Putin Denies A Coup Attempt, What Do You Think?

[pecksniff]

And yes, at large we talk about ambition to take all the empire back to the maximum extent. Yes, that includes Poland eventually. But the immediate targets are Ukraine and Georgia. Baltic states are high on the list afterwards.

Georgia?! They didn't have enough trouble in Chechnya?!

 

[mayfly13]

Even a failed coup attempt, or even a false, alleged coup attempt may play right on to Putin's goals.

The current assessment is that Putin is building up for military action against Ukraine sometime January--February. I can -- somewhat -- buy the notion he's free to move his troops inside his country however he wishes, and he has played such games before, but some recent developments are troubling.

However, it's somewhat hard to imagine that even after wide publicity of the allegations they just do and move through with the plan. Even so -- and as always -- Putin needs some kind of excuse, if not otherwise then for internal consumption.

A staged coup can offer opportunities to claim hurrying in to protect "national brothers" or something. Even if an alleged conspiracy results in nothing but heavy handed police actions against certain people or organizations.

But WHY would Putin want to either invade Ukraine, or plan a coup?

Brutal imperialistic expansion via the military would have made sense in the early-mid 20th century. But not now, when hegemony is achieved through finances and markets and espionage.
Like China did, and Russia did by allying itself with Iran and China, and by k.o.-ing Ukraine with it's NordStream 2 pipeline.




I am keen on hearing YOUR perspective.
You All know your History&stuff, but you have a more complex perspective than American posters have, because you live nearby.

I, too have a better perspective than American Libs. have, as far as Russian laypeople are concerned. They are NOT the humorless brutes that media portrays them as. Most of them are good people, and their masses are much more educated than American or Australian masses are.
But they are just as oppressed and threatened by their shitty leadership, as other countries are.

 

[pecksniff]

But WHY would Putin want to either invade Ukraine, or plan a coup?

Putin is for all practical purposes a king. It is in the nature of kings always to want more -- more territory, more subjects, more tax revenue. Frederick the Great of Prussia did not try to grab the Polish province of Silesia out of any sense that it was "really" Prussian. The kings of England did not fight the 100 Years War out of a sense that England and France were really one country, or should be one country, or would be better off under one king than two (though one could make an actual case for that last one).

 

[WillJ8787]

Georgia?! They didn't have enough trouble in Chechnya?!

Russian view on Georgians is the same as the white nationalist view of blacks here in the US...they hate them in the same racist way.

I doubt they want the trouble of dealing with the Georgians unless it is to totally exterminate them and even Putin won't do that (though I'm sure he wishes it).

 

[pecksniff]

Russian view on Georgians is the same as the white nationalist view of blacks here in the US...they hate them in the same racist way.

Do they feel that way about Stalin?

 

[mayfly13]

Russian view on Georgians is the same as the white nationalist view of blacks here in the US...they hate them in the same racist way.

I doubt they want the trouble of dealing with the Georgians unless it is to totally exterminate them and even Putin won't do that (though I'm sure he wishes it).

I'm glad you wrote this, because it touches upon something that intrigued me for years
and I really want to hear LupusDei's view on these too.

imo, The underlying dynamic of discrimination in Eastern Europe is completely different from that in UK, AMERICA, AUSTRALIA, INDIA OR CHINA.

It has NOTHING to do with the color of one's skin. It has to do with country of birth and cultural belonging.

If a fellow Russian or fellow Latvian looks more swarthy than the lighter-skinned norm, they DON'T go "booga booga, you're not White". Often they don't even notice those things.

They DO discriminate against Georgians, but not because they're 'Black'.

 

[ll74]

Who would e em consider believing that douche?

 

[LupusDei]

Georgia?! They didn't have enough trouble in Chechnya?!

Russian view on Georgians is the same as the white nationalist view of blacks here in the US...they hate them in the same racist way.

I doubt they want the trouble of dealing with the Georgians unless it is to totally exterminate them and even Putin won't do that (though I'm sure he wishes it).

True about the racism, and there's also the fact that Georgia is very old and very proud kingdom, but the modern conflict is a little elsewhere.

After the dissolution of USSR Georgia drawn in a civil war against two secessionist ethnic regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia. North Ossetia is the other side of the mountain range in Russia, and Russia picked the separatist side. With that outside help, a coup in Tbilisi and then a revolution, the civil war ended more or less in stalemate. What pleased Russians, as it prevented Georgia from joining NATO.

Then Russia accused Georgia for helping separatists in Chechnya, and although such involvement is doubtful the already tense relationships soured further.

The conflict reignited in 2008 when Ossetian provocations succeeded in getting the expected answer from Georgian armed forces, and that was used as pretext for full scale Russian invasion that ended in effective occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia (but practically no one else) have recognized those two regions as independent states but in practice they remain tightly controlled vassal subjects with significant Russian military contingent dislocated there.

Russians did retreat from areas beyond Abkhazia and South Ossetia they had taken in that swift war afterwards, but Georgia had never conceded the loss, backed by international community that still recognizes those regions as rightful part of Georgia, and there's rumors Putin would like to force the question, up to renewed military action.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Who would e em consider believing that douche?

Which douche, Putin or the thread starter?

 

[pecksniff]

True about the racism, and there's also the fact that Georgia is very old and very proud kingdom, but the modern conflict is a little elsewhere.

After the dissolution of USSR Georgia drawn in a civil war against two secessionist ethnic regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia. North Ossetia is the other side of the mountain range in Russia, and Russia picked the separatist side. With that outside help, a coup in Tbilisi and then a revolution, the civil war ended more or less in stalemate. What pleased Russians, as it prevented Georgia from joining NATO.

Then Russia accused Georgia for helping separatists in Chechnya, and although such involvement is doubtful the already tense relationships soured further.

The conflict reignited in 2008 when Ossetian provocations succeeded in getting the expected answer from Georgian armed forces, and that was used as pretext for full scale Russian invasion that ended in effective occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia (but practically no one else) have recognized those two regions as independent states but in practice they remain tightly controlled vassal subjects with significant Russian military contingent dislocated there.

Russians did retreat from areas beyond Abkhazia and South Ossetia they had taken in that swift war afterwards, but Georgia had never conceded the loss, backed by international community that still recognizes those regions as rightful part of Georgia, and there's rumors Putin would like to force the question, up to renewed military action.

Does Putin appear to have any particular use in mind for Georgia, Ossetia or Abkhazia?

 

[pecksniff]

Here's how I understand the picture: The old Russian Empire conquered and annexed everybody it could, and was (for the most part, with some exceptions such as Congress Poland and the Grand Duchy of Finland) simply divided into provinces, with governors appointed by the crown, without regard to ethnicity.

The Bolsheviks thought themselves more high-minded -- internationalist, but also committed to the idea of national self-determination -- so they divided their territory into technically autonomous "union republics."

However, only some of the many nationalities the USSR encompassed were numerous enough to rank a union republic -- smaller ones got autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, autonomous okrugs, etc., within union republics.

So, when the USSR broke up in 1991 -- into its union republics -- that did not quite entirely resolve the nationalities question -- there were still all these other, smaller, anomalous ethnic enclaves, some of which immediately began pushing for their own full independence.

And then the world at large started to hear names it had never heard of before, like "Chechnya" and "Abkhazia" and "Ossetia."

And then there's the whole fight between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.

 

[Sean Renaud]

~snip~
I am keen on hearing YOUR perspective.
You All know your History&stuff, but you have a more complex perspective than American posters have, because you live nearby.

I, too have a better perspective than American Libs. have, as far as Russian laypeople are concerned. They are NOT the humorless brutes that media portrays them as. Most of them are good people, and their masses are much more educated than American or Australian masses are.
But they are just as oppressed and threatened by their shitty leadership, as other countries are.

You know this is the kind of talk that makes American Libs embrace Trump and extreme righties right? We shall not allow the stars and stripes to be insulted by people so poor they lose a Jeopardy because they are too poor to afford vowels after years of communism! You don't see Stalin going to space for funsies while his vets sleep on the streets like the over the hill dogs they are do you?

Even if everything you say is true and frankly you're understating it a bit it doesn't matter. Even the best of us have some of that brainwashing in there. Hell we only let that filthy immigrant Wonder Woman in because she wears red, white and blue with stars on her shapely rear to rep our flag otherwise we'd be working on a wall.

 

[pecksniff]

We shall not allow the stars and stripes to be insulted by people so poor they lose a Jeopardy because they are too poor to afford vowels . . .

That's Wheel of Fortune.

 

[LupusDei]

I'm glad you wrote this, because it touches upon something that intrigued me for years
and I really want to hear LupusDei's view on these too.

imo, The underlying dynamic of discrimination in Eastern Europe is completely different from that in UK, AMERICA, AUSTRALIA, INDIA OR CHINA.

It has NOTHING to do with the color of one's skin. It has to do with country of birth and cultural belonging.

If a fellow Russian or fellow Latvian looks more swarthy than the lighter-skinned norm, they DON'T go "booga booga, you're not White". Often they don't even notice those things.

They DO discriminate against Georgians, but not because they're 'Black'.

You're not exactly wrong, but it's not about country, or not so much, it's about ethnicity mostly. Countries are often incidental, even when they declare prerogative of the titular ethnicity on constitutional level. Belonging to ethnic identity is the important thing. Languages are important. History that matters is very, very long. For the small nations especially, there may be quasi-religious zealously, sometimes, but not necessarily with a religious element indeed.

However, about the Georgians, the Caucasians generally (in the very narrow sense, as modern inhabitants of the actual mountain region), are plenty a racial element against the backdrop of nordic types or even asiatic mix Russians, they do stand out visually. The type is more akin Persian or even Arab. Not a difference in skin tone people used to actual dark skin would probably pay much attention to, if any, but rather specific facial characteristics, I don't know, skull shape? It's hard to explain but it's recognized.

The stereotype have them allegedly notorious for short temper and aggressiveness, on top of being inherently dishonest and unreliable. They certainly have the typical "southerner" traits of laisez-faire attitudes to punctuality and lack the grim seriousness of the northern forest dwellers. Actually they are joyful and hospitably people with hearts certainly no lesser than even true Russian, and very loyal. However, they are perceived as default as being part of the mob or some gang.

They never truly embraced Soviet systems by retaining unofficially whole parallel national common law system. Then, we talk about folk that despite very old and deep orthodox christianity tradition have also retained pre-christian customs all through it. And of course they are mountaineers.

 

[pecksniff]

However, they are perceived as default as being part of the mob or some gang.

I've heard of a Russian Mafiya, but not a Georgian one.

 

[LupusDei]

Here's how I understand the picture: The old Russian Empire conquered and annexed everybody it could, and was (for the most part, with some exceptions such as Congress Poland and the Grand Duchy of Finland) simply divided into provinces, with governors appointed by the crown, without regard to ethnicity.

The Bolsheviks thought themselves more high-minded -- internationalist, but also committed to the idea of national self-determination -- so they divided their territory into technically autonomous "union republics."

However, only some of the many nationalities the USSR encompassed were numerous enough to rank a union republic -- smaller ones got autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, autonomous okrugs, etc., within union republics.

So, when the USSR broke up in 1991 -- into its union republics -- that did not quite entirely resolve the nationalities question -- there were still all these other, smaller, anomalous ethnic enclaves, some of which immediately began pushing for their own full independence.

And then the world at large started to hear names it had never heard of before, like "Chechnya" and "Abkhazia" and "Ossetia."

And then there's the whole fight between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.

Well... what's very important is, what there was before the Russian empire land grab, and before then. You would typically roll back thousand years to start making sense of what happens and why. And then the great pain of Russia is that it doesn't have history. Or rather, her history is made by outsiders to such a degree it's a deficiency complex.

 

[pecksniff]

Well... what's very important is, what there was before the Russian empire land grab, and before then.

Was there a Latvia, before the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?

 

[mayfly13]

You're not exactly wrong, but it's not about country, or not so much, it's about ethnicity mostly. Countries are often incidental, even when they declare prerogative of the titular ethnicity on constitutional level. Belonging to ethnic identity is the important thing. Languages are important. History that matters is very, very long. For the small nations especially, there may be quasi-religious zealously, sometimes, but not necessarily with a religious element indeed.

However, about the Georgians, the Caucasians generally (in the very narrow sense, as modern inhabitants of the actual mountain region), are plenty a racial element against the backdrop of nordic types or even asiatic mix Russians, they do stand out visually. The type is more akin Persian or even Arab. Not a difference in skin tone people used to actual dark skin would probably pay much attention to, if any, but rather specific facial characteristics, I don't know, skull shape? It's hard to explain but it's recognized.

The stereotype have them allegedly notorious for short temper and aggressiveness, on top of being inherently dishonest and unreliable. They certainly have the typical "southerner" traits of laisez-faire attitudes to punctuality and lack the grim seriousness of the northern forest dwellers. Actually they are joyful and hospitably people with hearts certainly no lesser than even true Russian, and very loyal. However, they are perceived as default as being part of the mob or some gang.

.

Bingo.
Thanks for answering.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what racism is based upon, culture/language-skull shape versus skin color. It seems like Russian racism is just as malignant as British colonial racism.


It's just that sometimes, the little nuances in what racism is based on in EE versus AngloSax countries, leads to miscommunicaton.

As an EE immigrant to Australia, I was familiar with the brand of racism that you describe (based on skull shape or language or History). By which a swarthy Italian or Spaniard is considered to be superior to a lighter-skinned Eastern European, who's superior to a very fair Filipino or Indian.

But the more you go rural into Australia or NZ, the more you encounter a one-size fits all collorism: An Italian, a swarthy Bulgarian are called oggs and are being denied their Europe-nness & lumped with Maoris or Filipinos. Whereas a red-haired, blue-eyed Bulgarian is seen as European.

The Australian type of racism was so alien to me (I was used to the European one) that it took me a long time to become aware of it.

And even in this forum, me and other EE's had their own notion of racism projected onto us. They don't understand that my generation, while being racists towards Africans, were much less racists towards (they actually often admired) Black Americans, cause born in America.

 

[mayfly13]

You know this is the kind of talk that makes American Libs embrace Trump and extreme righties right? We shall not allow the stars and stripes to be insulted by people so poor they lose a Jeopardy because they are too poor to afford vowels after years of communism! You don't see Stalin going to space for funsies while his vets sleep on the streets like the over the hill dogs they are do you?

Even if everything you say is true and frankly you're understating it a bit it doesn't matter. Even the best of us have some of that brainwashing in there. Hell we only let that filthy immigrant Wonder Woman in because she wears red, white and blue with stars on her shapely rear to rep our flag otherwise we'd be working on a wall.

lol.
I was exaggerating a bit, I am currently in a "I hate rural Australians mode."
The ones who traveled or lived in cities are more open-minded, but the insular ones are racists in such a rudimentary way.

If you're blue-eyed Anglo looking like them you're White and European, if not you're a booga-booga pretend-European who eats with their hands. They even consider Greeks and Italians to be inferior races based on swarthiness! Greece and Italy, who brought civilusation to Europe!.

Russian blue collar laypeople aren't actually That educated, The West is better in that regard.
But you're right about that aspect of American supremacy.

 

[pecksniff]

lol.
I was exaggerating a bit, I am currently in a "I hate rural Australians mode."
The ones who traveled or lived in cities are more open-minded, but the insular ones are racists in such a rudimentary way.

If you're blue-eyed Anglo looking like them you're White and European, if not you're a booga-booga pretend-European who eats with their hands. They even consider Greeks and Italians to be inferior races based on swarthiness! Greece and Italy, who brought civilusation to Europe!.

Russian blue collar laypeople aren't actually That educated, The West is better in that regard.
But you're right about that aspect of American supremacy.

I've heard of Australian racism, but mainly as directed against 1) the aborigines and 2) the Chinese -- in the 19th Century, there was a big movement to ban Chinese immigration.

 

[mayfly13]

I've heard of Australian racism, but mainly as directed against 1) the aborigines and 2) the Chinese -- in the 19th Century, there was a big movement to ban Chinese immigration.

Think rural Britain more than 50 years ago.

The more you go rural in Au or Nz and meet more men (or women) who work with their hands in traditional frontier-type male jobs, the more you see a cut-throat worldview, Anglo supremacy and wife beating. (both colonisers and natives)

I wasn't aware of it because most townies are quite the opposite - more used to diversity and open minded, gentle and accepting. Also, the Brenton Terrant saga exposed an ugly underbelly.

So American leftists' tendency to label people as racists or bigots over the most trivial things pisses me off, because it diminishes true racism.

 

[LupusDei]

Was there a Latvia, before the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?

There was Livonia, very nearly in current borders of Latvia and Estonia together, and that was a piece of land conquered by mostly German speaking crusaders in a special crusade. With was a robbery operation initiated by what become Hanseatic League upset by too high transit taxes. That war started in 1201, and resulted in Lithuania formally adopting Catholicism in hopes of signing peace. It didn't help. Lithuania had head start in centralization witnessing slaughter of Prussians, our sister nation, and absorbing also retreating warriors from Latvia was able to wage war in three fronts, against germans in west and north, and mongol-tatar in southeast.

That crusade was such a locally apocalyptic event history before then is murky, but there apparently was a lot of fragmentation, a couple dozen tiny to small kingdoms in lose alliances, although most of the eastern half of modern Latvia was basically three larger lands, their compound border of those was only little bit further east than now, and heavily fortified because raids back and forth over it was a common thing.

While modern Lithuanian and Latvian aren't mutually intelligible (It's slightly easier for Lithuanian to decipher Latvian than the other way, although core archaic lexicon words can be transformed back and forth algorithmically), those two are basically single ethnographic only divided by said war were Latvians become serfs under german mansions and Lithuanian retained freedom only to form that disastrous union with Poland. Well, they had good reasons, they fought medieval Europe's largest battle together in Prussia.

Prussians, the third Baltic sister nation was slaughtered in those wars and fell under even worse occupation, and eventually went extinct in the last plague. Their lands have been without lawful owner since, going as spoils of war to winners of the last war. That's how Russians currently own Kaliningrad.

 

[pecksniff]

European history is fucking complicated!

 

[pecksniff]

NATO chief warns Russia of 'costs' if it moves on Ukraine.

BRUSSELS (AP) — NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned Russia Friday that any attempt to invade Ukraine would have costs, as concern mounts about a Russian military buildup near its former Soviet neighbor’s borders.

Ukraine says Moscow kept about 90,000 troops near their common border following massive war games in western Russia earlier this year. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry said units of the Russian 41st army remain near Yelnya, about 260 kilometers (160 miles) north of the border.

Moscow denies that it’s planning any invasion and refuses to provide details about troop movements on its own territory.

“If Russia uses force against Ukraine that will have costs, that would have consequences,” Stoltenberg said, ahead of a meeting of the 30-nation military organization’s foreign ministers in Latvia Nov. 30-Dec. 1, where Russia’s activities will be high on the agenda. He did not say what those costs would be.

“This is the second time this year that Russia has amassed a large and unusual concentration of forces in the region,” Stoltenberg told reporters. He said it includes tanks, artillery, armored units, drones, and electronic warfare systems, as well as combat-ready troops.

Well, if it's the second time this year, and nothing came of it the first time . . .

 

[pecksniff]

That's how Russians currently own Kaliningrad.

Geographically, it would have made more sense to give East Prussian Konigsberg (home town of Immanuel Kant, BTW; see also the mathematical problem, Seven Bridges of Konigsberg) to Poland or Lithuania. I wonder what Stalin was thinking, creating such an exclave of Russia?