Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Andrew Korybko's avatar

I'm seriously considering limiting comments to paid subscribers to prevent trolls, who've become increasingly sophisticated in their passive-aggressive insults, from toxifying the conversation.

I don't have the time, nor always the energy, to closely monitor my comments even after reimposing my policy of instantly banning trolls and explaining afterwards (which is back in effect).

The only way that I'll definitely keep the comments open all summer at least is if there are at minimum five more paid subscribers to recompense me for the abuse that I occasionally receive.

I sincerely enjoy responding to comments here, but it's so draining nowadays since I'm going on long walks midday in the Moscow heat only to return to this nonsense on a semi-regular basis.

I can't keep it up if everything remains the same so something has to go, and I'm not cutting out my midday walks nor reducing my workflow, but likely restricting comments for paid subscribers.

Observateur's avatar

1) " Putin described as ensuring his country’s national security for years to come":

nuclear arms do not ensure national security; they only assure mutual destruction of the nation and her aggressor. Not a cheerful prospect! Modern wars are not fought with army groups or invading tank divisions. They aim to deny the adversary the capability to sell its resources and obtain essential supplies from outside the country. Other components of modern warfare are equally important: information wars, color revolutions (see Armenia, more recently), and denial of access to resource-rich countries that could facilitate productive investment and optimal geopolitical positioning. The latter, the Soviet Union, understood it very well and used it masterfully.

When taking these aspects into consideration, Russia, among the Big Three powers of the globe, is the weakest and most easily subjected to modern warfare. Her oil exports through the Baltic and the Black seas are fully under NATO (or EU) control. Her North-South Corridor is only on paper, and there is doubt that it will ever become reality. Furthermore, her current southern border partners or allies (?) are equally targeted through various means by her enemies.

The nation is anything but secure.

2) The choice between a resource-sharing deal with the (Anglo-)Americans and a junior position in the relationship with China—I believe the latter is many times more attractive. Russia needs to develop her Far East territories and secure her access to the wide open seas. The alternative is to keep building defensive positions against zwergs like Finland, Poland, and the rest. NOT WORTH IT.

21 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?