It was a friendly gesture meant to counteract the elite’s anti-Russian fearmongering propaganda that aims to manipulate average Europeans into supporting their policies that risk sparking World War III.
Clearly, Peskov and his colleagues still haven't understood anything about the Western mentality, and especially that of Western Europe. In human relations, the basic rule is: no respect without firmness. The other is: threat (a red line) is proof of weakness. And finally: hope is an abandonment of will. It is disheartening to see Russia get all three wrong. No firmness, endless warnings without follow-through, hope that things will improve. I don't understand—I thought Russians were well-versed in psychology. Here, I'm stunned to see such behavioral ineptitude among Russians. This attitude forces them into a fearsome trap: to hit or to submit.
Well said, Darras, it also pained me to see him behave this way. As I never tire of reminding everyone, Russia's feedback loops are absolutely broken, and I believe that this is the cardinal reason for every single setback that it's experienced since the SMO began.
It is always difficult to make up one's mind to fight a war hard with the intention to fight it out to the end, especially when the leadership circles are not fully convinced that they can win. For someone who had sat through the entire cycle of the USSR's breakdown and then dissolution, and then participated in the painful process of bringing it back up, a good, cautious leader will try hard to avoid bringing his country into a challenge that he is not sure the country can pass. A cautious leader tends to err that way.
In this light, some folks may think that Putin's personality and age may have made him less suitable to lead Russia at this moment. Maybe, but it is up to the Russian people to decide. In Chinese history, there had been a couple of notable emperors who were somewhat capable, holding power when the nation's economy was OK, and they decided to take initiatives beyond the capabilities of their countries. And quite often, beyond their own capabilities. As I get older, I find that I favor the leaders who don't try to push their nations to the limit and won less than they might have been able to, over those who just pushed a little bit overboard and damaged their nations.
I think what's needed is some fresh thinking, but broken feedback loops prevent that, and the echo chambers and groupthink that they created make it all but impossible. It's why I always insist that Russia resolves this problem first.
Other things aside, as an outsider, I don't see a clear pipeline to train and scrutinize newer-generation leaders. Over the years, I am finally convinced that the training process has to allow some mistakes. People who made no mistakes during the training process tend to have other problems. But of course, there have to be empty slots for these burgeoning leaders to sit and receive the next level of training. But there does not seem to be enough empty seats. A stable leadership circle tends to become a stifled talent pipeline.
United Russia has children's programs and ones for talented people too where they cultivate leaders but I suspect that they also have broken feedback loops like pretty much everything else in the country and might aim mostly to "indoctrinate" the next generation as opposed to training them to think critically and boldly propose solutions to problems that the existing leadership remains in denial about for "politically correct" reasons (aka not angering their superiors at the possible risk of damaging or even ruining their career by pointing out problems).
Oh yes. This is not only a global problem but also a chronic one throughout history. I think Russia is probably in a better standing in this aspect when compared to many contemporary countries.
Yes, one has to wonder if it isn't a Russian characteristic—the one that makes people say they are slow to mount the saddle. In 1914, Nicholas II launches a mobilization (partial, already) to threaten Austria, and then begs his cousin Wilhelm II to stop his general mobilization. Looking closely at the sequence of events in July 1914, the Russians are the cause of WW1: threats, vacillation, hope. In 1939, Hitler, for six years, had been writing, shouting, hammering that Germany's future lies in the East, that the Slavs are subhumans merely good for being slaves or disappearing, and that Bolshevism is humanity's main threat. What does Stalin do? A contemptuous gesture (a middle finger) to the Franco-British and sweet talk/cuddles for Hitler—result: 30 million Russians killed.
Surely, if USSR allied with westerners, Hitler would have stay at home.
I'm not saying that I agree with everything therein, but it was a very interesting read.
As regards what you wrote, he argues that Stalin calculated that the USSR would come out on top in another European War, which he expected would be another stalemate for most of its duration, through a decisive intervention that would lead to the Soviet Union taking over the entirety of Europe.
Stalin had sought to ally with the West against Hitler. Munich (correctly) showed him that the anglo-french plan instead was for Germany and the USSR to go fight.
Soviets have tried allying with the West against Nazi Germany for 6 years 1933-1939 and it never worked. At some point, they ran out of patience and allied with Germany in August 1939. It took some time - 6 months or so - but once Germany overran Denmark and Norway, the West changed its anti-Soviet course. Together with the Molotov-Ribbentrop plan, the US choking off the oil supply to Japan probably broke the combined German-Japanese encirclement of the Soviet Union. So what's there not to like?
We Westerners are the Third Reich today. We want world domination at any cost. Since we are sociopathic by nature, we will put everything on the line to achieve our goal. Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing should finally realize this.
For every Columbus, Hernán Cortés, or Francisco Pizarro who made it, there are thousands who died on the path to infinite wealth. For us, the “50 Cent” motto applies: “Get rich or die tryin’.”
We are not interested in our human or natural environment; we are not even interested in our own environment. Over the past 35 years, the West has destroyed itself out of sheer greed. The smart people in Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing need to keep THAT in mind at all times.
We are sociopaths. We are the Epstein class. We accept no partners; we accept only submission—or annihilation.
"He began by reviewing Russia’s rationale for the special operation by reminding his interlocutor that the West didn’t listen to its warnings about their worsening security dilemma nor took seriously its two proposals to resolve it. "
So, why should the West have done so? Because it's "nice"?
If Russia wants the West to listen to its concerns, Russia must give the West no choice but to do so.
Peskov is absolutely right; ‘the EU’s transformation into a hybrid economic-military bloc raises the risk of a major war.’
The EU cannot even complain about the lack of fossil fuel flow from Russia as they denied this source to themselves on their own. The EU and the US keeps walking from covid to Ukraine and Iran, from one mass-psychotic event to the next.
I tend to agree with Helmer in this debate, that first, US has started it and it supports it fully. Kremlin pretending otherwise is something I cannot fathom the reasons for. But the present wars are also, as somebody said, class wars as well, in the US, in EU, as well as in Russia. One thing Putin doesn't want is to put Russia on a war economy and cut the wings and maybe do a nationalization of important assetts. EU wants to dismantle the socio-economic safety network. The US wants to deregulate everything, privatize whatever else is left to privatize, home and abroad; make as much money as possible.
Those who are risking WW!!! with Russia have to be labeled CRAZY. Russia is the worlds nuclear SUPER POWER. I think there is a small element of jews sitting in the Whitee House whoh h ate everything Russian. They shold be given a one way trip to I srael and not allowed to return.
The problem is that the "pragmatic" Americans are not using their clout to impose a "pragmatic" outcome on the Europeans, although they could easily do so if Trump wished for it. If Trump wants to retain Poland as his rather than Merz' partner, he need only suspend all U.S. military aid to Ukraine that runs through Poland and constrain Germany.
That's precisely USA which sparked this mad wind in Europe. Never "forget" that. We, Europeans, will never forget the evil role of USA in this story we'll never Miss Nuland and her " fuck EU, we didn't spend 5 billions dollar to have an agreement in Ukraine.
USA is the only responsable of what's happening .
The only thing you can reproach to Europeans is their cowardice and abject submission toward USA.
"The problem is that the "pragmatic" Americans are not using their clout to impose a "pragmatic" outcome on the Europeans, although they could easily do so if Trump wished for it."
Clearly, Peskov and his colleagues still haven't understood anything about the Western mentality, and especially that of Western Europe. In human relations, the basic rule is: no respect without firmness. The other is: threat (a red line) is proof of weakness. And finally: hope is an abandonment of will. It is disheartening to see Russia get all three wrong. No firmness, endless warnings without follow-through, hope that things will improve. I don't understand—I thought Russians were well-versed in psychology. Here, I'm stunned to see such behavioral ineptitude among Russians. This attitude forces them into a fearsome trap: to hit or to submit.
Well said, Darras, it also pained me to see him behave this way. As I never tire of reminding everyone, Russia's feedback loops are absolutely broken, and I believe that this is the cardinal reason for every single setback that it's experienced since the SMO began.
It is always difficult to make up one's mind to fight a war hard with the intention to fight it out to the end, especially when the leadership circles are not fully convinced that they can win. For someone who had sat through the entire cycle of the USSR's breakdown and then dissolution, and then participated in the painful process of bringing it back up, a good, cautious leader will try hard to avoid bringing his country into a challenge that he is not sure the country can pass. A cautious leader tends to err that way.
In this light, some folks may think that Putin's personality and age may have made him less suitable to lead Russia at this moment. Maybe, but it is up to the Russian people to decide. In Chinese history, there had been a couple of notable emperors who were somewhat capable, holding power when the nation's economy was OK, and they decided to take initiatives beyond the capabilities of their countries. And quite often, beyond their own capabilities. As I get older, I find that I favor the leaders who don't try to push their nations to the limit and won less than they might have been able to, over those who just pushed a little bit overboard and damaged their nations.
I think what's needed is some fresh thinking, but broken feedback loops prevent that, and the echo chambers and groupthink that they created make it all but impossible. It's why I always insist that Russia resolves this problem first.
Other things aside, as an outsider, I don't see a clear pipeline to train and scrutinize newer-generation leaders. Over the years, I am finally convinced that the training process has to allow some mistakes. People who made no mistakes during the training process tend to have other problems. But of course, there have to be empty slots for these burgeoning leaders to sit and receive the next level of training. But there does not seem to be enough empty seats. A stable leadership circle tends to become a stifled talent pipeline.
United Russia has children's programs and ones for talented people too where they cultivate leaders but I suspect that they also have broken feedback loops like pretty much everything else in the country and might aim mostly to "indoctrinate" the next generation as opposed to training them to think critically and boldly propose solutions to problems that the existing leadership remains in denial about for "politically correct" reasons (aka not angering their superiors at the possible risk of damaging or even ruining their career by pointing out problems).
Oh yes. This is not only a global problem but also a chronic one throughout history. I think Russia is probably in a better standing in this aspect when compared to many contemporary countries.
Yes, one has to wonder if it isn't a Russian characteristic—the one that makes people say they are slow to mount the saddle. In 1914, Nicholas II launches a mobilization (partial, already) to threaten Austria, and then begs his cousin Wilhelm II to stop his general mobilization. Looking closely at the sequence of events in July 1914, the Russians are the cause of WW1: threats, vacillation, hope. In 1939, Hitler, for six years, had been writing, shouting, hammering that Germany's future lies in the East, that the Slavs are subhumans merely good for being slaves or disappearing, and that Bolshevism is humanity's main threat. What does Stalin do? A contemptuous gesture (a middle finger) to the Franco-British and sweet talk/cuddles for Hitler—result: 30 million Russians killed.
Surely, if USSR allied with westerners, Hitler would have stay at home.
You might be interested in "Stalin's War" by Sean McMeekin:
https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-History-Second-World-ebook/dp/B08FXYWSKK
I'm not saying that I agree with everything therein, but it was a very interesting read.
As regards what you wrote, he argues that Stalin calculated that the USSR would come out on top in another European War, which he expected would be another stalemate for most of its duration, through a decisive intervention that would lead to the Soviet Union taking over the entirety of Europe.
It's finally what happened. But ar what price for Russia?
Stalin had sought to ally with the West against Hitler. Munich (correctly) showed him that the anglo-french plan instead was for Germany and the USSR to go fight.
Hence, Molotov-Ribbentrop.
Soviets have tried allying with the West against Nazi Germany for 6 years 1933-1939 and it never worked. At some point, they ran out of patience and allied with Germany in August 1939. It took some time - 6 months or so - but once Germany overran Denmark and Norway, the West changed its anti-Soviet course. Together with the Molotov-Ribbentrop plan, the US choking off the oil supply to Japan probably broke the combined German-Japanese encirclement of the Soviet Union. So what's there not to like?
Found on internet:
We Westerners are the Third Reich today. We want world domination at any cost. Since we are sociopathic by nature, we will put everything on the line to achieve our goal. Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing should finally realize this.
For every Columbus, Hernán Cortés, or Francisco Pizarro who made it, there are thousands who died on the path to infinite wealth. For us, the “50 Cent” motto applies: “Get rich or die tryin’.”
We are not interested in our human or natural environment; we are not even interested in our own environment. Over the past 35 years, the West has destroyed itself out of sheer greed. The smart people in Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing need to keep THAT in mind at all times.
We are sociopaths. We are the Epstein class. We accept no partners; we accept only submission—or annihilation.
"He began by reviewing Russia’s rationale for the special operation by reminding his interlocutor that the West didn’t listen to its warnings about their worsening security dilemma nor took seriously its two proposals to resolve it. "
So, why should the West have done so? Because it's "nice"?
If Russia wants the West to listen to its concerns, Russia must give the West no choice but to do so.
Pleading and mewling will not do that.
Peskov is absolutely right; ‘the EU’s transformation into a hybrid economic-military bloc raises the risk of a major war.’
The EU cannot even complain about the lack of fossil fuel flow from Russia as they denied this source to themselves on their own. The EU and the US keeps walking from covid to Ukraine and Iran, from one mass-psychotic event to the next.
I tend to agree with Helmer in this debate, that first, US has started it and it supports it fully. Kremlin pretending otherwise is something I cannot fathom the reasons for. But the present wars are also, as somebody said, class wars as well, in the US, in EU, as well as in Russia. One thing Putin doesn't want is to put Russia on a war economy and cut the wings and maybe do a nationalization of important assetts. EU wants to dismantle the socio-economic safety network. The US wants to deregulate everything, privatize whatever else is left to privatize, home and abroad; make as much money as possible.
Because the Russian leadership want so badly to believe. "But we're *europeans*! We're cultured! We write symphonies! We produce plays!"
Nobody cares.
Those who are risking WW!!! with Russia have to be labeled CRAZY. Russia is the worlds nuclear SUPER POWER. I think there is a small element of jews sitting in the Whitee House whoh h ate everything Russian. They shold be given a one way trip to I srael and not allowed to return.
The problem is that the "pragmatic" Americans are not using their clout to impose a "pragmatic" outcome on the Europeans, although they could easily do so if Trump wished for it. If Trump wants to retain Poland as his rather than Merz' partner, he need only suspend all U.S. military aid to Ukraine that runs through Poland and constrain Germany.
That's precisely USA which sparked this mad wind in Europe. Never "forget" that. We, Europeans, will never forget the evil role of USA in this story we'll never Miss Nuland and her " fuck EU, we didn't spend 5 billions dollar to have an agreement in Ukraine.
USA is the only responsable of what's happening .
The only thing you can reproach to Europeans is their cowardice and abject submission toward USA.
The Americans may have started it, but europeans beg for the Americans to finish it.
Europeans like being slaves.
"The problem is that the "pragmatic" Americans are not using their clout to impose a "pragmatic" outcome on the Europeans, although they could easily do so if Trump wished for it."
Because the Americans do not want to.