No, neither was I. But you were referring to Americans, and nobody had mentioned them but you.

Ah well, if America is doing something wrong, then Russia can do no wrong. (Or something like that. The "logic" of tu quoque is hard to grasp.) — SophistiCat

Duh!

That was in reply to you bringing America into the conversation, and it was directly pointing out the irrelevance of doing so. You have yet to explain what relevance America has.

which the West should respect — SophistiCat

America is part of the West. No?

1. So what?
2. Again you have left out the quote to which what you quoted was responding, which was an attempt to drag America into the discussion.

The........ discussion ........ is ........ about ........ Russia.

Not ........ about ........ America.

1. I can explain something to you but I can’t understand it for you.
2.Get off your intellectually lazy ass and connect the dots by yourself.

The West (America included) shouldn’t pretend to take the higher ground on Russia’s foreign policy when its own foreign policy is ten times worse. I didn’t drag the West into the discussion. It was already mentioned in the post from which the above quote was taken. I just zeroed in on it’s main player which is the US.

Is that clear enough for you, son?

The West doesn't have a foreign policy. A foreign policy is an attribute of a country, not of a vague reference to a disparate and fuzzy group of nations. The foreign policies of countries that are sometimes regarded as being part of the West vary enormously.

'Pretending to take the higher ground' is a notion you've just invented. What response, if any, is taken by various countries - of whom those most concerned are those near Russia, not the United States, which Putin would not dare attack - will be dictated by geopolitical and diplomatic tactics, not by naïve notions of moral superiority.

But of course it's America birthright to invade and occupy nations and steal their oil or make them capitalist. what about Hawaii, or Cuba, or Mexico. Was America justified in those invasions. Is it Americas birthright to "dominate and subjugate and occasionally dismember its smaller neighbours". This is the clear hypocrisy which most American neo-Imperialists have. — René Descartes

There is no arbiter in charge of weighing up and penalizing the actions of empires. Who gave permission to the British, French, Americans, Germans, Italians, Russians, Dutch, Japanese, et al to establish and/or expand their various empires in the 18th through 20th centuries? Nobody.

There is no arbiter in charge of weighing up and penalizing the actions of superpowers, either. The only controls on national or empire behavior are other nations, other empires, which may or may not be in a position to do anything about it.

Treaties can form blocks of policy and power, but the allied nations still have their own views, interests, histories, etc.

The US is still sort of Number 1 in the world, largely because of the way WWII worked out, and the fact that the USSR collapsed. How long we will remain Number 1 is unclear. We will not like being demoted to #2, or even 3, because being Numero Uno means you get to have a lot of things the way you want them. If China becomes top dog, then we won't have everything the way we want it, and neither will some other nations. Doesn't mean we will be destroyed, but our enforced competitive edge will be gone.

But not to worry. The world is on track to run into the brick wall of resource depletion, no matter who is on top, and next to nuclear war, that may well be the biggest existential threat that we will individually face in the future.

The US on the hand has basically forgotten it's strategic deterrence and now has a huge task of modernizing it's extremely old missile systems. — ssu

It is my understanding that our nuclear missile fleet is fairly old. But presumably they are still in working order, and presumably the nuclear weapons on board are still working too. If either the US or Russia were to launch nuclear weapons and destroy... let's say, 400 cities, the resulting fire storms would loft enough dust and soot into the upper atmosphere to bring about an abrupt cool-down in earth's average temperature, enough to disrupt crop production for several years. In addition to the people killed in the bombing and radiation, a few billion would starve.

A substantial amount of CO2, among other gases, would be released. Once global cooling was finished, I would expect that global warming would rebound, and our goose would be cooked in yet another way.

It would appear that mutually assured destruction is still more or less operating.

Right, because it is Russia's birthright to dominate and subjugate and occasionally dismember its smaller neighbors, which the West should respect (or else!) It needs that security blanket of dependent states to insulate it from the West. Never mind that no one forced the former Communist nations to join NATO; they were clamoring to join as soon as Russia loosened its grip - and boy are they now glad they did! Montenegro couldn't get in fast enough. But who cares about them? Only nuclear superpowers are entitled to carve up the world as they see fit, right? — SophistiCat

You do understand that was Russian land right before Ukraine absorbed it, right? You are attributing me a propaganda group of the Russian side, when I made it clear that I was not for either side. They are both playing the game. I am not sympathizing with Russia I am explaining how NATO approaching them is bad for their goals. If I was a sympathizer I wouldn't have called him an issue either. The majority population has been RUSSIAN people and more than 80% of the people identify SPEAK RUSSIAN, not Ukrainian. They voted, after repeated attempts, and are part of Russia now. I tried to explain their aggression to the same end that I feel America's alliances with former Warsaw Pact members is a threat to them. America would reply and has replied in kind when it has seen it's soft power threatened. (See Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, et cetera)

was probably intended more for domestic consumption. — SophistiCat

This is simultaneously true and untrue. While Putin's speech is likely aimed at bolstering his position for the election this very month, if "The West" responds negatively to his rhetoric, it will act as a confirmation of the need for such weapons(if they exist). Putin is just playing on the hopes and fears of the Russian people so he can retain power.

I'm always confused by the people who speak of western countries being aggressive and therefore are the instigators of such behavior. What exactly is Russia afraid of? Democracy? In fact, yes. If democracy truly took hold in Russia, Putin and his ilk would be removed from power. They will continue to play this "us versus them" narrative as long as they can.

See Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, et cetera — yatagarasu

The Cold War was supposed to have ended in 1991. The problem is Putin still thinks it's alive and well.

Maybe because they are sick of America trying to rule over them, trying to enforce their systems and culture and military onto them. If I were living in Eastern Europe and I saw American troops there, of course I would react. It's an occupation disguised as a liberation. — René Descartes

True enough. I have been watching a lot of television over there recently and the one thing I noticed is the oversaturation of American culture (American movies and TV shows translated and shown) in not only Eastern Europe, but also Europe in general. : / Stacked on top of that is the fact that most of Europe's top music lists are stocked full with American songs. South Korea has more cultural relevance than the majority of the countries in the Europe(worldwide)! The only countries that I can point to having any type of distinct culture on the world stage (and internally) is Sweden, Norway, Germany and France. The rest is being inundated with English culture and this is partially because America has a strong military everywhere. Basically America is dominating the culture war.

Yes. Unfortunately he does. He just really wants Russia back to prominence and sees NATO as the biggest threat to that.

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

@René Descartes

Depends what you mean by cold war. The cold war was an idealogical war between communism and capitalism. The cold war was a war over influence, where each country tried to spread their respective ideologies. It was as much a cultral and ecconomic war as a war it was a series of physical battles. The main rivalry was between USA and the USSR, Russia as it stands today cannot be equated with the USSR, and modern Russia is a Capatalism society. the main idealogical conflict between Capatalism and Communism has ended. That is not to say that the Usa and Russia do not still maintain aminosity towards each other, this should not be equated with the cold war.

North Korea is a remnant of the Cold War, that does not mean that the cold war is still raging.

[Delete] @Baden

• I am not America or The West.
• I did not bomb Hiroshima or invade Iraq.
• I can - and should - have my own opinion about world events regardless of what I or anyone else has been doing.

Well, that was a random response to what I wrote, considering that I was talking about former Warsaw pact countries joining NATO.

You do understand that was Russian land right before Ukraine absorbed it, right? You are attributing me a propaganda group of the Russian side, when I made it clear that I was not for either side. — yatagarasu

And yet you are hitting all the usual propaganda bullet-points. Historical claims and grievances are always brought up to justify wars and invasions. Crimea was not Russian land before it was absorbed by the Russian Empire (with help from Ukrainian Cossacks), and it was not majority Russian until Stalin's ethnic cleansings. We could go back and forth like this endlessly - but what's the point? None of this justifies Russian aggression in this particular instance. Taking advantage of the turmoil in a neighboring country to stealthily invade part of its territory with troops, special forces and civilian thugs, overthrow the local government, close down or take over non-compliant media, intimidate or kidnap dissidents, hastily stage a "referendum" with fabricated results - I say that is wrong, whatever else may have been the case historically or contemporaneously.

Let's just remember that those economic sanctions were put into place because Russia attacked it's neighbour, annexed part of it and still is supporting an ongoing low-intensity conflict. — ssu

Let's remember that the Ukraine coup was the result of EU and USA help.

What is your take on this? Russia seems to be increasingly concerned that it is not given sufficient importance on the world's stage. — Agustino

I think you are confusing Putin with Trump.
Russia has every right to be concerned by the moron in the Whitehouse. The difference between Trump and Putin is vast. Putin is making a statement with measured words, using his generous intelligence.
By comparison Trump is a chimpanzee.

The meaning of this video is that the USA is going crackpot.

[Delete] @Baden

I just stated that your post shares the views of American Imperialists. — René Descartes

No, that is not what you stated. What you said is the following:

This is a typical American Imperialist view: — René Descartes

Is English not your first language? If it is not, you can use this as an opportunity to improve your English by learning how the word 'typical' is used.

His English is superb and I bet is way better than any language you can speak, other than your mother tongue.
And that was correct usage of the word “typical”.

The West doesn't have a foreign policy. — andrewk

You are clutching at straws trying to disprove a point you know darn well is correct. NATO is a cluster of countries who have common policies on foreign matters. When I mentioned the west having a foreign policy, it goes without saying that each individual country would have its own foreign policy unless they act as part of a military alliance. Anyone with a shred of common sense would see that, but I do understand that this might be asking too much of you.

Pretending to take the higher ground' is a notion you've just invented. — andrewk

Since you are preaching about the correct usage of English, I urge you to take a look at the definition of notion on the dictionary so you can see that a notion cannot be “invented”.
...
Knowing the level of your intellectual motivation, I decided to spare you the inconvenience by pasting the definition here:
notion
ˈnəʊʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a conception of or belief about something.
"children have different notions about the roles of their parents"
synonyms: idea, belief, concept, conception, conviction, opinion, view, thought, impression, image, perception, mental picture;
2.
an impulse or desire, especially one of a whimsical kind.
"she had a notion to ring her friend at work"
synonyms: impulse, inclination, whim, desire, wish, fancy, caprice, whimsy
"you can't expect us to fire any of our staff just because you get a notion to come back"

What response, if any, is taken by various countries - of whom those most concerned are those near Russia, not the United States, which Putin would not dare attack - will be dictated by geopolitical and diplomatic tactics, not by naïve notions of moral superiority. — andrewk

Well done, Sherlock!

His English is superb and I bet is way better than any language you can speak — CuddlyHedgehog

You are clutching on straws — CuddlyHedgehog

it goes without saying that its individual country would have its own foreign policy — CuddlyHedgehog

Cheers. Now correct yours.

P.S. English is not my first language. What's your excuse?