Russian nationalists feel let down by Putin, seek more Russian territory
23 replies, posted
[QUOTE]MOSCOW—Russia's most famous imperialist ideologue, Alexander Dugin, saw his star rise even higher as Russia annexed Crimea early this year in the heat of a patriotic, expansionist fever.
Now he is feeling jilted, with the Kremlin agreeing to negotiate with Kiev and its Western allies rather than seizing more of eastern Ukraine. He has gone from regular appearances on state television to being denied a prestigious post at Moscow State University last week.
The university says the offer of a department chairmanship resulted from a technical error, and that he remains a professor under contract until September, which Mr. Dugin denies.
He says his case is a warning to anti-West hard-liners like himself, now that Kremlin has moderated its stance on Ukraine: Back off demands to deploy troops and quit suggesting President Vladimir Putin is letting the separatists down.
Mr. Dugin is one of a group of radical ideological crusaders who have seen their prominence ebb and flow in Russia depending on the level of tension with the West.
"The disappointment isn't only mine. It is shared by many people," he said.
Igor Strelkov, the nom de guerre of a Russian citizen who has become a rebel commander in Slovyansk, issued a plea for help to the Russian military Friday. In an interview with LifeNews, he said his forces would be overrun by the Ukrainian military in a week or two if Russia didn't intervene.
Alexander Prokhanov, a prominent Stalinist writer who shares many of Mr. Dugin's anti-West views, says he too is disappointed.
He was also part of the Russian propaganda campaign that tarred the new Kiev government and its Western backers as fascists, helping to rally popular support for Crimea's annexation and the separatists in east Ukraine and driving the biggest rift with the U.S. since the Cold War.
"Now they're not allowing people who are demanding an immediate invasion on television," Mr. Prokhanov said in describing the shift. "They aren't allowing those who are demanding the bombing of Berlin, Rome and Washington. They're not allowed. That is the current political line."
Mr. Putin has vowed to protect Russian compatriots abroad, opening the door to a possible invasion. But the threat of Western economic sanctions—and the burden the separatist regions, with 6.5 million people, would pose for Russia's already-sluggish economy—have made a repeat of the Crimea scenario a far more problematic and costly proposition. At the moment, a full-scale invasion looks unlikely.
That has raised worries among hard-liners such as Mr. Dugin that the Russian president doesn't fully support their vision of a reconstituted Eurasian empire rising up to counter the West and to seize Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine.
Since returning to the Kremlin in 2012, Mr. Putin has increasingly presented Russia as a traditional, Orthodox Christian society opposed to liberal Western values. The pivot heartened anti-American revanchists in Russia and gave them a newfound prominence. When Russia seized Crimea, they felt their once-marginal proposals at long last were coming true.
But now some of them fear Mr. Putin's pivot may have been more political convenience—a policy that helped him raise support among Russia's traditionalists and undercut its pro-Western liberals, but which he is prepared to abandon in the face of more pressing, practical concerns.
"Before, we could have an illusion that Putin himself is a Eurasian patriot, a defender of Orthodox identity," Mr. Dugin said. "His hesitation now is a sign that he has followed this line by some pragmatic calculations, by some realistic understanding of the politics."
In Mr. Dugin's view, Mr. Putin for the first time risks losing the support of the patriotic hard-liners who have stood by him at critical moments.
According to Mr. Dugin, there had long been a core of pro-Russia compatriots in Ukraine's eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, ready to rise up against the capital Kiev. But he said Mr. Putin's decision to invoke Novorossiya—the Russian Empire's name for modern-day southeast Ukraine—in public for the first time during an April television appearance galvanized many more and convinced them they would enjoy Kremlin backing.
People Mr. Dugin described as patriots arrived in Ukraine's east from Russia "as a sign of fulfillment of Putin's promises."
"When people started the revolt in the east, they counted on [a new system] coming from Russia," Mr. Dugin said. "They could overthrow the existing [rule] imposed by Kiev, but they lacked the capacity to install" a new structure.
Now, the separatists could end up in a lurch. Their self-declared republics are witnessing internal conflicts "because everyone counted on Russian troops coming more or less soon," he said.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://online.wsj.com/articles/russian-nationalists-feel-let-down-by-kremlin-again-1404510139[/url]
If they love Russia so god damn much why don't they fucking move to Russia
There is literally so much land in Russia anyway why do these people feel like it needs more
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45305433]If they love Russia so god damn much why don't they fucking move to Russia
There is literally so much land in Russia anyway why do these people feel like it needs more[/QUOTE]
But don't people always have a choice if they want to be annexed by another country? [/sarcasm]
Do people have the right to change their political boundaries.
[QUOTE=laserguided;45305495]Do people have the right to change their political boundaries.[/QUOTE]
not by force (in the context of russia/ukraine struggle)
[editline]6th July 2014[/editline]
seems like now that they've sat back and analyzed the situation, the kremlin has realised that the cost of crimea was too great for the meager reward, if this is the new policy then the russian rebels should stand down because russia doesn't seem to want to take the burden of more land
crimea was a special case because they've wanted it and they really wanted their port without having to pay for it
[QUOTE=laserguided;45305495]Do people have the right to change their political boundaries.[/QUOTE]
Yes. By holding a UN sanctioned referendum that has leeway from the UNSC and is monitored by dozens of organizations to ensure that there is no violence, gerrymandering or voting fraud.
Or basically do everything that Crimea didn't.
[QUOTE=Sableye;45305553]not by force (in the context of russia/ukraine struggle)
[editline]6th July 2014[/editline]
seems like now that they've sat back and analyzed the situation, the kremlin has realised that the cost of crimea was too great for the meager reward, if this is the new policy then the russian rebels should stand down because russia doesn't seem to want to take the burden of more land
crimea was a special case because they've wanted it and they really wanted their port without having to pay for it[/QUOTE]
Not by force, so basically every independence struggle ever where the military presence disagrees with said independence claim?
[editline]5th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;45305564]Yes. By holding a UN sanctioned referendum that has leeway from the UNSC and is monitored by dozens of organizations to ensure that there is no violence, gerrymandering or voting fraud.
Or basically do everything that Crimea didn't.[/QUOTE]
You know the U.N. is useless right? The UNSC is polarized, the concept doesn't work unless everybody agrees with it. Look at the UNSC and Palestine for example.
[QUOTE=laserguided;45305566]
You know the U.N. is useless right? The UNSC is polarized, the concept doesn't work unless everybody agrees with it. Look at the UNSC and Palestine for example.[/QUOTE]
Who actually agrees with this? I've never heard any rational people speak badly about the UN, including several of my university professors.
People who say the UN doesn't work, or is polarized, are ignorant of history. The UN does exactly what it's supposed to, stops potential escalations between great powers.
It's not supposed to stop every single bad thing from happening, it's basically designed to help prevent horrible multi-million casualty wars.
No, It's not perfect, but it's also not "useless." If you know anything about history you'd know that since the UN has been around we have seen a lot less death from wars.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45305663]Who actually agrees with this? I've never heard any rational people speak badly about the UN, including several of my university professors.
People who say the UN doesn't work, or is polarized, are ignorant of history. The UN does exactly what it's supposed to, stops potential escalations between great powers.
It's not supposed to stop every single bad thing from happening, it's basically designed to help prevent horrible multi-million casualty wars.
No, It's not perfect, but it's also not "useless." If you know anything about history you'd know that since the UN has been around we have seen a lot less death from wars.[/QUOTE]
They should get rid of the security council. It cripples the U.N.
It doesn't stop a war if the country in question doesn't give a shit and knows there will be no repercussions. It's also helpful when one of the UNSC members bugs the UN and hacks all their computer systems.
If you deny Russians their favorite pass-time of expanding their nation, of course you'll upset some of them.
Lets take a step back here and look at Russian history:
[img]http://31.media.tumblr.com/1ccb7f68d57b6dc15249bc9e44d5e80b/tumblr_n3oj77rbsw1s6c1p2o1_1280.jpg[/img]
More recent expansions:
[img]http://jbapwoh.wikispaces.com/file/view/582px-Cold_war_europe_military_alliances_map_en.png/62019100/640x658/582px-Cold_war_europe_military_alliances_map_en.png[/img]
It's like their favorite national sport, expansion.
[QUOTE=laserguided;45305756]They should get rid of the security council. It cripples the U.N. Obviously it doesn't stop war's if powers get fed up with not being able to invade countries with UN approval and choose to do so anyway, like that has totally not happened recently.[/QUOTE]
Not all countries are equal though. You basically take the 5 countries capable of killing the majority of humanity and give them unique power over other countries.
All 5 members (especially USA and Russia) have all vetoed resolutions that could've potentially led to an escalation. Sometimes the best action is no action, and no action is what traditionally happens.
[QUOTE=Angus725;45305772]If you deny Russians their favorite pass-time of expanding their nation, of course you'll upset some of them.
Lets take a step back here and look at Russian history:
[img]http://images.classwell.com/mcd_xhtml_ebooks/2005_world_history/images/mcd_mwh2005_0618377115_p176_f01.jpg[/img]
More recent expansions:
[img]http://jbapwoh.wikispaces.com/file/view/582px-Cold_war_europe_military_alliances_map_en.png/62019100/640x658/582px-Cold_war_europe_military_alliances_map_en.png[/img]
It's like their favorite national sport, expansion.[/QUOTE]
Age of Empires 5: Rise of Russia
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45305663]It's not supposed to stop every single bad thing from happening, it's basically designed to help prevent horrible multi-million casualty wars.[/QUOTE]
And yet one notices. If something bad happens, that is because the "UN failed miserably".
[QUOTE=Starpluck;45305779]And yet one notices. If something bad happens, that is because the "UN failed miserably".[/QUOTE]
Its usually because both sides of the council can't come to an agreeable solution, then let the measure die after one veto, but usually after the veto both sides do have some dialogue about it, in the case of Syria we were able to make some concessions with the China Russia block but not really anything to descalate the war other than a peace summit where both sides agreed to not give up annihilating each other
[editline]6th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=laserguided;45305566]Not by force, so basically every independence struggle ever where the military presence disagrees with said independence claim?[/quote]
In the case of Crimea/Ukraine/Russia whatever, the opposition didn't even try to open an honest conversation with Kiev, they just picked up guns and started taking what they wanted. That is not how you make lasting transitions, imagine if Scotland just took all the troops they had and declared independence from Britain tonight, the whole region would be unstable for decades later, taking up arms is the least productive way to secure a future, look at Afghanistan, every regime there has been made by force and every single one has collapsed. Dialogue and level headed negotiations are the best shot at a permanent solution
[QUOTE=Sableye;45305817]Its usually because both sides of the council can't come to an agreeable solution, then let the measure die after one veto, but usually after the veto both sides do have some dialogue about it, in the case of Syria we were able to make some concessions with the China Russia block but not really anything to descalate the war other than a peace summit where both sides agreed to not give up annihilating each other
[editline]6th July 2014[/editline]
In the case of Crimea/Ukraine/Russia whatever, the opposition didn't even try to open an honest conversation with Kiev, they just picked up guns and started taking what they wanted. That is not how you make lasting transitions, imagine if Scotland just took all the troops they had and declared independence from Britain tonight, the whole region would be unstable for decades later, taking up arms is the least productive way to secure a future, look at Afghanistan, every regime there has been made by force and every single one has collapsed. Dialogue and level headed negotiations are the best shot at a permanent solution[/QUOTE]
Except in the case of....
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;45305564]Yes. By holding a UN sanctioned referendum that has leeway from the UNSC and is monitored by dozens of organizations to ensure that there is no violence, gerrymandering or voting fraud.
Or basically do everything that Crimea didn't.[/QUOTE]
I have a feeling that the Ukrainian government wouldn't let such a referendum happen...
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45305776]Not all countries are equal though. You basically take the 5 countries capable of killing the majority of humanity and give them unique power over other countries.
All 5 members (especially USA and Russia) have all vetoed resolutions that could've potentially led to an escalation. Sometimes the best action is no action, and no action is what traditionally happens.[/QUOTE]Except that "sometimes" is rarely the case, because people have been slaughtered under the watchful eye of the UN. While yes, technically the UN has done some good things, it's also totally fucking failed to do a whole hell of a lot more. People have been slaughtered while the UN does nothing, and when one of the major players are involved there's no chance in hell the UN is going to do anything to help. Even if literally everyone in the region was like "hey, no, fuck this, we should go to the UN!" and there was a way to prove that literally [i]everyone[/i] was on board with condemning whichever of the big five was ruining their day, nothing would happen. What would happen, however, is the people would raise the issue, make their case and then LOL VETO HAHAHAHA. Tough shit, brown people, maybe you should have developed nukes in the 40's like we did!
As far as I'm concerned that's a glaring flaw in the "United" Nations. So saying it works exactly as designed is bullshit because it wasn't designed to ensure that the five strongest countries in the world are given a free pass to completely fuck everyone else.
So.. Russia has their own Tea Party and their complaining that the leader in power isn't a real Americ- ahem, Russian, excuse me...
Sounds about right.
[b]GOOD.[/b]
My only concern is that this all backfires horribly and the Russians wind up "electing" someone even nuttier than Putin himself.
Their tears are delicious. Thanks, Putin
[QUOTE=ewitwins;45306810][b]GOOD.[/b]
My only concern is that this all backfires horribly and the Russians wind up "electing" someone even nuttier than Putin himself.[/QUOTE]
Well thank god that the elections are always rigged in Putin's favour then.
What the hell is all this reconstructing an empire bullshit. Putin is apparently one of few people who understand the implications and consequences of striving for this empire, hence his moderate approach. IF they put hardline nationalists in power, fuck me, Eastern Europe, mostly Russia, will go down in flames, painfully aware of what it means to wage war again. And they won't like it. Not to mention MY people and our neighbours are here, but we'll just be another battleground; more collateral to them. And they wonder why sentiment is fairly anti-Russian in the region, even anti-west regarding some things. The rest of the world will never know what it means to be a buffer between the east and the west - almost literally the line that distinctively separates the hemispheres.
