinking of Russia in the same terms that we do NK- as a combination of a failed state, a lunatic with a detonator, and bad joke.

Missed another idiotic rant from TRR. You know, at this point, you need to look at every state you dislike that way: Russia, China and anyone else who is not 100% in line with the US and might at times be hostile.

You are, of course, free to disagree with me on any issue you please. You may even be correct from time to time- as they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.

But you are not free to misrepresent me, and I regard the insinuation that I am hostile to any state which ever disagrees with the US, and that my views regarding Russia are motivated simply by American nationalism, as exactly that.

My views on Russia are a result of my opposition to Right wing nationalists, military expansionism, and particularly any actions which are likely to increase the risk of nuclear war. You know full well that I have very similar views about Right wing nationalists in my own country, and among its allies- in fact I recall a recent exchange in which I argued against electing Trump precisely because I felt that he would increase the risk of a catastrophic war, while you engaged in apologetics for him. I could also dig up posts where I criticized the prospect of further US intervention in Syria because I felt that it posed an unacceptable risk of war with Russia. Or where I have criticized America's alliances with Israel, Turkey, the Philippines, or Saudi Arabia.

I do not divide the world into two camps. Not on nationality, on class, or on anything else. Remember that.

Call me an alarmist if you will- sometimes, I will acknowledge, I can be melodramatic or hyperbolic (though I do maintain that in some circumstances that can be a valid rhetorical technique). But I am not a blind American nationalist, and I will not permit such a gross misrepresentation of my position to go unanswered.

However, this is rapidly going off-topic, as the topic of this thread is weather their is a threat of war with Russia, not weather your personal contempt for me is justified. You got your little jab in, I got my reply, and I doubt either of us is likely to change our position much, so I'd prefer to leave it at that. I'm willing to walk away from it if you will. Because I've been on this board long enough to know exactly where this is likely going- you and I trade escalating insults for a while, until one of us reports the other and I get accused of hijacking the thread and shit-posting.

So I'm choosing to get off that particular hamster wheel while I can.

[K. A. Pital]

What I meant was not that you are a nationalist, but that you are too afraid and you elevate every small and insignificant bullshit to the highest level possible.

Why else look at Russia as "North Korea"? As a matter of fact, what has Russia done to you, so that you engage in such hyperbole?

[The Romulan Republic]

What has Russia done to me personally?

Nothing, so far as I know. Although I do take the Kremlin's apparent intervention in the US election on Trump's behalf as a direct attack on my interests and my democratic rights, and those of my fellow Americans.

What has the Russian government done to things that I value, like human rights, freedom of the press, and world peace? A great deal.

And yes, you can say the same of the United States at many points throughout its history. Although I do feel that the US is slightly (only slightly) less culpable for current tensions in Syria. And I freely admit that the prospect of nuclear war, even a remote prospect of it, scares me in a way few things that do not directly and immediately threaten me can. Does that cloud my judgement at times? Possibly. It is scary shit. Perhaps more frightening because I am too young to have memories of living through the Cold War- I almost get a sense from some older people that its "been their, done that, if it didn't happen then it isn't going to happen now." And as I said early in this thread, I think complacency has its own dangers, at least as much as alarmism.

And if you're looking for a personal motivation, since I happen to live in a city which serves as the main Pacific naval base for a NATO member, I know full well that were such a war to happen, however unlikely, my home would be one of the places getting nuked directly. I'm as dead in this city as if I lived in Moscow or Washington, if it comes to that.

Mind you, if Donald Trump becomes President, I'll probably have similarly alarmist and harsh things to say about the US government, compared to what I've said about Russia in this thread.

[K. A. Pital]

So what? My city used to be target number 5 for nuclear annihilation. And?

Americans filmed and wrote racist caricatures of Russians painting them as little better than apes. In fact even an ape would be better than the ugly joke of a depiction that Russians got and still get in American media. Apes in Planet of the Apes were more sympathetic than Russians.

Do I give a shit? No. Do I think about nuclear war arising from a few stupid comments by know laughing stocks? No. And even if the unlikely happened and Trump would become US president, I still would not give a damn or be worried.

Get yourself together. Pointless alarmism is much worse than complacency because it makes real threats hard to distinguish.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well as to racist caricatures in film, I think we can both agree: fuck them.

I do want to be very clear that whatever hostility I have toward the Russian government does not extend to the Russian people in general, any more than my loathing of Trump and his like extends to my friends and family in America.

As to weather the possibility of nuclear war is a genuine concern, I don't think we're going to agree, so their's not much point in rehashing it.

[Iroscato]

No but seriously, can we get a thread title change? This is ridiculous.

[K. A. Pital]

Removed the silly part and made it to be more like what it actually is.

[SolarpunkFan]

To add insult to injury, I was fooled by idiocy that started in the Daily Heil.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/12/putin- ... to-return/

[Simon_Jester]

And see, this is why most of us don't go around expecting the sky to fall at any moment.

Because it's a lot harder to wind up embarrassed like this.

[Iroscato]

^ This, a thousand times this.

I honestly switch off whenever I see "World War 3" in a thread or article title.

[Lord Revan]

while one shouldn't become complesant about the idea of World War III, one must also be realistic about the prospects of it happening. Dispite what US media claims most other countries aren't filled with blood thirsty savages who only wish to kill americans even at expense of their survival. Instead those countries are filled with people, just people, same old boring people all over the globe. So those countries aren't gonna start wars for "shits and giggles", but rather it'll take a lot of provocating to start a war, especially a nuclear war, which WW3 would probably be.

so TL:DR while not impossible WW3 is unlikely as most countries would rather survive to see tomorrow then to "kill the americans"

[Elheru Aran]

The worst foreseeable conflict in the near future is likely to be some kind of Western coalition against Islamic forces in the general area of Syria/Iraq/Iran. It won't be a "World War" as much as it's a messy affair along the lines of the first Iraq war, and probably with as unsatisfactory a conclusion given how ham-handed Western dealings with the Middle East tend to be.