SCS put the Heart of Russia DLC for Euro Truck Simulator 2 on hold for now

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Purple Library GuyRussia is there because they fear NATO encircling and strangling them. They fear NATO encircling and strangling them because that is something NATO seems to be doing and it has been often stated as a goal by US and NATO leaders.

Load a world map into your paint application of choice. Paint all NATO nations (including Finland and Sweden if you want) blue and Russia red. And then tell me what part of this looks like "encirclement"... *rolls eyes*

Mmm . . . Paint all NATO nations today blue, and paint all NATO nations in 1991 blue, and tell me what the contrast looks like. And it's not like there haven't been attempts to arrange political changes in countries further East.

So, sure, this strategy may be impractical, and it hasn't succeeded . . . yet. But whatever the actual practicalities, something along those lines is what United States policymakers have been consistently, and often loudly and proudly, talking about for quite a few years. Maybe their reach exceeds their grasp, but is that a gamble a country would be wise to make when the world's superpower is drawing a target on them?

As a side note, consider natural gas. Russia has few pipelines through which to sell natural gas. The main one westward runs through Ukraine. So, the United States staged a coup in Ukraine, then mounted a sustained and increasingly massive pressure campaign to block the building and use of a new pipeline (Nordstream 2) that didn't run through any NATO countries, specifically and explicitly on the basis that the sale of Russian gas should be blocked because it's Russian. What was Russia supposed to think about this? That it's normal commerce? Of course it's an attempt at economic strangulation.

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: CerberonEuropeans continue to hurt themselves in hopes of hurting Russia.

So did the UK and France when they declared war on Nazi Germany. Doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do. For the exact same reasons. It's the nature of war that whatever you're doing, it's also hurting yourself. In the case of the sanctions, sure they will hurt the West, too. As long as it hurts Russia more (and it does), it's still a strategic win.

I agree with everything you say here except maybe the "and it does". From a brute strategic point of view, the US + entourage may have shot itself in the foot with this.

If you refer to the oil and coal embargo, I am inclined to agree with you.

It's more about the "freezing" of assets and the SWIFT thing. Let's face it, "freezing" assets means confiscating, which means stealing. It's not like anyone ever gives back assets they've "frozen". And so for instance, the Bank of England refused to give Venezuela back billions of dollars worth of gold Venezuela had stored there. They just up and took it, because Venezuela was persona non grata with the US. And more recently, when the big sanctions on Russia were announced, hundreds of billions in Russian central bank US dollar and Euro holdings were simply stolen--and then Europe expected Russia to continue accepting payments in Euros (that would be immediately confiscated) for their oil and gas. But the point I'm making has nothing to do with morality--the point is that you can have an international system of commerce, or you can have a political weapon. Trying to have both is unstable. Using it as a political weapon means it has a major element of risk as an international system of commerce. So they've given countries an incentive to diversify their holdings away from US dollars and Euros, and to hold more of their assets in banks which are not within the reach of NATO "asset freezing".

The SWIFT payment system is the same kind of deal. It's supposed to be a neutral instrument allowing interbank transfers; if it is instead a thing controlled by United States foreign policy, it becomes significantly less usable or trustable as a system of interbank transfers. If Russia and China then come along with such instruments but no obvious intention to impose political conditions on their use, there will be an incentive to switch, or at least adopt them in parallel as a hedge.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Purple Library GuyRussia is there because they fear NATO encircling and strangling them. They fear NATO encircling and strangling them because that is something NATO seems to be doing and it has been often stated as a goal by US and NATO leaders.

Load a world map into your paint application of choice. Paint all NATO nations (including Finland and Sweden if you want) blue and Russia red. And then tell me what part of this looks like "encirclement"... *rolls eyes*

Mmm . . . Paint all NATO nations today blue, and paint all NATO nations in 1991 blue, and tell me what the contrast looks like.

Sure, they now have more direct neighbors states that are NATO members, when back then it was only a small stretch of shared border with Norway (and another small stretch with Turkey if you count the Soviet Union). That doesn't equal "encirclement" by any stretch of imagination. My point was, by far the largest portion of Russia's borders is NOT shared with NATO members.
The problem with Russia is that it thinks it has a natural right to have a buffer of slave states in between them and the closest country they don't like. Like it used to enslave all of Eastern Europe with puppet regimes after WW2, to create a buffer in between them and the West. Thing is that no nation gets to pick its neighbors or who they're allied with. That's just not their business, and in particular it doesn't give them any right to invade them and reducing their cities to ash. There is no such thing as a "legitimate sphere of influence". A nation's legitimate interests end at its borders and what happens an inch behind that, is none of their business.

QuoteAs a side note, consider natural gas. Russia has few pipelines through which to sell natural gas. The main one westward runs through Ukraine. So, the United States staged a coup in Ukraine, then mounted a sustained and increasingly massive pressure campaign to block the building and use of a new pipeline (Nordstream 2) that didn't run through any NATO countries, specifically and explicitly on the basis that the sale of Russian gas should be blocked because it's Russian. What was Russia supposed to think about this? That it's normal commerce? Of course it's an attempt at economic strangulation.

US policy was more geared towards Europe not buying -any- gas from Russia, no matter what pipeline it arrives through. Turns out it was the correct stance to have. You can't make yourself dependent on an unfriendly, aggressive nation. That's the #1 lesson for the West so far.

PS: I don't buy that we "staged" the Maidan revolution, at least not in a way anyone can make a reasonable claim it wouldn't have happened without us facilitating it. There is no conclusive evidence out there that anyone but the citizens of Ukraine started it. We certainly didn't -mind- it happening and I know we got somewhat involved -after- it started. That's more or less fair game. We're allowed to -welcome- a regime change in a another country. I am pretty sure Putin is happy to have Orban in charge of Hungary too, and not someone else.

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Purple Library GuyAs a side note, consider natural gas. Russia has few pipelines through which to sell natural gas. The main one westward runs through Ukraine. So, the United States staged a coup in Ukraine, then mounted a sustained and increasingly massive pressure campaign to block the building and use of a new pipeline (Nordstream 2) that didn't run through any NATO countries, specifically and explicitly on the basis that the sale of Russian gas should be blocked because it's Russian. What was Russia supposed to think about this? That it's normal commerce? Of course it's an attempt at economic strangulation.

US policy was more geared towards Europe not buying -any- gas from Russia, no matter what pipeline it arrives through.

Uh, yes, that was kind of my point. As I say, what was Russia to make of this stance?

Quoting: KimyrielleTurns out it was the correct stance to have. You can't make yourself dependent on an unfriendly, aggressive nation.

Sure. At what point did the US start trying to cut off Russian trade in gas, and at what point did Russia start being unfriendly?

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Purple Library GuyAs a side note, consider natural gas. Russia has few pipelines through which to sell natural gas. The main one westward runs through Ukraine. So, the United States staged a coup in Ukraine, then mounted a sustained and increasingly massive pressure campaign to block the building and use of a new pipeline (Nordstream 2) that didn't run through any NATO countries, specifically and explicitly on the basis that the sale of Russian gas should be blocked because it's Russian. What was Russia supposed to think about this? That it's normal commerce? Of course it's an attempt at economic strangulation.

US policy was more geared towards Europe not buying -any- gas from Russia, no matter what pipeline it arrives through.

Uh, yes, that was kind of my point. As I say, what was Russia to make of this stance?

Quoting: KimyrielleTurns out it was the correct stance to have. You can't make yourself dependent on an unfriendly, aggressive nation.

Sure. At what point did the US start trying to cut off Russian trade in gas, and at what point did Russia start being unfriendly?

I would say that US/Russia relations always were of a competitive nature, maybe aside from the few years when Yeltzin was in power. Other than that, they have been trying to harm each other's interests for the better part of the past 100 years. I still fail to understand what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say that unfriendly US trade actions are acceptable justification for Russia to invade a neighboring nation without any provocation and reduce it to rubble? From all I know, Ukraine did absolutely -nothing- to threaten Russia, except trying to join a defensive military alliance Russia's leadership doesn't like, because it's standing for values it despises, namely democracy and freedom. Even after the expansion, NATO never did anything worth mentioning to threaten Russia. No nukes in the new member states. No large troop deployments anywhere near them. When there were exercises in the region, Russia was typically invited to observe them. What of that constitutes a threat to them?

This "we were so mean to Russia" thing is just rubbish, IMHO. Russia in general and Putin in particular were salty about losing their Soviet Empire and they want it back, so they can be a big shiny world power again. Ukraine wanted to join the West instead. Russia sent the missiles and the tanks to prevent that from happening. It's about territorial expansion. That's really all there is to the story. No all things in life are super complicated...

Quoting: KimyrielleThe problem with Russia is that it thinks it has a natural right to have a buffer of slave states in between them and the closest country they don't like.

Well there's some inflammatory rhetoric. But they were fine with countries like Finland who just weren't part of an anti-Russia military alliance. Are you wanting to claim that Finland has (until now when it's petitioning to join NATO, which will I suppose set it free) been a slave state of Russia?

Quoting: KimyrielleThing is that no nation gets to pick its neighbors or who they're allied with. That's just not their business,

Hahahaha!!! Every nation spends half their time trying to pick who their neighbours are allied with. It's at the core of their business.
So tell me, if Mexico joined, or even threatened to join, a Russian military alliance or the Shanghai Co-operation Organization, would the United States be shrugging and saying "Well, none of our business, is it?" Give me a break. The tanks would be rolling south before you could say "Monroe Doctrine". And you would be saying it was completely justified.

Quoting: KimyriellePS: I don't buy that we "staged" the Maidan revolution, at least not in a way anyone can make a reasonable claim it wouldn't have happened without us facilitating it.

Well, then those billions of dollars Victoria Nuland was bragging about at the time, while she dictated that "Yats is the guy" who should become the new president, must have been very badly spent. "Staged"? No, just financed certain useful existing groups so they could grow and become more violent. Maybe helped a bit with weapons and training and media. It's a fairly common script, and it wouldn't be the first time, or the tenth, that it made the difference between a typical protest and one featuring snipers and armed militias.

Quoting: KimyrielleI still fail to understand what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say that unfriendly US trade actions are acceptable justification for Russia to invade a neighboring nation without any provocation and reduce it to rubble? From all I know, Ukraine did absolutely -nothing- to threaten Russia, except trying to join a defensive military alliance Russia's leadership doesn't like, because it's standing for values it despises, namely democracy and freedom.

Acceptable justification? No. I've been clear about that.
But you can take an action which will predictably result in someone else doing something which they would not otherwise do, even though that action would not be justified. Like when you do that thing your little brother really hates until he flies into a screaming rage and starts hitting you, so you can complain to your mom. When that happens, sure, the someone else did an unjustified thing. And other people have a right to decry it. But what about you? Their bad action might not be justified, but you still caused it. And if you did so for selfish reasons, you're plenty to blame.
So, the present case. Unfriendly US actions, in many areas of which trade is just one, certainly led to this situation, whether one considers it justified or not. And anyone who is not a US politician should face the basic fact that NATO has not, at least since 1991, been a "defensive" military alliance. It is an aggressive military alliance, which has been involved in numerous aggressive wars. And while it is aggressive against quite a few victims, its most consistent aggressive rhetoric has been against Russia; it seems fairly clear that, if Russia did not have nuclear weapons, NATO would have invaded it long ago (and Americans still talk about "winning" nuclear wars, of all the batshit insane stupidity). So their moves to put more NATO around Russia is predictably going to lead to some kind of dangerous situation, because Russia is paranoid about invasions, for fairly obvious reasons. Putin himself lost a brother in WW II. Does being paranoid about getting invaded justify doing exactly that to someone else? No, but it does make it unsurprising that some of the top US scholars in international relations have been warning for years about something along these lines happening if the US didn't cool it.

As to the "democracy and freedom"--yeah, 2001 called, it wants "hates our freedoms" back. NATO in no way stands for democracy or freedom, and certainly the US doesn't. Good lord, when they took over Kosovo they put literal organleggers in charge--gangsters who actually killed people, harvested their organs, and sold them on the black market. The US is best buddies with literally the most evil undemocratic country on the planet, Saudi Arabia, not to mention all their little crony autocratic statelets. And in Latin America, the only "democracies" the US ever seems happy about are the ones that routinely murder people in human rights organizations. Not that Russia would care either way--of course they don't give a damn about any of that. It's one of the most ludicrous ideas ever about what drives international politics.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 31 May 2022 at 11:39 pm UTC

Quoting: KimyrielleThis "we were so mean to Russia" thing is just rubbish, IMHO. Russia in general and Putin in particular were salty about losing their Soviet Empire and they want it back, so they can be a big shiny world power again. Ukraine wanted to join the West instead. Russia sent the missiles and the tanks to prevent that from happening. It's about territorial expansion. That's really all there is to the story. No all things in life are super complicated...

See, the difference here is that I have been paying attention to world events for the past 20 years, and you apparently have not. As a result, you do not understand what has been happening.
Consider Georgia, in 2008. They were fixing to join NATO too. Then they attacked this little pseudo-state piece of Georgia that Russia had recognized the independence of, and Russia attacked Georgia. They defeated the Georgian armed forces in a matter of a few days. If their motivation was as you describe, they would have kept it, or tried to. But they didn't in fact do that, they left immediately. But Georgia has taken the hint and stopped trying to join NATO.
Again, this was probably not justifiable. But it was also not undertaken to expand the Russian empire. It was done to block NATO expansion. In that it was somewhat more successful than the current war.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: KimyrielleThe problem with Russia is that it thinks it has a natural right to have a buffer of slave states in between them and the closest country they don't like.

Well there's some inflammatory rhetoric. But they were fine with countries like Finland who just weren't part of an anti-Russia military alliance. Are you wanting to claim that Finland has (until now when it's petitioning to join NATO, which will I suppose set it free) been a slave state of Russia?

Russia was fine with Finland...after it invaded it without provocation and stole quite a lot of land from it in 1939, that is. Literally with the argument that it needed a buffer zone. But ok...

What's next? Claiming that the post-WW2 regimes in Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, East Germany and Czechoslovakia were somehow NOT slave states of Soviet Union/Russia and they were NOT primarily meant to be a buffer between the Soviet Union the the West?

QuoteSo tell me, if Mexico joined, or even threatened to join, a Russian military alliance or the Shanghai Co-operation Organization, would the United States be shrugging and saying "Well, none of our business, is it?" Give me a break. The tanks would be rolling south before you could say "Monroe Doctrine". And you would be saying it was completely justified.

I am not happy with some of the things the West did and still does. It's funny how you preemptively accuse me of supporting an invasion of Mexico or any other nation, when you really don't know me well enough to make such a judgment. Your entire line of reasoning amounts to "But the US was bad, too!". Which I...never denied. But know what...it's a pretty weak defense before court to say "Ok, I stole that car, but I am not the only car thief on Earth". Which is essentially what you're defending/downplaying Russia's actions with.

PS: Thanks for accusing me to be clueless about international things. Not sure why you think my rhetoric would be inflammatory and what you're doing here is completely fine? I will bow out of this discussion, before Liam steps in. Have a nice day.


Last edited by Kimyrielle on 1 June 2022 at 1:31 am UTC

Quoting: KimyrielleI am not happy with some of the things the West did and still does. It's funny how you preemptively accuse me of supporting an invasion of Mexico or any other nation, when you really don't know me well enough to make such a judgment.

PS: Thanks for accusing me to be clueless about international things.

Apologies on both counts. I guess I just sort of jumped to conclusions based on your contention that NATO is all about Democracy and Freedom, and Russia is motivated by hating that stuff, which I didn't think anyone not clueless about international things, or into my-country-right-or-wrong, would contend. But OK, I'll take it that you're much more balanced in your views than I perceived from your posts.

It's funny how similar certain things are--US liberals today are mostly foreign policy hawks who think Russia is motivated by hating freedom. US Republicans during Bush's term were mostly foreign policy hawks who thought Iraq was motivated by hating freedom. And the US alt-right today seem to believe firmly that US liberals are motivated by hating freedom.

In real life, nobody is motivated by hating freedom. Lots of people have repulsive motivations, but that isn't one of them.