212
Sadly it looks more and more like a full on traditional war is coming back to Europe. We should have invested more in destabilizing Russian government when we had the chance.
How messed up is it that the conservatives who warned against Russia in the early 2000s turned out to be right?
How messed up is it that many of those same conservatives that warned against Russia 25 years ago are firmly under their thumb now?
In retrospective everything is more clear. I would argue that it was fair bet to try to establish a deep economical connection with Russia as means to try to integrate it more into Europe. And we don't know what would have happened if the west pushed for harder balkanization of Russia after Sowjets broke apart.
Of course! Mutual interest and strong economic ties have a long and well-proven history of building peace.
We're learning that certain regimes are too fundamentally poisonous. They will undermine their own peace and prosperity just to dominate their rivals. See also North Korea and Iran
I think the mistake was not to support democratic/liberal powers in Russia enough. Im my opinion the 1990th were a turning point in Russian history where it could have gone either ways. But also it would be really interesting to know how Putins strategy and vision for Russia developed over time, hope future historians can find it out.
I think we should not forget that the West, especially the USA, definitely played a role in the 1990s in keeping Boris Yeltsin (and with him many of today's oligarchs) in power and thus helped establishing the autocratic system that Russia has today.
Not sure what you mean by helping Yeltsin stay in power? I can't really remember Yeltsin power being in danger to beginn with. As far as I know, one of the bigger problems was the very president focus constitution, which made it really easy for Putin to consolidate Power and Oligarchs making a really bad judgement that they can control Putin.
In the 1996 election, the USA under Bill Clinton actively supported Boris Yeltsin. Unfortunately, I can't find any in-depth sources in English at the moment, but this article gives a general overview.
Edit: Some more background info on the topic here.
Fair point, but his opponent was Gennady Zyuganov, so we were all incredible lucky - this is not the worst possible timeline we live in.
Yea, maybe. I'm just saying that the West has played a part in how the Russian system has developed into what it is today.
"the 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back"
Yes, Democrats continued to be wrong about Russia into the 2010s
The photo was just an illustration that this really did happen, and at the time was considered a total "zinger." At the time I really considered Romney a complete tool but here we are a dozen years later and I'm the one with egg on my face.
I think it was about 2 years later that Putin started attacking and annexing parts of Ukraine.
Same boat here, if Romney wasn't a corporate stooge he wouldn't be so bad. I mean before Obamacare there was romneycare.
How is it messed up? I mean, how likely is it that the opposing party is wrong about literally everything?
US should've probably just listened to Patton and nipped Russian expansionism in the bud before they had nuclear capabilities, but hindsight is 20/20.
Common French W.
Wouldn't saying they would rule it out embolden Russia?
Refuses?
A danish article I just read had no such language. But stated that there wasn't agreement among allies yet, and Macron would not exclude the possibility.
Edit:
Wow!! Downvoted for indicating Macron might not have used such strong language, and it may be poorly translated? What an asshole. 🤪
From a Le Monde article
Apparently what he said in french was: "[le sujet] a été évoqué parmi les options. [...] Il n’y a pas de consensus aujourd’hui pour envoyer de manière officielle, assumée et endossée des troupes au sol [...] Mais rien ne doit être exclu. Nous ferons tout ce qu’il faut pour que la Russie ne puisse pas gagner cette guerre."
Roughly translated, he said "The topic was discussed among other options. There is no official consensus in favor of officially sending troops on the ground, but no option should be ruled out at this point. We will do everything necessary to ensure Russia doesn't win this war."
Thanks, that's very close to what the article I read said.
"would not exclude"?
"refuses to rule out"?
Is there a meaningful difference between these two phrases to you?
Yes "refuse" is way stronger, and indicates it's a strong opposition.
in English, and especially UK newspaper reporting, "refuse" is also used to indicate that it's something unexpected. I'm not sure that we can do away with sensationalist headlines without also banning all british news sources.
Yeah I think you have a personal opinion on the matter that others don't share.
Aw angry downvotes. Someone's sad they're wrong :(
Maybe read the room and figure out when you're off base.
This is why top level politician travel with a suite of translator and don't just speak a common language like English/French/German. There is a lot of nuances in the very specific wording like refuse to rule out or does not excude. However, without having the exact quote in french, and an experienced translator who get these nuance, it ends up lost in translation
You are right, but "refuse" indicates strong opposition, and according to the article I read in Danish, there were no indication of strong opposition, although there weren't complete agreement either.
It's just a shitty clickbait headline
I agree, except for the "just", it's dishonest journalism IMO.
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
212 points (97.3% liked)
News
23287 readers
3774 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS