jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (80 posts)

Revival of the Brezhnev Doctrine

  1. 0
    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago

    LIGNET notes today that: "Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine demonstrate a newfound willingness to use economic, political and military pressure to maintain the Kremlin’s hold over former Soviet states, a modern-day version of the Brezhnev Doctrine of the 1960s. A lack of Western leverage has emboldened Russia and is likely to discourage other countries from even leaning away from Moscow."

    LIGNET also note that: "After signing a treaty of accession with Crimean officials on Tuesday, Putin said it took effect immediately, even though the Russian parliament did not have a chance to ratify it. Putin’s boldness is a stark warning to former Soviet satellites not to seek closer ties with Europe and the United States."

    Has Putin revived the Brezhnev Doctrine? How should the world---particularly the West and former Soviet satellite and bloc nations respond?


    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8827701_f248.jpg

    For more information: http://www.lignet.com/

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What would you call the Cuban embargo and trade sanctions? The " It didn't work" Doctrine?

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Analogies---particularly from the last century, are really not a good way to think about current international events.

        In so many ways this just becomes "apples and oranges", and as such, meaningless.

        Every situation has its own set of facts, variables, contexts, inputs, and possible outcomes.

        The fact is that the sanctions that the US and EU have placed on Putin have, if his actions of today are to be correctly read, simply worked to empower and embolden him.

        Putin's response to sanctions:

        "Russia responded with sanctions against nine U.S. officials and lawmakers, including speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and Sens. John McCain, Robert Menendez, Daniel Coats and Mary Landrieu, according to a list published by the Russian Foreign Ministry." (CNN News)

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It depends upon your perspective to draw an apples and oranges conclusion. Did the US not invade Cuba at one time and establish the military base?

          "The United States assumed territorial control over the southern portion of Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban–American Treaty.[1] The United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control over this territory, while recognizing that Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty. The current government of Cuba regards the U.S. presence in Guantánamo Bay as illegal and insists the Cuban–American Treaty was obtained by threat of force in violation of international law. Some legal scholars judge that the lease may be voidable."- Wikipedia

          I don't see that they are as far apart as you would suggest. The truth is that US foreign policy has been one of invasions, police actions and intimidation just as Russia has enjoined in their part of the world. Is it that we are the "good guy's" because we promote democratic governments and Russia is the "bad guy" because they promote communism that is particularly distasteful? If our way of government is so good why did Crimea laydown so easily? Maybe because there are more people who welcome Russia and not the European Union. Or maybe because Russia just took it as the US took a portion of Cuba.

          1. 59
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A Communist Kleptocracy seizes control of Cuba and that government is suddenly supposed to be recognized over the government it expelled or butchered?  Gitmo is a perfect middle finger in the eye of Cuba, though now it is so old and so established that it is doubtful either party places much stock in the old disagreement.

            Crimea laid down because the thugs were already in its streets and controlling the mechanisms of election.  If we are to believe your construction of reality then the most legitimate government in the world is that of Kim Jung Un, after all he received 100% of the vote from 100% of voters.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It is interesting your use of the term Kleptocracy with regards to a communist regime as its mere definition has a correlation to the current situation we now have here in the US. As far as a version of reality I agree the direct similarity between the Cuban and Ukraine situation is somewhat different but the fact remains that the US maintains control of a piece of another's sovereign country. We rationalize it however we wish but the fact remains. The Cuban Revolution changed the ownership of property in that country. We had to abide by it and we refused to leave Guantanamo regardless. Have our sanctions worked in overturning the government? We have strained relations but one of the Castro's remains in power today and we may have to wait to see what his progeny if he has any will do with the gauntlet of power that seems to be "handed" down rather than elected.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Do you have ANY idea what the so-called Cuban Revolution did to anyone in Cuba who did not support Castro, communism, and Moscow?

                Do you have ANY idea how ANYONE who chose not to join Castro's "revolution" was treated in the wake of it?

                And for the record: Fidel Castro is no longer in charge in Cuba. Since about 2006 Fidel Castro's brother Raul Castro has been in the president in reality and practice---though his official designations are "acting" and/or "temporary" president, commander-in-chief, head of party, etc.

                Raul Castro has said he will retire in 2018.  The plan is for Miguel Diaz-Canel (recently named to a newly created position of "first vice president")---a strong anti-US communist with strong ties to Iran, Russia, Venezuela, etc. to assume power.

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Do you have any idea what the cost of life and property the US has inflicted on Haiti, Guatemala, Iraq just to name a few? American foreign policy changes with each administration and so do its priorities. Listening to the US and any of its so called (supported by) allies has the possibilities of disaster earmarked by military intervention. Hundreds of thousands have died as a result. What is better living under a repressive regime or being dead by someone else's wishes? At least with living you have the hope of freeing yourself on your own terms rather than that dictated by a suspect helpmate.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Respectfully:

                    The blame to US first and always, the bash the US first and always stuff is really getting old. The everything the US does is wrong stuff is not only getting old, but lacking in any credibility.

          2. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Using Cuba (or any western hemisphere geopolitical space) to prove your point---which is I presume that the US and Russia are the same, is problematic in terms of the now nearly 200 year old and widely accepted Monroe Doctrine and its now almost 100 year old Roosevelt Corollary.

            I suggest you read them.

            I also suggest that you read some history of the Cuban Liberation movement of the very late 19th century so that you will better understand what was going on---particularly in terms of Cuba and will better understand on which "side" the US was fighting and intervened.

            You might discover an interesting fact: US intervention in Cuba was NOT to suppress indigenous Cuban self-determination or self-government, but instead, to remove brutal genocidal SPANISH control (colonial and imperial control) led by the notorious Spanish General Valeriano Weyler and to support the Cuban rebels/insurgents/revolutionaries led by  José Martí.

            Problems between the US and a liberated (from Spain) Cuba would come later and would result from diplomatic failures.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You might also consider the position you have taken as the US is somehow justified in interfering with other countries right to self determination as one of a referee is met with quite a bit of suspicion around the world. The US is known for interfering and coming out somehow in the better for its own rewards of its actions. The US has no business telling others what to do or how to do it as it always has strings attached. As far as the similarities between the Cuban and Crimea situation yes there are vast differences divided by time and history but it is clear that the US in trying to oust one of its dictators has created a decades long chasm between themselves and the country they are supposedly trying to help. The people of Crimea should be hesitant in their acceptance of outside help and especially of the US.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The world and its history---particularly in terms of international history, is a complicated space. And in the complicated space we seek to impose simplicity and ease of understanding.

                The most simple and most easy to understand and the most easy to conjure: The US as bogey man extraordinaire.

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Your conjecture as the US as a bogey man is a conclusion in which you base your bias? How about the US as a work in progress and trying to get it right! This only can come from a logical and objective reasoning through dissection and not one of glossing over the facts and results. I am just as patriotic as the next fellow but I refuse to allow corrupt and often bought by corporation politicians write policy that profits them and suffers the cultures of others for the almighty dollar. There is a lot of space in there and one must look at all its ramifications whether noble or corrupt.

        2. Thomas Swan profile image93
          Thomas Swanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I was reading this and had to laugh...

          "Analogies---particularly from the last century, are really not a good way to think about current international events."

          Do I need to quote all the times you've compared Putin to Hitler?

      2. 59
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It works fine for the United States, there is an embargo of American goods shipping to Cuba.  It is used by the Cuban government to explain to its subjects why they can't have new things.  It doesn't cover goods from any other country, demonstrating, again, that Communists hate their people.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The communists don't hate their own people. They just want to control them. That is the byproduct of communism. Assuring the right people get the right things. I don't condone it but hating their people is such a stretch.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I disagree that whatever the ideological position of those in the Kremlin is (and I am not convinced it is "communism") that they seek only to control the public. Evidence is strong that there is much more to some benign paternalist control at work.

          2. 59
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            When their people do not comply with the wishes of the state, communists kill the hell out of them, sounds hateful to me.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly.

              If I was not so horrified I would be amused with just how naive some people are in terms of exactly how things are in so-called communist countries---including in Russia.

              Not only do these governments frequently and overtly demonstrate hate and loathing for their own people, but they encourage their people to demonstrate their hate and loathing as well---particularly in terms of treatment of minorities.

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                There , there we will have none of that minority hating in this pristine bastion of freedom and justice. We just want to put them in prison so we can collect the money it takes to build the pleasant places at the Iron Bar Hotel. Remember when you point a finger at others you have three more pointing back at you.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Whatever.

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Very good then. Maybe someday you will look beyond yourself and your own culture and realize it takes all kinds of people to make up this world and that there are those who are fine with it just the way it is. Then again there are those that wish to change their set of circumstances. That it is "their choice" is the key phrase in case you missed the gist of this whole conversation. Any freedom bought is at a cost and America bought and paid with it with their own blood. How much freedom did the US soldiers blood buy Iraqi and Afghanistan freedom is the question you should ask yourself.

            2. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              In your statement I took it as communists hate all of their own people. Of course in a totalitarian type of government where media and propaganda is in control by the government they will kill those who dissent. Is it your point that no one is happy in this type of government? Are there none who just go along or are they all just unrequited free speech Americans bursting at the seams to speak out and get killed? Not all of the world lives in our tea garden.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I cannot imagine anyone other than someone who has---his or her entire life enjoyed freedom including freedom of thought and speech, being so able to discard the powerful presence in of freedom the hearts and minds of those denied it.

                People are dying right now in every corner of the world for this thing you mock; dying in every corner of the world not for happiness, but for freedom.

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  As you began this tirade it is that very word that sets you up to fail and you still don't get it. This country can ill afford anymore conflicts nor can it throw more of our youth away in fighting for someone else's freedom. Nobody ever gave anybody freedom. It comes from within and if it is oppressed than it becomes that persons obligation to right it and to fight for it. No one else can make a gift of it. When something is given, it has far less value than if it was earned. Look at the mess in Afghanistan! The minute we leave all the American blood spilled to win the subjugated will have been in vain. Why is it that this can happen. It is "their" culture to have crooks posing as religious zealots run their governments. Look at Pakistan who harbors terrorists because the cure is far worse than the disease. Our culture of dealing with oppression requires that we organize, fight and defeat that which oppresses us. That is how we won our freedom from Great Britain. Our blood was spilled to earn that freedom. If Crimea wants its freedom from Russia than it will earn it. If Afghanistan wants its right to self rule then it will earn it. You think that we can deal with these cultures based on our own cultural nuances and somehow magically there is understanding and freedom for others who can't relate and won't even if forced. Talk about naïve.

                  By the way the very first word you began your tirade with was "I". This shows where your understanding begins, lives and ends.

              2. 59
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Given the policies of the current President, fewer Americans live the life to which those fleeing communism aspire.  For some the yearning of the heart is to be free, for more and more Americans it is to be kept like a zoo animal, fed and tended to by the keeper who makes sure the cage door is locked. If you want to make some silly moral relativity argument it is this, how can America be so critical of China, Cuba, North Korea, et al when Americans are more than willing to embrace the all encompassing Command and Control State, just like good communist subjects.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Let us look ahead to January 2017---and to significant domestic and international policy changes.

                  1. 59
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    We will be in a struggle to survive, not much to look forward to.

                  2. 59
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Too late.

                2. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I could not agree more with this statement. I would add that Congress has been all too willing a collaborator in the current slide towards state control of individual rights with the funding it gives the NSA and others.

      3. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Howdy Rhamson. Thank you for sharing your views here..

        You pose a pair of interesting questions: “What would you call the Cuban embargo and trade sanctions? The ‘It didn't work’ Doctrine?”

        The reasons for the embargo are not your point, I know, but they are many and they go back fifty years.  Perhaps you do not remember but I do.

        It all started in 1960 after Cuba nationalized the properties of American citizens and businesses on the island. They also invited Russia to point missile down our throats on JFK’s watch. And, a US citizen, Alan Gross, now age 64 is suffering in a Cuban prison since 2009 accused of trying to destabilize the government with his work to increase Internet access and connectivity in small communities across Cuba on behalf of the U.S. Agency for International Development. {1}

        The 1992 Cuba Democracy Act and 1996 Helms-Burton Act require that the embargo remains in force until Cuba holds free and fair elections and transitions to a democratic government that excludes the brothers Fidel and Raul Castro. It also calls for improvements in human rights, including ensuring a free press and releasing political prisoners. Until those laws are repealed or amended, the range of every President’s reach is limited. {2}

        Some humanitarian relaxing of the embargo has been seen in recent years to allow U.S. medical supplies and agricultural products to be exported to the island under certain conditions. In addition, companies in many U.S. states have brokered agricultural deals with Cuba as well.

        However, addressing your specific point, you think the embargo as been a “‘It didn't work’ Doctrine.’” Well, we are told by the Cuban Foreign Minister that it has decimated the Cuban economy to the tune of about $22B a year on average for the last 50 years. In a speech to the UN General Assembly last October, Sr. Bruno Rodriguez admitted, “The economic damages accumulated after half a century as a result of the implementation of the blockade amount to $1.126 trillion." {3}

        Apparently, Rhamson, the embargo was a lot more effective than either one of us realized.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://www.bringalanhome.org/
        {2} http://cuba-embargo.procon.org/sourcefi … ty-Act.pdf
        {3} http://www.bfm.my/current-affairs-cuba- … 31030.html

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Has the embargo effectively dismantled the Cuban government? Maybe the US has produced hardship for the Cuban people and created a sty in the eye for the government but the Castro's are still in power. They took it in a revolution and they hold fast to it to this day. Is Russia going to have the same problem with outside influence. Perhaps not, because Crimea was once a part of Russia the transition probably will be a lot smoother. What's in it for Russia? A good position to watch any more missile bases the US may want to set up and a strategic placement to set up shop for their military. As far as a free and impartial elections perhaps we aught to clean up our own act before we start forgetting the redistricting of votes in our own backyard.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The US relationship with Cuba (since 1962) as with much of the former Soviet Union and its bloc nations or spheres of influence has NOT been destruction, but rather containment. Remember: George F. Kennan.

            That said, if you think election fraud in the US is a problem, then you've been watching way too much cable television entertainment masquerading as news.

      4. 0
        Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Who says it didn't work?

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Did it topple the Castro regime? That was its intention.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A little history:

            During the Cold War the goal of US counter-efforts against the Soviet Union was isolation and containment. (Read some Kennan; read some factual Cold War era foreign policies primary and secondary sources.)

            The goal was to isolate and contain Castro. If you read any factual history and documents related to the Cuban Missile Crisis and Castro you will quickly learn that while there was some talk---primarily from General LeMay (and others on the Joint Chiefs), Kennedy was about enforcing the Monroe Doctrine and containing the Soviets and Castro.

            1. Thomas Swan profile image93
              Thomas Swanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Now that the Soviets are gone, why do you think the Cuban embargo is still in place?

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The Soviets are NOT gone, but simply now called the Russians.

                Are you aware of the fact that Putin has re-placed missiles and spy ships in the harbors of Cuba and that all Russian leaders have preoccupied themselves since 1962 with ways to maintain influence in the western hemisphere via Cuba?

                1. Thomas Swan profile image93
                  Thomas Swanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Am I aware? No. Do I believe you when you state this as a fact? No.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    So you acknowledge, then, that you know absolutely nothing about the relationship between the US and Cuba and acknowledge that you are unaware of current events---events which include the return of Russian war and spy ships to Cuba within the last month.

              2. 0
                Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                So as not to aid the dictatorship that is 90 miles from our coast.

          2. 0
            Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Who said the intention of the embargo was to "topple" the regime. The point was not to aid in making it stronger, that way it is not a threat. I would say the embargo has been successful.

            Now, the Bay of Pigs was meant to topple the regime. That failed.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You say tomato, I say tomato. I guess you are entitled to your opinion. smile

              1. 0
                Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Wow, not much to say, huh?

                BTW, Thank you for letting me have my "opinion". lol  I also think the world is round. Am I entitled to that "opinion" also?

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you would be better served if you studied up on the history of the US/Cuban embargo and the many transitions attempted and ignored on both sides. Mainly the embargo was to address the unlawful acts of seizing American assets in Cuba and the Soviet relationship that came to a head when the Soviets installed ICBM's in Cuba after the Castro Revolution took over. As recently as 1992 there has been the Cuban Democracy Act that promotes the peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. These efforts have all been directed in either an overthrow or transition away from the socialist/communist government that still resides in Cuba. Your post was, as I viewed it, an opinion only referencing the Bay of Pigs (a military action) as the only action against the Cuban government without taking into consideration the many political and economic measures that have been attempted over the years to rid Cuba of the "Revolution". Yes you are entitled to your opinion but one can't argue opinions unless there is a historical or scientific basis to start from.

                  1. 0
                    Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    So now you are trying to weasal your way out of what you first said! lmao

                    The fact is that you said that the embargo "didn't work" because it didn't "topple the regime".

                    "Did it topple the Castro regime? That was its intention."

                    That is not what an embargo is for. I am not debating what the US did or has done in Cuba or who is wrong or right. I am telling you that you are incorrect in thinking that the purpose of an embargo is to "topple a regime". My reference to Bay of Pigs was to show you the difference between what is used to topple a regime and what is to punish a regime. I didn't know I needed to give you my sources on the Cuban Revolution or tell you how much I know about it because I was not trying to make a political statement. I was merely trying to correct you, but I think you might be unteachable because you have been indoctrinated by your political party.

                    You said: "Yes you are entitled to your opinion but one can't argue opinions unless there is a historical or scientific basis to start from."

                    The purpose of an embargo is not a matter of opinion, so much as me saying that the purpose of a tennis racquet is to play tennis. I don't need sources to prove such. It just is what it is.

                    "Your post was, as I viewed it, an opinion only referencing the Bay of Pigs (a military action) as the only action against the Cuban government without taking into consideration the many political and economic measures that have been attempted over the years to rid Cuba of the "Revolution"."

                    I was not trying to say who was wrong or right between the US government and Cuba, so I didn't feel the need to make a list. I was giving you an example of what is used to "topple a regime". The fact is that the US will lift the embargo if human rights are recognized in Cuba, so that doesn't sound like an effort to topple a regime.

                    The reality is that some liberties are now being given to the people since Cuba is receiving less subsidies from their comrades, so I would say the embargo is still serving its purpose. If Castro or Raul had more money and a better economy, they might view their oppression as the correct thing to do.

                    By the way, if you want to know my credentials; I am Cuban-American, my wife was born and raised in Cuba and cannot go back, as her entire family that left, not even for the funeral of her grandmothers or other family members. I have had family members killed and jailed for only wanting basic human liberties that most of us take for granted. I am also getting an MBA.

  2. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    Has Obama revived the Nixon era? The Bush era? It seems like we still overthrow elected presidents, we still invade, kill, pilfer others' wealth... Could it be that my examples are closer to the truth than yours? Could it be that your references to history are unfounded?

    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      As has been pointed out to you by me---and others, your anything to bash the United States and anything to invalidate the factual and authentic historical record (events- and documents- and reality-driven) rhetoric is getting very old.

      If you despise the US and its government and if you can do nothing more than ridicule and deride the people in the US who disagree with you and if you think grass is greener on the other side, then why not leave the US for one of these places your words seem to suggest you so dearly admire?

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I was waiting for this reply to one of these posts. And by doing so you have compromised your objectivity. Why is it when America is called into question that those who cannot defend her illegal and suspicious activities tell another who is trying to expose the truth to go elsewhere and live. The very nature of our Constitution dictates that we should challenge and demand explanation for the actions of our officials and hold them accountable. But your answer comes down to go away?

        Sorry to step on your post Max but this poster has been deriding me with the same underlying theme. It has been hidden beneath academic and patriotic vitriol that just became exposed in his post to you.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Pardon me for my patriotism. I know how distasteful patriotism is in the imagined world of some who inhabit my country.

          I find it interesting that to be "academic" (to possess facts and knowledge) is now a problem to be solved, but such is life.

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Patriotism is not a problem until it clouds your objectivity. You have clearly stated as such and I applaud you for your candor. However it has no place when discussing all things and this is one of those things that requires relative reasoning. As far as your academic stance I have to refer back to what I just said, it is compromised by your lack of objectivity. You seem to want to lord your academic fervor over us all in here but it loses its effectiveness when applied to the current conversation. An example would be that you will endeavor to find us every example you can to bolster your bias. We on the other hand endeavor to get the truth with all of its messy consequences.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Your belief is that you are right and in possession of some objective truth.

              And because what I know does not agree with what you believe,  then I am wrong and biased and lacking objectivity and just being some sort of academic snob.

              I've heard this song before.

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                How many times may be the question you might ask yourself.

      2. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You and the others, what does that mean? That your number is superior to mine and therefore I am alone. But who has a rational intake of our history? You with your collective and therefore one thought or me who goes astray searching for the truth? You wish you would isolate and ostracize me but I am strong in my belief. No uneducated will step on me. You are proud because behind you are individuals that deny the reality of our history. And I am PROUD to distinguish myself from the mass thinking.
        The grass is definitely greener and I will definitively leave. It is not my country anymore. I don't want to die either from the radioactivity reaching the Californian coast, either from another bombing orchestrated by a Mandchurian candidate as I would be in a point P at a time T. I will leave this privilege to you. I am not their sacrificial lamb.

  3. 0
    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago

    I think you would do yourself very well to learn some history---get some information from some place other than whatever left-wing, pro-Russia websites you patrol or whatever left-wing books or magazines or blogs that you read.

    I have specifically NOT analogized Putin and Hitler. I have pointed out the fact of the similarity between comments made by Putin and comments made by Hitler as excuses for geopolitical expansionism and land-grabbing. Such is not the stuff of analogy.

    1. Thomas Swan profile image93
      Thomas Swanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What history should I be learning? What "pro-Russia websites" should I not be patrolling? What dictionary do you use?

      How can you say this: "Analogies---particularly from the last century, are really not a good way to think about current international events. In so many ways this just becomes "apples and oranges", and as such, meaningless." .... right after comparing Putin to Hitler? Isn't there some thought process where you abandon one of these contradictory views?

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Let me repeat. I made no analogy and made  no comparisons.

        I simply stated a fact:; a fact which you do not like and find inconvenient. That is that Putin, like Hitler, used a specific geopolitical and geo-ethnic arguments to justify annexation of foreign territory.

        1. Thomas Swan profile image93
          Thomas Swanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          When you say that someone is "like" someone else, you are comparing them.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Facts are not analogies. Pointing out a similarity in the FACTS of an event is NOT to analogize the event to another event.

            1. Thomas Swan profile image93
              Thomas Swanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I guess we disagree on the definition of `analogy' then. I hate to pull up dictionary definitions, but:
              --------------------
              noun: analogy
              1.
                  a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
              ---------------------

              Those two things can certainly be facts. I would even say it helps the analogy if they are facts!

            2. Thomas Swan profile image93
              Thomas Swanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Regarding the accuracy of this analogy, I will post my comments from the other thread.

              "The people of Crimea voted in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. For Hitler's annexation of Austria: "Under considerable pressure from both Austrian and German Nazis, Austria's Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg tried to hold a referendum for a vote on the issue. Although Schuschnigg expected Austria to vote in favour of maintaining autonomy, a well-planned coup d'état by the Austrian Nazi Party of Austria's state institutions in Vienna took place on 11 March 1938, prior to the referendum, which they canceled."

              In other words, Hitler illegally annexed Austria because he cancelled the referendum and took the country by force. In the Sudetanland he also denied the people's right to choose (though for the Sudetanland they probably would have chosen to join Hitler). Putin did no such thing. If Putin does what Hitler did, I would stand against him. Currently, there is no reason to think he will."

              Furthermore, if you'd like a better analogy, consider the current attitude of Britain towards the Falkland Islands. Prime Minister David Cameron has repeatedly stated that the Islanders have a right to self-determination. If they want to become part of Argentina, they can. How is this different to Crimeans voting to rejoin Russia? This analogy is also a good example of the double standards used by Western governments. It's the idea that democracy is good enough for us, but when foreign people choose something that we don't want them to choose, we try to deny them the right.

              If you'd like to discuss the analogies without resorting to misrepresentations about how much I supposedly love Putin, or dismissive instructions to "read some history", then perhaps we can have a proper conversation here. I know I'd like one.

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                My dear departed father said many times with relation to politics, "Give them what they want, it will really pi$$ them off". In other words the grass is always greener on the other side.

                1. Thomas Swan profile image93
                  Thomas Swanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Well that didn't work when we gave Hitler what he wanted! Oh damn, now I've done it too big_smile Yea, perhaps this topic is best left to the scrapheap if that's what you mean.

                  1. 0
                    Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Wow, you do not take criticism well, but the problem is that you cannot edit/delete all my comments. I was only pointing out that you are wrong about not diversifying portfolios, but you don't seem to be able to tolerate a professional pointing out your mistake. This seems to be a common occurrence with you.

            3. 0
              Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              http://www.smh.com.au/world/ukraine-cri … zqw7f.html

              Well, it looks like you were right to compare the situation to Hitler and anyone who disagreed with you is wrong.

  4. MG Singh profile image82
    MG Singhposted 2 years ago

    The Brezhnev Doctrine served a purpose and kept the Imperialist powers and the USA under check. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, this doctrine was bound to emerge as a tribute to Russian nationalism. We must accept that the old colonial powers France and England are finished and the  USA in an economic mess. Russian nationalism in a way is good and will be a counterpoise to the designs of the USA who would like to retain leadership of the world through the back door.

    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      This is a joke right?

    2. Thomas Swan profile image93
      Thomas Swanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Well, the Truman Doctrine came first, so you probably have a point. Truman and successive US Presidents used the armed forces and especially the CIA to oust many democratically elected "left-leaning" foreign leaders, replacing them with dictators who massacred millions of people. So yes... to call the US blameless would be an insult to those who died. The Soviets were less covert and usually more local in their influence, but both sides were equally to blame tor seeking dominance.

 
working