My Political Profile

I guess people find idenity through stupid things like culture and are proud of it like they did something to achieve it

Zeronos is just trying to be a perfect communist.

calinis wrote:

I guess people find idenity through stupid things like culture and are proud of it like they did something to achieve it

"stupid things like culture" and I'm going to take you seriously after such a comment... not like I did before though.

Liche wrote:

Zeronos is just trying to be a perfect communist.

If "antinationism" can be considered a trait of communism, I think it's an utterely unnecesary one.

that is one of the few turnoffs communism has (in my opinion)

Quote :

"stupid things like culture" and I'm going to take you seriously after such a comment... not like I did before though.

Being proud of your culture is stupid. The essence of culture has no merit in the 21st century. Culture involves stupid rituals of other moral-based idoloegies, although morality is completely objective. In some cultures, it is perfectly acceptable for a brother to kill his sister if she was raped (for being unfaithful, although it was no fault of her own for being raped). Hence culture is stupid.

Quote :

If "antinationism" can be considered a trait of communism, I think it's an utterely unnecesary one.

i thought communism was based on the equality between ALL workers regardless of their country of origin, hence "workers of the world, unite" and other slogans to emphasize this. If nationalism is apparent, wars will inevitably result on the premise of "the piece of land that I inhabit is better than the piece of land you inhabit!"

Also nationalism makes your arguement less valid.
For example, when someone says "i'm against capitalism, except Russian capitalism"
And then you ask why and he says "because I'm Russian and we're just better duh!!!"
I can see that Russia has had a crappy system of governments throughout the years. They had a tsarist system, then they had the crappy Soviet Union, and now they cant even do capitalism right. However, if I were Russian, whether by nationality or ethnicity, I would still see this because I'm not blinded by nationalism.

calinis wrote:

Being proud of your culture is stupid.

No, your comment is stupid. You can like your culture. If you're part of it and enrich it you can feel proud of it. Else I even wonder if you even have a notion of what culture is.

calinis wrote:

The essence of culture has no merit in the 21st century.

Based on what? More and more y ou unveil a great ignorance on the meaning of culture.

calinis wrote:

Culture involves stupid rituals of other moral-based idoloegies, although morality is completely objective.

Oh, you seem to think culture is a bunch of rituals. You're wrong then. Else, you don't determine what is stupid or not.

As for morality, no, it is not objective it's subjective.

calinis wrote:

In some cultures, it is perfectly acceptable for a brother to kill his sister if she was raped (for being unfaithful, although it was no fault of her own for being raped). Hence culture is stupid.

Your case is absurd. Culture goes far beyond such moral and political aspects.

Just a little hint: language is one of the many aspects that compose culture.

calinis wrote:

i thought communism was based on the equality between ALL workers regardless of their country of origin, hence "workers of the world, unite" and other slogans to emphasize this. If nationalism is apparent, wars will inevitably result on the premise of "the piece of land that I inhabit is better than the piece of land you inhabit!"

One thing is nationalism and other like your nation and your culture. Within a communist framework there can be different nationalities which doesn't mean one nationality would be superior to the other. This is part of identity and individuality just so that you know.

We have different identities but we can work for each other's well being. The existance of nations in no way counters this.

calinis wrote:

Also nationalism makes your arguement less valid.
For example, when someone says "i'm against capitalism, except Russian capitalism"
And then you ask why and he says "because I'm Russian and we're just better duh!!!"

That's stupid and I don't recall anyone argumenting such a thing. However you seem to be referencing those moments in which I or perhaps RedSoviet engage in an apology of Russia, which you think I assume in contradiction to my communist principles just for liking Russia as, according you your limited and of course flawed understanding, I'll just say that "this is wrong unless Russia does it". Well, guess what? You're wrong.

When I have assumed apologies of Russia they have been in a completely objective way. For an instance, I have never defended "Russian capitalism". Being against capitalism makes you be against capitalism everywhere. Else, knowing that capitalism represents a hindrance to Russian culture and of course population, I couldn't want other thing but that Russia got rid of capitalism.

What I have defended are some of Russia's international policies and reactions which I find contextually understandable and to some extent possitive. One example is Russias counteroffesive against Georgia which many called "an imperialist move". I found it understandable and contextually deffensible for the following reasons: 1) Russia was acting as a peacekeeping force and Georgia initiated an attack. A peacekeeping force has the objective to stop the aggressor. Peacekeeping forces that do not do so are flawed. 2) Georgia serves as a pawn of western imperialism which I consider needs a counterbalance which is greatly represented by Russia, to a lesser extent China and several countries of the NAM.

However I do criticize when Russian forces' actions implied civilian deaths and I would have condemned direct attacks by Russia on civilian populations, in case that happened, I deem it reprobable.

In resume: Georgia is a pawn of G-7 imperialists and it counts with their support in many aspects. Georgia was lossing the grip on two regions which sought for Russia's assistance. Georgian government was confident that their masters would help them against Russia so they decided to make an onslaught on Ossetia hoping G-7's support would serve as a deterrant to Russian intervention. They erred and there's the result. They provoked, Russia replied and hit Georgia hard preventing a defenseless population to suffer more than they could have. Objectively its understandable and Russia acted right. Else, western politicians' hipocricy should be noted when they tag Russia as "imperialist", "similar to Nazi Germany" or "Genocidal". Objectively they're hypocrites and it's worth noting.

I hope this clarifies my possition. Nowhere do I support Russian government, nowhere do I support Russian capitalism. I simply say that within that context Russian actions are objectively right and cannot be tagged of imperialist.

calinis wrote:

I can see that Russia has had a crappy system of governments throughout the years. They had a tsarist system, then they had the crappy Soviet Union, and now they cant even do capitalism right. However, if I were Russian, whether by nationality or ethnicity, I would still see this because I'm not blinded by nationalism.

Anyone can see Tsarism was crappy, anyone can see the flaws of USSR's regime and anyone can see this new government is not working well. I haven't seen yet anyone blindfolded by love to Russia to see such obvious things.

Someone that loves his nation and thus the people within it will know that what is best for the people is best for the country and that counts with the necesary knowledges and intelligence thus a proper understanding of nature and humanity will be able to understand that what Russia and any other country really needs is communism for it's the only system in which Russians won't thrive neither on fellow Russians' exploitation nor on other peoples' exploitation.

But, once again, loving a nation and a culture doesn't counter communism.

Liche wrote:

Zeronos is just trying to be a perfect communist.

This is actually a viewpoint I've had since long before I considered myself a communist. Nice try, though.

Liche wrote:

that is one of the few turnoffs communism has (in my opinion)

That's hardly "perfect communism". In my view and as Zeronos ratified, it's a matter of personal choice.

I typed out a long response and then I was logged out after it took me a 30 hour to write. Fuck...........................fdmfnmgdnmnm

Quote :

No, your comment is stupid. You can like your culture. If you're part of it and enrich it you can feel proud of it. Else I even wonder if you even have a notion of what culture is.

Why would you be proud of it? What did you do to achieve it?

Quote :

Just a little hint: language is one of the many aspects that compose culture.

Everyone should speak English, hence that would be another component eliminated of individual cultures.

Quote :

This is part of identity and individuality just so that you know.

How? Are individuals agents of the country now? I dont consider myself a generic Canadian, likewise nobody would consider themselves a generic Russian, a generic German, a generic Australian, etc. I dont define myself by the country I was (not through my own fault) born into.

Quote :

What I have defended are some of Russia's international policies and reactions which I find contextually understandable and to some extent possitive. One example is Russias counteroffesive against Georgia which many called "an imperialist move". I found it understandable and contextually deffensible for the following reasons: 1) Russia was acting as a peacekeeping force and Georgia initiated an attack. A peacekeeping force has the objective to stop the aggressor. Peacekeeping forces that do not do so are flawed. 2) Georgia serves as a pawn of western imperialism which I consider needs a counterbalance which is greatly represented by Russia, to a lesser extent China and several countries of the NAM.

Why couldn't Russia just let Georgia deal with it? S. Ossetia was Georgian territory, afterall. Russia coming in as "peacekeper" with imperalist intentions was clearly not needed. Btw Russia suppressed the majority of ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union as the whole country was "Russified" hence the ethnic tensions prior to the its eventual collapsed.

Quote :

Someone that loves his nation and thus the people within it will know that what is best for the people is best for the country and that counts with the necesary knowledges and intelligence thus a proper understanding of nature and humanity will be able to understand that what Russia and any other country really needs is communism for it's the only system in which Russians won't thrive neither on fellow Russians' exploitation nor on other peoples' exploitation.

Why should you do what is best for 'your" people as opposed to the whole world? What do Russians have that desire better than the rest? Is a Russian murderer more valid as an individual than an American citizen?

Quote :

But, once again, loving a nation and a culture doesn't counter communism.

Loving a nation leads to people willing to die for their country and emerging national powers may be a threat to the country's existance, hence the development of wars.

[quote="calinis"]

Why would you be proud of it? What did you do to achieve it?[/wuote]

Like it, follow it and enrich it.

calinis wrote:

Everyone should speak English, hence that would be another component eliminated of individual cultures.

Aside from being stupid, it's trolling.

calinis wrote:

How? Are individuals agents of the country now? I dont consider myself a generic Canadian, likewise nobody would consider themselves a generic Russian, a generic German, a generic Australian, etc. I dont define myself by the country I was (not through my own fault) born into.

Adopting a certain culture yo identify yourslef with it, not as a generic [insert demonym here] but as a person belonging to that group.

If you adopt cultural traits, those traits form part of your identity.

calinis wrote:

Why couldn't Russia just let Georgia deal with it? S. Ossetia was Georgian territory, afterall.

That's what I'm saying, Russia did the right thing: fuck up the Georgian genocidal aggressors.

calinis wrote:

Russia coming in as "peacekeper" with imperalist intentions was clearly not needed.

It was peacekeeping because the georgian onslaught was stopped and the aggressor's ilitary swiftly disabled. It was not imperialism in any way because it didn't imply cultural nor economic domination of Georgia. The only thing that happened there is that an aggressor was forced to stop its attack, that is peace was enforced.

calinis wrote:

Btw Russia suppressed the majority of ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union as the whole country was "Russified" hence the ethnic tensions prior to the its eventual collapsed.

I suggest you read a bit on USSR prior to speaking about it. Not even during Stalin were they suppressed, they were simply relocated precisely with the idea of preventing nationalist surges. This was eventually reverted since Khrushyov's destalinization. During the idiotic Gorbachyov's administration a lot of policies mixed with USSR's unstability lead to ethnic and nationalist rises. These were held more easily thanks to USSR's traditional policies of respecting and fomenting pan-soviet cultures and nationalities.

calinis wrote:

Why should you do what is best for 'your" people as opposed to the whole world?

You should learn to read. When you wish the best to yourself and to yours you wish the best for everyone.

calinis wrote:

What do Russians have that desire better than the rest?

No one claimed that, ask to someone that believes so. Also, learn to read.

calinis wrote:

Is a Russian murderer more valid as an individual than an American citizen?

Don't reply to what you don't read.

calinis wrote:

Loving a nation leads to people willing to die for their country and emerging national powers may be a threat to the country's existance, hence the development of wars.

In a communist framework, no. In an ignorance lead framework like capitalism, yes, it's possible. But the problem there is not love to nation but ignorance which, as one of its repercussions, has capitalism.

Zeronos wrote:

Liche wrote:

Zeronos wrote:

I find nationalism incredibly asinine, but it's not the most terrible polipro I've ever seen. Welcome.

Radical Nationalism is bad. But pride for a nation is ok.

Pride in a plot of land divided from others by imaginary lines drawn on a map. As George Bernard Shaw once said, "Patriotism is the conviction your country is superior to all others because you were born in it."

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Agreed. Let there be no nation on this earth.

Quote :

military should be just use in a defensive way, i think as much as possible people must serve a time in the military becouse it teaches you discipline, strengthens, staying power and you can always be a active part in defending you motherland

I'm sure that I could think of better ways of becoming strong. Discipline? Defending my motherland? I'd rather not.

Quote :

if you must defend your country everybody should can do it and take part in it to defend it

I'd rather not, actually.

Quote :

Like it, follow it and enrich it.

Does that make you feel accomplished?

Quote :

Adopting a certain culture yo identify yourslef with it, not as a generic [insert demonym here] but as a person belonging to that group.

I dont want to be part of a group, considering that there are murderers, drug-using scum etc in all nations, thus idenitying with one nation would be idenitying with all the scum in the nation as well.

Quote :

That's what I'm saying, Russia did the right thing: fuck up the Georgian genocidal aggressors.

You use genocide an awful lot.

Quote :

It was peacekeeping because the georgian onslaught was stopped and the aggressor's ilitary swiftly disabled. It was not imperialism in any way because it didn't imply cultural nor economic domination of Georgia. The only thing that happened there is that an aggressor was forced to stop its attack, that is peace was enforced.

Clearly no country has any intention simply to bring peace to a nation. Just because it was hid under the couver of "peacekeeping" or whatever shit they used, it doesn't mean they didn't have other motives. I mean taking over half of Europe is considered imperalism, jsut so you know. Why the hell did they go invade Afghanistan? Not about imperalism, eh? Why cant they just stop being so imperalist and let countries do whatever they want and deal with their own problems?

Quote :

I suggest you read a bit on USSR prior to speaking about it. Not even during Stalin were they suppressed, they were simply relocated precisely with the idea of preventing nationalist surges. This was eventually reverted since Khrushyov's destalinization. During the idiotic Gorbachyov's administration a lot of policies mixed with USSR's unstability lead to ethnic and nationalist rises. These were held more easily thanks to USSR's traditional policies of respecting and fomenting pan-soviet cultures and nationalities.

No they were most certaintly were suppressed starting specifically with the Stalin era. Everyone was to speak Russian. They couldn't speak their native languages. Traditions were destroyed, and as far as I'm concerned, there wasn't really a culture in the USSR (if there was, it was heavily Russian-dominated), as churches were destroyed during Khruschev's anti-religion campaign, although Stalin was heavily anti-religious as well. Being fearful for one's own life as not to have the NKVD or subsequent KGB arrest you for, you know, saying the wrong the thing, led to apathy. Having a government that controlls your every life is probably going to eliminate culture. This is what sparked the nationalist movements, not some policies. As far as I'm concerned, Gorbachev's policies encouraged freedom.

Quote :

In a communist framework, no. In an ignorance lead framework like capitalism, yes, it's possible. But the problem there is not love to nation but ignorance which, as one of its repercussions, has capitalism.

How does the economic system have anything to do with it? Wars will still develop due to conflicts. Communism cannot eliminate conflicts. Under capitalism, people need to trade with foreign powers, hence the US would never attack China, etc. This keeps nationalism in line to some degree.

calinis wrote:

Does that make you feel accomplished?

Partially.

calinis wrote:

I dont want to be part of a group, considering that there are murderers, drug-using scum etc in all nations, thus idenitying with one nation would be idenitying with all the scum in the nation as well.

If you don't want to be part of a nation or people, perfect just isolate youself please.

calinis wrote:

You use genocide an awful lot.

It's just we talk a lot about topics related to genocide.

calinis wrote:

Clearly no country has any intention simply to bring peace to a nation.

Yeah they can have even if it's simply just to improve their image, suffice the claims of many people or fulfill an ojective they have claimed before to pursue.

calinis wrote:

Just because it was hid under the couver of "peacekeeping" or whatever shit they used, it doesn't mean they didn't have other motives.

Georgians started, Russians ended the war. Russians prevented an ethnic cleansing begun by Georgians. Russia prevented a conflict that could have gone worse. That's peacekeeping. For a disguise it was a pretty good one since it didn't have other kind of implications.

You can say Russia wanted to fuck Georgia a bit, maybe Russia was also flexing its military muscle, yeah. A combination of those factors. But not imperialism.

Russia did not gain control of Georgia economically or culturaly through this action so it cannot be called imperialism.

calinis wrote:

I mean taking over half of Europe is considered imperalism, jsut so you know.

We're talking about Russian Federation, not USSR. But, let's go back to USSR.

That half of Europe that you claim USSR had taken had the next circumstances (excluding Poland):

They attacked USSR first. Soviet military occupation was part of a counteroffensive, a pay back and a a deffensive line against hostile western nations.

While these nations had been occupied militarily by USSR they were not annexed, they were not dominated culturaly and were not exploited economically.

calinis wrote:

Why the hell did they go invade Afghanistan? Not about imperalism, eh?

They did not annex Afghanistan nor control it economically and culturally. TYhey were just ensuing that an allied government would win the civil war.

calinis wrote:

Why cant they just stop being so imperalist and let countries do whatever they want and deal with their own problems?

Point partially adressed above. You don't let a country that may represent a threat to you do whatever it wants.

calinis wrote:

No they were most certaintly were suppressed starting specifically with the Stalin era. Everyone was to speak Russian. They couldn't speak their native languages.

This statement is one of the most idiotic things I have ever read. There were entire linguistic academies created for the study and development of the different languages of the USSR, not only of the main SSRs but of nearly any people within the USSR. Each soviet republic had its own anthem in the language of said nation. When you're in Russia you can see lots of stores with books in the different languages of the different peoples that conform Russia. Many of said books are from the Soviet times dating to as old as the 40's and 50's. There's a lot of people within Russia that speak at least two or three languages being these Russian, te language of their community and of a neighbouring community or a foreign language.

Russification was product of the Russian empire, USSR just inherited that condition and even reverted part of it.

calinis wrote:

Traditions were destroyed,

Which traditions were destroyed? Culinary? No. Musical? No. Linguistic? No. Literary? No. Dance? No.

calinis wrote:

and as far as I'm concerned, there wasn't really a culture in the USSR (if there was, it was heavily Russian-dominated),

A statement I would expect from someone so ignorant about Russia and USSR. USSR had its culture which varied all throughout USSR and which was greatly based on the wrongly understood principles of Marxism an the wrongly applied ones of Leninism.

calinis wrote:

as churches were destroyed during Khruschev's anti-religion campaign, although Stalin was heavily anti-religious as well.

Actually more churches were destroyed during Stalin's regime and not as part of an anti-religious campaing but as part of civilian infrastructure. Immediately after WWII hundreds of churches were rebuilt or started to be rebuilt.

calinis wrote:

Being fearful for one's own life as not to have the NKVD or subsequent KGB arrest you for, you know, saying the wrong the thing, led to apathy.

That's ridiculous. Most people wasn't even really concerned about the KGB.

calinis wrote:

Having a government that controlls your every life is probably going to eliminate culture.

It's funny that most people from the USSR didn't have the impression that the government controlled their everyday life, yet you claim as if they had.

And no, that doesn't destroy culture, specially if doesn't happen.

calinis wrote:

This is what sparked the nationalist movements, not some policies. As far as I'm concerned, Gorbachev's policies encouraged freedom.

What encouraged nationalism and the eventual collapse of USSR was USSR's contradictory economy which implied a population with great material lacks. People were dissatisfied with the way USSR worked and so wanted to separate from it. An excellent vehicle for that were the nationalist movements fueled greatly by the fact that USSR had traditionally fomented the development of both cultural and national identities of the different peoples conforming it.

Gorbachyov' policies of Openness, Transparence and restructuration further destabilized the USSR and further fueled dissatisfaction within the soviet population. By contrasting the more workable western capitalisms, which were invited to compete against an almost uterely demolished soviet contradictory capitalism, people felt attracted by the offerings of the west and that also fueled nationalism. Even to that day such things are visible in countries like Ukraine.

calinis wrote:

How does the economic system have anything to do with it? Wars will still develop due to conflicts. Communism cannot eliminate conflicts. Under capitalism, people need to trade with foreign powers, hence the US would never attack China, etc. This keeps nationalism in line to some degree.

This doesn't even make sense. Which conflicts are you talking about?

People, can't you realize how he's trolling?

Quote :

It's just we talk a lot about topics related to genocide.

You use the term loosely, eh?

Quote :

Yeah they can have even if it's simply just to improve their image, suffice the claims of many people or fulfill an ojective they have claimed before to pursue.

If instead they would like to improve their image, that's their goal, as opposed to bringing peace.

Quote :

Georgians started, Russians ended the war. Russians prevented an ethnic cleansing begun by Georgians. Russia prevented a conflict that could have gone worse. That's peacekeeping. For a disguise it was a pretty good one since it didn't have other kind of implications.

S. Ossetia was Georgian territory. I wasn't aware that the Georgian government was commiting genocide. I wouldn't take your biased claim seriously anyways. Assuming that they were (and I'd rather not have a petty arguement on which nation is better anyways because that's pathetic), how is this different than, say, the US liberating Iraq from the genocide that was going on? Not that I totally agree with the methods used in order to "legitimize" the war and war in general, I assume that your arguements should be consistent. Dont give crap that theUS is only involved to secure their strategic position or for resources or whatever because that would make you a damn hypocrite lol. The US did go to Iraq to topple Saddam's regime. Likewise Russia did not go bring peacekeeping forces in Georgia for the purpose of peacekeeping.

Quote :

While these nations had been occupied militarily by USSR they were not annexed, they were not dominated culturaly and were not exploited economically.

Considering that they were now under Soviet control hence they were part of the eastern bloc, they had been controlled economically in such a way that it hindered their former life. You know, I'd hate it if some people came and took over my country and told me this is how I have to live now and wouldn't even let me leave. Imperalism doesnt have to imply the country being annexed. Prior to the nazi occupation the countries were democratic.

Quote :

They did not annex Afghanistan nor control it economically and culturally. TYhey were just ensuing that an allied government would win the civil war.

Why should they care then? They wanted to ensure their system of life throughout the world, hence they would support anything that would contribute to Soviet dominance. The cold war wasn't about the US being an imperalist power and the USSR just minding their own business being the innocent empire that it was. Uh no..... If that's all they wanted, they would not have gotten into other country's affairs. Hence the USSR was just as imperalist as the US.

Quote :

Point partially adressed above. You don't let a country that may represent a threat to you do whatever it wants.

If you think a country is a threat to you, you build your defense. You dont attack them.

Quote :

Russification was product of the Russian empire, USSR just inherited that condition and even reverted part of it.

No the Russification process was evident in the 1930s. I cant validate the other information you posted. You haven't even lived in the USSR more than 3 years (if you have), thus how would you confirm that? At least provide sources.

Quote :

A statement I would expect from someone so ignorant about Russia and USSR. USSR had its culture which varied all throughout USSR and which was greatly based on the wrongly understood principles of Marxism an the wrongly applied ones of Leninism.

Exactly. Propoganda was the only source of culture. People felt empowered by listening to Soviet anthem and looking at pictures of Lenin because he was like a god to them. That's pathetic.

Quote :

That's ridiculous. Most people wasn't even really concerned about the KGB.

Considering they arrest like 1/9th of the population, I assume they would worried about that.

Quote :

It's funny that most people from the USSR didn't have the impression that the government controlled their everyday life, yet you claim as if they had.

Have you talked to most people from the USSR? One or two people doesnt count. In fact 50% doesn't cut it. Unless you have talked to at least 60% of the WHOLE country can I take your word seriously. I think Andrei Sakharov and his wife would have said differently. Likewise Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. And everyone else who was sent to the dreadful conditions of the gulags.

Quote :

This doesn't even make sense. Which conflicts are you talking about?

Conflicts will inevitably arise when there are differences. Strong nationalism leads to protection of their culture etc above others.

calinis wrote:

You use the term loosely, eh?

Absolutely not.

calinis wrote:

If instead they would like to improve their image, that's their goal, as opposed to bringing peace.

They would have the goal of bringing peace in order to improve their image.

calinis wrote:

S. Ossetia was Georgian territory. I wasn't aware that the Georgian government was commiting genocide. I wouldn't take your biased claim seriously anyways. Assuming that they were

They started attacking a civilian ethnic minority killing at a rate of 300 per day. If yo don't know what happened do not comment.

calinis wrote:

(and I'd rather not have a petty arguement on which nation is better anyways because that's pathetic),

This doesn't even fit the discussion at all.

calinis wrote:

how is this different than, say, the US liberating Iraq from the genocide that was going on?

Which genocide? Are you perhaps talking about the Kurds? So that you know US litrally assisted Saddam on that Genocide by 1) knowing about it 2) being the prime provider of the weapons used to pepetrate that genocide. Else, that genocide took place in the 80's, USA not only not doing anything to prevent it but actually assisting Saddam's regime.

calinis wrote:

Not that I totally agree with the methods used in order to "legitimize" the war and war in general, I assume that your arguements should be consistent. Dont give crap that theUS is only involved to secure their strategic position or for resources or whatever because that would make you a damn hypocrite lol.

US government always gave stupid excuses to enter Iraq. First it was the WMDs, namely a nonexistant nuclear arsenal. Then in was to "bring freedom" which was basically "impose USA's hegemony in Iraq".

calinis wrote:

The US did go to Iraq to topple Saddam's regime. Likewise Russia did not go bring peacekeeping forces in Georgia for the purpose of peacekeeping.

USA went there to topple Saddam's regime in order to control Iraq so that it could ensure a strategic position both politically, militarily and economically. Russia, in the other hand, prevented a genocide from occuring and did not control Georgia. Just defended a people's right to self-determination.

As you may have noticed the invasion of Iraq and the Russia-Georgia war of 2008 are very different phenomena which had very different implications, casus bellis and objectives.

calinis wrote:

Considering that they were now under Soviet control hence they were part of the eastern bloc, they had been controlled economically in such a way that it hindered their former life. You know, I'd hate it if some people came and took over my country and told me this is how I have to live now and wouldn't even let me leave. Imperalism doesnt have to imply the country being annexed. Prior to the nazi occupation the countries were democratic.

As I said, the majority of those countries attacked USSR first without any previous provokation. If USSR took them over it was as part of a counteroffensive, a vendetta and to create a deffensive line against the hostile western nations. It was hardly part of an imperialist campaign.

calinis wrote:

Why should they care then?

Probably because they shared a border with them?

calinis wrote:

They wanted to ensure their system of life throughout the world, hence they would support anything that would contribute to Soviet dominance.

They wanted to ensure the greatest ammount of nations would at least be friendly towards USSR in order to prevent a western imperialist threat to be big enough.

calinis wrote:

The cold war wasn't about the US being an imperalist power and the USSR just minding their own business being the innocent empire that it was. Uh no..... If that's all they wanted, they would not have gotten into other country's affairs. Hence the USSR was just as imperalist as the US.

Most of the countries USSR attacked and controlled or tried to control had first attacked the USSR when in the case of USA the numbers are inverse. Else out of the all countries over which USSR excerted political influence none were controlled culturally and just a few economically and militarily. In the case of USA its the opposite.

So, if both nations were imperialist, USSR was far less imperialist.

calinis wrote:

If you think a country is a threat to you, you build your defense. You dont attack them.

If you want to avoid your enemy to win the upper hand near your borders, it makes sense to try avoiding it.

calinis wrote:

No the Russification process was evident in the 1930s. I cant validate the other information you posted.

So you're denying Russification took part during the Russian empire? That's sheer ignorance.

Stalin indeed tried to keep a bit the initial Russian Empire's russification program but his programs were reverted by Khrushyov's and following leaders' policies.

calinis wrote:

You haven't even lived in the USSR more than 3 years (if you have), thus how would you confirm that? At least provide sources.

Even if you're two weeks in the Russian provincial cities you'll notice that. Talking with people there in Russia will confirm it. And actually my ex-girl was part of one of those communities that according to your ignorance were repressed within Russia, the Tatars. Her mother, another Tatar speaks Tatar. When you go to Mosques in Russia (existing for several decades actually) you can find a lot of books in said language and other languages. Do some little research and don't be lazy, you'll surely find something. I even gave you a hint: search tatars.

As for the majour republics, just search some images of universities, search for the national anthems. If you have some common sense you'll be able to distinguish that their encryptions are written in other languages that are not Russian.

calinis wrote:

Exactly. Propoganda was the only source of culture. People felt empowered by listening to Soviet anthem and looking at pictures of Lenin because he was like a god to them.

Another ignorant statement. Propaganda was indeed part of USSR's culture but absolutely not even a majour source of it.

As for feeling empowered by listening to a beautiful musical piece with which you have some identification is called "to have feelings". And no one thought of Lenin or Stalin as gods, just as heroes. But of course I wouldn't expect someone with such a limited intellect as yours to understand that.

calinis wrote:

That's pathetic.

You've proven to be one of the most pathetic things in existance.

calinis wrote:

Considering they arrest like 1/9th of the population, I assume they would worried about that.

1/9 of the population arrested? So you'e saying the KGB arrested 22 million people? Absurd.

calinis wrote:

Have you talked to most people from the USSR? One or two people doesnt count. In fact 50% doesn't cut it. Unless you have talked to at least 60% of the WHOLE country can I take your word seriously. [/u]I think Andrei Sakharov and his wife would have said differently. Likewise Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.[u] And everyone else who was sent to the dreadful conditions of the gulags.

It's the general sentiment in Russia and other former USSR republics. They don't even give great importance to that. Had it been of as great relevance as those alarmists, neoprometeists, Russophobes and other western imperialists claim, Russians would often mention about how terrified they were about that, there would be movies, documentaries, at least dozens of authors, whole university studies on the topic. Instead of that what do you get? One or two people talking about it. Aleksandr Solzhenitsin and Sakharov, that's two, perhaps their families and maybe friends which accounts to no more than 30-40 people.

calinis wrote:

Conflicts will inevitably arise when there are differences. Strong nationalism leads to protection of their culture etc above others.

The existance of opposed interests generates conflicts, not diversity.

Quote :

US government always gave stupid excuses to enter Iraq. First it was the WMDs, namely a nonexistant nuclear arsenal. Then in was to "bring freedom" which was basically "impose USA's hegemony in Iraq".

OK? And when Russia says they want to bring peace, that's their intention, no matter how inane it would be. If stopping genocide is ideal in Georgia, why is it different in Iraq? Genocide is genocide, right? What country actually sends peacekeeping troops of the sake of peacekeeping?

Quote :

USA went there to topple Saddam's regime in order to control Iraq so that it could ensure a strategic position both politically, militarily and economically. Russia, in the other hand, prevented a genocide from occuring and did not control Georgia. Just defended a people's right to self-determination.

Russia wanted Georgian territory in order to control Georgia.

Quote :

As I said, the majority of those countries attacked USSR first without any previous provokation. If USSR took them over it was as part of a counteroffensive, a vendetta and to create a deffensive line against the hostile western nations. It was hardly part of an imperialist campaign.

Why didn't the US control western europe when they had the change?

Quote :

They wanted to ensure the greatest ammount of nations would at least be friendly towards USSR in order to prevent a western imperialist threat to be big enough.

In that respect they were no better than the nazis. They wanted to secure their empire because the USSR was an empire.

Quote :

Most of the countries USSR attacked and controlled or tried to control had first attacked the USSR when in the case of USA the numbers are inverse. Else out of the all countries over which USSR excerted political influence none were controlled culturally and just a few economically and militarily. In the case of USA its the opposite.

All were controlled economically and to some degree culturally. They were controlled economically because there was no economic freedom. Culturally because they probably enforced "socialist values" that were significant part of the soviet culture.

Quote :

If you want to avoid your enemy to win the upper hand near your borders, it makes sense to try avoiding it.

So you go invade a country that might be a threat even though its not. You just say "who cares about the civilians who die because it MIGHT be a threat". Going out and invading a country isn't avoiding it. In the case of the Soviet invasion of Afghnaistan, it was futile. Perhaps they should have considered ALL possible outcomes before invading?

Quote :

As for feeling empowered by listening to a beautiful musical piece with which you have some identification is called "to have feelings". And no one thought of Lenin or Stalin as gods, just as heroes. But of course I wouldn't expect someone with such a limited intellect as yours to understand that.

Yeah they do. They have like 50 million statues of Lenin because he is soooooo amazing and the people have to look up to murderer because they can idenity with him. Yeah that's what's absolutely pathetic. And the old people who have nostalgia for the glories of Stalin's regime haha.

Quote :

1/9 of the population arrested? So you'e saying the KGB arrested 22 million people? Absurd.

During the great purges, yes. According to my textbook.

Quote :

It's the general sentiment in Russia and other former USSR republics. They don't even give great importance to that. Had it been of as great relevance as those alarmists, neoprometeists, Russophobes and other western imperialists claim, Russians would often mention about how terrified they were about that, there would be movies, documentaries, at least dozens of authors, whole university studies on the topic. Instead of that what do you get? One or two people talking about it. Aleksandr Solzhenitsin and Sakharov, that's two, perhaps their families and maybe friends which accounts to no more than 30-40 people.

There are a dozen authors. Just because I say two people who spoke openly doesn't mean there are more. It was just an example.

Quote :

The existance of opposed interests generates conflicts, not diversity.

Glory to your nation above all generates conflicts because you treat the nation as more, like an organic being or somesort. If one culture or country threatens your national idenity, you'll probably attack because nationalism is the most pathetic thing ever.

Also having a strong culture doesn't make your country any better. It makes it pathetic because they will be involved in stupid little rituals and practicies and immorality.

calinis wrote:

OK? And when Russia says they want to bring peace, that's their intention, no matter how inane it would be.

Unless it had other implications which so far hadn't taken place.

calinis wrote:

If stopping genocide is ideal in Georgia, why is it different in Iraq?

The problem is that while it happened in Georgia it didn't in Iraq. In fact, while Russia's 15 day intervention ended a circle of violence, US's invation to Iraq lead to years and years of violence, sparked more ethnic and religious conflicts and of course implied US's involvement in genocide against the Iraqi population a genocide that has been very well documented.

calinis wrote:

Genocide is genocide, right? What country actually sends peacekeeping troops of the sake of peacekeeping?

Genocide is genocide, so? And what country does send a peacekeeping force for the sake of peacekeeping? Apparently Russia since those were the implications its military intervention had.

calinis wrote:

Russia wanted Georgian territory in order to control Georgia.

Very funny claim considering that inspite of Russia literally destroying Georgia's military capabilities that claim didn't take place.

calinis wrote:

Why didn't the US control western europe when they had the change?

Hmmm... I'd have to ask then where have the US bombers that have been bombing Iraq and Yugoslavia over the past decade been taking of? oh yeah, European and Arabic soil. US military presence in western Europe and Arabic countries is a way to keep control.

Since USA has a strong economic grip over some Western European countries (specially after WWII) and has a quite considerable military presence there, I can argue USA did excert some control over western Europe right after the war and throughout most of teh cold war.

calinis wrote:

In that respect they were no better than the nazis. They wanted to secure their empire because the USSR was an empire.

Not really. USSR didn't conquer a single nation. Nazi Germany did conquer lots of nations and ensalved those peoples for economic proft. Pretty much the same way USA does just without a programmed ethnic cleansing and in a much more hypocritic way.

calinis wrote:

All were controlled economically and to some degree culturally. They were controlled economically because there was no economic freedom.

There was the state capitalist version of economic freedom existant in western capitalisms.

calinis wrote:

Culturally because they probably enforced "socialist values" that were significant part of the soviet culture.

There were no socialist values within the USSR so no. That "socialist culture" as you may call it had its own developmental process in each nation.

calinis wrote:

So you go invade a country that might be a threat even though its not. You just say "who cares about the civilians who die because it MIGHT be a threat".

I'm simply adressing your question of why USSR didn't just leave Afghanistan alone. At least Afghanistan is a bordering nation which in the hands of USA would have represented a very serious threat to USSR. Else, USSR was supporting a government that, while a terrible option, was by far the best option Afghans had. USA instead decided to support some assholes that treat women like shit.

calinis wrote:

Going out and invading a country isn't avoiding it. In the case of the Soviet invasion of Afghnaistan, it was futile. Perhaps they should have considered ALL possible outcomes before invading?

In case you haven't noticed, I condemn USSR's invation against Afghanistan. It shouldn't have happened at all. But it is indeed unfair to try overshadowing USA's massive imperialism with a lesser imperialist demonstration by USSR.

calinis wrote:

Yeah they do.

You apparently cannot differentiate between a "hero" and a "god". And you can't differentiate between "admiration" and "idolization". But well, it's matter of your poor intellect.

calinis wrote:

They have like 50 million statues of Lenin because he is soooooo amazing and the people have to look up to murderer because they can idenity with him.

Many persons do respect and admire Lenin since they identify with his revolutionary ideas. That's why they may think he's amazing enough to deserve a statue. They may also agree that those killed by orders of Lenin did deserve to die.

calinis wrote:

Yeah that's what's absolutely pathetic.

Not really. However what is indeed pathetic are your genocidal ideas against people who have done no harm to anyone.

calinis wrote:

And the old people who have nostalgia for the glories of Stalin's regime haha.

Hey calinis, let me introduce you to te real world: Things happen for a reason. Has it ever crossed your mind that those people have nostalgia for Stalin's regime because according to their experiences they did live better during that era. Don't expect an oldman who lived during Stalin's regime to be guided by your mediocre US school textbooks on a phenomena he was part of, that he experienced himself.

calinis wrote:

During the great purges, yes. According to my textbook.

Ridiculous textbook indeed.

calinis wrote:

There are a dozen authors. Just because I say two people who spoke openly doesn't mean there are more. It was just an example.

Haven't seen them, never heard of them in Russia or saw them in bookshelves. Talked with Russian historians and never mentioned such things... I don't think that to be a coincidence.

calinis wrote:

Glory to your nation above all generates conflicts because you treat the nation as more, like an organic being or somesort. If one culture or country threatens your national idenity, you'll probably attack because nationalism is the most pathetic thing ever.

Love to nation doesn't imply hating other nations. People that healthily love their nation and culture do not attack other cultures nor have their natonal and cultural integrities threattened by others.

calinis wrote:

Also having a strong culture doesn't make your country any better. It makes it pathetic because they will be involved in stupid little rituals and practicies and immorality.

This parragraph is one of teh most clear demonstrations of either how poor your intellect is, how hardly you try to troll or both. I can't believe people still support you being here after such comments, but well. I'll reply to it anyway.

I never claimed having a strong culture makes your country better. But a strong culture is indeed nice. Just so taht you know, culture doesn't mean "engagement in rituals", I don't know how much should I stress that for your malfunctioning brain to get it.

Basically you're against humanity. I don't know why you should be even granted respect.

Quote :

Unless it had other implications which so far hadn't taken place.

They had other intentions.

Quote :

The problem is that while it happened in Georgia it didn't in Iraq. In fact, while Russia's 15 day intervention ended a circle of violence, US's invation to Iraq lead to years and years of violence, sparked more ethnic and religious conflicts and of course implied US's involvement in genocide against the Iraqi population a genocide that has been very well documented.

What about the original invasion? Would that have been justified, according to your logic? What if they went in there under the banner of "freeing the kurds from genocide"?

Quote :

Since USA has a strong economic grip over some Western European countries (specially after WWII) and has a quite considerable military presence there, I can argue USA did excert some control over western Europe right after the war and throughout most of teh cold war.

Western europe is tied with American markets. Culurally they are influenced by American values and such, howeover, not to the degree that Easretn europe was influenced by Soviet propoganda.

Quote :

Not really. USSR didn't conquer a single nation. Nazi Germany did conquer lots of nations and ensalved those peoples for economic proft. Pretty much the same way USA does just without a programmed ethnic cleansing and in a much more hypocritic way.

Their sphere of influence was pretty big. As an empire, they naturally expanded it. It was so easy to occupy eastern europe because they had been previously destroyed after the war.

Quote :

There was the state capitalist version of economic freedom existant in western capitalisms.

This "state capitalism" is a billion times worse.

Quote :

I'm simply adressing your question of why USSR didn't just leave Afghanistan alone. At least Afghanistan is a bordering nation which in the hands of USA would have represented a very serious threat to USSR. Else, USSR was supporting a government that, while a terrible option, was by far the best option Afghans had. USA instead decided to support some assholes that treat women like shit.

Yet they invade first pressing the US to come to the support of the Taliban only because it was against Soviet imperalism. It was pathetic, yeah. This was initiated by the USSR. The US probably would not have been involved had the USSR not invaded. But hey, the whole cold war was stupid.

Quote :

In case you haven't noticed, I condemn USSR's invation against Afghanistan. It shouldn't have happened at all. But it is indeed unfair to try overshadowing USA's massive imperialism with a lesser imperialist demonstration by USSR.

I was simply illustrating that the USSR was imperalism. And to relatively the same degree, but that's irrelavent.

Quote :

Many persons do respect and admire Lenin since they identify with his revolutionary ideas. That's why they may think he's amazing enough to deserve a statue. They may also agree that those killed by orders of Lenin did deserve to die.

Yeah because Russia's a shit country and they hate its conditions now that they revert back to idolozing dead revolutionaries. How many people lived during the Russian Revolution or Lenin's subsequent rule at an age where they could understand what was going on? Practically nobody today.

Quote :

Haven't seen them, never heard of them in Russia or saw them in bookshelves. Talked with Russian historians and never mentioned such things... I don't think that to be a coincidence.

I have. There's tons of books where people speak out against the Soviet Union. There were tons of people sent to the gulags. Do you honestly think these people have a pleasent experience?

Quote :

Love to nation doesn't imply hating other nations. People that healthily love their nation and culture do not attack other cultures nor have their natonal and cultural integrities threattened by others.

I said it can lead to conflicts, especially if one nation becomes strong and powerful and your nation is small and insignificant.

Quote :

I never claimed having a strong culture makes your country better. But a strong culture is indeed nice. Just so taht you know, culture doesn't mean "engagement in rituals", I don't know how much should I stress that for your malfunctioning brain to get it.

Most cultures are outdated and generally centered around immorality.

Quote :

Basically you're against humanity. I don't know why you should be even granted respect.

You make 50 billion accusations against me.....why exactly?

calinis wrote:

They had other intentions.

A statement that would be valid had the phenomena we're talking about had implications backing it up. Since no implications of that sort took place, your argument is rendered groundless.

calinis wrote:

What about the original invasion? Would that have been justified, according to your logic? What if they went in there under the banner of "freeing the kurds from genocide"?

Do you mean 1991's invasion? For that invasion to be ffectively paralleled to the 2008 South Ossetia war, said invasion should have taken place around the mid 1980's, should have implied Kurdish independence from Iraq,no weapon-provision from USA to Iraq, a short lived conflict with a quick Iraqi defeat and no government toppling.

But that scenario didn't take place and was not even likely so it's not worth mentioning.

Is your point that I would deem it incorrect "just because USA does it", no. If it had implied USA avoiding Saddam's genocidal spree against Kurds and no USA domination of Iraq, and no USA nor Turkey's domination of Kurdistan, then it would have been a legitimate genocide preventing peace keeping mission.

calinis wrote:

Western europe is tied with American markets. Culurally they are influenced by American values and such,

Western Europe was nearly controlled eonomically y USA for most of the Cold War. Western Europe is influenced by USA culture to the neck.

calinis wrote:

howeover, not to the degree that Easretn europe was influenced by Soviet propoganda.

A moot point of course. Actually Eastern European countries preserved a higher cultural integrity than western european ones. It wasn't intil the demise of the Eastern bloc that eastern European cultures got savagely ravaged by Western European Americanized capitalist cultures.

calinis wrote:

Their sphere of influence was pretty big. As an empire, they naturally expanded it. It was so easy to occupy eastern europe because they had been previously destroyed after the war.

Except for Poland which was neutral, they shouldn't have sided with Hitler in the 1st place.

calinis wrote:

This "state capitalism" is a billion times worse.

It's less economically effective yet much better culturally and socially.

calinis wrote:

Yet they invade first pressing the US to come to the support of the Taliban only because it was against Soviet imperalism. It was pathetic, yeah.

The USA should have given a damn about it. Unfortunately it didn't even backfire.

calinis wrote:

This was initiated by the USSR. The US probably would not have been involved had the USSR not invaded. But hey, the whole cold war was stupid.

USA were just oppotunistic and did they best to directly screw Afghanistan to indirectly screw the USSR.

calinis wrote:

I was simply illustrating that the USSR was imperalism. And to relatively the same degree, but that's irrelavent.

And I'm pointing out that you are wrong and why. USSR's imperialism should be acknowledged but definitely not overshadowed by the greatest imperialism of all times: USA's.

calinis wrote:

Yeah because Russia's a shit country and they hate its conditions now that they revert back to idolozing dead revolutionaries.

Again, another stupid comment that crumbles at the slightest confrontation with common sense.

calinis wrote:

How many people lived during the Russian Revolution or Lenin's subsequent rule at an age where they could understand what was going on? Practically nobody today.

There's something called "books". People write their ideas in them so that maany others can read them. Often these ideas pass down through te annals of time and reach people well beyond the lifespan of the author.

calinis wrote:

I have. There's tons of books where people speak out against the Soviet Union. There were tons of people sent to the gulags. Do you honestly think these people have a pleasent experience?

Such books are nearly unexistant in Russia and are not even given credibility by any trustworthy institution or group of people. Such claims are often dismissed in Russia as exaggerations, alarmism and of course sovietophobia. Since Russia is the place we're talking about, I better take into account the Russians' point of view instead of a couple of opportunistic dissidents' and western biased text books of whcih authors would rather dismiss any logic before being objective.

calinis wrote:

I said it can lead to conflicts, especially if one nation becomes strong and powerful and your nation is small and insignificant.

In a communist framework with nations that's impossible.

calinis wrote:

Most cultures are outdated and generally centered around immorality.

This is a stupid comment of course. I still wonder why people can't notice you're trolling.

calinis wrote:

You make 50 billion accusations against me.....why exactly?

Because you simply can't stop giving grounds for them.

Quote :

A moot point of course. Actually Eastern European countries preserved a higher cultural integrity than western european ones. It wasn't intil the demise of the Eastern bloc that eastern European cultures got savagely ravaged by Western European Americanized capitalist cultures.

Had Eastern Europe not been controlled by the Soviet Union, they would not have faced a difficult transaction from a command economy to a market economy. Conditions in western europe soar in comparison to eastern europe.

Quote :

USA were just oppotunistic and did they best to directly screw Afghanistan to indirectly screw the USSR.

The USSR had similar goald in mind. You cant say the USSR had no intention of screwing its competition. It's pathetic that these countries were playing games of dominance instead of doing anything worthwhile.

Quote :

And I'm pointing out that you are wrong and why. USSR's imperialism should be acknowledged but definitely not overshadowed by the greatest imperialism of all times: USA's.

I pointed out all the reasons why the USSR was just as imperalist as the US. Not that I care if it was because it doesn't make the USSR's imperalism less justified had it not been as significant.

Quote :

There's something called "books". People write their ideas in them so that maany others can read them. Often these ideas pass down through te annals of time and reach people well beyond the lifespan of the author.

Which books? All the books I've seen condemn Lenin and his revolution to poverty.

Quote :

Such books are nearly unexistant in Russia and are not even given credibility by any trustworthy institution or group of people. Such claims are often dismissed in Russia as exaggerations, alarmism and of course sovietophobia. Since Russia is the place we're talking about, I better take into account the Russians' point of view instead of a couple of opportunistic dissidents' and western biased text books of whcih authors would rather dismiss any logic before being objective.

I dont see why people who experienced the Soviet system repression would be an inaccurate source.

calinis wrote:

Had Eastern Europe not been controlled by the Soviet Union, they would not have faced a difficult transaction from a command economy to a market economy. Conditions in western europe soar in comparison to eastern europe.

I was talking about cultural integrity, though. Shit for shit is still bad.

calinis wrote:

The USSR had similar goald in mind. You cant say the USSR had no intention of screwing its competition.

In which scenary?

calinis wrote:

It's pathetic that these countries were playing games of dominance instead of doing anything worthwhile.

What is pathetic is that USSR was not communist.

calinis wrote:

I pointed out all the reasons why the USSR was just as imperalist as the US.

Failing miserably given all the arguements against your assertions.

calinis wrote:

Not that I care if it was because it doesn't make the USSR's imperalism less justified had it not been as significant.

It doesn't make it less justified? Ok.

calinis wrote:

Which books? All the books I've seen condemn Lenin and his revolution to poverty.

Then I'm afraid your literary repertory is quite limited. "State and revolution" is a good example.

calinis wrote:

I dont see why people who experienced the Soviet system repression would be an inaccurate source.

For being exaggerated and few.

Quote :

Then I'm afraid your literary repertory is quite limited. "State and revolution" is a good example.

'State and Revolution' is a load of strawmen arguments, combined with vague mentions implying Party control, and a few good ideas (stolen from the anarchists, no less). Lenin's revolution was hopeless. I don't mean to say that every attempt at revolution (such as through, say, majority support at the vote, which the bolshies would have lost) would have been fucked, the anarchists could've done it far better (even with a minority revolution), but Lenin's? Certainly.

Quote :

I pointed out all the reasons why the USSR was just as imperalist as the US.

Two competing superpower capitalist economies? Boom. Hungary, etc.

Stos wrote:

'State and Revolution' is a load of strawmen arguments, combined with vague mentions implying Party control, and a few good ideas (stolen from the anarchists, no less). Lenin's revolution was hopeless. I don't mean to say that every attempt at revolution (such as through, say, majority support at the vote, which the bolshies would have lost) would have been fucked, the anarchists could've done it far better (even with a minority revolution), but Lenin's? Certainly.

Strawman arguements or not, it's certainly one of the books followed by most Leninists. And for sure it doesn't say that Lenin is flawed. Basically that was my point, that the are books because of which some people hold Lenin in high regards and that there are books written by Lenin.

Stos wrote:

Two competing superpower capitalist economies? Boom. Hungary, etc.

Indeed, but he's wrong by asserting that they were in equal proportions. Else I'm also pointing out that USSR's imperialism is less relevant for being not only of much lesser proportions but also because it has stopped.

How about considering the Soviet invasion of Georgia?