Russia - General Discussion.

[Ananda]

Online forums to assess" public thinking"? does this forum represent public thinking? online forums are easily influenced by paid organisations to express a viewpoint on behalf of governments another form of propaganda

Well it happen even to Western online forums. Off course western media will potrait differently. However if that thinking shown consistently on multiple forums and telegrams (you have to see the replies too), then it can shown somewhat indicator on their public opinion. Russian telegrams so far eventough full of nationalistic bias (like Chinese weibos), do shown somewhere independent opinion.

Just like Russian telegrams, Chinese Weibos also can be seen as somewhat public indicators. Ironic when some western media potraits the opposition or disgruntled chinese and russian forums as independent true people voices. While the pro nationalists ones as government stooges.

 

[seaspear]

Remembering of course that some countries have laws against dissent with harsh provisions for those with an unacceptable narrative ,and the determination and technology to track down those expressing such views that contravene government propaganda

 

[swerve]

Well that's the problem between what non Russian believe and what Russian believe, especially current thinking. One thing for sure Crimea is very ingrained on Russian psych currently and even back to 19th century Russian Imperial. It is for them now consider more or more part of their identity.

For me, how average Russian saying in telegrams or online forums, shown more evidence on how their thinking, especially their popular believe. Rather then Russian state or opposition control media.

That online forums and telegrams which make me see how Crimea is their red line. Even in Imperial time. Crimea is part of Russian believe on their rights for Black Sea access and security.

IIRC Crimea didn't have a Russian majority until the expulsion of Tatars after it was taken back from Germany in 1944. It was a conquered territory of strategic value, not a part of ancient Russia.

A territory being ingrained in your psyche isn't the same as it being historically yours.

 

[Dead Money]

It will be very hard to take non-Western countries who didn’t support Ukraine serious when they will complain about imperialism, colonialism etc. from now on. If you don’t care about the plight of Ukrainians, why should other people care about your plight?

This is true from a realpolitik perspective.

However, I'd like to hope personally that if confronted with this dilemma in the future that I will view such concerns separate from national past behaviour. Dismissing the plight of a people due to a nation's past behaviour feeds into the very grievance counting mindset that justifies wars to 'make things right'.

I don't care if the nation crying foul in future is Russia itself - a principled approach is to stand up for an international rules based order and respect for sovereignty, regardless of past shames.

 

[Feanor]

Well that's the problem between what non Russian believe and what Russian believe, especially current thinking. One thing for sure Crimea is very ingrained on Russian psych currently and even back to 19th century Russian Imperial. It is for them now consider more or more part of their identity.

IIRC Crimea didn't have a Russian majority until the expulsion of Tatars after it was taken back from Germany in 1944. It was a conquered territory of strategic value, not a part of ancient Russia.

A territory being ingrained in your psyche isn't the same as it being historically yours.

To be clear nearly all of modern day Russia is conquered territory. And this applies to many other countries as well. And I'd like to point out that there is no "ancient Russia". There is Kievan Rus, the precursor Ruthenian feudal entity out of which come modern Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians. There are the various medieval statelets (Grand Duchies and regular Duchies) but there is no clear border between which of them one would consider "ancient Russia" and which "ancient Ukraine". There is Muscovy, the state formed by Vasiliy The Dark (Vasiliy II), expanded by Ivan the Great (Ivan III), Vasiliy III, and Ivan the Terrible (Ivan IV). But they're distinctly not ancient Russia. After consolidating control over about one half to two thirds of the duchies of former Kievan Rus, this state promptly went on a conquering spree aimed primarily at the former Horde lands, Kazan, Astrakhan', and Nogay Hordes. One might argue that territories as firmly and generally indisputably Russian as Novosibirsk or the Urals are less "ancient Russian" then captured Tatar lands. I think any argument for or against Russian possesion of Crimea based on the history is fundamentally flawed. An argument based on Russian psyche is a little better, but instead of psyche I think we should consider it as something ingrained in Russian national mythology, "a place of Russian military glory" is typically the sentiment surrounding Sevastopol'. The history of Russia as we know it today is probably best begun with Peter the Great and it was always a multi-ethnic imperial or quasi-imperial entity that never fully made the transition to nation-state though has gotten pretty close to that now, having cast off the ideological framework of internationalism and having a significant super-majority of ethnic Russian population.

 

[contricusc]

I don't care if the nation crying foul in future is Russia itself - a principled approach is to stand up for an international rules based order and respect for sovereignty, regardless of past shames.

I agree with you. This is exactly what makes even more shameful the position of countries that refuse to support Ukraine under current circumstances.

 

[Ananda]

G7 Summit 2023: Scrutinizing the Guest List

Japan’s choice of guests is aimed at furthering its Global South agenda, denuclearization, and efforts to curb and counter China.

thediplomat.com

The reality of real politics at this moment those Global South that's mostly still in the fence and keep engaging Russia and continue become China large trading partners, are increasingly important for West main power G7.

See the invitees list on this year G7 summit; India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Vietnam clearly still in the fence on this war. Even the Comoros also can be included on the similar path. Of the invitees list only ROK, Australia and Cook Islands that follow Western stance.

Clearly G7 try to lure Global South to their cause against China and Russia. Inviting India and Brazil clearly try to drive wedge within BRICS, while Indonesia and Vietnam represents South East Asia that's increasingly important for China vs US-Japan influence battle ground.

Reality tough it will be surprise of the decade if any of those Global South invitees will change their geopolitical stance. India, Brazil continue in line with BRICS effort on reducing USD usage on global trade, which Indonesia, Vietnam, gulf middle east and those in Africa so far follow the trend. Because in the mind of Global South reducing USD in Global Trade just make sense commercially and politically. They just don't see US lead unipolar order make sense anymore in the geopolitical and geo commerce changes after 2010.

US and G7 still matter much on global commercial and political order, it is just Global South want balance. They see China and Russia are part of the balance. BRICS potentially stand as balance, despite all the animosity between China and India. Something that G7 seems forgot, India and Brazil continue shown they need to be part of BRICS. This is what they sell domestically.

 

[Redshift]

G7 Summit 2023: Scrutinizing the Guest List

Japan’s choice of guests is aimed at furthering its Global South agenda, denuclearization, and efforts to curb and counter China.

thediplomat.com

The reality of real politics at this moment those Global South that's mostly still in the fence and keep engaging Russia and continue become China large trading partners, are increasingly important for West main power G7.

See the invitees list on this year G7 summit; India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Vietnam clearly still in the fence on this war. Even the Comoros also can be included on the similar path. Of the invitees list only ROK, Australia and Cook Islands that follow Western stance.

Clearly G7 try to lure Global South to their cause against China and Russia. Inviting India and Brazil clearly try to drive wedge within BRICS, while Indonesia and Vietnam represents South East Asia that's increasingly important for China vs US-Japan influence battle ground.

Reality tough it will be surprise of the decade if any of those Global South invitees will change their geopolitical stance. India, Brazil continue in line with BRICS effort on reducing USD usage on global trade, which Indonesia, Vietnam, gulf middle east and those in Africa so far follow the trend. Because in the mind of Global South reducing USD in Global Trade just make sense commercially and politically. They just don't see US lead unipolar order make sense anymore in the geopolitical and geo commerce changes after 2010.

US and G7 still matter much on global commercial and political order, it is just Global South want balance. They see China and Russia are part of the balance. BRICS potentially stand as balance, despite all the animosity between China and India. Something that G7 seems forgot, India and Brazil continue shown they need to be part of BRICS. This is what they sell domestically.

You are very "good" at telling us what the "West" does wrong (in your opinion, as far as I can tell from your posts, that is virtually everything).

If, for one moment, we accept that you are right, what advice would you give to the West for a better strategy ?

 

[Ananda]

are very "good" at telling us what the "West" does wrong

Did I say the West doing all wrong in my posts ? Read again. There's difference between West doing wrong and Global South being skeptical and not going to follow all Western stances.

What seems some of people in West can not accept is that Global South or Non Western world have the mind and will on their own. West has done some wrongs with Non Western world in the past. That's make them sceptical with West, but also with China and Russia.

They are geopolitical in the fences as more convenient ways already being put by Koxinga in his post. Similar thing as I put they want to do their own stances. This is not new, as even in Cold War non alliance movement already strong with Global South.

 

[Redshift]

Did I say the West doing all wrong in my posts ? Read again. There's difference between West doing wrong and Global South being skeptical and not going to follow all Western stances.

What seems some of people in West can not accept is that Global South or Non Western world have the mind and will on their own. West has done some wrongs with Non Western world in the past. That's make them sceptical with West, but also with China and Russia.

They are geopolitical in the fences as more convenient ways already being put by Koxinga in his post. Similar thing as I put they want to do their own stances. This is not new, as even in Cold War non alliance movement already strong with Global South.

I have read almost every post that you have written, whether you see it or not, you are hyper critical of almost everything the "West" does.

I accept your position, what would YOU have us do that YOU would actually welcome us doing?

I am asking for a positive contribution from yourself about how the "West" could gain more traction with people such as yourself.

 

[Ananda]

positive contribution from yourself about how the "West" could gain more traction with people such as yourself.

What this talk about positive contributions? I just bring out the assessment on why Non West are still sceptical toward West. However they also sceptical with Russia and China, and that's why most of them in fences.

What's my own feeling on this, is not matter with the geopolitical realities from Global South.

 

[Redshift]

What this talk about positive contributions? I just bring out the assessment on why Non West are still sceptical toward West. However they also sceptical with Russia and China, and that's why most of them in fences.

What's my own feeling on this, is not matter with the geopolitical realities from Global South.

Hang in , you say that you understand why "non west is sceptical toward west" (from post above) . If you understand that so well you must be able to help us/we understand what we can do to improve our standing?

 

[Ananda]

you understand that so well you must be able to help us/we understand what we can do to improve our standing?

How you want to improve your own standing toward others? Then understand what's other concern and needs. If West want to increase their chances toward Global South (just like G7 trying to do) toward China and Russia (especially China) then shown better deal then what China can give, but same time understand Non West also need China as balance.

Just give one example related to this thread, how the West want the Non West to actively shun Russia for the plight of Ukrainian, when West not shunning Israel for the plight of Palestinian? This is just an example, as I don't want to turn this thread on debate on Palestinian-Israel, as there're other threads on that.

This Geopolitics is one big transactional mechanism after all. Everyone try to get better deal for themselves. Mind you sceptics that already been build need long time to re convinced.

Add:
I also say Global South also sceptical with Russia and China. That's why they're mostly geopolitically in fences. This is main point as Global South sceptical for both sides. Something that you are seems cut it and only fixiate with sceptical to West.

 

[tonnyc]

I'm not Ananda but I know what will make us like the West a lot.
Give us money. No strings attached. Well, okay, that's unrealistic. Very minimal strings attached.
No, no. Not lend us money. Give. No strings attached. Lending us money is a business transaction. When people borrow money to buy a car they don't like their bank more. It's just a business transaction. The same thing with lending us money.
Not invest in us either. If you invest and want the profit for yourself, that's just business and while it may create jobs, the impact to your standing is minimal because as you maximize profit extraction there will be people resentful of that extraction.

Rather, things like USAID and AUSAID seems to create genuine good will among the recipients. So expand on those.
Take the aid money on Israel, they're rich and they don't need them, and spend it on the Global South. No strings attached. Well, minimal strings attached. I guess some safeguards so they money don't all disappear into a high official's Swiss bank account is necessary. But don't demand policy changes for the aid. That IMF money that requires austerity measures? Everyone hates that.

No, this isn't me begging for money. I'm doing okay and my country is doing okay and while we won't turn away free money I can see that places like Timor Leste or Lebanon need help way more than us. But I genuinely mean it when I say that things like USAID and AUSAID make really good impressions on the people who received them.

Now, whether giving free money is the best way to help a developing country become independent and developed is up to debate, but your question wasn't about how to accelerate the development of a country. It's about how to improve the standing of the West in the eye of the Global South.

 

[Ananda]

I add one point on business ethics between China and West toward Global South as another example. Western media now talk about China debt trap towards poor but rich resources nations. However how West expect those Nations to turn down China offer as they are need more money in modern Infrastructure.

Nations need proper infrastructure to climb value chain production ladder. Without that they will stuck on the bottom of value chain. If West want those Nations to move away from Chinese infrastructure drive, then give them better deal from China to build their infrastructure.

 

[John Fedup]

I add one point on business ethics between China and West toward Global South as another example. Western media now talk about China debt trap towards poor but rich resources nations. However how West expect those Nations to turn down China offer as they are need more money in modern Infrastructure.

Nations need proper infrastructure to climb value chain production ladder. Without that they will stuck on the bottom of value chain. If West want those Nations to move away from Chinese infrastructure drive, then give them better deal from China to build their infrastructure.

The US could afford the Marshall Plan to redo much of the world after WW2, today, much more limited. Debt levels are a concern and now defence will reduce aid by some Western countries. China appears to have lots of cash but their massive defence budget is only exceeded by their internal security (repression) budget. Questionable domestic real-estate debt and the demographic issue may eventually curtail the CCP’s debt trap program. The next 10-20 years will be intense.

 

[seaspear]

The US could afford the Marshall Plan to redo much of the world after WW2, today, much more limited. Debt levels are a concern and now defence will reduce aid by some Western countries. China appears to have lots of cash but their massive defence budget is only exceeded by their internal security (repression) budget. Questionable domestic real-estate debt and the demographic issue may eventually curtail the CCP’s debt trap program. The next 10-20 years will be intense.

Chinas debt concerns can be staggering and what happens to the world economy if Chinas economy has a severe reversal should be of concern
China’s Overwhelming Debt Burden Points To Still Deeper Problems (forbes.com)
This article states that China is calling in loans from poorer countries and have caused severe hardship ,its not something the I.M.F would do
China calls in loans to Pakistan, Kenya, dozens more | Fortune

 

[John Fedup]

Chinas debt concerns can be staggering and what happens to the world economy if Chinas economy has a severe reversal should be of concern
China’s Overwhelming Debt Burden Points To Still Deeper Problems (forbes.com)
This article states that China is calling in loans from poorer countries and have caused severe hardship ,its not something the I.M.F would do
China calls in loans to Pakistan, Kenya, dozens more | Fortune

Even worse would be a simultaneous US-China debt crisis. Throw in the US political polarization and this combination will be toxic for the entire world economy.

 

[seaspear]

This article goes into how China arranges loans and the secrecy involved ,its interest on loan repayments are higher than I.M.F
Testimony on China’s Lending Practices and the International Debt Architecture | Center For Global Development | Ideas to Action (cgdev.org)
China hit by surge in Belt and Road bad loans | Financial Times (ft.com)

 

[Vivendi]

I'm not Ananda but I know what will make us like the West a lot.
Give us money. No strings attached. Well, okay, that's unrealistic. Very minimal strings attached.
No, no. Not lend us money. Give. No strings attached. Lending us money is a business transaction. When people borrow money to buy a car they don't like their bank more. It's just a business transaction. The same thing with lending us money.
Not invest in us either. If you invest and want the profit for yourself, that's just business and while it may create jobs, the impact to your standing is minimal because as you maximize profit extraction there will be people resentful of that extraction.

Rather, things like USAID and AUSAID seems to create genuine good will among the recipients. So expand on those.
Take the aid money on Israel, they're rich and they don't need them, and spend it on the Global South. No strings attached. Well, minimal strings attached. I guess some safeguards so they money don't all disappear into a high official's Swiss bank account is necessary. But don't demand policy changes for the aid. That IMF money that requires austerity measures? Everyone hates that.

No, this isn't me begging for money. I'm doing okay and my country is doing okay and while we won't turn away free money I can see that places like Timor Leste or Lebanon need help way more than us. But I genuinely mean it when I say that things like USAID and AUSAID make really good impressions on the people who received them.

Now, whether giving free money is the best way to help a developing country become independent and developed is up to debate, but your question wasn't about how to accelerate the development of a country. It's about how to improve the standing of the West in the eye of the Global South.

Norway has been handing out money to poor countries for decades. It does not help much, and I am not sure if even the "standing" of Norway in those countries improve that much. Unfortunately it seems very hard to make the money reach those that need them the most -- in many cases a lot disappears along the way, mainly due to corruption in the country receiving the money. I guess that's why it does not improve the standing of Norway much. Some money does reach the intended recipients and I am sure those few that benefit from it are happier.

I am not sure if the main aim of "the West" should be to become more popular, I think it's more important to somehow convince the countries "on the fence" they will benefit more from living in a rules based world, and not one dominated by powers breaking the rules as they see fit. Thus I am thinking the best way to do that is for "the west" to respect those rules themselves. Unfortunately some of the bigger countries in "the West" have on some occasions bent the rules themselves and this may make it harder to convince some countries about the benefits of countries following international law and rules.

Another thing that would help is to trade more with the countries one wants to influence. Trade is IMHO what is most beneficial for countries, together with a reasonable level of foreign investments.