And next, Syria?

[frogwoman]

If you want to be a citizen, you have to speak the language.

It's as simple as that.

Quite similar to a lot of UKIP style stuff here. The difference being that the "immigrants" or "interlopers" were also the final rulers for many decades and exist side by side with their enormously powerful neighbouring homeland.

It's not a very stable situtation...

In latvia and estonia yes but not in Lithuania where everyone that was there at the time of independence are citizens regardless of language skills.

And its not remotely the same these places have always had Russian speaking populations even before the Soviet occupation and settlement policies. For many Russians there that is the only home they know and would not feel remotely comfortable in somewhere like Moscow.

 

[frogwoman]

You also missed the bit where you have to do an exam in the state approved version of Latvian and Estonian history. Not just about language.

 

[Diamond]

I was in Vilnius earlier this year and there is still a substantial Russian non-citizen population.

Perhaps that is because they don't want to take Lithuanian nationality but it is still a major issue there.

But the wider point is that there is a very easy excuse for Putin to try and "take back" the Baltics.

It is a line of reasoning that is almost identical to the Crimean situation.

 

[Pickman's model]

I was in Vilnius earlier this year and there is still a substantial Russian non-citizen population.

Perhaps that is because they don't want to take Lithuanian nationality but it is still a major issue there.

But the wider point is that there is a very easy excuse for Putin to try and "take back" the Baltics.

It is a line of reasoning that is almost identical to the Crimean situation.

is there a language requirement for lithuanian nationality?

 

[frogwoman]

I was in Vilnius earlier this year and there is still a substantial Russian non-citizen population.

Perhaps that is because they don't want to take Lithuanian nationality but it is still a major issue there.

But the wider point is that there is a very easy excuse for Putin to try and "take back" the Baltics.

It is a line of reasoning that is almost identical to the Crimean situation.

Thats bullshit. What on earth makes you think Putin would try and fight an unwinnable war with NATO and the EU for no fucking reason.

 

[Diamond]

Thats bullshit. What on earth makes you think Putin would try and fight an unwinnable war with NATO and the EU for no fucking reason.

What makes you think that NATO and the EU would stand up to him in the first place?

 

[Pickman's model]

What makes you think that NATO and the EU would stand up to him in the first place?

he wouldn't offer them chairs.

next.

 

[frogwoman]

I'd say a far greater risk to the stability of the Baltic countries is hysterical scaremongering about the Russian minority and its alleged support of Putin by right wing popularist politicians and fascists tbh. The population of lithuania is only around 10% Russian. These countries are tiny with Latvia, the country with the highest percentage of Russian speakers, only having around 2 million people in it.

 

[frogwoman]

Come on do you really think Russia would invade 3 EU and NATO members that have recently been used to host NATO military exercises and have US etc troops stationed there and have absolutely nothing happen?

 

[Belushi]

I was in Vilnius earlier this year and there is still a substantial Russian non-citizen population.

Vilnius was a Polish and Yiddish speaking city until it was handed over to Lithuania by the Soviets during their invasion of Poland in 1939.

 

[Belushi]

It is a line of reasoning that is almost identical to the Crimean situation.

Except NATO.

 

[frogwoman]

The Baltic states aren't important to Russia, strategically, culturally, militarily in the way crimea was. There was a russian base on Sevastopol ffs, the last russian troops left the baltics years ago.

 

[DownwardDog]

Thats bullshit. What on earth makes you think Putin would try and fight an unwinnable war with NATO and the EU for no fucking reason.

Because he knows full well that NATO wouldn't step up to defend the Baltic states if it came to it. Do you really believe France, Germany, USA and the UK are going to start a war with Russia over fucking Estonia?

 

[kebabking]

Because he knows full well that NATO wouldn't step up to defend the Baltic states if it came to it. Do you really believe France, Germany, USA and the UK are going to start a war with Russia over fucking Estonia?

too reductive - the Baltics, not least because of the complexities of their societies, are vunerable to salami slicing with regards to the UK, France etc.. however, Poland won't share the same view, Poland would fight for the Baltics (out of unmitigated self-interest), and i promise you that Germany - and therefore France, the UK etc.. will fight for Poland.

 

[Diamond]

Vilnius was a Polish and Yiddish speaking city until it was handed over to Lithuania by the Soviets during their invasion of Poland in 1939.

Correct but I'm not sure how that is relevant to the current state of play unless you are implying that the fluidity of territorial occupation in the area makes any Russian ambitions perfectly natural and of no concern...

 

[Diamond]

The Baltic states aren't important to Russia, strategically, culturally, militarily in the way crimea was. There was a russian base on Sevastopol ffs, the last russian troops left the baltics years ago.

Do you think that Syria is "important to Russia"?

 

[Idris2002]

Do you think that Syria is "important to Russia"?

Well, just as in the case of Crimea, there was a Russian base in Syria for years and years before the current unpleasantness.

 

[kebabking]

Do you think that Syria is "important to Russia"?

Syria is important to Russia, and to Putin seperately, for a number of reasons.

whether Russia is going through a list of places that are strategically important to it, or whether Putin is going through a list of places he can get a quick win to distract his electorates attention from their spirralling economy and rampant corruption, is a matter for debate...

 

[frogwoman]

The Syrian intervention is really unpopular in Russia.

 

[DotCommunist]

The Syrian intervention is really unpopular in Russia.

why is this do you recon? general anti war sentiment. Not fancying becoming on a daesh shitlist as a nation? all of the above?

 

[kebabking]

The Syrian intervention is really unpopular in Russia.

any particular reasons why?

 

[Diamond]

Syria is important to Russia, and to Putin seperately, for a number of reasons.

whether Russia is going through a list of places that are strategically important to it, or whether Putin is going through a list of places he can get a quick win to distract his electorates attention from their spirralling economy and rampant corruption, is a matter for debate...

Sure, it's important for intrinsic political reasons but that's sort of the point that I'm trying to make.

You will find plenty of Russian apologists for Crimea and the Ukraine on these boards with arguments that revolve around some kind of blood and soil essentialism which, quite frankly, are always bullshit but especially so in the context of the fluidity of central/eastern European territorial sovereignty.

I only raise the Baltics as a next possible theatre for an increasingly aggressive government. This Russian intervention in Syria is part of a wider development of Russia's ability to project force.

 

[Idris2002]

any particular reasons why?

Memories of Afghanistan '79 would be my guess.

 

[elbows]

Western propaganda is now fucked to the point of comedy. Take this analysis from Frank Gardner for example.

The entry of Russia into the Syrian conflict, albeit in the air not on the ground, will be a perfect recruiting sergeant for IS.

The propaganda videos are doubtless already being prepared. The Russians are, after all, the same historic enemy fought by the Mujahideen in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s and eventually defeated (with US, Saudi and Pakistani help).

The prospect of Russian pilots attacking Muslim fighters on the ground will be embarrassing to Arab governments who will not want their air forces to be seen as on the same side.

The result is likely to be more recruits joining the extremists of IS and al-Nusra, both from within Syria and from outside the region.

Syria conflict: Russia strikes 'will fuel extremism' - BBC News

 

[butchersapron]

Western propaganda is now fucked to the point of comedy. Take this analysis from Frank Gardner for example.



Syria conflict: Russia strikes 'will fuel extremism' - BBC News

The FSA and allied non-islamist groups said the same thing about the original US airstrikes that were supposed to be on ISIS but turned out not to be- that turned out to be doing assad's dirty work for him. I think they were right in their view of what would happen - support for anti-assad islamist forces and the sidelining of revolutionary forces. I think it's been borne out. Read that piece back and recall the 'lobotomised anti-imperialists' views at the time.

 

[butchersapron]

The 'lobotomised anti-imperialists' were also loudly shouting that the US being 'invited in' to iraq two years ago meant nothing beyond imperialist powers overriding or controlling local powers. Now being 'invited in' is a sign of freedom from imperialist domination.

 

[Diamond]

Western propaganda is now fucked to the point of comedy. Take this analysis from Frank Gardner for example.



Syria conflict: Russia strikes 'will fuel extremism' - BBC News

How is this comedy?

It's a fair point - many of the jihadists, especially the most effective ones, are from the Caucasus.

And a large number of their backers, especially the Saudis, will have funded the mujahideen who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan (with a lesser number actually fighting them).

 

[butchersapron]

How is this comedy?

It's a fair point - many of the jihadists, especially the most effective ones, are from the Caucasus.

And a large number of their backers, especially the Saudis, will have funded the mujahideen who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan (with a lesser number actually fighting them).

How many do you reckon? Enough to take damascus? Where are they now? Why bring that up in relation to the link?

 

[Diamond]

How many do you reckon? Enough to take damascus? Where are they now? Why bring that up in relation to the link?

I would have thought several thousand - almost certainly many more than those that are coming from Western territories.

Not sure why it's relevant as to whether they could take Damascus or not. Perhaps you can expand on that point?

What is relevant is that, from one perspective, Russia has been fighting jihadists for decades - far longer than America or its allies - and, as a result, direct Russian involvement will most likely help stir up the hornet's nest further still.

 

[butchersapron]

I would have thought several thousand - almost certainly many more than those that are coming from Western territories.

Not sure why it's relevant as to whether they could take Damascus or not. Perhaps you can expand on that point?

What is relevant is that, from one perspective, Russia has been fighting jihadists for decades - far longer than America or its allies - and, as a result, direct Russian involvement will most likely help stir up the hornet's nest further still.

Why would you have thought that? What would you be basing it on?

It's a question about relevance - why you decided to bring this up and what you understand about what you decided to bring up.

Has it - even when it produced them in Chechnya?

None of that odd reply from you to to elbows seemed to have anything to do with the link he provided.