|
I understand you feel strongly about Latvia, but you have a huge double standard about how imperialistic countries behave and expect unrealistic behavior from one of them (Russia) but not the others (USA, China, etc). You spend some time whitewashing the US aggression and trying to explain how it’s better or different — presumably because USA is much closer to you in culture and you understand the status quo is peaceful and want to keep it that way — it would take you quite some time to explain away the dozens of aggressions USA has done since its founding and until now (much mors compared to the amount Russia has done). Let’s just stick with the Hawaii example. You say they can’t figure out who is Hawaiian anymore and who is USA. Why do you think that is? But the same situation in Latvia is described as “moving colonists in”. The USA has been “moving colonists in” to all the regions it conquered. The entire continent full of indigenous natoons was ethnically cleansed or genocided as USA expanded, yet you say little about it or treat it calmly as a fait accompli. Big double standard. You can try to say that “well, it was longer ago” but that’s pretty dubious, Hawaii annexation by USA isn’t much more remote on the timeline than Latvia by USSR, yet you don’t say anything about internationally recognized borders and outrage in the former case. When USA invades Iraq, or bombs Yugoslavia illegally against UN and international law, or lets Kosovo secede by referendum and stations peacekeepers there, you don’t say nearly as much as when Russia invades Ukraine or lets Abhazia secede by referendum and stations peacekeepers there etc. In the latter case, you call it “occupying”, but in the Kosovo case you call it “peacekeeping” not “NATO occupying a part of Serbia”. I happen to support “peacekeeping” and autonomy - thus sympathetic to both Kosovo and Abhazia. I care about health and safety of the actual people, not “territorial integrity” enriching fatcats and countries. The fact simply is that USA is too powerful and has too much control on the world stage to ever face any sanctions or organized punishment for ANYTHING they do on the world stage. Russia is weaker and more isolated (largely because it DIDNT pursue a systematic policy of expansion around the world since USSR fell apart) and USA is fully taking advantage of it, by finding anti-Russian sentiment anywhere it can and offering to install bases there. We also offer IMF and World Bank loans, and anyone who doesn’t play ball gets regime-changed. If Russia or China reacts, we’ll feed them to the wolves (the ones who are our tip of the spear) promising to defend them, and if they win in the end we’ll help rebuild the country, they’ll owe us and our corporations will come to own large swaths of it. Great strategy to keep growing and putting our bases everywhere next to our geopolitical competitors, while the populations of the countries bear the brunt of the violence when they react. If they don’t react, then we take advantage of their “naivete”. When they finallh react as a cornered animal we paint their reaction as “unprovoked and unjustified”, and spend a TON of our own political capital and effort repeating the Big Lie to make it stick long enough to win the next battle and surround them further. Containment and isolation until only one is left. And people worldwidd should accept USA as the sole superpower, policeman, reserve currency, etc. Well, it seems to be backfiring, BRICS is growing and de-dollarization is coming etc. |
I have said no such thing, quite the opposite - I found it worse for native hawaiians, since the occupation has lasted much longer.
>> I care about health and safety of the actual people
No, you don't - you say that countries like Latvia should pursue similar neutrality as they did in 1930s, which will put them at high risk of another Russian invasion. Or better yet, that they should voluntarily join Russian "federation" so that they could be systematically wiped out in what you call peace and stability. And blacks should go back to plantations too, I suppose?
>> Russia is weaker and more isolated (largely because it DIDNT pursue a systematic policy of expansion around the world since USSR fell apart)
It did pursue that. The policy is known as Karaganov doctrine and it declared Latvia as "near abroad", that is, not a real country, but some breakaway colony on Russian border that Russians believe they have a right to enslave. Latvia has been on the receiving end of that doctrine since the early 1990s. Russia has done everything they could to undermine Latvia's independence, economic relations with other countries and cooperation with international organizations. Latvian State Security Service publishes excellent annual reports that chronicle Russian activities against them. https://vdd.gov.lv/en/useful/annual-reports